Pronate11's page

Organized Play Member. 446 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 256 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think Rovagug isn't dying, because they have actually been dead for years. Only Asmodeus knows, and he keeps that secret locked up tight, for everything he's built crumbles when he loses that leverage. But Norgorber has a habit of finding everyone's secrets...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Evan Tarlton wrote:

Third: it's interesting that we technically didn't get a death with this one.

well, there is Ego death.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Fussings wrote:

"MORE" is not better.

creating and tying deities to each and every villages politics?
that would create chaos.

who trumps whom? who is the most powerful?
does okey'pokey village deity number 7,942 have the ability to grant spells outside of the village boundaries?

what about repeat gods of agriculture, civics, trade and martial defense?
which ones would matter and where? what about a god of nature? where does that faith have "boundaries"?

You need to do a lot more thinking. a lot more.

You do realize there are IRL religions based on this general concept right?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

If you take the first letters of each of the reviled gods in order not including pharasma as that placement was a birthday present, you get acue, or the American Committee on United Europe, an anti communist organization. What god is the most Anti communist? Thats right, Abadar. He will be killed by Lenin after he is summoned from earth.


16 people marked this as a favorite.
NottaChance wrote:
What in the world could've killed a god (gods???) that easily>?

The most powerful beast of them all, a Paizo writer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
I personally don't think it matters if Kineticists are comparable to martials against Bastions. What matters is whether Kineticists against Bastions is a better match up than Kineticists against Golems.

A bed of nails is much better than a bed of broken glass, but I would like to sleep on neither.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

The key for Kineticist though is that it is just resistance, not a special feature, so if the bastion has the corresponding elemental traits, they can now clearly extract element from the creature and then use all their abilities against it. They could not do this against any kind of Golems without a lot of GM arbitration. Additionally, all of their non damaging effects will work just fine against golems, which was not the case before.

Losing 1 additional damage type which just slows a creature is not a big deal compared to being able to clearly interact with the rest of your nondamaging impulses/aura effects and being able to extract element from bastions. A metal kineticist was nearly worthless against an Iron Golem. They will not be so against an Iron Bastion.

While the Metal kineticist will be fine and the fire kineticist was already fine, the wood, water, air, earth, and any other kineticists they may add latter are not fine. Better, but still very much not fine.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, there goes the theory that these were coming out in order of narrative impact. Glad to see that we will have no clue who's coming next


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, there is nothing in the rules for scrolls that say that they are made of paper, or even need to be read. As far as we know, they can just be ripped in half in order to be cast (and thats why they are one time use). If the actual act of reading was necessary to using a scroll, then using one would have the visual trait.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My question is how can they open their mouths enough to actually eat anything with those fangs? Can they unhinge their jaws like a snake?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
To be clear, as I recall the developers have been pretty explicit that yes, they dropped the drow because of the OGL issues. Their preference would have been to guide the drow into a position where they were functionally a Paizo original creation that shares its origins and name with the OGL drow but is otherwise entirely distinct. The reason why this didn't happen is that they were years from enacting these developments, and the OGL debacle presented some rather tight deadlines on that idea.

I know, but I just don't really believe in this justification that the designers gave. Or at least it wasn't just that.

But It's just my personal thought about this only.

But like, why would they lie? It clearly didn't go over with parts of the community well. It would have been substantially better to just silently not print any more drow content, or do what they did with slavery and say they are not interested in dealing with them. If they just wanted to get rid of them, this was the worst possible way for them to do it


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Calliope5431 wrote:
Besides, "create liquidity" and "summon collateral" aren't really spells.

based on how much hiring someone to cast a spell is, I think all spells create liquidity and can act as collateral


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sanwah68 wrote:
Will the playtest also have Starship combat? Or for that matter, will SF2 have starship combat?

I believe the Devs have said that starship combat will be in a latter book, as they aren't happy with it yet


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

The old dragons don't need to be remastered. Paizo could figure out how to do it, but it isn't a good use of their time because the old dragons are all still just as usable to the general public as ever. They don't even need good changed to holy like angels and demons need. They are less likely to show up in adventures, but that just means the new ones get a chance to shine. They don't even need to change any lore.

My bet is that if we see chromatics or metallics again, it will be an adventure as a stand alone creature. If a writer's vision just HAS to involve your classic black dragon, they can publish a unique but familiar looking stat block and call it a swamp dragon.

I mean, they don't have to remaster anything then. Everything you said could also be said about like kobolds or the monk. The chromatic and metallic dragons are iconic, which tends to lead to sales. I feel like remastering them would be enough to sell an entire book for many people. Plus, they can take this opportunity to make them even better and more interesting


1 person marked this as a favorite.
foxpwnsyou wrote:
Taja the Barbarian wrote:

Basically, it's because you could be taken down by a crit (therefore starting at Dying 2) and if your turn happens to be next, you could crit fail your check, drop to Dying 4 and die 'instantly' without anyone having a chance to save you, which would be a bit of a bummer...

The rule makes certain your companions should have an opportunity to save your life.

Despite whats said here I feel its a silly rule...MANY people do ignore it...you going down should not lol change initiative thats just silly...especially if it dum's down the difficulty, if you die you die in my book. Don't like these kinds of unrealistic rules and its really the only RAW rule ALL my tables ignore/in my area.

Is this really more silly than turn based combat in general, or hp? At high levels, you can not be killed with a knife to the throat from full hp, even when you are asleep. why are people waiting around so they can intimidate the boss right after they take their turn? Hell, why can you jump off of walls or run on water? are all of these things not substantially more silly and unrealistic than you always getting the same amount of time before you risk dying?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Pronate11 wrote:
Its enough for them to be making record profits. Argue about quality, but its clearly popular.

And you believe this is because of the change in presentation, rather than PF2e growing and making record sales before the change, strong book themes as well as shifting movements in the 5e community due to burnout and controversies?

I made no such claims. I am however claiming that people are still buying books, and in larger numbers than before


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:


I also wonder how many players are buying books these days with pathbuilder around. I know some folks like analogue, but they are getting fewer and fewer; collectors were buying everything anyway and can be discounted. I guess there is exploiting PFS players, but I know more than a few players who are annoyed at paying for a full book when only 1/4 to 1/3 is player facing.

Its enough for them to be making record profits. Argue about quality, but its clearly popular.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Jett wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:
Jacob Jett wrote:
Ah, but it did cost the player something. It cost them a choice.
No, it doesn't. It's not taking away from a Fighter feat or anything else. It's just a free thing built into the chassis.

It isn't free. It's part of the class design budget. Like you get this or you don't. But if you don't, are you much of a game designer?

Like this is design 101. Everything is part of the budget and thereby needs a, "why I am here and who am I for." Personally I either would have made parry my go-to here or wrapped Shield Block into the collection of feat choices.

Something can technically be part of the class budget, but such a negligible amount that you really shouldn't include it. Plus, there are other budgets other than class budgets, for example hand budgets. For a fighter, sword and board with shield block is about on par with any other fighter build. Without shield block, or if every fighter got a free general feat, I would say that they are probably worse than 2 handed or even free handed fighter. Shield block is necessary to keep build balance within the class. For other classes like casters, where what you fill your hands with is much less important, a shield without shield block is good enough to justify itself, so it isn't needed there.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Shield block isn't even the biggest offender on the "class features some fighters can't use", that's reactive strike on archers. Shield block is a general feat, it is not a huge increase in power, takes up basically none of the class budget, and makes life much easier for any shield users. While reactive strike is 6th level feat given at lvl 1, and is the fighters only real class feature at level 1 other than \expert attacks. It definitely takes a large amount of the class budget, but archers can't use it until level 8 with mobile shot stance (other than unarmed attacks which unless you spend a bunch of gold to upgrade them, will deal almost no damage). I'm not sure anything should actually change, it is still relatively minor, but I feel like a lower level feat to let them use reactive strike would be nice.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
exequiel759 wrote:
Easl wrote:
Second: in terms of game design, the devs probably can't be faulted for not knowing ahead of time which skill feats would be taken and used a lot and which wouldn't. In that respect, it makes sense to offer a wide variety of capabilities in these feats and let the chips fall where they may in terms of which ones players often choose and which ones never get chosen. If they had perfect foresight, this could be laid at their feet as an error. But they don't, so it shouldn't be.
I mean, if you print Battle Medicine and Eyes of Numbers in the same book I would expect that one of those is likely going to be more prevalent than the other.

yea, Eye for Numbers really needs a nerf.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluemagetim wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Bluemagetim wrote:
With Trip against huge creatures or bigger it really shouldn't work. They should put some amount of realism into the effect. If you want to trip a huge giant you need to work at it with either multiple rounds of working on those legs or multiple characters or by doing some kinda clever ATAT tether thing.
I disagree. Tripping a huge creature is no more ridiculous than inflicting meaningful damage with a short sword that would be too small for the monster to use as a tooth pick. Or even just punching it to death as a monk. If you can harm a creature in melee, I don't get why applying a little leverage to it is a bridge too far.

It is kinda much more ridiculous actually. Imagine a Corgi, tiny creature. Thats two size categories smaller than a human. Same difference between a human and the Corgi as a Human to a huge giant.

It is more ridiculous to get pulled to the ground by a Corgi than it would be to get bitten by one and end up bleeding. Enough bites without stopping this hypothetically vicious Corgi can bleed that human out. That is possible. The corgi actually overpowering the human/ leveraging weight and balance to bring that human to the ground is much more ridiculous than getting bitten to death by one. As strange as this example is in the first place it works lol.

I have been tripped by my cat far more times than it has killed me. I have been tripped by my shoe before. I don't think the shoe could kill me.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Just because you are having fun, does not mean that the game was perfectly designed, or that it could not do better. No one was arguing that the game was not fun for anyone, just that a hypothetical PF3 could be designed to be even more fun, or the same amount of fun but for more people. Should anything major change for PF2? probably not, but these are real flaws felt by real people, and they should not be ignored because the current rules are good enough. Good enough is the enemy of great. If it should be ignored, let it be ignored because it is worse than the current system in some way that makes it not worth changing, not because the current system works well enough for you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

Holding your breath for an entirely new half dozen pages exclusively devoted to the Kineticist in a new book is laughable to me, Paizo won't even put out more half-page Class Archetypes or three-paragraph Class Paths (think Thief Rogue, or Wild Order Druid) in new books. If something isn't a new Spell or a subcategory of a subcategory that fits neatly in a silo that can be poached via Multiclassing or is shared across multiple classes they usually don't touch it.

I mean, we just got the elemental instinct and eidolon, and were going to get a metal order druid until the remaster made it redundant, and RoE hugely expanded a class archetype (one that many classes can take yes, not even close to most of them). We don't get class specific stuff often, but not often is not never. I don't think Piazo will go out of their way to make more kineticist stuff, at least not any time soon, but I feel like new elements will probably come if an appropriate book comes along, as while they do take up a lot of space, they're probably better marketing than a lot of other uses for that space.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Honestly I'm not sure we would have had these core books either if they hadn't also decided to reorganize and redo the layout of three of the books. That seems to be what really drove making a new core set, not just the ORC compliance. If it had just been the ORC license, errata (and a new reprint) might have been enough for those books as well.

I feel like legal might have had a big say in it too. Its harder for WotC to claim any ownership when there's completely new books with new branding. If the legal threat grew any stronger, they might remaster all the remaining books with completely new names, but thats probably not necessary yet.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
3-Body Problem wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
What is interesting varies from individual to individual, objectively making it subjective.

What is specifically interesting to any given person is subjective however for a given intellectual capacity anything insufficiently complex will cease to be interesting. Look at the progression of complexity of children's toys or play behavior in animals and we can see that complexity scales with intellectual ability. There is a ceiling on this as any given intellect will also reach a point where something with too much complexity ceases to be interesting.

With that said, if we scale the intellectual capacity to infinity we should invariably see a correlated rise in the threshold of complexity required for something yo be regarded as interesting. Hence complexity = interesting.

So why is PF2 selling better then PF1 ever did? Why is 5e way more popular than 3.5? Why are PBTA games and their derivatives the hot thing in TTRPGs now? There are so many examples contrary to your point in TTRPGs alone, let alone video and other games, that clearly more complex games are not objectively more interesting, but subjectively more interesting.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
3-Body Problem wrote:
MEATSHED wrote:
I mean it was also just needing to rush out the class because the mechanic they were built around was removed.
Paizo needs to put a system in place to prevent this as it happened to both the Alchemist and the Witch and it's unacceptable for a company as balanced focused as Paizo to release stuff that is so far below par.

Unacceptable is a funny word for classes that are fine. Not good, not great, but both are fine. You can have fun playing both of them, and both can contribute to a party just fine. It's honestly impressive how these are the worst classes in the game. In most other systems, you would have much, much worse. No design team are perfect, some classes will be worse than others. Plus they already updated the witch and will update the alchemist to make them better, which is beyond what most other games would do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sandal Fury wrote:


I've experienced this firsthand; through some DM homebrew, my fighter unexpectedly learned a cool focus spell. However, unbeknownst to either of us at the time, it turns out it wasn't cool. It was bad. Since I had no way to improve my spellcasting proficiency, this spell ended up having an attack bonus 10 or 11 points behind just swinging a sword (which is to say, it was useless). I haven't used it since.

If the GM used Homebrew to give you a focus spell, they can use homebrew to make it better. That is not on the system, but the GM. As for official ways to get spells, architypes give you master, which is -6 for a fighter/gunslinger (not great, but depending on circumstances could be a good backup option) to -4 (a weak save or powerful effect can reasonably make up for that) with many levels before lvl 20 having a smaller gap. The problem would be innate offensive spells on classes without spell progression, which for the most part are just cantrips. In these situations, I will not say that their great, but as a hands free backup weapon its not bad. There are better ancestry feats, but there are also much, much worse.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel that in an idea PF3, all characters should have a good reason to take every attribute, but no character is required to take any attribute. I look at the current attribute system as such a waste of character building, where you have all these stat increases, but you need to spend 8 of them on you main stat to stay competitive, at least 5 of them between str and dex so your AC is good, and most if not all of the others on WIS/Con for your saves, hp, and perception, leaving very little actual character building potential left. Instead, the current stat set up leaves you way more room than the rest of the system to screw up your character. So many new characters, due to no fault of their own because this is never mentioned in the books, show up with a 14 in their key stat, or an ac of 14, and we need to "correct them" so they can actually hit something and don't get crit every round. And in reverse, the current attribute system gives you very little reason to take certain stats on certain characters. There is very little reason for a caster to take str, or a martial to take int, or someone not invested in cha skills to invest in cha. These dump stats also reduce "real" character building options, because you just write them off, and its as if they never existed if you know what your doing, but you have new players going "I think my fighter should be smart and charismatic" and then crit fails every fort save while only succeeding at like 2 recall knowledge's. In a game filled with real choices going out of its way to avoid ivory tower design, the attribute system feels like a step 15 years back.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Orikkro wrote:
exequiel759 wrote:

For those asking for the investigator to become a rogue racket; it's way too late at this point, Paizo isn't going to remove a class in the game lol.

What investigators need is not to be a poor man's rogue though, and their playstyle should be changed accordingly to achieve this goal. First, Pursue a Lead should become a one-action activity like Hunter's Prey, and second, Devise a Stratagem should always be a free action, without GM fiat. This change would allow investigators to be played more like a skill monkey rather than a martial, unlike rogues which are clearly more geared towards martial combat, having access to their +1 and eventually +2 from Pursue a Lead at all times. I wouldn't bother if it increased to +3 at some point even. Free DoS also makes low rolls feel less bad because you didn't waste an action with that and because it would push investigators towards using as many skill actions as they can on their turn. Let's say you free DS → move → Feint, Battle Medicine, Demoralize, Bon Mot, whatever. This would be fantastic if methodologies allowed you to use certain actions more than once per X like Demoralize or Battle Medicine, and also new feats that added new one-action skill activities for certain skills would be welcomed.

This also would be an errata-level change which is likely what Paizo is going to do with investigators (if at all) since they didn't say anything about wanting to overhaul the whole class like the alchemist or witch. I feel this would be simple, straightforward, and a huge improvement over what we already have.

All I am going to say is when Rogue dedicated multiclass Investigator functions and performs better then Investigator the class itself is irrelevant. Also Rogues still are better at skills. Just as many proficiency increases and not locked to charisma, wisdom, intelligence ones like the extra Investigator ones are (Also one of the reasons Rogue - Investigator Dedication is superior.)

So make the base class better, so that a rouge can't do a better job. There is a middle ground between "do nothing" and "delete the class"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorgo Primus wrote:
Extremely mirror error, but it annoys me. On page 79 of PC1 there is an image of a character labeled as Nephilim, which is true but seems like the wrong label was placed in error given that the entire section is on Nephilim and every other character there is labelled as the specific kind they are like Angelkin or the like.

Lineages are not mandatory. They may have wanted to show a lineageless "generic" Nephilim to show off a sort of baseline


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also we get categorizations wrong all the time. How many ways where there to classify elements before the periodic table? And how many elements did we find that turns out, are not elements? Golarion seems to be in a post Greek, pre modern chemistry era, where they have some classifications methods (tags) but don't know which of them are the actual building blocks of magic, and which are just descriptions of vaguely similar things. Presumably, people are still classifying things, theres just no consensus. Perhaps in starfinder, they figure it out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nelzy wrote:


So you can still use it to go talk to the guard captain disguised as an officer without any issue, you just cant walk around question everyone you meet in the street on the way there since that would slow you down to mutch.

Make an impression is an exploration activity, so you could not talk to the guard and have any real effect


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lucas Yew wrote:
Related: T.rex art with pronated wrists always make me cry...

Whats wrong with my wrists?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

You could also argue that their theories are not the source of their power, but something else. The Norse used to put bones into their iron to strengthen it with the spirits of the bones. Despite being wrong about the spirit thing, the bones did make the iron into a primitive form of steel, so despite being wrong about the cause they were right about the effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluemagetim wrote:
I kinda of dont like it when they go and make obviously better schools and leave the original ones as relics no one can really choose without being much worse. So if this is the level of power they want for wizard schools I would want that to remain consistent across new additions. If they make new content to make the power of wizards improve it should be in ways that improve all wizards.

I would much rather they focus on making it fun and balanced than making it compatible with content they can't sell any more.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Karmagator wrote:
Sorry, but pretty much anything is a better solution than messing with player level. That isn't a solution, that's creating a problem.

Oh, I'm sure that we could come up with something that's worse.

Admittedly, I'm having a hard time thinking of anything.

3.x-style multiclassing and ancestral hit dice, maybe?

In game microtransactions. To play a 4 armed character, you must pay your GM $5 per session, and Paizo $30 per campaign.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
Sanityfaerie wrote:
thistledown wrote:
That is an EXCELLENT description of what I preferred in PF1 over PF2.

Okay. Why? I mean, it's getting off the topic a bit, but why is "I've finished chargen and build planning and now I really don't have a lot of tactical decisions to make from here on out." a Cool Thing?

Sure, 3.x build planning was fun as a sort of solo game unto itself, but once you got the result to the table?

Personally it was sometimes nice to just know your character was all ready to go and that you could kind of chill whenever combat started because you already knew what you were going to do. It was especially helpful when I built spellcasters, which was most of the time, because having to juggle all my spells could be a pain sometimes, so already being aware of what I'd use and when took a lot of that mental bookkeeping off the table for me.

I mean, that kinda feels like it would be better if you just skipped combat, or used a simpler system.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
And here is the big one, The DM can modify non-combat situations as needed or wave them off if the player comes up with a better solution. You know what? The majority of players enjoy a DM that let's a creative player solution work in non-combat scenarios.
If I can just ignore the rules completely, why am I playing the game?

You can't ignore the combat rules. They work differently. That is why so much time is invested in ensuring they are balanced.

You absolutely can. You can ignore any rule. You shouldn't ignore some rules, but thats independent of if they are combat or not. Also, you are confusing out of combat being rules heavy for being balanced. You can have balanced rules light out of combat rules. You can have unbalanced rules heavy out of combat. You appear to not like rules heavy out of combat stuff, and thats ok, but that is not the same as unbalanced out of combat rules


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, this seems like it could go beyond ships and piloting. That just seems like how computers should work in combat. Like, imagen if in a large chunk of combats, there was one or more computers, each of which either controlled something on the battlefield (like turrets, doors, or poisonous gas) or something in the narrative (piloting the ship, setting off an alarm, finding critical information). Some actions could be done by anyone, others need rolls, some could be done by one side for free while needing a hack check for the other side. This just seems like a great general use mechanic for creating interesting tactical decisions.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like primal for the rhythm connection is really really weird. Almost none of the sound, music, or dance related spells are on the primal list, while I think all of them are on the occult list. The occult list can heal, so why can't we have occult mystics? The occult list is all about connections between people, just like the mystic, and has so much potential for things like entropy or aberrations. Primal works for some connections no doubt, but rhythm? Is rhythm supposed to be throwing out fireballs and turning into a bear, but not making people clap or dance? If you don't want the mystic to be an occult caster for whatever reason, at least make it divine. Music and rhythm seemed to be connected to the spiritual essence, and while that best fits the occult tradition, it does fit the divine tradition as well, and the divine tradition has way more thematic spells then the divine, although still not as many as occult.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
From wikipedia: " A skilled arbalestier (arbalester) could loose two bolts per minute". That's one bolt every 5 combat rounds. Reload 12? :-)
And they dealt a whole lot more damage, and ignored armor, and ignored tough hides.

An arbalest would not deal more damage than a halberd or great club, both of which also deal d10s. They do get to add str, but the arbalest gets backstaber, and the average str for a soldier is probably around +2.

It also would not ignore armor or thick hides, arbalests have been used sense the 12th century, and plate mail was invented in the 14th century. Getting hit with an arbalest while in armor would not be a good time, but nor was getting hit with a great club or halberd

Temperans wrote:

While 1800s muskets (period accurate for golarion) were 1/minute and were even stronger than crossbows.

But yeah that aint happening in PF2.

Yes, because due to differences in Golarions development, they favored paper cartridges, which are much weaker but fire much faster. For a cartridge based system, pathfinder has it fairly right.

I do hope we get muzzleloading guns in PF as a form of martial focus spell (can't be loaded in combat, but gives you one very powerful attack), but thats nether here nor there


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CyberMephit wrote:

The feat is good but the level is too high. Could have easily been a 6 or a 8.

Also the wording... I get the desire to convey academic writing but I shudder to think how many players will stop reading right after the words "force damage". Why not just say it deals damage of the same type as the spell?

The idea of in-world magic schools is great, but the limitation of one specific bonus spell per level is not. There should have been two-three per level to choose from, with feats to get more.

Based on the prerelease doc, theres at least 2 spells per rank, and apparently theres going to be more than that in the final release.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
3-Body Problem wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Dragonhearth, respectfully, you may need to calibrate your expectations around how a publishing business operates. They don't do a "recall" of an extremely successful class because of a few typos or confusing feats. They also can't continue making edits until the street date, print the books overnight, and instantly transport them to every store which will have it on the shelves. That just isn't how printed media works.
To be fair, Paizo has below-average editing and layouts compared to much of its competition. It is conceivable that WotC might recall a book if it had as many outright errors as some Paizo releases have.

What Dnd books are you looking at? almost all of their adventures have glaring problems, and spelljammer's ship systems just didn't work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Super Zero wrote:

But my question is, what does that even mean?

How do you "remove" a big chunk from a book that's already been published?

Scissors


6 people marked this as a favorite.
3-Body Problem wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
So, you want to play a caster who is as effective as a Fighter using their favorite weapon but who also benefit from variety in their casting ?
No. I want Paizo to go back to making each caster have their own distinct list of spells because traditions are a mess. Then we could have a caster that gets limited to no utility in exchange for blasting spells and other interesting class features that enable the desired gameplay. Killing bespoke per-class spell lists was a mistake and it makes good game design harder than it needs to be.

So a kineticists? and you want to remove how other spell casters work because otherwise a kineticist isn't a caster? am I getting that right?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
3-Body Problem wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:

[C]haining low difficulty fights is a very bad idea as it will drain casters without giving any form of challenge.

Casters use spells. It's what their meant to do.

Doesn't this strike you as needlessly bad design when it comes to caster endurance? Why should casters, and only casters, suffer from getting weaker as the day runs on?

different classes can have different playstyles. It's like asking why ranged characters, and only ranged characters, need to deal with cover. Cover is part of what makes ranged combat different from melee combat. also, there are a lot of 1/day abilities like battle medicine, so its not even completely unique to casters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:

I recognize that many people won't find this answer satisfying, but you really don't need Sentinel/Champion for this.

You get a general feat at level 3. Spend that on armor proficiency. You'll want dex of at least +1 anyway. Get your dex up to +2 at 5 and +3 at 10, at which point you don't need medium armor anymore and can retrain your level 3 general feat to something else. You don't get light armor expertise until 13 anyway, so the lack of scaling simply never comes up.

If level 3 is too late for you, you can roll a Versatile Heritage human (not a human with a versatile heritage, but a human with the speceific heritage "Versatile Heritage") and get it at level 1, or briefly take sentinel at level 2 before retraining back out of it at level 3.

Imagine if this is how the barbarian worked. It also has thematic reasons to be lightly or unarmored. But as barbarians are str based, every player

would needed to either pump a secondary stat as high as they possibly could at level 1, or take a 3rd level general feat, still boost that secondary stat to the same levels just later, and then retrain out of that feat later. Is any new player going to pick that up? That player wants to utilize the class feats that work with charisma, like raging intimidation? well better go on this path of specific feats you need to train out of latter so your not stuck with a 12 in cha and con at level 1. No one would be happy with that. Sure, you can deal with it, but you also don't need to deal with it if the barbarian is proficient in medium armor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
aobst128 wrote:
I think the items of legends become a little less legendary since you'll be swapping them out as you level up. Mainly relevant for worn icons like shoes. Your sandals hold your godliness and are quite potent. Until these fancy new boots of bounding come around lol.

King Arthur had like 4 different swords throughout his career. Swapping is a thing that happens in mythology. However, there should be a feat to give one of your allies a hand me down Ikon, still infused with a bit of your divine spark, like how Arthurs other swords ended up with other heroes.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Show someone a old Norse warrior. They will see a old Norse warrior.
Show someone a old Norse Warrior with a hammer. They will see Thor

Show someone an ancient Greek warrior. They will see a ancient Greek warrior.
Show someone an ancient Greek warrior with a bronzes shield, winged saddles, and the head of a gorgon in a sack, they will see Perseus.
Show someone an ancient Greek warrior with a breast plate of a lion, and they will see Heracles.

Show someone a English knight with blond hair, they will see a English knight with blond hair.
Show someone a English knight with blond hair and a very fancy sword, they will see King Arthur.

For many people of legend, there equipment is what turns them from people to legends in the public consciousness.

The thing is, there are exceptions. Sun WoKong's staff is like the 5th most important part of his iconography. Beowulf lacks anything consistent, and most heros here except Perseus have like one thing thats vital to their iconography, not 3. The question, is how much can we cater to the exceptions without destroying the very cool mechanical aspects of the class?

1 to 50 of 256 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>