Aeteperax, Green Dragon

Pinstripedbarbarian's page

Contributor. ****** Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Bothell 150 posts (223 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 69 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 150 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge Contributor

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been waiting for this post for so long! So happy to see it

Grand Lodge Contributor

I agree with all the "Wis too" comments. Int, Wis, and Cha all make sense in different ways. I think another Wis caster, especially one in Occult where it's absent, is good for diversifying options.

Grand Lodge Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

93) This earth elemental is composed mostly of rock. I bet it didn't think I'd have rock's one weakness... PAPER!

94) Oozes leaving slime and goo everywhere? With SHAMWOW you'll be saying wow every time!

95) This runelord of pride can't stand up to my secret weapon: his own highschool yearbook!

Grand Lodge Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the class having a tie to Recall Knowledge and even having a core class feature tied to it, but not relying on it.

If the ability was to make a check using the skill you'd Recall with (and the Charisma thing) and not actually making a Recall check, it might work better? The success conditions can even include the Recall info.

Grand Lodge Contributor

18 people marked this as a favorite.
Aaron Shanks wrote:
I understand the tactic of withholding with your dollars and your subscriptions, and you should do what you feel you need to do, but it’s the people who help us keep the lights on that every organization listens to the most. If you like playing Pathfinder and Starfinder, games with diversity and inclusion baked in, I invite you to consider being one of those people.

WOW. Seriously? Right after saying "lost trust has to be re-earned" you tell us that you won't listen to people who aren't paying you? Boy, I sure am happy you extended that invitation for me to pay you money to listen to my concerns with how your business is run, Mr. Shanks. Thank you for the amazing opportunity.

You're aware our trust in you is what has to be re-earned here, right? Not the other way around? Saying "Don't take away our money! We won't listen to you if you do that!" in a discussion about treating workers poorly and underpaying them is in truly astonishingly poor taste. Holy cow.

Address the issues, fix the problems, and set up a good solution moving forward. Then, people might want to "help keep the lights on" again.

Grand Lodge Contributor

12 people marked this as a favorite.

Gotta love the conflicting trolls in this thread.

One demands you do NOTHING to support a company if you have any problem with them regardless of circumstance or context.

The other seems to ignore or refuse to believe in the long history boycotting, voicing concern with monetary repercussions, and anything else mildly related to management-employee-customer relations and resolutions.

Can you lot just fight amongst yourselves for a while and just send the winner back? It'd be easier for all of us.

If a company loses that many subs in a single day, in response to an issue that a bunch of its customers are complaining about, that's the customers' statement. They have every right to make it. The company's reactions (or lack thereof) are the response. That's dialog between customers and a business. If customers demand better conditions for the employees and the company reacts by saying nothing and then firing a bunch of those employees, how does that make them look?

Anyway, back to this actual thread: yeah that response absolutely sucks. It addresses nothing. There's a lot of testimonial stuff floating around right now from a lot of sources, and the official paizo response boils down to "Did not!"

Seriously, the public doesn't have a lot to go on in an official capacity, but that tactless response seems better at supporting the accusations than defending against them.

Grand Lodge Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tapi will try to help another table by sharing what he knows about the occult objects in the magical supplies.
Occultism for Provide Knowledge: 1d20 + 15 ⇒ (19) + 15 = 34

Grand Lodge Contributor

I'll also pass my ammunition along to someone who uses ranged weapons. For Antiplague/Antidote, I'd like to see if I can Recall to see if the area we're in is especially known for any poisons or diseases.
Bardic Lore: 1d20 + 12 ⇒ (4) + 12 = 16

If there's no real info, I'll just take whatever the party has fewer of to balance things out.

Grand Lodge Contributor

Oh, sorry about that. I'm not good about switching my names. As Pyotr said this is my first pbp.

One thing I want to mention, if/when the group makes any Recall checks at the beginning of the adventure like we normally do, I have a wand of Share Lore I'd like to use. I can give three people (whoever has decent Int scores) trained proficiency in Bardic Lore for 10 minutes, so we have more checks. Tapi uses it whenever we do our briefing with the venture captain or whoever and they ask if we have any questions.

Whenever I do Recall checks with Bardic Lore or Occultism and get a regular failure, assuming I have a reaction, I use Kreighton's Cognitive Crossover to roll the other skill.

I also cast Pocket Library once at the beginning of the day for Bardic Lore. I don't activate it until we're facing something nasty or especially out of the ordinary.

Grand Lodge Contributor

I'll give my hero point to our frontliner (Crunch I think?) to make sure the entertainers don't wind up fighting all alone.

Also it turns out I've played all three of those scenarios with this character.

Grand Lodge Contributor

I have Hymn of Healing, which is 6 and 6 at this level. Not a huge amount of healing but solid sustained hit points for one target. Not like I'll need to be using my composition on inspire courage if we have three bards.

Grand Lodge Contributor

I too have a bard to play, but if I have enough time to get enough xp in time I'll bring my barbarian instead. I'll update as soon as I know for sure.

Grand Lodge Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Man, that's a good long time. I'll be sure to get one finished in the next month then put off any others until the week of submission. Just like last year.

Grand Lodge Contributor

Ruzza wrote:
Don't even get me started on the Juggler archetype and the number of people I've never murdered with throwing knives.

I know right? And maxing out at 5 props? Come on, we can murder WAY better than that.

Grand Lodge Contributor

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I somehow neglected to actually post in this thread.

Before I go into likes and dislikes, I want to say I love that Mark is reading through this and taking so much to heart.

In 1e, I loved all the weird things you could do with Summoner. The DIY, build-a-bear set up was perfect for making the perfect character to go with a concept. When 2e came out and every character was like that in a way, I was over the moon.

I like that 2e has pulled in the reigns quite a bit in general. Summoner, obviously, would be hit with the nerf bat pretty hard. Not without reason. 1e Summoner was broken and we all know it.

Folding evolutions into feats actually works great for me. It's a built-in way of balancing the character between Summoner and Eidolon; you only have so many feats, so you only have so much to pump up you and your summonbuddy. It naturally leads to good diversity in builds as far as focus goes. Evolutions would need to be stronger or at least scale more.

That said, Eidolons do feel pretty bland. I know there will be plenty more evolution feats, but beyond that we need some more choice at level 1. Your "breed" of eidolon is nice, but I'd like to be able to make two Beasts be notably different without waiting until level 4. If the attack options expand, I think that'd be huge. Something like a list of weapon traits and getting to choose two attacks between a d8 Strike, a d6 with one ability, or a d4 with two. Unarmed Evolution is amazing for this, and I'd love to see more feats early on that offer customization like this by adding more weapon traits to the list (or increasing damage dice in the case of size increase maybe). I think an ability (NOT a feat) at a low-ish level that lets you pick a movement or sense upgrade would be super helpful and flavorful.

I also think each form needs a special action or two. Beast and Dragon are infinitely more interesting in combat if only because they can do more than simple Strikes. Alignment damage and a reaction are nice, but a beastial charge and a draconic frenzy are so much more fun in combat. Unique abilities for every form might be a tall order, but a small pool of them which for forms have options could work. A "Power Attack" ability could work for Beast or Dragon. The "Sudden Charge" thing could be for Beast or Phantom. Sort of like each deity having a selection from the pool of domains. Again, more customization.

Right now, fun in combat is something that the class needs more of. I have full confidence that any class lead by Mark will have its numbers shake out fine, so spicing it up with weird abilities shouldn't make it overpowered like its predecessor.

A major culprit here is the spell casting. I'm glad this 'window casting' got playtested because personally I hate it as is. I'm all for Summoner (and Magus) getting reduced spellcasting for balance, but I have never yearned for level 1 spell slots so much. I think 2/level would still be a big reduction from other spellcasters while having enough to have functional backup/utility/emergency spells.

I really like the idea floating around the forums of the Summoner "paths" being split up among different playstyles. Synthesis/Master Summoner/Eidolon Caller would be such a great way to express everything great about the class without letting someone DO everything at once. Kind of like how Alchemist has Research Field as a focus but you can dip into others. I would love to see a Summoner that doesn't get more a Familiar than an Eidolon and a Summoning Font with a bunch of feats to add effects to summon spells like Ostentatious Arrival. Or one that doesn't conjure things at all but has their otherworldly companion that they can boost up in crazy ways with tons of evolutions.

In the end, I'm excited to see Summoner come back. I hope the final produce is as flavorful and versatile as the original with a better restraint on power level. And that it has more than 4 spells per day.

Grand Lodge Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Brew Bird wrote:
Shared HP just feels like a more elegant way to do life link. My only issue right now (I've yet to actually engage in playtesting, since real life has gotten in the way) is that it feels weird for the Summoner to care about Con while the Eidolon can nearly ignore it.

This sums up my feelings on the issue perfectly. I love how much simple a bunch of situations are now; if you faint, if the eidolon dies, if the eidolon goes past its 'leash' distance. The Con thing is the only really weird part to me.

Grand Lodge Contributor

I'm anywhere between 0-50% personally. As said above, usually higher amount as prepared since I'm more willing to throw a what-if spell in there. Spontaneous usually gets me pretty close to emptied out. Either way I usually have a few versatile spells in there like invisibility or obscuring mist.

Grand Lodge Contributor

Draco18s wrote:
Pinstripedbarbarian wrote:

To me, using a standard cantrip (not like compositions or hexes) means either I don't have anything better to do or I don't consider the current task a big enough deal to cast a real spell. They're back ups. Reliable, but definitely back ups.

For Magus, I'd be casting them because I can't afford to use a real spell but also I can't do anything interesting with my class without casting something.

What would a "real spell" be for a Magus?

I meant one of the four spellslots the Magus gets right now. Something like Vampiric Touch. Using Striking Vampiric Touch to do a bunch of extra damage and get a tempHP buffer is a bigger effect than a cantrip can do while also being more fun and dynamic.

Cantrips are useful, but they don't feel special or interesting. Especially when you have to cast it nearly every turn to function.

Grand Lodge Contributor

SuperBidi wrote:
Pinstripedbarbarian wrote:
Summoner offered one of the most versatile ways to make weird and stupidly fun characters regardless of power level.

Because it was overpowered. You made fun and stupid builds that were functional because you were starting from a character that was way above the norm.

If you had to make the very same builds from a balanced character, your builds would have been so bad you would have stopped playing the character.
Being overpowered add a lot of versatility as you can easily sacrifice optimized options for funny options without ending with a non functional character.

With a balanced Summoner, all the weird builds would be weak. And that's no fun.

You seem to equate power with fun a lot. Overpowered = more fun, a weak build = only fun if in an overpowered class to balance out. So, sincerely, what classes do you play in 2e? I honestly wonder what classes fit your idea of 'good' in what we already have, since we seem to have very differing approaches to this.

I will point out that my favorite class since all the way back in 3.5 has been Bard, which has never been considered an OP class. And I would make fun and stupid builds with them and still have a blast, weak or no. But that's me. And I'm sure lots of people wouldn't be happy without more power. Just not everybody.

You are right that a class with a higher baseline of power offers a different form of versatility since it needs less support to remain 'effective' in builds. I firmly believe the 2eSummoner desperately needs more spells since right now they seem to spend most turns doing nothing but Boost or Reinforce. Lower level spells lose a lot of potency in higher levels, but they give you something to do.

Since class feats are limited, they offer a good place to have really powerful options, in particular past level 10 so MCD can't grab them. We all know the feats listed in the playtest won't be everything, but a few good feats would go a long way. Evolutions being feats seems fine as a limiting / balancing factor between your power and your eidolon's, but without spells and/or feats for the Summoner half, it sort of falls flat whereas the Eidolon half will always at least function as it levels even without a bunch of class-support.

Grand Lodge Contributor

SuperBidi wrote:

The Summoner was very popular because it was broken.

...
A balanced Summoner is no fun at all.
...
I don't think anyone who loved PF1 Summoner will ever loved a balanced Summoner.

Summoner offered one of the most versatile ways to make weird and stupidly fun characters regardless of power level. And as mentioned above, the foundation of 2e has really put up speed bumps for anyone who overpowered situations with pets / summons.

I made the Prince from Katamari Damacy. The eidolon was a quadruped with grab, swallow whole, and skilled (Perform (sing)) for the song.

I knew a guy who made "The finest ship in the Andoran navy" that was an aquatic eidolon with a reach+grab "harpoon" natural weapon.

A friend of mine made Yoshi as a biped with mount, reach, grab, and swallow whole. He was a halfling named Toad.

This thread shows that the eidolon itself is plenty strong compared to the other combat-pets but the "spellcaster" behind it doesn't keep up. You could make the eidolon stronger than a Fighter dualwielding flaming chainsaws, and I still wouldn't play it if all the Summoner got to do is cast Inspire Eidolon.

Grand Lodge Contributor

RexAliquid wrote:
Do people just never use cantrips? A lot of gripe in this thread about four slot casting seems to completely ignore their existence.

No one is forgetting about or ignoring cantrips. We just don't want a potentially cool core feature of a class to be reliant on the weakest spells in the game.

To me, using a standard cantrip (not like compositions or hexes) means either I don't have anything better to do or I don't consider the current task a big enough deal to cast a real spell. They're back ups. Reliable, but definitely back ups.

For Magus, I'd be casting them because I can't afford to use a real spell but also I can't do anything interesting with my class without casting something.

Grand Lodge Contributor

Very nice rundown. Thanks for posting it.

From what I've seen so far, it does seem like Summoner's biggest downfall isn't being weaker than other classes. It's just boring now. You can adjust for power with different builds, items, etc., and even lower power characters can be fun. But innate lack of anything interesting to do really sucks.

Problem is, given how it can be any spell list, you'd think spellcasting could be a good way to add some unique flavor. But since 1. you barely get to cast anything and 2. if you DO cast something, your Eidolon misses out on actions, this doesn't solve anything. shroudb's suggestion of a Tandem casting thing would go a long way, but only if the class had enough spells to make things interesting.

Grand Lodge Contributor

beowulf99 wrote:

I'm not sold on the idea that a martial spending 4-5 of their feats on Dedication feats really maintain their identity though.

Sure, they still have their core class features. But they are heavily delaying access to a LOT of their abilities. Take a Ranger for example: If you take say Hunted Shot/Strike at 1st, then MCD into Druid, and spend your 4th, 8th, and 12th level feats on upgrades for the MCD, you are going to have 3 Ranger feats to play with between character start and over halfway into your leveling scheme. That is the majority of "real play time" in a given campaign.

So you are a REALLY basic Ranger, and a whole bunch of Druid spells. I'd wager that you'll be doing more Druid-y things in a given combat than Ranger-y things, which means you have effected your class identity.

You definitely give up your chances at expanding upon or focusing on your class's identity, and it's definitely changed by MCDing, that's for sure. My point was more that you still have a baseline you build off of in those cases, seasoning an already established flavor, whereas Magus has to add salt just to have any taste.

Your ranger example wouldn't get nearly as much Ranger-ness, but even a 'basic Ranger' has hunt prey, hunter's edge, and a smattering of class abilities as they level. The druid stuff absolutely alters the character's identity, but in the end it's still a nature oriented hunter with a particular style of combat, now with master primal spellcasting combined with its martial prowess. A magus gets the master spellcasting and martial prowess, and... Synthesis. Which in itself relies on its subpar spellcasting and doesn't really mold its identity (as is).

Don't get me wrong, I love the Synthesis feature. It's super flavorful and has lots of potential. To combine spells and combat in a unique method for a neat additional effect is great. I just wish the class could use it meaningfully more than 4 times per day rather than settling for cantrips to trigger them. As great as it is, Synthesis as the class-defining-feature falls short because it doesn't have the spells to support it.

To me, using a standard cantrip (not like compositions or hexes) means either I don't have anything better to do or I don't consider the current task a big enough deal to cast a real spell. They're back ups. For Magus, I'd be casting them because I can't afford to use a real spell but I can't do anything interesting (via Synthesis or Striking Spell) without casting something.

That's not an identity. That's a complex.

Grand Lodge Contributor

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Having slept on it and rolled up a couple characters, I can still say 2+2 = not enough.

Magus just feels like a fighter with less accuracy that gave up on wizard dedication halfway through.

Summoner looks like it could function fine with only 4 spells, but gosh it'd be boring. It's like playing a fighter... with worse proficiencies and no special attack feats.

There are some fun things Magus gets to augment Striking Spell, but 4 times per day isn't enough to justify them and cantrips don't hold up. For Summoner, you might summon stuff, or you just buff your Eidolon. The rest of combat is cast Inspire Eidolon, sustain your summon if you have one, and let your Eidolon attack with the rest of your turn. You can't really even attack on your own since your Eidolon does it better and you share MAP.

I still think 2/level/day would be solid. Maybe 2/level/day and one has to be filled with the appropriate kind of spell (damaging spells for Magus, summoning spells for Summoner)? Low level spells' usefulness drops off, but having the option and rarely using it still feels loads better than not having the option at all.

Another option I thought of: what if Magus didn't get any spell slots at all? It doesn't really feel like a hybrid of casting and combat as is. If pumping up its spellcasting isn't the answer, maybe taking them all away would work better. Champion and Ranger already lost their spellcasting from 1e and got Focus Spells to replace them. Monk got them too for their SLA's. They're all primarily martial classes that can absolutely still be magical.

If Magus didn't have regular spellcasting but had really kickass combat Focus Spells, it could still fill that hybrid-niche. Maybe keep cantrips? Or a Focus Cantrip that's only damage? I dunno. Give it a basic damage Focus Spell, something akin to Elemental Toss so it has a solid damage option for Striking Spell. It'd make Striking Spell way more usable. You'd lose a lot of versatility for focus and function. Personally I'm happier using archetypes as a method to get versatility than basic usability.

Grand Lodge Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Throne wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
A magus shouldn't be as good at casting and fighting as a non-fighter martial who goes all in for the Wizard dedication, since the champions/barbarian/monk/ranger is spending 5 class feats on 2 spell slots per level up to 6th and one 7th and one 8th level spell slot. That's five feats for 14 slots and the Magus has just one fewer feat than those classes.

Hard disagree. Those classes all get a better base toolkit.

A non-fighter martial with 5 wizard dedication feats and 6 class feats will be a better martial and better caster than a magus with 5 martial dedication feats and 5 class feats.

A fighter with 5 wizard dedication feats and 8 class feats widens the gap so much more it's not even funny.

That's what gets me. As I understand it, Magus's identity is to be the hybrid martial-magic class, right? Not to be perfect at both, but to combine and be competent in both, hence master and not legend in armor, magic, and weapons.

Thing is, many classes can replicate this by dedicating half their feats, AND they still have their own identity while adding this complete new toolkit. Right now, to be on par with other classes at its own primary function, Magus needs to dedicate as many resources to catch up rather than customizing and focusing on its own kit and class feats.

Grand Lodge Contributor

Squiggit wrote:
Pinstripedbarbarian wrote:
What'd be best in my opinion is keeping the number of spells to 2/day/level but with all spell levels.
Really hoping Paizo doesn't cave and make them normal casters like you're suggesting. Literally anything but this.

See in my mind, "normal casters" are what full classes should be. Classes have been very nicely standardized in a lot of ways, and this kind of throws a wrench in it all.

(Side note: I think funky spellcasting like 4 slots total per day would be great for archetypes. Archetype spellcasting already does a great job of handling fewer spells; no reason a different set up couldn't be explored this way.)

Classes with magic abilities that aren't normal casters like Monk or Champion have Focus Spells to give them spells on a martial or otherwise non-caster-focused class. If that's what they want with Magus, I'd be super happy with it being Focus Spell class. Give it some cantrips either natively or via a feat, but make the primary "I cast sword!" shtick revolve around Focus Spells. That way they get up to 3 spells to balance between buffing with Hasted Assault or Rune stuff and delivering Striking Spells.

Grand Lodge Contributor

It is a potentially neat combo if you want to make a more martial summoner. Maybe not super optimal, but it would help shore up your offenses on a class that otherwise isn't great at weapon combat.

Grand Lodge Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Unfortunately we then are at the point where it's not really a complete design if it needs to spend half its feats on an archetype to be good. In fact, that sounds a lot like an archetype.
NGL, if they made an Eldritch Knight mirror to Eldritch Archer with a melee eldritch strike, it would eat this entire classes lunch, while being more versatile by being compatible with more than one tradition and casting style, having more minor magic for flavor because the character who took it would either have a bunch of multiclassing feats or be a full caster, it would be very fun and effective.

This. All of it.

Up until yesterday I fully expected Magus to appear as an archetype. Just like Cavalier went from full class to the "...on a horse!" archetype, I figured Magus would be the "...but as a spellsword!" archetype.

Eldritch Archer's biggest drawback for me is requiring expert proficiency with bows. It means you either make one with a martial class and subpar casting or you wait until high levels to actually access it. If an "Eldritch Knight" happens, I hope it doesn't require expert anything. Trained in martial, sure. Trained in light armor, fine. Even medium, sure.

If Magus wants to be the "Eldritch Knight" there needs to be some change. More spells, tailored focus spells, better action economy... lots can be done to make a good old fashioned Spellstrike that feels good to use.

Grand Lodge Contributor

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Alrighty, from the top:

Proficiencies etc: Seem fine. Right between Fighter and Wizard in most cases, which is perfect.

Spellcasting: Absolutely awful (I'll come back to that).

Battle Spells: These have a lot of potential. The Rune stuff is expected and seems fine. There'd need to be a lot of really outstanding spells here to make up for the slot-starved spellcasting though.

Striking Spell: ...why isn't it like Eldritch Archer's Eldritch Shot? 2 action ability, cast a spell, deliver with stabby thing. At least it isn't restricted to certain weapons anymore. Magus used to be all about action economy rolled into a cool mechanic, and now it's the same mechanic with more limitations and no increase in action economy. Making it Metamagic cuts off a lot of options, especially when it doesn't even give the Strike action built in to the Cast. Bonus points for building in unarmed attack support though!

Magus Synthesis: Wonderful approach to the class. I love that the flavor of the class has evolved from stab-with-shocking-grasp to merging spellcasting and combat in various forms.
* Shooting Star is ok, mostly since it's available at level 1 for supporting bow-mage builds. I'd still prefer it to be closer to how Eldritch Archer handled it.
* Slide Casting is the real winner here for me; here's that action economy I was hoping for, and it's done so well! A simple method of mechanically empowering the character in a substantial way with cool flavor.
* Sustaining Steel seems... weird. It helps with survivability, but Magus is still an 8hp class with medium armor, and since it requires a two-handed weapon you can't use a shield with it. So... not a lot of synergy I guess. Very cool idea! A little lackluster in execution.

Feats:
* Arcane Fists: always good to see easy ways to vary your builds.
* Raise A Tome: Silly, fun, but possibly in need of a little... more?
* Spirit Sheath: Great ability, very useful, and super fitting.
* Bespell Weapon and Bespelled Persistence: Fitting, but nearly useless with your four spells a day. Also potentially messy with Striking Spell?
* Spell Parry and Capture Spell: Very cool! Fitting for a master of manipulating spells in combat.
* Spell Swipe and Cascading Ray: Fun and thematic but... if most spells take two actions, and Spell Swipe also takes two actions, you aren't using the two together very often.
* Comet Spell, Healer's Steel, Portal Slide: Great extensions of their respective Synthesis form. Hope to see more things like this to spice up the different forms.
* School Shroud: SUPER cool ability... let down by that pesky 4 spells per day. I feel it should specify the level of the spell effect you get.
* All the 18+ feats: Fine enough capstones, but honestly a lot feel like they are just trying to fix things that the class is shaky at.

Now, the spells... Good golly gosh I hope this doesn't stick. I don't care how good cantrips scale, I don't care how amazing the class's focus spells might be; if you get the most versatile spell list and only 4 slots per day, you might as well just not have it. Personally, I'd rather the class be all cantrips and focus spells with no slot-casting more than its current set up. What'd be best in my opinion is keeping the number of spells to 2/day/level but with all spell levels. It still puts the class well behind existing spellcasters without utterly crippling it.

I've seen a lot of comments about how multiclassing or taking an archetype to get a handful of additional spells can make this really excel. That's great. I don't want a class that requires dedicating to a DIFFERENT class just to function.

I feel like this iteration of Magus scores around a C- (sorry, am teacher). It's got great ideas, but it doesn't see all of them through. It has amazing flavor, but it's very spotty at actually using it. It tries to strike a balance, but in doing so it sacrifices a lot of its uniqueness.

Grand Lodge Contributor

I've played a Warrior Muse Bard with Mauler Dedication. Lots of good buffs, lotsa skills, a few offensive spells, and a pretty reliable routine to fall back on consisting of Inspire Courage, Knockdown, AoO when they stand up, repeat. Very fun to play. I was the main melee character that also just happened to buff the party. Occasionally I would Strike and cast something like Sound Burst or Fear, but usually the action economy limited me to Inspire and Stride+Strike or Knockdown.

Another character I haven't gotten as much time with is an Universalist Wizard MC-Champion with decent weapons from Dwarven Weapon Familiarity. He mostly uses Hand of the Apprentice and area spells. He's admittedly a bit limited at low levels, but he's quite sturdy for a Wizard and does pretty solid burst damage. He's quite a bit more consistently cast-and-smack than the bard thanks to Hand of the Apprentice.

My latest character might count as a gish? I rolled up an Investigator to be an Eldritch Archer. Devise a Stratagem + Eldritch Shot with a good roll adds up a lot of damage fast. At 6th, casting TK Projectile with a +1 striking bow has +15 to hit and deals 2d8+5d6+2 damage. Their spells would be super limited, but Investigator would give enough shenanigans that it wouldn't be too bad at all.

Grand Lodge Contributor

6 people marked this as a favorite.

My first reaction is a very big thumbs down for this. It feels limiting, and I can see it confusing new players quite a bit. That said, I haven't playtested it as of yet, so grain-of-salt this.

I personally would be much happier without losing lower level slots. It just feels clunky and sad as is. 2/level is totally viable. Every other spellcaster gets 3 or 4/level. Trading the spells for an eidolon / combat casting is fine, but losing so many is crippling. Right now though Magus looks more like a Bloodrager with less health and Summoner looks like an Eidolon cheerleader rather than its own class (but maybe that's what's intended?)

Both could do a lot better if they had really tremendous focus spells (Summoner has a couple already), but even then I'd dislike 4 normal spells per day total. 2/day/level and some kickass focus spells would feel way less restrictive.

Grand Lodge Contributor

I may have missed it if this got brought up in another discussion, but is there a reason the pdfs are STILL formatted so that the star system is a double-wide page? The older pdfs were lovely with the system divided in two pages that didn't ruin mobile-viewing-experiences.

Grand Lodge Contributor

I'm really hoping they change this. The fact that it's at the beginning and end of the book seems like it was an oversight, and it really does mess with the formatting.

Grand Lodge Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
I rotated both the double-spread images, and that was able to address my issue. Dunno if you can do likewise.)

I tried doing this on my lunch break without any success. I don't really have any editing software. When I have more time tonight I might try again. Either way it looks like an oversight to include the double-page at the beginning and end that messed up the formatting.

Grand Lodge Contributor

I love a lot of this. The options definitely make Starfinder feel less limited. Even with some crunchy-stuff from Pact Worlds, Armory, etc. there were lots of gaps (hah) in the ways you could build a character to do stuff you wanted. I especially like how Mystics can alter their stuff a lot more, since they seemed especially railroaded after picking their Connection.

My very first impression, however, was how the PDF is awkwardly formatted with the Pact Worlds System image not being split like in other books, making the entire PDF wonky. Any chance that can get remedied? The file-per-chapter is also clunky to navigate around since it's actually more a file-per-few-pages.

Grand Lodge Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not 100% against locking curses and mysteries, but like I said in an earlier post, I'd much rather see mysteries "gated" behind curses much like donations are to deities. They already have domains listed to each mystery (which I don't really like anyway). If you swap the list of available domains with a list of available mystery benefits/curses, you'd get the mix'n'match of the old system, reigned in a bit, and thematically a better fit.

Hell, the Witch lets you 'design' your patron; why can't Oracle 'design' their mystery? Limit the options with prerequisites even, but don't hard lock everything. PF2 has so much emphasis on customizability. It's what I enjoy most in there new system. I would hate to see one of 1e's better examples of customization become one of the worst.

Grand Lodge Contributor

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Did anybody ever pick any curse that actually made you weaker in PF1

Yes.

My roommate played an Oracle Samurai with Clouded Vision that he acted out as full blindness for flavor. I have a dual cursed Haunted Deaf Oracle that can only hear the voices in his head that give him bad advice. There are plenty of folks that will take "wrong" options for the sake of the character.

And even then, that's not really the point, is it? None of that will be a problem in PF2 if the curses are balanced. I saw more than my fair share of Haunted and Tongues Oracles in PFS because they were seen as easy-mode-curses, but there's no reason those same options (if they return) couldn't be made harsher for the sake of balance.

Grand Lodge Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have mixed feelings about Oracle curses and mysteries being fused. The flavor of a power both inhibiting and empowering someone at the same time is very cool and really emphasizes the shift towards that power. On the other hand, I really liked the mix and match aspect of the old system. I had a burn cursed Oracle in 1e that was a Lore Oracle because he burned down an ancient library, and while I can fake that with bard dedication, I can't tie my mystery and curse together in a way of my choice anymore. I'd much rather have a choice in mystery, even if those are limited by curse like how domains are limited by deity (Clouded vision might be Flame for smoke and Waves for mist blocking vision, while Wasting might be Flame for being burned or Battle for scars and wounds). In a related note, I hope domains DON'T stay in the Oracle's kit. Replace those with curse or benefit options for more dynamic choice related to the class's themes. As long as curses are balanced better than 1e, that shouldn't be a problem.

Moving on to Witch, at first I was disappointed to see it was not the prepared Occult class. After realizing the bigger emphasis on patrons, I actually like the sorcerer-esque varied traditions. I like the idea of fey patrons giving primal spells and genies giving arcane. I wish there was a stronger mechanical tie to the patrons' nature; it can still be a mysterious patron (though I don't know the reasoning behind that particular part of flavor) and still be clearly from a fiend, elder thing, or whatever else. I agree with the sentiment that there should be some hex focus-cantrips like bards' compositions, even just one per basic lesson. Also PLEASE tell me there will be divine options in the final version. A demon pact or devil contract is too perfect for this.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 * Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Bothell

I remember the long wait for Dragon's Demand chronicles (which is why I changed my pic to good ol' Teppy over there) and certainly wouldn't want to relive that delay. I love campaign mode modules, and even if the levels are reduced it's nice to get a boost to society characters. I wonder if there could be a happy medium in the form of later modules' "bonus" sheets? For example:

The House on Hook Street's Bonus Sheet wrote:
When you earn this Chronicle sheet, you may choose whether or not to receive XP, Prestige Point, and gold rewards; you may instead choose to gain no XP and gold, but you instead earn 2 Prestige Points and still qualify for all of the boons and items on this sheet. If you elect to earn the full rewards, you gain 3 XP, 6 Prestige Points, and 14,862 gp (7,431 gp for characters use the slow track method of advancement).

It goes on to list a couple boons you get and a selection of items. The FoP's sheet could be split so the bonus sheet gives one of the boons listed and one of the subtier's items along with (optionally) another level's worth of XP, fame, and gold. Folks who want more levels get more levels, and folks who don't still get thematically appropriate rewards for playing.

I liked the jump-start a character could get from a module, but I agree that higher-level characters get 'used up' quickly by multi-level-modules. Either way, I'm happier with faster chronicle releases.

EDIT: I want to add that I really dislike the Keepsakes thing. If the Achievement Points to re-access them is very low cost, it could work, but until I see that I gotta say it rubs me the wrong way.

Grand Lodge Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm now picturing a damai finding a "small" red dog-like kaiju in its infancy and raising it as their pet.

Grand Lodge Contributor

An Icon theme iconic? Who teaches science to kiddos across the worlds? Fantastic.

Grand Lodge Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wish I could make it out there. Maybe next year! It's been too long since I've seen Swat in action. Hope you guys can make it out to PaizoCon next year!

SkålCon!!!

Grand Lodge Contributor

Combat bards work great if you try to build a competent combatant that elevates themself and everyone else in the party rather than just a fantastic destroyer-of-faces on their own.

Things like Inspire Heroics and Dirge of Doom tilt things in your favor, especially if you Harmonize them together. You got plenty of spells to help like Blur, Ray of Enfeeblement, and Haste. You can conjurer up a flank-buddy (even an illusory one) to help you hit and deal damage in their own.

Dedications can augment things like giving you a wider selection of weapons or armor to use. You can pick up a reaction to use in combat for more opportunities to damage stuff. Feats like Bespell Weapon or Sneak Attacker can directly increase damage, while Combat Grab or Sudden Charge gives you more options to pick from mid-combat.

If you want to be an amazing combatant that does bard things, you might be better off starting as a Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, etc. that dedicates to Bard and grab some spells and Inspirational Performance. If you want to be a bard that focuses on combat, you can do that pretty easily by picking a few select feats.

Grand Lodge Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I got my Starfinder scenarios but still waiting these.

Grand Lodge Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not in the Core Rulebook? I understand that.

Not in the Bestiary? I don't understand that as much, but okay.

Not in anything for the first few months? Not even available as a pdf to save on space in the main books? Not even by the first wave of books after GenCon? That's... lame.

Grand Lodge Contributor

After a quick look, I don't see a chart for expected levels like in previous multi-level modules. Is this one (and potentially future modules) designed to just be a level for each chapter? That'd put the party at level 3 before the final boss, 4 after?

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 * Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Bothell

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's exactly the sort of development I love to see in these storylines! Not only do the characters' actions have impactful consequences, but they're COOL consequences that are fun thematically and mechanically. Story evolution from choices? Fine. Story evolution that also gives new options for players? Great!

Grand Lodge Contributor

Captain Morgan wrote:
Pinstripedbarbarian wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
TBH I wouldn't even assume the metal armor thing is still an issue for normal druids, given all the changes to armor and previous restrictions that have been lifted. It never made much sense to me anyway and I wouldn't be surprised either way if they just ditched it for the final version. I mean it is a bit of a sacred cow and all, but no more so than the changes to the Paladin/Champion.
Here's hoping. I have a Champion of Gozreh that splashes Druid of the Storm for my Ire of the Storm / Seers of the Drowned City group, and not being able to use metal armor and shields kind of... suuuuuuuuuuuuucks.
The other thing we will probably see is more armor materials, if not in core then down the line. I'd rather just ditch the restrictions, but if we get dragonscale,etc back that will help.

Again here's hoping. I'd be surprised if they don't add more materials like that to help things along, but it will almost assuredly be Rare for dragonscale heavy armor. Hopefully there will be some other sort of decent, non-metal armor for low-dex builds.

Plus I kind of liked the notion of a Gozreh zealot having an attack that is just being covered head to toe in metal, running up to enemies, and then getting struck by lightning.

Grand Lodge Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
TBH I wouldn't even assume the metal armor thing is still an issue for normal druids, given all the changes to armor and previous restrictions that have been lifted. It never made much sense to me anyway and I wouldn't be surprised either way if they just ditched it for the final version. I mean it is a bit of a sacred cow and all, but no more so than the changes to the Paladin/Champion.

Here's hoping. I have a Champion of Gozreh that splashes Druid of the Storm for my Ire of the Storm / Seers of the Drowned City group, and not being able to use metal armor and shields kind of... suuuuuuuuuuuuucks.

Grand Lodge Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Halcyon_Janissary wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Kyrone wrote:
Pinstripedbarbarian wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
The next round, the monk combined 2 ki powers to leap 75 feet straight up, landing on a wvyern and flurrying the rider. Another rider flew over to try nd help fight this crazy monk.
Was this via Wind Jump? Or some crazy combination of feats and items that increased your Athletics that high?
It was a Class feat lvl 10 of the Monk that let you get fly speed equal to your movement speed, Monks Incredible Movement class feature gives a lot of movement speed.

Indeed. This combined with a ki rush let him close the distance extremely fast.

(We might have miscalculated distances, or he must have had Wind Jump already active for him to Ki rush fly >> fly >> flurry all in one turn, now that I think about it. But that feels like quibbling and doesn't detract from the broader scenario.)

Looks good by my calc. Wind Jump 1 action, Ki Rush to move up to 90 ft (25 human speed + 20 monk bonus)*2 1 action, FoB 1 action.

Nicely done for that monk.

I was curious because of the "straight up" part since flying up counts as difficult terrain making it half speed. It is sort of quibbly, and I don't mean to pull away from the broader scenario. It's still possible with Haste or using wall run / wall jump. I was just seeing if I missed a way to jump crazy high that I could use for the dragoon I'm building for pfs.

1 to 50 of 150 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>