Anthropomorphized Rabbit

QuidEst's page

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber. 5,116 posts (5,301 including aliases). 16 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 10 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I think one thing to keep in mind is that Fighter, Rogue, and Cleric, despite board sentiment, were the most popular classes in PF1. Stuff should be done to improve them, but you probably don't want to mess with the underlying ideas too much.

A simple core fighting class that doesn't come with a whole lot of specific flavor attached was pretty popular in terms of actual play. And, if you want a martial class that comes with more specific flavor, then you're in luck: that's every other martial class, and will be every other martial class going forward.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
The DM of wrote:

The options Loreguard puts down sound fun. I can't see this bogging down combat:

DM: The ogre hits you with his club. You take 17 damage.
Player: Ok, thank goodness my bludgeon DR is 5 (jots down 12 damage, notes a dent or whatever tracking system may or may not exist).

Seems straightforward. Maybe dents only occur on crits? That would simplify things and give players some reticence to keep the DR maneuvering on after a couple dents. Losing a shield is one thing, but a suit of chainmail would be severe.

If you play mostly with experienced people, sure, it's straightforward.

Here's how it would play out in my personal experience:

DM: The ogre hits you with his club. You take 17 damage.
Player 1: Okay.
Player 2: Remember, you had maneuvering on- don't forget to apply your damage reduction, because it's bludgeoning damage.
Player 1: Oh, uh, where is that?
DM: It's listed under your armor off to the side there.
Player 1: Okay, so I take 5 less damage? How much was the damage again?
Player 2: 17, so now it's only 12. Also, don't forget to check off a dent. You might want to stop maneuvering so you don't damage your armor too much.
Player 1: How do I do that?
DM: Stopping your maneuvering is a free action, so you can just do it.

It's several things to remember and keep track of: maneuvering on/off, damage types, damage reduction amount, and dents. Plus, armor is hard to opt out of- whereas with shields, you can free up a hand and an action by not using them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
However, weapons have traits which might come each time you use them (plus critical specializations) so would giving armor positive traits which are just about the same amount of rules impact really be an issue?

Yeah, it would be. Right now, the game puts the work on the attacker. They do all sorts of math and produce attack and damage. The defender only needs to report their AC or touch AC (if they're a PC- monsters will have resistances and vulnerabilities). Making defense math part of the game too means more people needing to calculate stuff for every attack. I wouldn't slow combat down to half the speed, but it wouldn't be a trivial difference either. You're also making every new player remember another set of combat steps to apply.

The benefit of that added complexity is not all that much (at least, if you compare it to weapon properties). Weapons have interesting properties because attacking things is widely considered fun, and people like have stylistic options while doing it. Wanting to avoid getting hit in different ways… well, there's just not as much interest there, and people who want that sort of thing will be almost as well served by magic items, special materials, and abilities like armor trick feats from PF1- things that avoid applying that complexity to a bunch of people who aren't interested.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

We do know that skill progression is being changed so that on-level checks get easier if you're advancing a skill.

If you don't like giving up your hands in combat, save the violin for after combat. You advance all your performance types together now, so you can do that. The change to casting allows violinist Bards to use their instrument in fights if they're committed to that. It doesn't guarantee that a violin is as good as the other options. But, we'll probably be able to get more cool magic item instruments now, and those can be balanced around taking up both hands in combat.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Mystogan wrote:
Thanks for answering me, so according to 1.1) it is correct to be able to make two Polar Ray for a total of 26d8 damage? (I ask because I thought so many)

Assuming that Polar Ray does 13d8 damage as an 8th level spell (I don't know the updated damage amounts), then yes.

After all, you're trading the ability to cast Time Stop (three non-damaging turns in exchange for one turn) or Wish (extremely versatile) for combining two damaging turns into one. That's to one target, and in place of whatever Meteor Swarm does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

This is a weird direction to take stuff- adjusting instrument bonuses for handedness because of combat? Why should instruments be exceptions, especially over something they're not meant for? And why should bulky musical instruments be handing out the largest bonuses of any mundane items?

Before, Bards couldn't cast while their hands are occupied by an instrument. Furthermore, Bards were 6/9 casters with features that left their actions free, so they were strongly pushed into using weapons.

Now, Bards can cast by playing an instrument- a substantial improvement. And, with Bards as full casters who have souped-up cantrips, you can actually make a Bard focused primarily on casting. Just because you can not make a caster violinist doesn't mean that the game ought to make a gish violinist just as good, and shouldn't mean that instrument rules should be reworked as a special case.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

1.1) Nothing in Spell Combination restricts you from combining the same spell, although in a lot of cases you'd have redundant effects.
1.2) It isn't addressed. Presumably, you take the greater of the two action costs.

2.1) Yes, that's the intent! It's difficult to set up a situation where chaining together uses of Focus Conservation is actually useful, though, since you need to plan several moves ahead.
2.2) You add a somatic casting action. If there's already a somatic casting action, now you have two somatic casting actions.

3) The availability of magical items is generally GM discretion.

4) The playtest ended after December 31st, so you are too late to submit playtest feedback. You can create a thread here if you want, but the wheels are already in motion for the release version of PF2.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Nettah wrote:
I prefer to keep the instruments two-handed for balance reasons as well as the factor that more or less every instrument needs two hands to play or play optimally.
I mean, I don’t think Paizo is going to exclude actual one-handed instruments. But I also don’t think they’re going to say Bards can play violins with their rapiers either.
Why not? Van Halen's "Poundcake" song featured someone with a power tool (a screwdriver, to be precise,) play on the guitar, and it sounded really, really awesome (at the time). Suggesting a Rapier can't work on a lute or guitar is just going to amount to a "Challenge Accepted" stance, which is very unhealthy for the game's image.

You expect Paizo to say that Bards can play violins with rapiers? I expect they’re not going to address it, with it falling to GMs to decide if they want Van Halen Bards or not.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Loreguard wrote:

A guitar or violin could preform songs with that are limited to certain notes with only one hand, based on their strings. A bugle could theoretically be played without a hand if something could hold it up to the players face.

Keeping in mind that it uses Performance, which no longer is split out for individual instruments or genre's of performance, a bard doesn't have to choose to be a spellcasting or fighting bard. They can choose to play an instrument for casting, or choose to sing when their hands are occupied, or dance if they need to be able to keep their voice for giving orders or quiet. But it becomes a matter of Bards being Performers and it is legitimate they may be capable of preforming in multiple avenues of performance, not just a single or pair of instruments or skills like was often the case for bards in first edition. [It is interesting about how the skill talks about how it is CHA base, but that certain implementations, the GM should feel free about having a poor attribute potentially impact certain types of performances, if it naturally would depend on the weakened attribute]

Yes, using an instrument offers you the ability to get an Item bonus based on its quality. Voice this is probably hard to justify(unless the cheerleader gets to count an expert cheer cone to help project their cheer out to the crowd better). Dance, some might question it, but there might be value in certain textured foot/hand wear and certain other worn items supporting joints with springs or such might be useful for tumbling and dancing routines. Costumes may justify bonuses towards any primarily visual performances.

Bards can’t substitute singing, dancing, etc. for somatic or material components, only playing an instrument. The idea is that using an instrument shouldn’t prevent you from casting, but that doesn’t let you wield a greataxe and cast regular spells by singing. Now, your Bard cantrips will generally be verbal-only, so you can cast those.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Nettah wrote:
I prefer to keep the instruments two-handed for balance reasons as well as the factor that more or less every instrument needs two hands to play or play optimally.

I mean, I don’t think Paizo is going to exclude actual one-handed instruments. But I also don’t think they’re going to say Bards can play violins with their rapiers either.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

I’m surprised no one has mentioned ‘El Kabobong’ as a gish idea yet. Maybe it’s just me. :/

Thematically a gish wouldn’t use a two handed instrument and a weapon; too impractical. That said if this is a road a player wants to go down then your best bet is a Weapon/Instrument hybrid. The Hunting Horn weapon class from Monster Hunter would be great inspiration for this. Some examples are generally a two handed mace that doubles as a bagpipe; a two handed axe that doubles as an ’electric’ guitar. You could use an Interact Action to change grips and use the other part, or just let it flow without requiring an Interact Action.

I really don’t care for guitar-axes and their ilk because they break the immersion/mood for me. Somebody using an instrument to perform magic is something from fantasy; somebody using an instrument to hit somebody is from cartoons. (Obviously, people will be playing with them- not everyone is as stodgy as me- I’m just hoping it doesn’t show up as a built-in option.)

On the topic of one-handed instruments, tambourines work well, as do smaller pan pipes (if you want something older than the harmonica).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Some sort of healing spell with status mitigation. Maybe it can wind back a poison and/or disease track back a step while also healing hitpoints? It can be a strong out-of-combat healing option, as opposed to Paladin's built-in combat-focused healing spell. (Reminiscent of Aragorn treating Frodo's wound.)

A really good tracking spell- enough to want to multiclass to or from Ranger if you're building Dresden. Increase distance or time increments for penalties ten-fold, or negate circumstance penalties.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Dark Midian wrote:
Still not sure what I make of this being the GenCon release in lieu of something more substantial like the Character Operations Manual.

I mean... they’ve got a pretty big release scheduled then that might overshadow three new Starfinder classes a bit or be a shipping conflict. But even setting that aside, I think the public playtest was planned for early in COM’s development.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
Personally the fey alternate natural attacks should have included gore and slam options.
Bite and sting make sense for a fairy, but for gore and slam, I'd need to start thinking of less obvious fey.
Satyr.

Ah, yeah. I was off in nucklavee territory. I don’t think they could get away with giving fey the most natural attack options when they also get to pick an animal, though.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Jonas Seaborn wrote:

For Kineticist talent Elemental Exile, would it be appropriate that kineticists with the Aether/Void/Wood would transport to Ethereal/Negative Energy Plane/The First World ?

Also would a Parasite (Familiar Archetype) Sage (Familiar Archetype) familiar be a viable option for a kineticist with the Elemental Whispers talent ?

Elemental Whispers familiars can't take Parasite because they don't have Speak With Animals of its Kind to trade away. (Plus, needing to spend a standard action every turn to allow it to stay inside somebody would be difficult.)


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Dragon78 wrote:
Personally the fey alternate natural attacks should have included gore and slam options.

Bite and sting make sense for a fairy, but for gore and slam, I'd need to start thinking of less obvious fey. And, the archetype also gets an animal aspect at first level. If you want to have antlers to gore people with, you can take stag. You can get gore and slam with bull.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I'm really excited to find out more about some protean lords in this! Also, more aeon content for my friend.

I do like that aeons seem like a better foil to proteans- it's lawful without being robotic, similar to how proteans are chaotic without being senseless.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:
True, although at the cost of fewer weapon special abilities and less flexibility. "Raw damage and no versatility" should be a valid choice, after all.

THF a bit more flexible in combat than TWF because you can let go of your weapon with one hand without dropping anything. TWF commits to three actions to open a door (etc.) rather than two.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Wait, what? What do you mean Hunter doesn’t have spells? Hunter is a 6/9 caster, which is more than Ranger.
Sorry, I'm thinking of the Slayer. The PF2 Ranger feels more like a Slayer.

Ah, now I understand.

I’d consider that good. Slayer is what I pointed players to as a better Ranger than Ranger. For anybody who cared about the animal companion more, I recommended Hunter so they weren’t waiting three levels. Ditto for casting.

Ranger’s unique features (Favored X) felt like bugs to me.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Wait, what? What do you mean Hunter doesn’t have spells? Hunter is a 6/9 caster, which is more than Ranger.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Aragorn didn’t have spells, just a bit of fancy healing with a plant. The new Ranger will let you select limited powers, so you build Aragorn by selecting a nature healing spell if they have one.

I feel like “look at Tolkien” is about as valid as “look at 1974 D&D”.

The new Ranger can have spells, handled about the same as Paladin. Paladin had other supernatural abilities, so they start out with a spell, while Ranger didn’t, so they’ll need to select it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Rob Godfrey wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Wouldn't a Ranger multiclassed with the Druid work for that sort of thing though?
. Nope. The multiclass system is horrendous, and an attempt to patch a broken feat system, not a decent mechanic, and certainly never to be used to build a concept

I disagree with you on this (as Rogue with Bard spellsgets me a concept I want), but I understand that Ranger will also be getting spell powers in a similar fashion to Paladin (hopefully with a similar inexpensive-and-strong bent). I’ll be pretty happy with some sort of nature healing to address poison/hp, echoing Aragorn a bit.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

PF1 Ranger to me was a metagaming-not-optional class based around killing a creature type humans or undead and skipping feat taxes. And eventually they got some spells Gravity Bow and Instant Enemy. You could distinguish them by their choice of pet.

Getting rid of Favored Enemy was enough for me to consider the class improved for me. No more backstories centered around “Why I Hate X”, no more needing a themed campaign, and no more needing players’ guides for campaigns to spell out what creature types you’ll face.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
DarkOne the Drow wrote:

I so glad for greater variety for Shifters made available in Wilderness Origins.

I see Wilderness Origins brings a major change to Shifter Class (Su) in terms of alternative attack forms for the claws. Does it now make Adaptive Claws (Su) of Adaptive Shifter archetype redundant?

No. The adaptive claws feature prevents the archetype from missing out on the alternate attack forms feature entirely. It’s flexible, but often slightly weaker than base Shifter. (Base Shifter with wolf would get two claws or claw plus bite, Adaptive would get two claws or just bite, but have gore and tail slap available as options.) Or, viewed another way, Shifter now also gets one of the archetype’s advantages with an added boost.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
kyubi3009 wrote:
Once again Paizo fails to deliver shifter wise. You can now pay 3 feat to basicaly gain the benefit of an amulet of natural weapon+5.

Look at the first two feats, though, because those are really good. You can have reach natural attacks for a single feat, which is pretty solid. The second feat lets you get magical weapon properties at a steeply discounted price. I would definitely get those, and just not worry about the last one.

kyubi3009 wrote:

You may also combine two Major form but will and I quote receive no new natural attack or movement change thus what exactly does this apply to?

1. Bonus feat like flyby attack useless for non flyers well I guess if you use some item you could play a flying bear?
2. Weird feature like rage from wolverine.

Rage powers was the first thing I thought of! Would I take two feats for two rage powers? Heck yeah! I do that on Barbarian even after I've taken half a dozen rage powers. (And the first feat is amazing in its own right earlier on; you get a free minor form for the full duration of every major form use? Now I can get plan on having that enhancement bonus up all day and spend my minor form duration on something else.)

Other useful stuff: free trip attempts on forms with a bite, senses like scent or blindsense, improvements to certain natural attacks (multiattack, improved natural attack, better crits), always act in the surprise round, combat reflexes (didn't we just see a way to add reach to all your natural attacks?), and some more.

kyubi3009 wrote:
Finaly the fey shifter and dragon shifter major form last in minute increment, was giving hour increment duration even this difficult?

The fey archetype gets flight in any form and a miss chance as a martial class, plus it keeps the ability to wild shape into an animal with hour duration (although they get forms slower and they don't improve). Then you also get the option of a fey form using minute duration to use without giving up your weapons. It's going to be a strong contender every time I play a martial character.

kyubi3009 wrote:
Seems for all this book promise the only viable shifter remains the adaptive one wich somewhat ironicaly uses next to none of these new features

I disagree. Feyform shifter is pretty beastly. The content in the book gives a nice boost to regular shifters, especially at the higher levels where they needed it; I don't think adaptive needed a bunch of help. (The weapon properties feat still helps them out, though.)


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
CorvusMask wrote:
Thing is though, while I don't have strong opinion on 2e bards(because I haven't played any of the classes in 2e, I gm'd the game :p I) I did play Reign of Winter through with a bard and I never actually run out of bardic performances through the whole campaign iirc(I think maybe at early parts? when there were fewer of them? But even then early parts had lot of traveling so not much of combat per day and I can't remember if I run out of them in first book's only dungeon).

You don't run out of bardic performance rounds during combat after a bit, but the feeling is weird because the actual time is very short. You have to be about level 7 before you can sing a magical song start to finish. And forget a magical play or concert, even at level 20. You'd need to get some bardic masterpieces for that.

That's my deal. I would suspect other people are happy not needing to track rounds that eventually don't matter mechanically.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
Eh, I did get my answer on that it wasn't a common complaint, I'm just surprised that people are HAPPY about a free action becoming an action .-. I mean, since when are people ever happy about stuff that is technically a nerf of sorts?
Because it was traded for a buff-- no longer having a limited amount of rounds. Couple that with it FEELING more like performing and people are happy with the trade.

Or, taken another way: given that bards no longer have limited rounds (yay, at level one I can sing a whole magical song), what would free action look like? Bards would just kind of… have a soundtrack following them around. It wouldn't feel like the character was doing anything.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
ErisAcolyte-Chaos jester wrote:
that Paladin archetype has the potential to be broken in some campaigns. the fact it make moldable pits filled with freshwater for several minutes it insane. because if something does not have swim, or waterbreathing, it will likely drown. the later utility is also good. not bad for something that gives up divine bond.

They need to hit DC 10 swim before they roll a 5 or less (only then do they actually go underwater), and they've generally got a minute or two of activity to try to resolve that if it happens before Con checks start. That seems like a sporting chance, even for the wizard.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
A Drifting Shoebox wrote:
So wait, Quid said there's a feat to let your Animal Companion speak, but then immediately says it eventually upgrades to Improved Familiar? Safe to assume this is just referring to familiars as your "animal companions", and my dream of combining animal companion and familiar features into one creature is remaining unrealized?

Crossed some wires while writing that up. It lets your familiar speak. Sorry for the confusion.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

All right, here's some cool stuff I liked.

Spoiler:
You can finally combine major aspects as a Shifter! It's a late-game option, taking two feats. The first feat is really good earlier on, though.

Feats for weapon synergy on Shifter. It's pretty cool- you can use a reach weapon to give your wildshape natural attacks the reach weapon property, for instance.

Free alternate natural attacks. For instance, if you've got a wolf aspect, you can choose to get a bite attack instead of one of your claw attacks. No cost, it's just a free upgrade to Shifter.

Feat for bleed damage on most of Shifter's natural weapons.

Leshy's can grow through keyholes, etc. to do spying, and have a feat for Lesser Restoration, making them good replacements for Cleric-style casters.

Witches get a hex for bonus natural armor on themselves and their familiar, with free Endure Elements. It seems a little strong… but on the other hand, Witches are one of the worst classes defensively, so they could use it.

Ward Spiritualist is a more casting-focused Spiritualist- you get an Occultist implement with a small pool of focus.

There's a feat to get vermin or plant companions, and vermin companions can take an archetype to start with 2 Int.

The familiar archetypes are all gold.
- Arcane Amplifier gets free metamagic on delivered touch spells.
- Occult Messenger grants Psychic Sensitivity to its master and grants a solid bonus on the occult skill unlocks.
- Parasite burrows into people and seizes control.

There's an animal companion feat that improves the attitude of similar animals considerably towards both it and its master. Seriously great flavor, and with low investment. Have a pet wolf? Dogs all love you!

There's a feat to make your familiar a shapeshifter, or to let them turn into a person. And finally a feat to let your animal companion speak! That one's cool; it eventually upgrades to Improved Familiar if you want.

Oracle curses are very nice this time around. Spoil liquids you carry (those spoiled liquids can be useful in their own right, though…), or cause natural hazards to develop anytime you take a break in nature. (That one's a very powerful double-edged sword from the get-go.)


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Oh man, I love this familiar archetype.

Spoiler:
Parasite familiars can burrow into other creatures, and eventually attempt to control them.

Possessing fox spirit or mind worm? Your call!


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Gotta say, the fey Shifter archetype is pretty awesome!

Spoiler:
So, first of all, your aspect is a special fey one. It grants you a little DR/cold iron, concealment (can't stealth with it), and low-light vision that upgrades existing LLV to darkvision. The DR is gonna scale slowly as you level.
At 5th level, though, it grants flight. You're a martial with built-in swift-action flight for 3 + level minutes per day.
Oh, and you get the entire Fey Form lineup one level before the Druid does, but one minute per use spent.
You eventually get weak minor animal aspects at the same time as the fey minor aspect.

It makes you a weapons-based martial with flight, a miss chance, and early access to the fey form lineup. On top of that, though, you still get a couple animal forms and minor aspects that don't advance.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Jinath wrote:
There is nothing I can find, so far, about dragons or the new animals aspects. I am not happy with this.

Oh wow... uh, silly question, but are all the page numbers accounted for?


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I’m really curious about three archetypes, if anybody can share some general info!
The flower witch, the dragon shifter, and the fey shifter.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Next month is a map pack instead of a campaign setting book, so I'd like to be canceled for that.

Thanks!


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Ooh, cool, Shifter feats as well! Being able to augment your favorite form sounds nice.

Dragon and fey archetypes for the class are definitely my top interests, though. Options that Druid doesn’t do very well.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Ooh, playable swarm! I wonder how armor works there. I wonder if I can cast polymorph to pretend to be humanoid? Surprise people by letting the spell expire?


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

"More bloodlines" is one of those things that you can absolutely count on future books providing, even if space prevents more in the initial book. PF1 has 49 bloodlines, and we know we're getting at least one more (phoenix) before they stop new material. The first player options book is almost certain to have a bunch of bloodlines.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

If anybody wants to see some of the other things the devs have announced about what Pathfinder 2's final version will look like, check out the interview or the summary post.)


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Sets alarm clock for August.

Thanks for the hard work! I'm looking forward to seeing how the new system works for my friends and me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Metaphysician wrote:
I see no reason why the Conserving Fusion should grant any class more uses of their class abilities, no matter how those abilities are flavored.

It's only "more uses" in the same way that holding a charge is "more uses" of spell slots. Both let you retry a miss instead of wasting a daily resource.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I'm really excited for this! Classes I'm most looking forward to it on:

Spoiler:

- Cleric, since they don't get one.
- Witch. They do basically get one, but by level 20 you've already picked one or two of your favorite hexes. If it's just the level 20 hex being replaced, it's kind of a double capstone!
- Mesmerist. While I'm happy with the existing capstone, I know some people want something a little less nefarious.
- Spiritualist. Hopefully something for the people that keep their phantom out!
- Summoner. Twin Eidolon just seems like a hassle to run, as cool as it is.
- Wizard/Sorcerer/Oracle/Shaman/Bloodrager. For any of the classes where bloodline-equivalent determines your capstone, it'll be cool to have the option to trade it out for something different if it doesn't appeal to you.
- Anything that gets a special attack as a capstone. Just looking forward to seeing a different take on the class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

For me, the biggest one will be Kineticist, since that’s the trickiest to homebrew in. New universal path abilities are also very exciting, though!


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I wouldn’t expect new core races in any new book, since that’s not going to be, well, the core rulebook.

Iconics of existing non-core races? That could happen, either with these classes or in the future. I’d kind of expect them to take the opportunity to show some variety in the core races first, but that’s just speculation.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Pseudodult wrote:

Yes, I seriously don't understand why this class cannot shape it's infinite worlds ability on top of that even nullify difficult terrain and nullify energy damage in a field outright.

This class presents itself that you are a mere sculptor and battlefield is your medium, but the fact you have limits on the area of effect, can summon difficult terrain but can't suppress it, and not be able to turn lava into water is upsetting.

I mean, you're creating a bubble of another reality- that seems pretty normal and thematic? And simpler for bookkeeping in combat.

Turning off difficult terrain does sound nice. But, turning off hazards entirely seems really strong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Four points to use Aspect Catalyst on command. You also get a free use on your first crit, and a free powerful use if you ever dip into your hp.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I found video footage of one.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

That seems very unreasonable to me. I can get DR = level, and 1 EP reduces damage by level. If I take 2 x level damage twice, then I take half on the first and nothing on the second. That’s only 1/4 damage from somebody consistently dishing out double level damage, which is ridiculously good.

Friendly Fire is always good for you, because allies hitting you doesn’t give you EP anyway, so you should always mitigate it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Whoa! Occult mythic rules, and monstrous bloodlines for Bloodrager? Heck yeah!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Nice! I don't know how efficient it is, though, since it only applies on the second hit (or subsequent hits, if you get an AoO or something).

1 to 50 of 5,116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>