Pronate11's page

Organized Play Member. 178 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
How okay would folks be with a new Shaman absorbing the Medium’s schtick, the way Spiritualists were folded into the 2e Shaman? “I commune with and host ephemeral beings” seems like the thematic foundation of both.

definitely feel like that should be a subclass/feat chain/class archetype instead of a core part of the class. Possession is definitely one way to deal with spirits, but I feel like many if not most shamans wouldn't partake in that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:
The Thaumaturge is the occult detective
The Thaumaturge isn't Occult.

The Thaumaturge is definitely occult. It's not technically occult spell casting (as the thaumaturge doesn't cast spells), but the magic it does fits the description of the occult tradition SoM gives to a t. The use the power of story's, beliefs, and convictions to convince the universe to aid you in your quest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
gesalt wrote:
Claxon wrote:
My experience, limited as it is, is that Paizo did good in that they mostly eliminated the big 6 problem from PF1.

They really haven't, it's just a different set of required items.

Armor
Apex
Flight item
Speed item
Perception item
Skill 1
Skill 2
Skill 3
Skill 4 (classes with 4+ legendary skills)
Skill 5 (classes with 5+ legendary skills)

So really, you have between 0 and 2 free item slots as you progress which is even worse off than pf1's big 6. You at least get to use temp items in the interim before some of these exist I suppose.

Odds are your apex item will wind up also covering at least one of your legendary skill item bonuses. Also, by time it comes into play you've probably got a general feat open for Incredible Investiture. Once you have Fleet and tougheness there are few general feats you really need.

but that would require that you invest a good amount in charisma, which many builds don't


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Eh, fighters are the exception. I was already against gunslinger stepping on it.
So its not that it can't happen, its just that you don't like it.

I mean let's be realistic here. If paizo wanted to shatter the checks and balances they built they could give kineticist d12 for everything, require only con for everything, have legendary in every proficiency they have.

Everything everyone in here is subjective takes and theory.

We could I guess start every single post and reply with "imo" but after a while it seems rather pointless.

I try to keep my opinions and perspectives within the confine of established system metrics as much as possible and try to state when it's not.

Some people in here are just people who want to break the game for their own sense of power fantasy that they don't get out of a balanced system.

It's been that way for pretty much every playtest as well.

So in the end, assume what everyone says outside of a raw referenced correction as a opinion.

You know, I was on bored with you, until you decided to label everyone who had a different opinion on something literally unprecedented " people who want to break the game for their own sense of power fantasy". We do not know the exact mechanical impact of having legendary class dc, as its never been done before. You can claim that its equivalent to spell dc, but that is just your opinion. claiming that those who see differently don't care about balance is a bad faith argument. I have faith in Piazo, if they see legendary class dc as equal to spell dc, cool, I'll respect that, and assume they did the math for it. But you nor I are piazo devs. labeling the others opinions as "breaking the game" isn't going to get anyone anywhere.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
kripdenn wrote:
Allowing some way for dual gate to dual wield melee blasts or elemental weapons would be cool. Or something like dedicated gate to get 2-handed weapons.

Neither of those should be limited to a gate.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
Pronate11 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

Selective proficiency sounds like an annoying solution, not a fan.

Martialmasters wrote:
I am more amiable you the notion of only a single element reaching legendary even though I still hold that it breaks the checks and balances paizo has built for their system.

How can it break the system when it's only even relevant for a handful of levels?

The average player's kineticist will spend the vast majority of the campaign with the exact same proficiency as a caster.

Tbh to some extent this whole conversation about class DC almost feels like a distraction, because it's going to be so rarely relevant for most games. It's six levels, and four of those are backloaded where many campaigns might not even reach.

Kineticists being fractionally worse at exactly levels 7 or 8 is not some secret balance lynchpin.

That's the exact issue

If they capped at expert in martial proficiencies I would have no leg you stand on.

I'm not even sure what you are arguing here. that becouse the kineticist is behind in dc during 6 levels, if you want to make it equal, you would have to be behind in attack for 10 levels? 15 levels actually, as you are behind by 1 for 10 levels too.

?

Master martial master class

Expert martial legendary class

I'd be for this being an option on character creation I guess.

Except there is no class with legendary class dc. there is only legendary spell casting dc. as you are very fond of doing, unless you can show me where the devs value class dc the exact same way as spell dc, this is all conjecture. I believe that class dc is not as inherently valuable as spell dc, while you do. I don't believe we can change each others minds at this point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

The number of Elemental Lords isn't a structural part of the plane, right? It's a de facto representation of the power structures in the politics of the plane.

Like a plane could have 0-900 elemental lords right? It's much like how the First World could have any number of Eldest (including zero).

Theoretically, but the fact that every current elemental plane has two elemental lords tells me they are probably "made" in pairs (born? created? there is no lore I could find on how the elemental lords came to be)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ly'ualdre wrote:
The Gold Sovereign wrote:

Only one thing... At least a page for each of the eight elemental lords, with art for all of them. It was a shame for Planes of Power (the 1E book about the elemental planes) to not cover the Lords with more than some mentions, and with not art at all. I hope Paizo doesn't lose this opportunity again.

And of course, if there are new elemental planes, maybe there are new elemental lords. Although I'm imagining the two new planes as something minor, not as relevant as the main ones.

They mentioned the Lords of Wood and Metal specifically wanting nothing to do with the conflicts that were going on between the classic Elements. So there is at least a good Lord for each Plane. Hard to say if there are evil ones.

I think it is a safe bet to assume we will get this though. At least I hope. We have gotten write up on many a Deity in several books. Granted, they did mention it would be formated like BotD, so hopefully they don't take away the Deity entries from that book, as they were a but lack luster. But I imagine the Geb section of Impossible Lands and an eventual Eye of Dread book may remedy that.

Not wanting to get involved doesn't mean they are good. Wood and metal could just be filled with neutral elemental lords


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Guntermench wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

For the record, I compared the shortbow to the fire blast because both have 60 ft range increments and deal a d6. I think the community undervalues range increments, personally, but it is pretty clear by now that Paizo attaches a certain value to them which will always be factored into weapon choice. Earth and Water are more comparable to thrown weapons like Tridents, where the shorter range allows for higher damage. And wind takes it in the opposite direction, much to the chagrin of many people.

Edit: I'll note propulsive is not a huge contributer here. Most archer inventors need to max Dex and Int which only leaves one boost in Str until level 5. If anything, the deadly dice probably gives the shortbow more of an advantage here and is valued roughly equal to agile, at least in melee. The +1 damage from propulsive matters a lot less than Overdrive.

Propulsive is clearly valued the same as 10ft of range.

Propulsive is the only trait that you seem to be able to buy with extra gp. its worth about 16 gp


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Pronate11 wrote:
So, with focus spells like cackle, lingering composition, extend boost, amped guidance, and amped warp step, it seems like one focus spell is about equal to one action. So, assuming an impulse takes one more action to use (either through overflow or just having a more action activity) it should be roughly balanced for impulses and focus spells to have an equal effect. At most, impulses could be considered a bit more versatile than the example focus spells, and impulses would have to be slightly weaker than focus spells.
That's a veeeeery limited list of focus spells there. Tons of focus spells take 2 actions, especially the big offensive ones.

Yes, but those where the ones that more or less directly traded a focus point for an action. that was my point. so a 3 action impulse should be about equal to a 2 action focus spell, becouse one focus point is about equal to an action


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, with focus spells like cackle, lingering composition, extend boost, amped guidance, and amped warp step, it seems like one focus spell is about equal to one action. So, assuming an impulse takes one more action to use (either through overflow or just having a more action activity) it should be roughly balanced for impulses and focus spells to have an equal effect. At most, impulses could be considered a bit more versatile than the example focus spells, and impulses would have to be slightly weaker than focus spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
OrochiFuror wrote:

Aoe only matters of you are reducing the number of hits your martials need to kill things. If your Martials need 4 strikes to down something before and after your aoe, then you did nothing.

Let's also not forget that getting more then one aoe off per combat is tricky, if enemies aren't rushing at you or spreading out so you can keep hitting them without hitting friendlies, then your GM might be going easy on you.

Counter point, every action your gm uses to keep NPCs out of your AoEs is actions not spent attacking your party. this might not be satisfying, but hiving that threat always active is powerful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would either give it versatile or a version of concussive. The big problem with that is that now dual gates just have objectively better blasts, so you would need to give something to the other gates to compensate. but "both types at once" just seems too hard to do without just reprinting the concussive trait with a new name.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
YuriP wrote:
Verzen wrote:
2 actions for a shield block is incredibly bad, actually.

Not exactly. If are ignoring that if it was a Shield Cantrip is would simply unable to recast it. So it's already better than a Shield Cantrip. If was a shield you would risk broken it being unable to use it again. So if you consider it use a Gather Element action again to being able use a Stone Shield again isn't bad.

Also as I said Stone Shield cannot be used in conjunction with Overflow impulses. So this build is for Earth Element Blasts only, and Element Blasts suffers MAP, só loose a second Blast or a Stoke Element as trade to rise a Shield Block again isn't a big problem.

Shield cantrip allows 1 action to "raise a shield"

I simply think that the action economy is far too restrictive with stone shield for it to be any fun.

yes, but what happens when you block with the shield cantrip? how many actions is it to raise the shield again? I think you'll find that stone shield is much better from the action economy front. 2 actions vs 3,000. and again, you don't need to block. one action for 2 ac and +2 to fort saves is very, very good on its own.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
Pronate11 wrote:
Verzen wrote:
2 actions for a shield block is incredibly bad, actually.
But its better than the 2 actions to 1 equip a spare shield, and 2, raise a shield, becouse you don't need to spend gold for either shield. sure, its worse against smaller hits that wouldn't break the shield, but much better against the bigger hits due to the higher hardness. Plus, you get +2 to fort saves, which is very useful.
In terms of action economy, it's still worse. You're spending your precious gather element for a big boom to block damage. Any creature could effectively prevent you from using an aoe by just attack you.

Then just get hit. You have that choice. You aren't forced to block. at worst, you have +2 to fort saves verses a normal shield, and at best you can prevent a bunch of damage. there is no downside other than one 1st level feat, and you have a bunch of those.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
2 actions for a shield block is incredibly bad, actually.

But its better than the 2 actions to 1 equip a spare shield, and 2, raise a shield, becouse you don't need to spend gold for either shield. sure, its worse against smaller hits that wouldn't break the shield, but much better against the bigger hits due to the higher hardness. Plus, you get +2 to fort saves, which is very useful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kyrone wrote:
If it would have to happen it would already with the alchemist though, that have expert attacks.

except that alchemists didn't actually use their class DC that much until an errata gave them powerful alchemy for free. It wouldn't have made sense to give it to them


1 person marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:


So comparing we can see at level 1 almost all compared spells and impulses have a similar dmg, but they vary a lot at range and AoE. But with the notable exception of EA thats allow the caster to hit 2 creatures in their range don't matter their position, the number of targets are very relative to AoE. Also the Pummeling Rubble can easily push the creatures while Tidal Hands needs a critical failure what's usually means thats rarely happen (you can't count with it). But the real noticeable diference here is the "Heighten" effects e relative number of actions; Focus and Spellslot Spells basically doubles their effects when casted in higher level while cantrips and Impulses just increases by 50% and in this situation the Impulses can be even worse than EA cantrip because they require 1 additional action making them effectively less cost efficient than a cantrip.

while I agree with your point, Kineticist abilities scale on class level, not spell level. So they effectively scale every spell level, which puts it on par with the spells scaling.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like if the book about the elemental planes establishes [x magical property] as a thing intrinsic to an elemental plane, then Kineticists of the appropriate flavor should have access to it.

Without having read the book I can't say that Illusions aren't part of the plane of Air (I would have thought water) but if they do the legwork elsewhere in the book I think it's valid. Like mechanics and thematics ought to reinforce each other and a book about the elements should suggest some ways to think about them that you might not have thought about.

Hshurha, the Evil elemental lord of air, is permanently invisible, and her lair is filled with invisible and illusionary walls, and it has a sphere of pure darkness. I think illusions are quite fitting for at least that kind of air.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CookieLord wrote:

What if dedicated got increased proficiency with impulses?

Giving up versatility for accuracy and higher DCs.

That seems like it would invert the problem lol.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Counter point, the abilities of the invisible stalker, melody on the wind, quatoid, and all of the genies are all along the same line. with the exception of the genies, these are all exclusively primal and elemental beings. I say these abilities have their place.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
Pronate11 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:


I will not operate under this assumption unless informed by a dev. As it's more an exception to the rule.

I will point out, medium armor is almost certainly less disrupted than using con for Ac, which is what you are suggesting. So, what should Paizo remove to add con for AC?

You lose Dex to ac. It's a swap. Not a combine.

I'm not against medium armor as an option btw. I just don't know where they'd pull from if they decided that was needed.

You realize that medium armor is also a swap, not a combine? you get the same AC as light armor, but you swap dex for str. and again, if they do decide that con to ac is what they need, where should they pull from? If medium armor is so costly, surely only needing dex for reflex saves, something only available to heavy armor would also have a similar cost.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:


I will not operate under this assumption unless informed by a dev. As it's more an exception to the rule.

I will point out, medium armor is almost certainly less disrupted than using con for Ac, which is what you are suggesting. So, what should Paizo remove to add con for AC?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
Pronate11 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:


Current issue at level 1 if you go strength you need to decide if you want absolutely terrible ac and likely die. Or tank your constitution and deny yourself use of half the classes potential abilities.

or the class can just get medium armor, and this issue is fixed. Con to damage could work in addition to str to damage if thats the classes only damage boost to normal blasts. otherwise it is probably too much
That sounds too much to me I'll admit. Medium armor is an option sure. I don't know where they'd pull from for that budget though.

Remember how in the errata that gave alchemists medium armor, they nerfed other aspects of the class to balance it. No wait, they just gave it medium armor becouse str alchemists where already much weaker than dex alchemists, and medium armor isn't really any stronger than light armor, and just enables you to use str instead of dex more easily.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
Pronate11 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Ryuujin-sama wrote:

In what way does adding Con to damage make Brutal useless? Brutal has absolutely zero to do with damage. Brutal lets you use Str for attack roll instead of Dex.

I also don't see how letting them use Con for AC improves build diversity. It would just mean everyone maxes Str and Con and ignores Dex entirely.

No they wouldn't. Because armor uses a Dex cap not a con cap. Con to armor would only support unarmored kineticists. And they'd still have less armor.

What does con to damage solve? At the moment I see it solving nothing.

it solves the fact the the kineticist probably doesn't deal enough damage.

I don't personally hold truck with that.

People want it to do more damage. But people want that with every play test. It's rarely actually needed.

I don't know, the last two times that was was a problem (inventor and psychic) both ended up dealing more damage. There might have been some complaints with thaumaturge, but damage definitely wasn't the main complaint (I distinctly remember some complaints that it dealt too much damage)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
Ryuujin-sama wrote:

In what way does adding Con to damage make Brutal useless? Brutal has absolutely zero to do with damage. Brutal lets you use Str for attack roll instead of Dex.

I also don't see how letting them use Con for AC improves build diversity. It would just mean everyone maxes Str and Con and ignores Dex entirely.

No they wouldn't. Because armor uses a Dex cap not a con cap. Con to armor would only support unarmored kineticists. And they'd still have less armor.

What does con to damage solve? At the moment I see it solving nothing.

it solves the fact the the kineticist probably doesn't deal enough damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:


Current issue at level 1 if you go strength you need to decide if you want absolutely terrible ac and likely die. Or tank your constitution and deny yourself use of half the classes potential abilities.

or the class can just get medium armor, and this issue is fixed. Con to damage could work in addition to str to damage if thats the classes only damage boost to normal blasts. otherwise it is probably too much


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:


Metal is an issue with all of it because it just doesn't make sense as its own element. Earth has some ways to combine, but the only real thing I can think of for metal would be Electric + Metal = Magnet. Which you could get just as well from Earth + Electric.

I feel like your confusion is coming from the perspective of the European elements, while for metal to make sense, you need to think of it from the perspective of the eastern elements. In Wuxing tradition, earth generates metal, and metal generates water, while fire weakens metal, and metal weakens wood. air is not a part of the Wuxing tradition, but is considered part of metal sometimes. It is also important that these 5 elements aren't necessarily based on the physical property's of the material, but on change. I would view the hybrids as how one element changes another, not necessarily how they evenly mix. So metal + earth could be poison or ore, while metal + water is ice or heavy water. fire + metal is probably molten or heated metal, and metal + wood could be splinters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Keraki wrote:

1st- Yes and no. Gols are meant to be thr bane of casters. All pure spellcasters hate them, exspecially whem they fail thier RK to find out the bypass element/spell. A Kineticist can also fight with elemental weapon feat (1st) can fight a golem. It lets you Strike with gathered energy and it isn't an impulse traited feat, so no spell invulnerability

2nd - Not an oversight IMO

so unless you took one specific feat, kineticists should just stand there and do nothing if fighting a golem? Spell casters can still cast buffs or control options that don't directly effect the golem, but kineticists might be able to do that for a round or two before they are useless. A spell caster can also just have different damage types, but direct gate and to a lesser extent dual gate kineticists are just screwed on that front. Imagine if all oozes had an ability that said " this creature is immune to all damage and abilities done by a rouge. That's really punishing, and in general bad game design.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

it's definitely not out of the question, at least not inherently. casters are only -1 on their spell attack rolls compared to non fighters. attacks and saves are just two sides of the same coin, and being good at both isn't inherently a problem. Assuming they sill use the same set up, with legendary class dc, the kineticists DC is going to be equal to its attack DC. Saves do do half damage on a successful save, but most of the kineticists saves are for big, overflow abilities, so that's probably fine. At absolute most, they might need some sort of singular expertise like ability to stop them from using their dc for other things, but I'm not sure that is needed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
tytalan wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Class DC in general has been over valued in budgets for a while.
This might be the class that gets the most mileage out of its class DC to date. Since even though a lot of your good AoE impulses are overflow, they're two actions so they're kind of spammable if they let you just stand there and throw boulders.
Not likely with the lower DC proficiency. With overflow being a action tax on two action abilities on top of not getting legendary DC proficiency. Plus all the AOE trigger AO. This aspect of the class need work which was why I made my suggestion but since pronate hates clerics he keeps yelling NO NO NO

A, I have made many suggestions on how to fix this issue. B, I am not the only one on here saying that this is a terrible idea. C, I don't "hate clerics" I play a cloistered cleric. But most people agree that war priest is terrible becouse they made its DC worse to make its attack better. Presumably they would make its attack better than a war priest, but still. You have made arguments on why the numbers are too low, but almost nothing on why we can't just increase the numbers. There is room in its power budget to fix these things. so why are you so dead set that the only way to fix these things is to separate the class? All in all, you seem really disingenuous, and unwilling to comment on my actual points.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Earth’s shield option is champion good and you are a class that doesn’t/shouldn’t end your turn adjunct to enemies.
Earth's Shield option seems good until you realize that every Kineticist should be using a regular shield for the +2 AC (you don't need a feat to do this) so the Earth Shield infusion just lets you use Shield Block without the feat and without costing money to buy more shields (just actions to gather more rocks).

+2 to fort saves is nothing so sneeze at. Plus, it maxes at 33 (6 +3*9) hardness, and sturdy shield maxes at 20. there might be a way to get an extra 13 hardness, but thats probably the max. and you can use it multiple times with only two actions, instead of needing to replace the shield. worse for many smaller attack, better for a few bigger ones


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kekkres wrote:
Pronate11 wrote:
tytalan wrote:

By the way pronate you can’t do both that the problem. If you go the strike route you con is at best secondary which give you a -3 to DC if you go the DC route your str/Dex is secondary and you take a similar hit to your strike.

Add to that unless you dual element your always taking a chance of not being able to damage your opponents. It’s the same as the Cleric if you try to do both you fail which is why two main class builds make sense just like the cleric

except you can do both. you literally can. You can start with 18 con and 16 str or dex, and boost all three and wis. there is literally nothing stopping you from doing both now. And depending on how the playtest goes, there can be even less stopping you during the final release. You can make to hit con based and literally remove most of these issues.
well you need dex regardless, since the class is locked to light armor, so str builds at least are super MAD

Yes, and that is a separate issue that this proposed fix won't actually fix. medium armor can probably fix inside the power budget. Medium armor doesn't actually seem to take up that much of the power budget once you get light. It's the same AC either way, it just enables different builds.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like that is very excessive. All it needs is to get expert attacks at lvl 5 and maybe some more damage and its fine on the attacking end. Saves are slightly harder, but master is arguably good enough, and even if playtest shows it isn't, there's probably class budget for legendary DC. I feel like a class split is way overkill, and will ruin many characters that want to do both.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
Pronate11 wrote:
Usually, different adventure paths aren't supposed to interact with each other that much, as they are lvls 1-20 adventures in there own right, but certain lvls 1-10 adventures and lvls 10-20 adventures are designed to work together to make one big lvl 1-20 adventure, like abolation vaults being designed to lead into fist of the ruby phoenix.

There's nothing other than convenient level ranges linking Abomination Vaults with Fists of the Ruby Phoenix. If you really want to take the heroes of the megadungeon to the other side of the planet for a martial arts tournament, you can, but there's 0 narrative or thematic links between them. It's as connected as Quest for the Frozen Flame or Outlaws of Alkenstar - which is to say, not at all.

In 2023, a second 11-20 AP is coming out, Stolen Fate, that seems like a little more of a traditional adventuring high-level campaign, and should weld on a little easier than FotRP (which I want to be clear, is a great AP, but works best with level 11 characters made for it).

Ah, sorry, I was just repeating what I have heard from this forum and other people. I have not actually played either AP. I was under the impression that they took place very close to each other. I guess I was wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
It sounds like metal is going to be its own element, just not in the playtest. I wonder what we call it (parallel to pyrokineticist, aerokineticist, geokineticist, etc.)
Probably metalkinesis. Or metallumkinesis if we continue with the [latin element]-kinesis nomenclature.

Ferrokinesis could also work, even if its not just ferrous metals.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:


That does seem to cover Inquisitors quite well.

Of course, neither of our ideas would really work if Paizo has no interest in converting the Shaman class.

they explicitly said they have no interest in converting the pf1 shaman as it was in pf1. they have said they may do something else with it. which seems to be the case with almost all pf1 classes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Unicore wrote:
I think I would prefer for the class not to interact with focus points at all, infusions just being feats that add actions to do stuff with your blasts and any focus point system being for something more like true focus spells for doing cool magical stuff beyond blasting. Or maybe being stances that give you a number of other things than more blasting, like defenses, movement options, buffing of allies in a small area, or debuffing enemies. Using focus points to "Amp" blasts feels like it would just end up way, way too close to the psychic.

Infusions really shouldn't cost feats or actions, but I feel like Paizo will add those costs regardless.

I agree that focus points should not interact with kineticist things.

without actions, focus, or feat cost, I feal like any infusions are either going to be way too weak for them to feal good, or have some really divisive cost like hp. something needs to give, and focus points, actions, and/or feats seem like the best compromise (although hopefully not all 3 at once)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Two unarmored solders, equally trained with their respective weapons, are in a duel and fire a single shot. One has a long bow, and the other has a flint lock. All else being equal, the archer is most likely going to win the match. Not only is the damage a arrow can cause roughly equal to that of a bullet, but the arrow is way more likely to need surgery to be removed and prevent infection. Guns do not deal more damage than other weapons, or at least not the guns we're getting. The advantage of guns is its ease of use and its penetrating abilities. Pointing a gun an pulling a trigger is way easier compared to the years of mussel memory and strength needed to shot a bow in combat, and aiming is still less important than with a crossbow. This is mostly shown with how most "common" guns being simple weapons, with marital guns mostly being on the mechanically complex side of things. The second advantage of guns is their ability to just go through things. Sure, when an arrow goes through most of the body, it's going to leave comparable collateral to a bullet, but if the bullet hits a vital organ, that's a much different story. A arrow to the head is bad, but not a absolute death sentence if you have a good helmet on. A bullet is almost certainty going to kill you if the brain in in its way. This is represented by the fatal trait, making crits way more damaging (and versatile to a small extent, to better pierce some armors). Guns deal the appropriate amount of damage, and their general design is about as accurate as we can get without bringing in touch AC to represent armor piercing. We can debate if guns are balance in a game sense, but from a historical perspective they're as far as they are going to get.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

almost all combat starts with someone taking an action or two before initiative is rolled. The fighter draws his weapon, moves to the door, and then finally opens the door. All three of those are actions. Should initiative start when the fighter used a action to draw his weapon? To sneak to the door? To open it? Enemies could have heard him the moment he did all those things, so why shouldn't each and every one trigger initiative? Combat doesn't start when someone takes the first action, because people are always taking actions, we just abstract them to exploration mode.

Plus, there is a very big difference between said fighter slowly opening said door for stealth, or him just kicking it open. The first is based on how stealthily you can open a door, and should be stealth. The second is based on how much time there is between you kicking the door (and immediately ending stealth) and the door actually breaking, with some shock and awe from the sudden loud noise as well. That right there can best be replicated as an athletics for initiative check, for if he can actually brake the door, and for how forcefully he can brake it to make an even louder, suddener noise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
For the Drifter, I have a different take on how the class should go. Grit, as a named mechanic and thematic element, implies pushing limits and taking risks. Contrasting the swashbuckler, I would see grit as a limited pool (perhaps even an always on state) that allows you to put extra risk on your abilities to push the limits. Taking Yojimbo and The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly as major inspirations, our protagonists are constantly gambling with their own lives and barely scraping by. I think it could be a really interest area of game design to explore.

Care to to expand on this part? How would they put themselves at higher risk, and what could be the potential reward?

No need to worry about it being a serious or balanced suggestion; I'm just curious as to what you mean.

Something simple like either critically succeeding or critically failing with no in between could work. probably as something you could turn on or off. Or maybe a mechanic where you can reroll a failed check, but if you fail again something bad happens.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Bast L. wrote:
It's weird how this thread devolved. I was hoping a Paizo person would come in and say something, "delayed until blah, it'll cover a lot of rules, including these contentious topics: blah, blah blah."

Unfortunately, I don't find it weird how this thread developed. I'm not part of the team that's preparing or working on errata (but can confirm it's in the works), and so I can't give any estimates about when it might be available... but the toxicity in this thread's a good example why a Paizo person wouldn't want to come in and say something.

Normally I wouldn't either, but seeing as how I've mostly withdrawn from posting on these boards lately (with the sole exception of answering on my "ask James" thread elsewhere in these forums) specifically BECAUSE of toxic reactions (both before and after I tried to weigh in on the thread to provide what I had hoped would be helpful advice or to manage expectations), I felt the need to step in here and point out this thread as a perfect example.

Remember, we at Paizo are people too, and we're having a tough time with everything going on in the world as well. We're fortunate enough to mostly be able to work from home (with the exceptions of some folks in the tech department and everyone on the warehouse team), but it's still the most stressful time a lot of us have had the misfortune to live through. It's certainly the most stressful time of my life, and so I can certainly understand the mental health reasons why someone would want to hang back from taking part in a thread like this, when no matter what we might say would potentially result in vitriol, anger, frustration, or accusations.

So in closing, and before I slink back to lurking on these forums again (and grit my teeth to anticipate internet anger in response), please try to be patient and kind with us and with each other.

I for one wish to apologies for my fellow forum goers and for any actions of my own that may have caused you grief. You made a wonderful system, and I'm so sorry your own forums have become such a cesspool. I hope you have a wonderful day and keep up the good work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
dirtypool wrote:


It has not yet been a year. Further I don't seem to recall a specific guarantee that rules clarifications would be released on semiannual basis. This seems to, again, be a complaint borne of Paizo having the temerity to not meet your personal expectations.

That's, that's how capitalism works. If it doesn't meet your personal expectations you don't buy it. A company that doesn't meet it's customers personal expectations goes out of business. If enough people don't buy new books because of a slow errata release and Paizo goes under, that's on Paizo. You can argue about whether or not there is enough people outside these forums with the same opinions to cause problems for Paizo, but people have the full right to express where that line is drawn for them. If it's a vocal minority, Paizo can ignore them and lose a little sales, but let Paizo make that choice. Paizo isn't obligated to do anything, but no one is obligated to keep them in business.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Could we compromise? How about the devs announce that errata will never come out. That way we'll all be pleasantly surprised when it does come out.

(joke)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Pronate11 wrote:
Now that's a straw man and you know it. The problem isn't "choice", it was the fact that if you make players chose between being effective in combat and being effective out of it, they're either going to chose combat effectiveness or regret it. People actually like having a eidolon that's a functioning marital, and if you give the ability to fully recreate that with your version, every other option becomes a trap option.

I don't think I fully agree with the "locked down" camp. Yes, if the only way for an Eidolon to contribute to combat is via smacking the bad guy around, then players are going to be forced to pick the feats that enhance that at the expense of any other option.

But what is that was not the only option?

Personally, I'd love to see the summoner have the ability to choose a few different roles. The starts of debuffer and buffer eidolons are there already, why not lean into that? Make it so the summoner, with the right feats and eidolon options selected, can back up the bard or rogue instead of just the champion.

I think if we see any deviation from the Martial Eidolon, it is going to almost have to be along the lines of a caster instead. And as everyone has pointed out, Summoners already have most of the proficiencies of a full caster. So...give them the ability to pick up the rest, as long as you simultaneously downgrade the Eidolon to AC level, like in the kits that Temperans is proposing.

All that said, it would have to be either/or. Trying to implement a system where you have the ability to split the difference is absolutely anathema to PF2, no argument there.

That's not the problem I was talking about. choosing HOW your eidolon is effective in combat is very valid. It's choosing IF your eidolon is effective that's a problem. also, I don't think a full caster with an AC is what many want. We already have the druid for that. Imagine if the witch just had the extra familiar abilities and nothing else. We would have to give the summoner something else so it's not just a sorc with a slightly better beast master dedication.

1 to 50 of 106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>