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.
Captain Morgan wrote:
but that would require that you invest a good amount in charisma, which many builds don't
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.
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.
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)
Not wanting to get involved doesn't mean they are good. Wood and metal could just be filled with neutral elemental lords
Propulsive is the only trait that you seem to be able to buy with extra gp. its worth about 16 gp
Captain Morgan wrote:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
it solves the fact the the kineticist probably doesn't deal enough damage.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
Ferrokinesis could also work, even if its not just ferrous metals.
David knott 242 wrote:
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.
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)
Remember, Guns did not over take swords and bows because they where more powerful, but because they where easier to use (and a few other reasons).
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.
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.
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.
James Jacobs wrote:
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.
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.
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.