NorthernDruid's page

80 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Full HP for all Characters seems pretty high powered.

For skills; in our current campaign we're running with the background skill system from unchained, free perception for everyone, and a min of 3+int skill ranks per level (except for int casters). And that works pretty well. Especially the background skills lets you get some real amount of flavour customization in terms of skills without it giving any extra real power or becoming an optimization game.

Extended Telepathy isn't a multiplier though, it's a static addition. It doesn't double your range, it just extends it by 30ft.

I'd also assume you add static bonuses before multipliers as well in cases like this.

And yeah, 30ft. range increase on limited telepthy is rarely gonna matter. And when it does i'd be very surprised if it breaks the game.

I'd assume you apply the feat first and then the booster since the feat is a permanent effect that changes your range.

So they do stack and your range is 120ft.

the Psychic Booster also calls out all telepathy, whereas the feat calls out Limited Telepathy specifically. So my instinct is to apply the specific one first.

I like the Paladin! Great, really flavourful. I suggest adding Trailblazer and Seeking to the list of fusions though, to have some more useful things to select.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Fun fact: GMs who don't allow flavor-only reskins are missing the point of the game, and usually don't remain GMs for very long.

Funner Fact: The limits of what kind of reflavour is appropriate often vary from game to game, system to system and campaign to campaign. And is also often accepted or not on a case-by-case basis, for instance, you might be allowed to flavour your Masterwork Bastard Sword as a Katana (let's pretend eastern weapons haven't been introduced yet). But not your studded leather to full plate (though gambeson would likely be fine).

More starfinder specific, if you want your lazer pistol to fire physical bullets, then suck it up and buy an auto-pistol. If you want it to shoot schorching rays that's fine.

And you can even GM like this for over half your life!

Anyway, back to topic: I wanna see

Actual support in the rules for dual wielding.

More weapon fusions that are actually useful.

More magic/hybrid items.

Custom weapon&armor rules.

Weapon/armor upgrade rules (including scaling up items without pre-existing upgrades and otherwise just increasing item level).

If you're a Magus, bard or other 2/3 spellcaster you can generally expect access to some form of defensive support spell, whether it be shield, mirror image, blur/displacement, invisibility(or vanish, I could see a magus/rogue arcane trickster build going with vanish spam via spell recall) or offensive-defensive tools such as Vampiric Touch.

For a Rogue or (chained)Monk or other semi-martial, look toward either specc less squishy or find ways you can turn the surroundings to your advantage (it's also partially on the GM to make engageable environments for such purposes).

In particular, if you're not very martial or control caster heavy as group, make sure the players feel like they can control the fight in other ways than simply rushing the enemy down, retreating or luring the enemy into less favourable positions and circumstances or outflanking and separating the enemy.

As a GM, such semi-martials also fare better against several slightly weaker opponents than they do against huge monsters and solo bosses. So take scope of your group's composition and make encounters that fit them.

Matthew Downie wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:
That's a logical corollary to the general rule prohibiting five-foot steps.
What general rule?

You can only take 5-foot steps if you have a listed movement speed with that kind of movement. So you can't 5-foot while using the Spider Climb or Fly spells. But if you're a race with a climb or fly speed you can.

Don't know if that's the one referred to but it's the one I know of.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I take issue with the implication that wanting to succeed at high level side activities (like recognizing spells) is the same as wanting to succeed all the time at everything.

Those DCs seem a bit extreme to me. Especially with Starfinder's more reined in skill bonuses.

Grandlounge wrote:

Your extra attack does not have to be with your weapon. People do it so they can crit with the scimitar.

I mean, they also do it to add their weapon damage to the attack.

It may not seem like a big deal at higher levels, but some 6-8 damage can make a pretty significant difference well up in the single digit levels.

On the topic of visualization: My own dex-based Magus I envisioned as doing a lot of fancy twirling motions, passing the sword from hand to hand throughout the attack sequence.

As for Spellstrike, I feel like you can probably describe the spell effect as having some form of energy that you can push out of your hand and into the target, which explains why you only need to make contact with an outer layer of steel and padding to deliver deadly chills or whatnot.

I imagine that the energy doesn't so much surround your weapon as flow into it, still being pushed out towards the enemy, still having those interesting secondary effects like the electricity jolting towards metal and guiding the rest of it, but it's not external any more in the same way, so you actually have to make real contact (AC) and not just get close enough for the energy to make contact (TAC)

Firstly, 2 things.

1) Keep in mind that Variant Multiclassing and regular multiclassing aren't really intended to be used together by default, so it would be very much up to the GM or the group whether that would fly at all.

2) Going Kensai only for Canny defence seems a bit... ehh.. I'd rather stay a regular magus and just... wear armor if I wasn't looking to go for the full package of abilities and/or flavour.

Other than that...

I kinda like the idea of using Magus as a caster base for a more martially focused Arcane Trickster, limiting arcana and pool points by ~10 levels or more is a bit iffy to me unless I'm going specifically Eldritch Knight as a more straight martially focused character. Or using the Magus as more of a dip class or something.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding this correctly, but if you think the base magus has a problem with keeping it going I think you have some to learn about the game's pace.

Most combats I've ever been in hardly lasted 5 rounds, and going more than 10 is a rare occasion. And for spells, like most caster classes, once you get out of the early levels you most often have enough to last you the day, especially with recall shenanigans and the focus on lower gaining value out of lower spell slots you usually can get.

Of course Kensai have fewer spells to go around than the regular Magus, and I have no idea how their unique pool abilities pace themselves. But I wouldn't really be too worried as a Magus about running out of steam being a frequent issue.

Make a customed up continous version of Mage's Decree (you can just make a custom magic item for it. Alternatively use several scrolls or a wand of the standard spell if you prefer comedy), and hold the monologue via speaker system while the PCs are approaching, maybe even during combat with the couple of last pre-boss encounters.

Considering Steal Voice is a 2nd level spell which leaves the target requiring to spend a swift action to speak (and unable to shout at all, though only a 20% spell fail chance on verbal components), I'd say even regular Bestow Curse can make a target mute.

This isn't quite where the conversation is right, now but I still felt like commenting on this micropoint.

Castrin wrote:

An Operative debilitating trick is as good as an Envoy’s Get’em.


Firstly, Trick Attack is a full-round action, which denies you doing anything else with your entire turn outside of free actions. You can't draw weapons, you can't use your move action for anything else, you can't do swift actions.

Get 'em is a MOVE action.
You can do Get 'em and do a standard action (like a feint, or an attack, or cast a spell/use an SLA), do another move action (like getting up from prone or retrieving an item), and in addition to those do a swift action.

Secondly, Debilitating trick requires your Trick Attack to actually hit to take effect. Get 'em just takes effect without condition. Trick attack fails to land a minimum of 5% of the time, and in reality it's got a much higher failure rate than that.

Debilitating Trick has merits of it's own that balance the fact that it's not as good as Get 'em, and there's other minor advantages/disadvantages they have over eachother, such as Get 'em's opportunity cost.

But without a doubt, Get 'em is the better ability of those two.

Hm. Personally, if I were to run a Room of Swords campaign I'd probably look to something other than Pathfinder to run it in, probably FATE or Hero System.

Both those systems have decent support for stuff like limit breaks.

To implement it in Pathfinder, you'd have to create a system for counting up the ruin energy, and the drawbacks for being at your max.

And then make sure that's at the right pace. Too slow and it never comes into play, too fast and everyone gets crippled before they can get to a sword.

For the limit breaks themselves, you need some degree of player creativity, but set some guideline for power level.

So far we've only seen rather powerful limit breaks from higher level characters. So it's not unreasonable to scale it down for lower level ones.

Treating it as a spell like ability emulating a spell of your choice (with modifications as allowed by the GM) with a level up to half your character level (rounding up) would probably work decently, and then if someone wants to stack multiple lower level effects together instead that's probably fine but needs more looking at directly by the GM.

You could probably look to making the limit break design point-based, with gaining more points per level, but that takes a bit more work.

It's fine if they're a bit OP because they require a plot coupon to activate (a sword) and you suffer penalties for not using them when you're able.

My Operative Priest of Eloritu has a modest patreon-like extra income from:

The Art and Adventure of Secrets and Mystery
A first person VR/AR puzzle game, level based with levels ranging in scope from 5 minute brain teasers to long complex set pieces that will last an experienced player as much as an hour or two. Most levels range 15-30 minutes in playtime and fit neatly in a somewhat spacious hotel room.

Created by the entertainment branch of the Church of Eloritu, this (and other more narrative based titles utilizing the same engine) have little mainstream appeal, but has a solid cult following. It's key features are solid level creation tools and a strong, ever growing, library of user created levels, and incredible immersive presentation.

It's rumored that arcane secrets can be found in the filler gibberish (justified in game as "secret arcane writings") found in random terrain books that are often scattered around the game. And one player claimed to have learned real spells from such a spellbook found ingame.


Of Times Before Times Past
A public domain collection of fairytales most of which relate to golarion pre-gap, though whether any of them were actually told on golarion is uncertain.

Editions are usually slightly different from region to region, incorporating some local stories and dropping some superfluous or culturally inappropriate ones.

Typically comes in holographic still and animated image books, often with an audio narrator for younger readers. Though it's also usually not hard to find a good text-only copy. Editions are usually not heavily edited or censored to reduce inherently darker stories, but are sometimes simplified for easier digestion by a young audience.

For historians or others with a deeper interest, it's also possible to track down a comprehensive omnibus with essays and commentaries by Vercite historian Raishen Kuwomo. Which offers a more in-depth take on the possible origins of each story (and how likely that a version of events actually happened), how much it's likely they've diverged from their original incarnations and when they were likely actively told before the current era.

If the Paladin in question can't (or won't) atone to regain their abilities and status, and you want to not just have them be super gimped then retraining seems to be the way to go.

You don't have to give them all at once of course, if you don't want to just make it a straight up downtime activity I could also see solutions such as whenever you level up you also retrain one paladin level into whatever class you take a level in.

This solution is more punishing at higher levels of course, but in a way that's fine, if it's early in the story then it becomes a backstory deal more than a lasting punishment by the time you reach the middle. If it happens at the midpoint or later then it has a lasting impact up until the end.

Even if you just straight up let them switch to Fighter, that still is a downgrade since they (ought to) have a charisma score that now does very little for their build (no amount of bonus feats really makes up for losing +CHA to all saves when you don't get the base Charisma score refunded in any way).

The alternate skills for initiative system has some promise, but needs more definition.

It's pretty clear about how it works when you're doing something relevant to the immediate combat like keeping a lookout or sneaking around, or maybe even looking for tracks.

Yesterday we were playing through the Mirrored Moon, and encountered the Red Dragon, we managed to talk to her Fire Giant bodyguard while she was away, and convinced him she might be deceiving him about attacking the nearby cyclops village. We hid in her lair while they argued and my character (A Paladin of Shelyn) Decided to make a sketch of the scene to capture the majesty of the dragon we would surely have to slay.

When fighting broke out, the GM allowed me to roll crafting for initiative, because that was what I was doing when combat broke out, on the condition that my weapon was not ready and I'd have to draw it (My hands would've been busy with drawing implements after all).

There's a lot of interesting applications in the concept, but it needs a lot stronger outlining of how permissive it's supposed to be. And if it's supposed to be restrictive, it then needs a list of what is definitively approved.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

For me, Pathfinder is about Character-centric High Fantasy High Magic High Power Action and Adventure.

It's about the strong individual identity of my character within the scope of the story, their unique and specific abilities, and how they clash with forces far outside the scope of realism and grow from those experiences.

The character-centric nature of the game was driven primarily by mechanics of the game, in form of strong class identities stemming from the many abilities each class got, and in the form of customization in terms of discreet playstyles within a class, Archetypes, multiclass and Prestige Class options (the latter which is woefully underexplored in Pathfinder), and of course the core identity of a character with different races and the plethora of different options for such.

The High Fantasy came from the prevalence of magic, and how easily obtainable it was as well as how shaped the world was by it's supernatural elements, the High Magic from the power of said magic and its' permanency in the world through items and artifacts. The High Power, came directly from the mechanics, the permissiveness of high levels of play, the excellence you could achieve if you reached for it.

And of course, Action and Adventure is what the game is ultimately about on a per-session basis.

So, what happens if you travel back to the gap, learn everything...

and then you travel further back to before the gap?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
jakjr15 wrote:

So please help me. I'm not following what seems to be the main point the keeps being brought up here. Why is it that having an ability that grants you a reaction automatically make it so you are a passive tank who sits there and waits for his trigger? Every character gets three actions and one reaction per round. So if I have a class ability that grants me a reaction, cool. I can use my one reaction per round. But that doesn't stop me from using my three regular actions during my turn to charge into the fight and start pounding someones face in. I see the two as two completely different things. Now if you have nothing but reactions granted by the class and no special actions then I could see the issue.

That being said I am not married to the idea of the Paladin gaining abilities according to his alignment. I would personally much rather see it be a special martial ability granted by your Deity. But that might just be me.

If you want to see a full description of my idea for the paladin, go to the thread...

The short answer is that the Paladin has no core offensive ability against non-undeads, and has a core ability that is dead in a duel with an Evil Dark Lord (such as an antipaladin).

In some more depth;

You can get abilities that help your offense at higher levels, if you specialize correctly. The main one (Smite Evil) is quite high level since many campaigns don't last that long, or don't last much further.

Retributive Strike is a good option, much the same as Attack of Opportunity (except AoO still works when you're alone). But fails to help the Paladin actually be a tank, it just artificially helps them conserve aggro/threat in a kinda MMO-ish way. It's an ability that works best from the backline with a reach weapon, which goes very much against the idea of the champion of good who rushes in before anyone to face down the forces of evil.

All these ally focused reactions also work poorly with archer paladins (who may well want to stay further away from the frontline than the range of their abilities), and for tank paladins who don't have any other melee combatants in the party (which can easily be the case in a 3 or 4 man party), meaning if I'm a paladin (of any kind) then I've got core class features that kinda depends on the other players building their characters around it, which is kinda bad.

It also kinda kills the idea of a Knight Errant style paladin, who wanders the countryside alone, helping people and fighting evil where they find it. Because most of your abilities are focused on aiding teammates in combat, and you can't really do that if you're on your own.

I'm more for option 3, but replace reduced accuracy/defence with a high cost for staying rage over longer periods of time. Constant persistent damage that can only be removed when not in rage, slowly increasing penalties to saves and AC. that sort of thing.

Certainly a better concept for the bard than a full caster.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like the problem with the current structure is that it's a half-hearted attempt at a drastically different approach to character structure.

A lot of what some archetypes did (like the ranged or shield focused paladin archetypes) are now baked more into the basic structure of the class (like shield ally being a basic option from the get-go). At least in theory.

In addition, a lot fewer static abilities per class (most prominent is spellcasting which is already modular in nature), and a lot of what was previously core abilities being turned into pick-one options directly opposed to each other.

Inherently, making everything more modular isn't a bad idea. It even makes sense to kind of pre-empt Archetypes being a thing that's necessary for the system flourishing again. (No need for alternate playstyle archetypes if you can just plug in the class feats to support your archer-monk or what have you). And then Archetypes can be for the more narrative stuff like the Black Blade Magus archetype, or Shadowdancers. Things that are more in-setting iconic than "I shoot a bow instead".

My main problem, is that it still tries to hang on to the 3.Finder class structure instead of breaking away from it entirely.

If you built your own character out of Feat points (or proficiency points or whatever), with things like general combat styles being free for all, with more specialized things which were previously class bound being more costly gated. And then archetypes were just feat-packages you can buy into (just as they are now). Then that would make more sense, but it would also be very new and very different from the old class structure.

I still think the current class structure is problematic because it's leaning so hard towards all-modular while still clinging to the old more rigid system from D&D 3.5. And I think it's just never gonna become something food unless it moves further back towards that, or breaks free of it entirely and goes more fully modular.

On a semi-unrelated note, you should absolutely have a progression separate from class feats for your archetype. With a wealth of them, including an option for each class which is meant as the default for that class (while neither being mandatory nor exclusive).

I forgot you get a stride with your long jump, I guess there are uses for flying kick after all.

I still consider both Flying Kick and Quick jump trap options due to how readily they compete with Leap improvements (which seem pretty powerful to me, I certainly got great use out of my 25 foot leap in DD part 2, flying Kick would've been worse than useless).

I consider it a trap option if it's presented as being a viable option for improving an aspect of your character but, due to any factor, is not.

Quick Jump is a trap because the few situations you want to long jump you're better off getting a stronger leap.

Flying Kick is a trap because again, increasing your leap distance (with the added benefit of conditional Legendary Cat Fall) is most often better.

And both options are worsened by the fact that they don't stack.

Another part that makes them trap options is that they encourage you to attempt things you can't (or will have difficulty to) succeed at.

They would be a lot better options if Long/High jump rules were not so awful. Flying Kick would still be a trap because Quick Jump exists and is better (because it's not once per turn and can be used without striking as part of it, and also because Quick Jump removes the running distance requirement for Long Jump (and also affects High Jump).

Anyway, yeah they have some unique utility you don't get with Leap increases. Leap is still better.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
NorthernDruid wrote:

On Quiet Allies: It's pretty decent if people are willing to invest in stealth (which is usually actually not as hard to do for the non-skill monkey classes because you get more skills trained relative to the number of skills there are, and because of ample opportunities for extra skills, especially so for humans.)

It's main problem, eventual obsolescence as Mithral and high quality level armour renders ACP equal to 0, is in part remedied by robust retraining rules.

One absolute trap option I've found though: Long/High Jump and all support feats. The DCs are prohibitive and you're much better off improving your Leap instead. You're seriously better off taking Fleet to get up to 30 movespeed instead of taking Quick Jump or any other option that helps you with Long/High jumps.

Another trap option is the Crit specialization for the Knife and Dart groups. Because wounding is a bit weaker but works on non-crits. Which means it's nothing to consider building for.

I don't think you are really describing traps though, because I don't think there's much you can build into long jumps or crit specializations.

Quick Jump is the only thing I can think of that doesn't enhance leap in some way, and the long jump failure condition moves you the distance of the leap anyway. And generally speaking the only reason you'll ever attempt a long jump or high jump is because you need to jump further than leap allows for. The math does seem like it could use some tuning there, because if you invest in jumping your leap distance can get pretty crazy and you have to be rather high level to reliably beat that distance +10 or whatever. But it's pretty hard to build yourself into a corner there.

Similarly, I don't think you can build to focus on critical specializations at all. Crit fishing isn't a thing anymore, and specializations are just a nice little extra reward when you get that lucky roll. If one is using knives or darts, there's probably reasons besides the small possibility of...

Quick jump specifically is a trap feat because Powerful Leap is better in every conceivable way. And with increased leaping distance the DCs for Long/High jumps become basically impossible to achieve.

There's also the Monk 4 feat Flying Kick, which lets you Long Jump and Strike as 2 actions (saving one action).

Which is again outdone by Dancing Leaf, which increases your Leap distance and has a bonus perk of negating falling damage in some situations.

Anything that helps or improves your Long/High Lump capability is a waste of time because the DCs are so impossible.

Taking either Powerful Leap or Dancing Leaf (or be in Crane Style), a lvl 4 Monk can leap 20 feet. meaning their only useful long jump is 25 feet or longer, which is DC 30 which is only doable on a 20 if your athletics is maxxed out. Take both for a 25 foot leap (which is hillarious), and you can long jump further than that once you reach like, lvl 10-12 or something. You can high jump higher than that, never.

There are at least a couple of options for improving Long/High jumps, and they're absolutely trap options compared to improving your Leaps.

Also I was actually looking at speccing into crit specialization via Rogue multiclassing for my dagger throwing bard build. Where True Strike would give me a decent shot at critting my one attack per round.

At least the Wounding Rune will save me a feat.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

On Quiet Allies: It's pretty decent if people are willing to invest in stealth (which is usually actually not as hard to do for the non-skill monkey classes because you get more skills trained relative to the number of skills there are, and because of ample opportunities for extra skills, especially so for humans.)

It's main problem, eventual obsolescence as Mithral and high quality level armour renders ACP equal to 0, is in part remedied by robust retraining rules.

One absolute trap option I've found though: Long/High Jump and all support feats. The DCs are prohibitive and you're much better off improving your Leap instead. You're seriously better off taking Fleet to get up to 30 movespeed instead of taking Quick Jump or any other option that helps you with Long/High jumps.

Another trap option is the Crit specialization for the Knife and Dart groups. Because wounding is a bit weaker but works on non-crits. Which means it's nothing to consider building for.

In 3.finder bonuses and effects from permanent magic items would count for feat requirements, for an easy example, you could use a stat-boosting item to qualify for feats you didn't have the attributes for.

Is this still the case? Or is it no longer possible?

In this specific case, I'm trying to see if my half-elf can qualify for Elf Step (req 40 movespeed) with Boots of Bounding.

HWalsh wrote:
Pandora's wrote:

Just popping in to say, once again, that you probably won't get anything resembling Smite for the PF2 Paladin. Smite was a bit of an ugly duckling design-wise in PF1. "Do the most damage, but only against certain enemies" breaks down when "certain enemies" is most genre-appropriate antagonists. No Smite you'll see in PF2 will be nearly as big a damage boost, because Smite was too big a boost before. The glory days of the alpha strike murderhobo Paladin are over.

Weighed against the math of the playtest, RS is extremely good when it goes off. Adding a Step makes it go off regularly. You won't get an ability that does more damage than RS, I don't think.

You do realize that Blade of Justice, aka the New Smite, is less powerful than Power Attack. Something Fighters can get at 1st level. It is actually less powerful than Weapon Surge which Paladins can get at first. It is less powerful than Aura of Faith which comes slightly later, works all the time, affects your allies, does almost the same damage, and doesn't cost you an action.

Aura of Faith does considerably less damage (flat 1 rather than 1 per weapon die), more than makes up for the lower damage by helping allies as well as not costing an action but also comes online significantly later at twice the level. It also doesn't have righteous blade as a prereq.

Anyhow, I like Retributive Strike conceptually, as an optional Class Feat. I absolutely despise how Paladins don't get any actively offensive ability that would be useful in a duel with an Antipaladin as part of their core set.

Retributive strike also has the fairly bad structure that it's a feature that is only really of use if the rest of the party builds around it. It's not going to see use ever, in a party with otherwise composed of non-melee types. Not unless something has gone wrong and the casters and ranged-attackers are being swiped at in close range, in which case the Paladin is likely too far away to be able to use retributive strike.

With the current system (which is hopefully going to change somewhat), lower level powers really need to scale down in cost somehow. A lot of the somewhat lackluster domain powers for instance, get a lot better when the advanced domain power feat also makes the basic domain power free to use.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon Onozuka wrote:

While some of my favorite classes in PF1 were 6th level casters (after Witch of course), I feel like this is primarily because they just felt like they got more from their class when compared to full martials or full casters.

6th level casters felt like they got both a strong core class ability and access to spellcasting where other classes only got one or the other. Someone like the Barbarian had Rage, but not much else, while Wizards obviously had casting, but forgettable class powers from their arcane school. Meanwhile, someone like the Inquisitor had powerful core abilities in Judgement / Bane and got some casting on top of it.

As such, I'd be okay with 6th level casters getting largely replaced by multiclass dedication and potential archetypes as long as the current classes got a bit more meat on them in the form of notable core abilities (especially spell powers like Bloodlines/Domains/Schools being largely useless as they are now). Other than that, I could see some type of spell point system working for the 4th level casters, and even using it to roll optional spellcasting into some of the martial classes (Barbarian/Bloodrager really don't need to be separate classes).

Not to mention that I think some 6th level casters could really benefit from becoming an archetype. Magus was cool because they blended magic and swordplay together. Having a Magus archetype that could apply to any spellcasting tradition rather than just Arcane would be awesome to see.

I want the magus as a real class, not just a series of feats to enhance wizards who wanna go into melee.

The Magus wasn't just cool because you could cast spells while swinging your sword, it was cool because it wielded arcane power with martial aptitude.

A Magus could phase their sword through their opponent's armour, a magus could backhand spells back at the enemy.

They weren't just a wizard who also did swords or a fighter who also did magic.

They were all these things you can't really replicate with a series of feat chains.

I could see it become an archetype, similarily as I can see the Bard and the Paladin become an archetype. Just not under this pretend system of feat-chains. At the very least it would have to be an iteration where the baseline is that everyone has an archetype.

And honestly, spellcasting isn't even that important for the magus to me. Or at least, it's meaningless without a solid chassis for the abilities that separated the magus from the eldritch knight.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the idea of giving AoOs to weapons you have Master or Legendary proficiency in, and then fighters still get it for free. In combination with making it possible to feat into mastery.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd love for something fancy to ride for my paladin mount.

Guess I'll have to settle for a horse rather than anything seriously cool.

I'd love 2d10 (crits/fails at the 2,3,4/18,19,20) as a player's option. Kinda like how it's usually the local custom to let the player choose whether to roll for hp or take the average.

But you have to stick with it on a per-session basis at least.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the idea of mundane HP recovery being capped in some way.

If there was a quick way of tracking "fresh" damage it could work better, then you could just set a limit for how high you can go. Basically, if taking damage temporarily lowered your max HP, possibly even requiring more powerful healing (or just different kinds of magic healing even) to recover.

In a way, that's what I like about the various system tweaks that split up the hit points abstraction (like Starfinder and the vigor optional rules from ultimate combat) into actual wounds and battle fatigue/stress. If the buffer is right, and actual wounds are hard enough to recover, then encounters can be harmful without being severely limiting or severely lethal.

NobodyImportant wrote:

1.) Ki Strike could use a looking at. Right now, there is absolutely no reason not to take it, even if the monk is dumping wisdom/not planning to touch Ki - it is basically Weapon Focus with fancier wording on it. Given that monk can make 4 attacks a turn fairly consistently, this is quite strong.

No, no you've got it wrong, Ki strike requires you to spend... hold on.

*checks book thoroughly*

...You're kidding me.

Yeah, Ki Strike is Weapon Focus(Unarmed Strike) but convoluted.

I can't believe how insane that is.

Not just how powerful it is compared to pretty much every other class feat (especially at first level), but how unclear it is that it's just always on.

Guess when this becomes common knowledge the only monks who pick anything else at lvl 1 are gonna be humans who also get to pick this.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ShadeRaven wrote:
10% of 2 is not 0. :P

10% lower chance to score a homerun could take you from 10% chance to 1% chance.

If running say, 20 tries, the 10% chance yields on average 2 and the 1% chance yields on average 0.

If we're discussing 10% as in the difference between -2 on a d20 and +0 on a d20, then it's the same idea on a less extreme scale.

Because we're measuring the chance to achieve results not the statistics of the results.

Sorry But I Thought That Was Obvious.

ShadeRaven wrote:

hehe. I am pretty sure that the world isn't populated with people who used point buy as they were birthed. :p Even fantasy worlds.

Imagine how incredibly boring any fantasy setting would be if every single being on the planet was designed like PCs. I cherish my groups and players who think role before roll, but it's admittedly hard to avoid.

Your point is interesting, but let's look at that 10%. Yes, it might feel significant, but is it really? Say you played baseball. And your buddy was 10% better than you. So he hits .300 while you hit .270. He stroked 20 home runs while you hit 18. Would you say that you were the worst possible player imaginable?

I understand that it is sometimes fun to think of changes in stats in relation to real handicaps or boons, but even in game terms, it tends to get grossly exaggerated and overplayed.

10% on the low end of the scale would be more like 2 homeruns vs none.

And that feels significant.

As it is the spell isn't worth having printed in the book.

At least if they remove it there's a chance to ask your GM to port the spell over from PF1.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

3.Finder in general has pretty few checks on how high a bonus you can get on a given level.

There's no max cap to how high a bonus you can stack and a solid bonus is usually something like +3-5.

Similarily, there's quite a few damage bonuses that stack multiplicatively in one way or another.

As such, it's very hard to predict or estimate how high spell DCs, how high skill/save/attack bonuses or how much damage, a PC is likely to have given their general build description.

3.Finder's math is very wide in it's span, and very loose in terms of what it let's the players do.

Tight math in this case, refers to more controlled scope of not only how high you can go, but what the overall span is.

It's not just limiting what you can stack together and what bonus range you'll be in though, it's also about normalizing things like AC vs to-hit so you don't end up with a non-martial, a secondary martial and a tank with ACs of 18, 27 and 36 respectively, and a general monster balance around +30.

In short, it's about creating consistency in what is achievable and therefore estimatably expectable.

At least that's what I get out of the term.

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Personally I would ditch bard as a legacy class and instead turn it into an archetype, replace it with the witch as the Occult caster, and move most of the non-loremaster bardic abilities to Performance skill feats.

Now anyone can be a bard, reflecting different aspects of bardness by their base class (skalds are Barbarians with the Bard archetype for instance) and the particular bard powers (Performance skill feats) they choose.

I could get behind this, if you could pick archetypes at level 1 AND if high level bard feats were good enough (we're talking Splatoon level "song that changes the alignment and driving motivation of listeners" kind of masterpieces here).

You don't even need item levels, you can just go with the good old, "don't spend more than 30-40% of your starting money on any one item" and be done with it.

The most awful part is when you literally can't start with any useful item for a given item level. (unless you have spare resonance for consumables AND consider consumables useful)

removing bonus types is basically what they did anyway.

It would certainly be better for the game if it was balanced around a max cap (maybe based off you level/proficiency?).

Like, what if the max bonus you could have after your proficiency bonus was based on 1/3 of your level + your proficiency rating (0-4). That caps out at 11 which is about the same max cap as we have now, but it's gated in a different way which makes a lot of abilities more useful but has a reduced capacity overall. Might be a bit artificial, but not any more so than "item bonus".

Because really, anything would be better than the meaningless bonus types we have now anyway, if you're gonna butcher the bonuses from 3.5, at least take it away and don't let it lay out in the sun to rot.

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Class feats really need to be bounded in larger level groups, new feats every 6th level instead of every 2nd would be a much better idea. More feats to start with, more potential interesting combinations and less incentive for designers to balance around you keeping up with your level instead of going wide with lower level abilities.

In general, the way classes are designed isn't very appealing to me, very few set features and lots of floaty semi-customizable options. Might as well drop classes and make them feat-chains/trees just like multiclassing and archetypes. Let me truly pick openly which option I want. (And maybe don't lock dualwielding... or what they're trying to pass off as it anyway.. to two classes)

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Thoughts on the video:

First, can anyone else agree with me that if 3.5 had too many different bonus types then at least their bonus types meant something? The most infuriating thing about the playtest is their bonus types, two which are basically synonymous with eachother, and "item" which is a purely game-mechanically term. Bonus types in 3.finder were a good piece of the system because they meant something, and you could understand what it meant and connect the bonus type to what was happening in the game world, or use circumstances in the game world to assign bonuses.
The new bonus types would've fit in better if they just labeled them stacking types 1, 2 and 3.


pet peeve aside.

Item slots are older than d&d 3rd edition. The earliest I've encountered them is Diablo, which released 4 years earlier. It even uses the same abstraction to justify only being able to wear one ring on each hand etc.

SECOND pet peeve aside... <.<

I really don't mind Resonance as a replacement to item slots. I mind several other things about resonance though.

I mind the arguments used for implementing it - stacking bonuses is a problem with bonus stacking rules - players selling (or just not buying) higher level items for them not being good enough for the cost is a problem with item design and balance (laughable DC's, overcosted niche items, overcosted very limited use/day items) - CLW wand spam is an issue with encounter balance more so than anything.

They're just not convincing me that items not being heavily restricted not is the real issue here.

Item slots does have a pretty important flaw, but not one they often use as a justification for Resonance (as far as I've seen anyway). And that is the best-of-slot semi-mandatory items (the big six and some others).
If I value my AC, I effectively only have 1 ring slot and no neck slot. If I value saves I have no back slot. If I'm a Magus I have no bracers slot. Anything in the Belt or Headband slot needs to be seriously broken to compete with general statups.

With Resonance, or any implementation where items are limited by number instead of category, this balance gets easier as you can simply just use all the various things you want (though balancing the items get harder as you can't just toss unbalanced combinations into the same category to block them off anymore).

In any case, Resonance oversolves the problem of people spreading out too much, and forcibly so. And it also makes the previously questionably worthwhile low-charges/day items much much worse (because they now compete for a long-term resource with short-term effects) while dragging the often useful bunch-a-charges/day items down with them (RIP gloves of seeing through walls).

I mind that all activated effects cost resonance by default, I mind that all items cost resonance by default, I especially mind that consumables cost resonance at all.

Most of the things I hate with resonance can be fixed though. You can tune items to being worth their gold value considering opportunity cost, you can cut consumables out of it so they're actually ever worth using if you're into that sort of thing (and also so you don't need a 2 resonance healing potion budget), you can make it so only powerful abilities or those of underprised items drain your resonance when activated.

And I'm sure you can fix the flavour so it doesn't make magic items feel like glorified training wheels or placebo effect inducers.

And honestly, if you can fix that, I could theoretically live with not using consumables (which I already don't anyway) and also only using the most powerful activated abilities at high levels and high charisma. If the rest of the system was perfected that is.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The first and foremost problem with resonance, is that it's brought in with the intent to solve three different problems (players spam money-bought, portable healing in PFS; Too many X per day use items with imbalance or tracking issues; too much imbalance in item slots with swapping in and out stuff to alleviate cost and/or best-in-slot non-variety)

It attempts to solve these three separate issues with poor balance in the design of individual items, by solving a different issue on another layer entirely: Item slots is a kind of really thin abstraction and doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

It's a single solution to a non-issue (a hand-wave abstraction that everyone accepts and which no one cares about) meant to solve three other semi-issues (encounter balance, resource-opportunity cost and build diversity/viablitity), without trying to tackle them head-on at all.

Resonance could conceivably be designed to tackle one of those three issues, or to just replace item slots with a better and more functional abstraction.

Trying to make it the driving force behind consumables and activateable effects though... I mean, we already have Spell slots/points to limit the adventuring day. We don't need a third mechanic to do the excact same thing and nothing else except provide another way to render items beyond useless.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No dual wielding is the biggest dealbreaker in the game for me, currently.

Take a feat to be allowed to take less penalties on one attack is not good enough.

S%+~ty Forceful weapon quality with more than double the cost of the weapon is not good enough.

Hell, I'd be happy if dual wielding worked by way of you just counting iterative penalties for your weapons separately.

I think a somewhat reasonable system for it would be something like

When wielding two weapons, one in each hand, your Strike actions beyond the first gives you 2 attacks, one with each weapon, both suffer full iterative penalties. (so if you spend all three actions attacking you get one at -0, 2 at -5 and then 2 at -10, before agile)

And then dual wielding feats could help lessen the penalties and make those attacks worth something. As well as letting you do other useful things.

But those niche sanction-entry points to this playstyle which plays like s*!%ty flurry of blows just doesn't cut it.

Honestly, if I had to pick between Finesse and Agile, I'd rather have the Katana be Agile.

2 hands, 1d10 S, Agile seems pretty good to me.

Could even see it as 1 hand, 1d8 S, two hand 1d10, Agile.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One positive function is that it makes 16/16 top stat builds a viable long term strategy.

But I'd really rather there just was a max cap at like, 22 (or even 20, with a max of 16 before racial ancestral? modifiers)

Yeah, item levels don't really do it for me.

They seem fine for Starfinder, I can kinda buy the abstraction there but...

Start with X amount of Y lvl items + misc spendable wealth is a nice idea but it ends up running into these kinds of issues and isn't really any better than giving x amount of money, spend no more than 40% on your biggest item.

Especially since the old method doesn't require the item list to be balanced around all classes having meaningful (or at least useable) options for all starting items at all levels.

1 to 50 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>