Anthropomorphized Rabbit

QuidEst's page

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber. 5,327 posts (5,512 including aliases). 16 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 10 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,327 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Kineticist. Give me that all-day blasting utility class! Looking forward to a dedicated telekinetic character in the new system.

Summoner. I really want a class that pours as much feature as possible into a customizable pet. PF1's unchained Summoner had such great flavor; I'd love to see more of that. Only now, the base Summoner won't be stuck with a sad 2+Int skills and can be more of their own person.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'll be making a minor change, not to move Take 10 over, but to replace what my players found used it for: avoiding incompetence.

If characters are out of combat/danger, for any skill check other than disabling a device, they can choose to do it carefully and treat nat 1 and nat 20 as normal numbers.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:
Powerful Alchemy/Powerful Poisons still being a thing is disappointing. Why are Alchemists the only class that has to spend a feat to use their Class DC for their primary class feature? :/

If I had to guess, it’s offsetting being the equivalent of a “caster” that can spend all their “slots” on top-level “spells”. In exchange for being able to get everything at max level, the lower level stuff doesn’t scale for free to cut the versatility back down a bit. It still strikes me as odd.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I was tempted to call it Conditional Logic, but that would have gotten Mark’s hopes up.

I’m happy to see Dazzled doing something useful and intuitive, where in PF1 it wasn’t useful enough to justify spending an action on inflicting. Dazed and Stunned getting cleaned up is great. Ability damage was such a drag, given how unintuitive it was. (Even printed rules handled it wrong, like the construct Oracle curse effectively having no drawback.) Doomed being scary without shutting your character down is a nice improvement on negative levels- and without all the bookkeeping. And wow, fear needed improving- having to print “this doesn’t stack” on every fear effect and making one Rogue archetype some of the game’s best battlefield control was very clunky.

I’m hoping Sickened and Frightened stay more distinct than Sickened and Shaken were in PF1.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm curious about how the different categories of conditions work out. I'll be noting if a condition is new, old, or has an equivalent.

Not for PCs:
Broken (Old)
Helpful (Old)
Friendly (Old)
Indifferent (Old)
Unfriendly (Old)
Hostile (Old)

Senses:
Blinded (Old)
Dazzled (Old)
Deafened (Old)

Visibility:
Concealed (Old)
Hidden (Old)
Invisible (Old)
Observed (Old)
Undetected (Old)

Ability Scores:
Clumsy (Equivalent- Dex penalty/damage/drain)
Drained (Equivalent- Con penalty/damage/drain)
Enfeebled (Equivalent- Str penalty/damage/drain)
Stupefied (Equivalent- Cha/Wis/Int penalty/damage/drain)

Mental:
Confused (Old)
Controlled (Old- wasn't a condition)
Fascinated (Old)
Fleeing (Equivalent- Panicked)
Frightened (Equivalent- Shaken)
Stunned (Old)

Martial Combat:
Grabbed (Equivalent- Grappled)
Restrained (Equivalent- Pinned)
Flat-Footed (Old)
Prone (Old)

Dying Rules:
Doomed (New- same design space as negative levels)
Dying (Old)
Unconscious (Old)
Wounded (New)

Movement/Carrying:
Encumbered (Old)
Immobilized (Equivalent- Entangled)
Paralyzed (Old)

Other:
Fatigued (Old)
Persistent Damage (Equivalent- Bleed)
Petrified (Old)
Quickened (Equivalent- "effects that grant an extra attack", wasn't a condition)
Sickened (Old)
Slowed (Equivalent- Staggered)

So, of the conditions, we only have two that could really be considered new- both for the new dying rules, and one of which also replaces negative levels in terms of its design space.

Meanwhile, we've cleaned up dazed, negative levels, ability penalty/drain, panicked, cowering, and disabled from the old dying rules.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

If you look at creatures iconic for spell resistance, like rakshasas, they often have a conditional bonus on saves vs. magic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
ChibiNyan wrote:
Think E7 may be more likely than E6 if only to unlock Master proficiency as the capstone.

If you do that, it does a great job taking advantage of the feats-only leveling that E7 would have- the next feat granted can be a skill feat to take advantage of the new skill mastery. (Rogue has already gotten it a level early, of course.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
PFSocietyInitiate wrote:
I would like Dhampir to be a heritage that you can add to any ancestry.
I thought Dhampirs were vampire-human crossbreeds by definition. Did some splatbook introduce vampire-elf, vampire-dwarf, etc Dhampirs?

I’d be surprised if they stuck with that limitation in PF2, given elves and dwarves can be vampires.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Some Kind of Chymist wrote:
Do we know any arcane theses other than spell substitution?

There’s a familiar one. Whether that gives anything other than a familiar, we don’t know.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
There's an inevitable character in Death's Heretic if I'm remembering correctly.
I believe the character in question was an Aeon (of the 'must destroy true immortals' sort), actually. I'd have to look it up to be sure, but I don't even think there is an Inevitable for that.

Nah. Aeons were incomprehensible and very, very alien in that series.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So, just a couple thoughts:
- Con's hp benefit is only half as strong in PF2 than in PF1. If Kineticist remains a "d8" class, then they'd need 14 Con to catch up to a 10 Con Fighter in hp/level (instead of 12 Con in PF1), and 18 Con to catch up to a 10 Con Barbarian in hp/level (instead of 14 Con in PF1). It's not as big of a deal to have them using it for something else besides hp and saves.
- As has been mentioned, the game no longer needs to make up for a poor BAB.

Between Con focus not needing as much of a counterbalancing factor and there no longer being a need to compensate for 3/4 BAB, Elemental Overflow seems really likely to get the axe.

Without Elemental Overflow, that frees burn up to be a much more optional mechanic, with no ways to use it to boost accuracy.

Given the move we've seen away from passive bonuses, I'd expect Elemental Defenses to maybe be a reaction, but Barbarian's defensive bonuses are passives, so I could be wrong.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

From what we’ve seen, I suspect E6 games (cap at sixth level with some fat progression after) will be popular for lower fantasy games. The only class to get Master in anything at all is Fighter, making them truly exemplary warriors, and skills are (generally) in the realm of the humanly possible.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
First World Bard wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:


Not only is that not exploitative, I think it's probably pretty sub-optimal use of a stat item. You're going to be stuck with that 8 until you get the item, which shouldn't happen until around level 14. And I think if you boost that stat after you get the item, it doesn't improve over 18, the base just goes to 10 while the item still increases it to 18. So overall, if you need that stat to be good, you're going to be going most of your adventuring life hampered. And if you didn't need it to be high, the 18 isn't going to have the biggest effect either. And because of the Potent trait, it prevents you from using an item to get +2 to the stat that is most important to you.
Do we know/suspect that the Potent items are staying at level 14? I have no feeling one way or other. When the time comes, I imagine I'll be torn between raising my gnome Animal Order Druid's Strength from 8 to 18, or boosting his Wisdom, and I think at the moment I'd be leaning towards the Strength.

We suspect. I mean, if they move them earlier, then they're not going to keep the ability to bump a stat up to 18.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Arcaian wrote:
Before I get into the various comments on mesmerists, I just feel like I'm missing something here. Psychics have never been my favourite class in PF1, but does the psychic list from PF1 really have enough in common with the arcane list to do this? They seemed like they were one of the more mentally focused casters in PF1, seems odd to give them Material casting to me.
In PF1 the Psychic list is...odd. It's very Mental focused, yes, with all the stuff that implies, but has no healing and a lot of Force effects and telekinetic stuff as well. It's not a good direct translation for any PF2 list, but I think Occult and Arcane are about on par in terms of representing it.

Solidly Occult, I'd say. Arcane has elemental blasting, which feels way off for Psychic, vs. a healing spell that boosts mental defenses. Occult is actually where force effects generally go.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Kineticists have a couple things going for them that Sorcerers and Evokers don’t.
- More damage/range/shapes. By focusing exclusively on their at-will blast, rather than having it as a fallback option, they get things like at-will AoE or range comparable to what archers get.
- Thematic utility abilities. A fire Sorcerer can sling fire, but not manipulate it- certainly not as an at-will ability.
- Aether. I want to magical railgun boulders at people and have meaningful telekinesis before, what, ninth level? I want to take a sail and make a giant bedsheet ghost.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Just a mention- Kineticist does have mythic support now! It's pretty strong.

I'm also a big fan of Kineticist, but I agree with different people that burn was a cool mechanic and did a lot for the flavor of Kineticist. I'd be happy to see something like focus casting, with the option to spend burn on Kineticist focus abilities once you're out of focus. It'd be much more friendly towards no-burn players than PF1's version, while still keeping that cast-from-hitpoints feel.

I'd personally be sad to see Kineticist lose one of the parts that made it feel like Kineticist, but I could always work on houserules to add it in again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I’d be okay seeing a Mesmerist archetype, but Id also be happy with the class. If it were an archetype, I imagine it’d replace inspire courage with a stare cantrip, change the casting components, give a specific muse, and grant a focus spell implant trick as the dedication feat.

But, looking at all that, it seems like it could just as easily be a separate class. Where Bard focuses on performances and skills, Mesmerist could be more of a caster augmented by focus spells- implant trick and touch treatment seem like good candidates for that. Painful Stare as a reaction makes plenty of sense, too.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The dying rules make it hard to kill something off from “conscious” to “dead” accidentally without time to stabilize them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Oracle was, by the d20pfsrd survey, the 12th most popular class, beating Druid. I think being more popular than a core class should be enough to get a spot at the table.

Personally, I like the idea of Oracle as a dual-path class, where you’re picking both a curse and a mystery. To make mysteries distinct from bloodlines, it’s as simple as not having them give focus powers, but other abilities instead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Lanathar wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Lanathar wrote:

Is there any insight somewhere about popularity of classes?

For example I know it was discussed when they were picking the 12th and I recall alchemist, oracle and witch being up there as the choice due to popularity. And that alchemist may have not even been the most popular but was picked because making alchemy rules part of the core made sense

I also wonder whether the top 11 most played classes are the core rulebook ones? Or whether some are overtaken by APG ones

I think the stats used for the point on alchemists and oracles were from PFS ?

Alchemist beat out at least one core class.

That is interesting. It implied cleric was the most popular which is surprising but I perhaps in PFS lots of people play one as they know it will be well received at any table

I am really fascinated which class(es) from Core the alchemist beat

Druid. In the d20pfsrd survey, Druid was the only core class to lose out to anything outside core- Alchemist, Oracle, and Magus.

(I would strongly assume that anything which beat a core class will be represented as a full class.)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Lanathar wrote:

Is there any insight somewhere about popularity of classes?

For example I know it was discussed when they were picking the 12th and I recall alchemist, oracle and witch being up there as the choice due to popularity. And that alchemist may have not even been the most popular but was picked because making alchemy rules part of the core made sense

I also wonder whether the top 11 most played classes are the core rulebook ones? Or whether some are overtaken by APG ones

I think the stats used for the point on alchemists and oracles were from PFS ?

Alchemist beat out at least one core class.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

With the content coming out later, I'll be switching to PDF for these.

Thanks!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think people valued the player experience feel over the internal game logistics on this one.

Internal to the game, it’s cool and fitting if master swordsmiths are making more accurate weapons with advanced forging techniques, no magic involved. But, that’s more of an NPC/world focus.

For player experience, though, it’s expected that weapons have their accuracy bonus listed, and it’s also expected that any “+X” item is magical. Enough people- both old and new players- felt that way that it was worth prioritizing that fantasy experience over nicer world stuff.

Personally, I think I’ll have both. Most weapon smiths pick up that little bit of magic because it’s so much easier to magically nudge an arrow in the right direction than to craft a truly flawless bow. Let alone trying to dramatically improve the accuracy of blunt instruments like clubs and war hammers! But some of the longer-lived or especially dedicated smiths do craft exceptionally fine weapons that achieve the same results without magic, mostly used by nobles for their reliability even when magic fails.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:

On face value this seems like a cool neat option but I have to agree with those folks here (You know who you are) saying that this is essentially just going to result in nearly ALL non MAD Characters choosing to do this by dumping their Charisma score resulting in half of all PCs starting with 20 in thier primary stat and unless I'm seriously misunderstanding or missing out on a rule that states you cant apply the floating Boost to a stat with 18 in int... I don't see this as a good thing at all.

Did I skim too hard and miss something here or are all Wizards going to start with 20 INT and Barbarians 20 STR now because that's how this tracks to me.

You skimmed too hard. You can’t use this to add on to an existing ancestry bonus. 18 is still the cap.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It’s an advanced screen- 20% taller so it can be placed farther forward without players being able to see over it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
First World Bard wrote:
QuidEst wrote:

Normally, perks to dump stats bugs me, but letting you get an eighteen in something your ancestry penalizes is well worth it. Dwarf sorcerers!

I'll still be annoyed with human wizards tanking strength and charisma to get ancestry boosts in dexterity, constitution, and intelligence.

Well, Dex is less important for Wizards now, since it no longer adds to Initiative (unless you have a Stealth Wizard) or spell attacks (which now go off of Int). Though I guess a Wizard could go Con, Int, Wis and you'd still have your issue with it. :)

Edit: and sure, Dex still gives you AC and Reflex saves, so it's still good for the wizard. Just not *as* good.
If you wanted Int, Dex, Wis, a halfling could have done it with just -2 Str, and Int, Con, Wis, a dwarf could have done it with just -2 Cha. The point of this rule is to give you a little more flexibility on what ancestry you pick for each class and allow you to break stereotypes for your ancestry a bit more, without really increasing the power level of the strongest ancestry for your class. You never really wind up with stats that another ancestry couldn't have managed without taking the flaws, assuming an ancestry existed covering two of the stats you wanted without a flaw in the third.

That’s a great point, thank you! My biases were set by PF1, where people willing to dump Cha or Str down to 5 just had better characters, but PF2 has a more equitable base to work from.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
An all Champion of Good party seems easier to justify forming a party than the average group or murder hobos.

I wasn't assuming an all good party though. When he was talking about "different flavors of Champion, you could have an entire party of them, each with their own reaction to punish enemies for attacking the rest of the party" I assumed that meant different ones, either for differing alignments and/or deity specific ones, as I normally think of a party as 4+ and there's only 3 types of paladin right? Heck, even good paladins worshiping different gods might be at odds.

QuidEst wrote:
In core, you could do a three-person party where all three are champions of Shelyn.
I wasn't thinking 3 man party or same god.

We’ve only got three flavors for now, so there’d be some doubling up for 4+. I dunno if neutral and evil will retaliate on behalf of allies, so it might end up being good-only in the end anyway.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Dragorine wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
How does the order of the boosts change that? It still makes ir so that you could only have an 18 in your key score and no other stat at 1st level, right?
The order shouldn't matter. Adding +2 to main stat 2nd or 4th still gives you the same bonus. Being able to take the 2 flaws to raise str to 18 for the wild druid was what I was referencing.

This doesn’t do that. This happens in ancestry phase, and you can’t apply the boost to something that’s already +2 from ancestry. The Druid boost is still +2 Wis. That leaves background and first level booosts, for a max of 16 Str. This does allow a gnome Druid to get a 16 when before, 14 was the max.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
An all Champion of Good party seems easier to justify forming a party than the average group or murder hobos. Good is more important than law vs chaos, so the champions should have more in common than they do setting them apart.

Once we get others, a lawful party trying to maintain order or keep a civilization running, or a chaotic part of revolutionaries would both let you do some vertical alignment stripe Champion parties pretty reasonably.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
I’m just thinking that with different flavors of Champion, you could have an entire party of them, each with their own reaction to punish enemies for attacking the rest of the party.
Now you just have to find a reason all those flavors would be in the same room with each other. ;)

In core, you could do a three-person party where all three are champions of Shelyn.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I’m just thinking that with different flavors of Champion, you could have an entire party of them, each with their own reaction to punish enemies for attacking the rest of the party.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
First World Bard wrote:
QuidEst wrote:

Normally, perks to dump stats bugs me, but letting you get an eighteen in something your ancestry penalizes is well worth it. Dwarf sorcerers!

I'll still be annoyed with human wizards tanking strength and charisma to get ancestry boosts in dexterity, constitution, and intelligence.

Well, Dex is less important for Wizards now, since it no longer adds to Initiative (unless you have a Stealth Wizard) or spell attacks (which now go off of Int). Though I guess a Wizard could go Con, Int, Wis and you'd still have your issue with it. :)

Yep! But that's a really easy house rule, and very easy to look past when I'm not GMing. The quality of game improvements for not "locking" an ancestry out of some classes because of their penalty is amazing!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Normally, perks to dump stats bugs me, but letting you get an eighteen in something your ancestry penalizes is well worth it. Dwarf sorcerers!

I'll still be annoyed with human wizards tanking strength and charisma to get ancestry boosts in dexterity, constitution, and intelligence.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah. Bards make no sense as arcane, which comes across as very technical/academic. You learn to play notes just right and the end result is supposed to be the same category of magic as dragons and studied wizards? But, if it's instead about what music does, about finding the hidden otherworldly notes that take it from "makes someone dance" to "makes someone dance", that actually makes some more sense.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm looking forward to the second adventure path. Everyone starting as members of a circus is right up my group's alley. And a murder mystery to boot?


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

- Keep in mind, slow selection time wasn't the only problem. That feeling of wanting to grab three first-level heightenable spells is the other part of the problem. People wouldn't feel free to select things like Unseen Servant (which may not impact your enjoyment, but it does impact others').

- New players' experiences are also valid to improve. I know I gave new players Sorcerer and Oracle over Wizard and Cleric in PF1. And certainly, experienced players can help out, but striking a balance there is good.

- Sure, this might not be balanced on its own. Feedback on Sorcerer was that it was fun but weaker. Signature spells are only one of the changes. Their focus spells were buffed, they've got options to recover more focus than other classes, and they now get a bonus rider on their bloodline and focus spells.

Anyway, I know "just houserule it" is not a useful response, but a rule that partially exists for reasons that you don't feel apply to your group is really some of the best stuff to houserule.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I mean… the biggest reason is that they're making Pathfinder. If it didn't feel at all like Pathfinder, they'd lose their advantage of ten years of making PF1. Also, they all like Pathfinder.

There've been bits and pieces all over the place. I'm not gonna search back through the podcasts, but I know that the Arcane Mark stream said that Mark played around with a different number of stats on a "propose something really out there that we probably won't use" assignment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Using a shield lets you spend an action to increase AC. That pretty much rules out a pure dodge action being freely baked into the game- why use a shield (requiring an item and using one of your arms) when you can just dodge without those limitations?

Like you said, what if you don't have a shield or the right kind of weapon? Well, you came unprepared to the fight, and you'll either need to find something else to put between you and the enemy (take cover) or have a feat or feature that lets you dodge more than your Dex bonus is already doing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I would presume hag would be the new occult bloodline. Mental spells, illussions, and curses sounds up their alley.

Primal could use another bloodline, and I'm presuming that it'll be elemental if they can fit so many core bloodlines in. It'd fulfill the nature-based blaster role nicely, and cover a lot of concepts.

For the future… I can't wait to get another shot at a rakshasa bloodline. The old bloodline just had powers that were spells you could take anyway, and the new setup makes that much less likely. Obviously, an arcane bloodline like rakshasas themselves.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
thflame wrote:

Except that the sorcerer is picking ONE spell whenever they cast, as opposed to ALL of their spells at once. By all logic, if sorcerers are going to slow down the game significantly with analysis paralysis when it comes to casting their spells, then wizards should need to prepare their lists between sessions, for fear that the entire session will be spent waiting for the wizard to pick all of his spells.

Again, 99% of the time, casters have a pretty good idea of what needs to happen. A sorcerer isn't going to be choosing between ALL of his spells at ALL possible spell levels, because MOST of his spells are not going to be applicable to the given situation. Most of his spell LEVELS won't even be appropriate. At most, they will likely have 2-3 spells that are currently viable at 2-3 spell levels, with the optimal choice likely being entirely irrelevant.

You can make that argument, but it's not what they found to be the case. They weren't expecting it to be a problem either, but it was. I'll take "we ran this exact setup for people and found it was surprisingly less fun" over a theoretical argument.

I mean, freeform heightening certainly sounds better! I imagine their design goal after those findings was getting as close to freeform heightening as they could without the fun-dampening side-effects.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Midnight Anarch wrote:
Why the heck would a party of do-good heroes care about a group of missing goblins at an abandoned Hellknight Keep?

I mean… the "do-good" and "heroes" parts stand out to me. Someone comes asking for help without other options to turn to- seems like a fair hook for a heroic party.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Well to be fair we got a lot from Paizo Con, and it seems like Jason has been traveling ever since. The con schedule really seems to be dictating what we hear and when. Which is a bummer but I guess that's the business.

It’s also how we got familiars, an ancestry, and large chunks of several classes through video screenshots, so I’ll take the bad with the good!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
To be fair, the alternative - Wizards having to learn spells individually - is only a very minor inconvenience for the Wizard.
Yeah, but the alternative of letting a sorcerer heighten a spell without learning it five times would be nice.

They gave “heighten anything” a try. It wasn’t a good experience for a couple reasons. It pressured people into taking scaling spells over other ones. It also appreciably increased the time spontaneous casters took in combat vs. prepared casters. If I just take scaling spells on my Sorc, then by the time I hit third-level, I’m looking at nine or more options for my top level slots and for at least six of those, I’m then going to weigh if I can get away with just a second-level slot. I can already see the optimization guides dinging any spell without scaling for Sorc guides and bloodline strength being ranked heavily on its selection of scaling spells.

And, if you want that, that’s a really obvious house rule! You’re probably an experienced player and won’t have much trouble. But it’s not a great state for design or for intermediate player experience.

So, instead, give spontaneous casters enough to take advantage of spontaneous casting (always dispel efficiently, get the Fly line on a low-level slot) without encouraging clutter. And, if you don’t have enough scaling and need to learn Invisibility 2 separately from Invisibility 4 or move your Summon spells up, that’s no different than before.


16 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Helmic wrote:

I'm still a bit confused to the logic behind Sneak Attack. Like, let's assume that +d4 is good at level 4 and +d6 is good at level 6 (and it needed the boost to a d6 at level six to keep being good).

Why does this not scale at all past level 6?

Nearly everything else involving damage scales in the game, especially since you don't really attack more times as you level and HP is quite a bit higher. Even if a conditional +d6 is worth considering as a feat at level 6, how is it going to be relevant at level 14, or 20? If it needed to scale up at level 6, why couldn't it continue to scale up to keep it just as useful once you've got magical weapons involved? If having any +damage passive at all was too much of an issue if it's not built into the class, why those numbers? Would increasing it to 2d6 at 12th and 3d6 at 18th really have been too much given the inflation in damage and health by that point? 2d4 and 3d4?

I can see a couple things. You're getting a +damage passive not built into the class as a feat. Feats don't normally hand out +damage. Whatever your class was doing was a reasonably balanced point to start with, and this is adding +1d6 on top of that.

Consider what damage actually scales. You might be thinking of Power Attack. Well, Power Attack scales because it doesn't just cost a feat, it costs a feat and an extra action. Its scaling is because of the increasing value of that extra action, not because of the feat. Or, you might be thinking about Sneak Attack on Rogue. That's scaling to provide additional features and give Rogue its baseline power. Your sixth level feat provides a sixth level benefit- +1d6 damage on any attacks you make that qualify, and +2d6 on any qualifying crits.

There's another way to look at it, too. The class that most wants this is Monk, since they make the most agile/finesse attacks with the best agile/finesse weapons. If you scaled the sneak damage to Rogue's +3d6, they would be better than a Rogue at the Rogue's job. But what about Rogue being able to take Flurry of Blows for themselves? They can, but they don't get Monk's legendary unarmed proficiency, nor do they get the high-level improvements to unarmed strikes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kyrone wrote:
Ngodrup wrote:
I'm a bit confused about how (we're predicting) signature spells work. Is it that, for every spell level you have access to, out of the spells you know, you choose one to be able to heighten, and can cast that one in any (equal or higher) spell slot, getting the appropriately heightened effect?

Think of a lvl 8 Bard:

Lvl 1 Spells: 3 Spells know, one of them is a signature spell
Lvl 2 Spells: 3 Spells know, one of them is a signature spell
Lvl 3 Spells: 3 Spells know, one of them is a signature spell
Lvl 4 Spells: 3 Spells know, dont have signature spell because they don't have acess to a higher spell slot yet.

My prediction is that you will also be able to undercast signature spells so that your low-level slots have options. So if you needed your level two slot for Dispel Magic, your level four signature spell could be Invisibility, allowing you to use the lower slot to cast the breaks-on-attack version when you don’t need the combat version.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Assuming you can undercast signature spells and they work as predicted:

Level 1-2: no difference.
Level 3-4: old system is better. You get the same number of heightenable spells, can use the lower spell known slot for it, and can change daily, as unlikely as that is.
Level 5-6: depends? new system gives you more heightened spells, old system gives some flexibility and potentially uses two first-level slots. I’d rather have a larger fixed number. After all, I usually know what I want. If I switch heightening off for Magic Missile, it’s a bad spell known now.
Level 7+: new version is better. You now have twice as many heightening spells. Now you can use them on things like Invisibility or Fly, not just things like Dispel Magic.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kyrone wrote:

The only thing that we have is this bard feat

tqomins wrote:

Here you go:

Versatile Signature (Feat 4)
Prerequisites polymath muse
While most bards are known for certain signature performances and spells, you're always tweaking your available repertoire. When you make your daily preparations, you can change one of your signature spells to a different spell of that level from your repertoire.

My guess is that for each spell level spontaneous casters have one spell that they can heighten at will.

I'd guess one per spell level. Which makes sense- one of the concerns was that you'd want to spend a lot of spells on scaling spells.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I’m guessing we’ll get a poisoner Alchemist specialization down the line.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The information we have is that conditions were given another pass with at least some simplification. It was on their top five changes list.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I’ve already got my houserule in mind. If unordered, an animal companion will typically growl and posture, making it obvious that it’s readying an action to attack anyone who moves or stays adjacent. (I will be granting it a reaction for this.) If it’s taking ranged damage, it will instead find cover. If the master is down unconscious or dead, they’ll get free control of their animal companion during the fight to keep them an active participant.

1 to 50 of 5,327 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>