Vampire

RaptorJesues's page

107 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I faced the same issue not so long ago. I have a big party (7 players) and it was time to fight the big evil vampire lady wich was a powerful wizard. The players were level 11 so the lady had the potential to DESTROY the team even if i made her lvl+2 since the guide suggests to give her an extreme DC. In the end i avoided giving her instawin spells like high level paralysis and slow, lowered her spell DC and just let her prebuff a bit to mantain the powerful wizard feel. In the end the result was OK (the team rolled exceptionally poorly and I as a Neutral Good master just played the boss a little sub-optimally to not murder everyone), I only killed a single pc that was knocked unconscious while flying way too high and the fight was allright.
If I had to do it now (and I will again eventually) i think i wont change anything, except maybe putting in less minions (6 was a bit much, the fight took forever).


sorry for the double/necro posting but it appears that the new Knights of Lastwall book presents a new weapon called the warlance, wich is basically a lance with the addition of shove and parry but *without* reach.
I would say that the devs took a hint on this one about the lance being mostly sub par but I feel like the change was made in the wrong direction.
*sad lance noises intensify*


1 person marked this as a favorite.

hard R


Opsylum wrote:
...

I tried to think of something but yeah, I am pretty much on board with your pitches. Lets frickin go!


I'm gonna make literal Heinrich Kemmler with Krell by his side. Undead summoner with perhaps lich free archetype


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, I would like yet another spontaneous occult caster since I feel like we have not explored the conc... no, i want the warlord. Give us the warlord please <3


Taja the Barbarian wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

I've been planning on using the "pick a square and use it for attack and defense" if my players ever decide to do mounted combat, and using the same rule for all larger mounts too.

The default rules are unusable, and fail the "look the players in the eye and stand by the rule" test. I don't use rules that I'm embarrassed by.

You may not like the RAW, but they aren't 'unusable' by any means...

As for the 'pick a square' idea, I think this creates issues with mounted archers / casters whose mount now blocks foes from occupying 3 adjacent squares: A huge mount would make ranged (or even just a reach weapon build) characters immune to melee foes who don't have reach...

They are abviously not unusable, just really really sad.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Wholly agree with Gortle here. You cannot just have a small character with a bigger reach than a medium one just because it MAY be overpowered to give more. The 3D thing is very much a non issue in most of the groups I played with (meaning to say it basically never was) and I am playing around non stop form literal day one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SH3R4TA5 wrote:

The one thing i could see as an argument for this is the fact that:

...

Does that reasons make justification for the medium 5x5 vs large 4x4? I don’t think so, but maybe Paizo made these oddities in relation between each other and a solution might be in there.

I feel pretty sure that it was just an oversight, it seems very counter intuitive that a longer weapon weilded by someone with longer arms has a shorter range than the small guy with the pointy stick riding a pony. To support my thesis, I did not see anyone bring this up until now, so...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WWHsmackdown wrote:
Rule of cool dictates riding drake is the superior option...... for me. The balance is pretty good, nothing too strong. However, at the end of the day it's still a dragon like creature, making it GOAT.

SLANDER!!!

HORSE IS BEST MOUNT


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
RaptorJesues wrote:
Gortle wrote:

Mounted combat is totally screwed up in PF2. We just have to hold our noses and play it anyway.

Mechanical Support for the classic mounted knight is burried in the Cavalier archetype and its a moderate +1 circumstance bonus to hit if you move. It is good for fighting monster without attack of oppourtunity but not anything constructed as a fighter. You also don't get to use it much in typical encounters.

But the reach problem of the traditional human with lance on a horse means that it is basically pointless. The lance is a pathetic weapon in practice for PF2.

You have to invest a lot in it and you get stuff all out.

On a role playing, and on a balance basis its a total failure.

None of it would be that bad if you could use the reach of your weapons if mounted
I think this is what Jousting should give so that the lance would be the prime mounted weapon it is supposedly designed to be.

agreed, it should be included in jousting


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:

Mounted combat is totally screwed up in PF2. We just have to hold our noses and play it anyway.

Mechanical Support for the classic mounted knight is burried in the Cavalier archetype and its a moderate +1 circumstance bonus to hit if you move. It is good for fighting monster without attack of oppourtunity but not anything constructed as a fighter. You also don't get to use it much in typical encounters.

But the reach problem of the traditional human with lance on a horse means that it is basically pointless. The lance is a pathetic weapon in practice for PF2.

You have to invest a lot in it and you get stuff all out.

On a role playing, and on a balance basis its a total failure.

None of it would be that bad if you could use the reach of your weapons if mounted


1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Actually, you occupy all squares of your mount's space for the purpose of attacking others. Not for others attacking you.

So you have to pick one of the squares of your mount for you to actually be in for defensive purposes?

Well, then why not have your reach determined from that same square - with the additional rule that if you have a 5-foot reach you are always allowed to attack all squares adjacent to your mount.

That would mean that you don't benefit from your reach weapon on two sides of your large mount, but you would on the two opposite sides. That at least seems reasonable and provides some strategic options.

Yeah, that would be rather nice


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

Wait, a small cavalier covers 5x5 while a larger cavalier only covers 4x4?

In what world does that make sense???

I KNOW RIGHT?? That is precisely the source of my grumbling. This really calls for an errata, I hope devs are reading


1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:

The only thing that I can think of would be that being on a large mount and having your full 10 foot reach as well as being able to be considered to be in all squares of the mount would increase the area of coverage that you have. Instead of being able to reach a 5x5 area around yourself, you would be able to reach a 6x6 area around your mount.

Which seems like a minor benefit. Preventing that bonus doesn't seem worth the penalty of removing the primary purpose of having reach - being able to attack an enemy from a location where they have to spend an action moving to get within their own reach and be able to attack you.

4x4 and 5x5 actually but yes, i agree. While you sure would cover quite a bit of squares if you were allowed to use your reach (32 squares against the 11 you currently can), I am quite comfortable saying that it would not be game breaking or even unbalanced since the mad investment that a mount is


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
The problem is not with the Lance per se, but with all Reach weapons as long as your mount is Large. So, if you want to use the Lance (and get something out of it), you need to be small. Otherwise, just grab a weapon with a higher damage dice and no Reach.

Yeah but the lance is supposed to be a mounted weapon, so it makes me grumble in frustration. I feel like it should be the exception to the mounted reach rules, then it would be rather nice. I suppose you could make something out of it by using lunge but it feels like a rather annoying limp noodle regardless


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

Yes. The Jousting trait is not good really. Maybe use Power Attack, or another 2-actions attack.

I wonder if a mounted Swashbuckler could benefit from the additional damage on a finisher.

I thought about that but alas the devs specified that extra weapon dices gained from feats etc are not counting for the jousting trait so even on a power attack it will still max at 4 (12 with the horse support).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am fully aware of the advantages of mounted combat and i very much like it, expecially when compared to the clunky mess that it was in pf1. What I am rather disappointed in is the lance. It is a pretty mediocre martial weapon than becomes better at the expence of action economy and quite a lot of feats to remain relevant. It is straight up bad if you do not fight mounted (duh) but even then it really lacks. It basically becomes a scythe with no trip only if you keep moving around limiting you to only one attack per round or so, it loses the main advantages of reach if you are not small and using it one handed hampers your damage potential even further (why using it if you don't get loads of damage on a single strike?). The horse support makes it better at the cost of the same action but it still pretty much limits you to only one strike per turn if you still want to use the mount main advantage, its mobility.
But cavalier's charge! Yes, alas it would seem that cavalier's charge does not stack with the horse support.
But even if it did, why not just use a d12 weapon? It will be pretty much just as good on the charge (reach rules when mounted) and straight up better the rest of the time.
Maybe I am exagerating a bit but I do not quite see the point in lancing with a medium sized character and therefore I am sad since cavalier used to be my favourite class. No sir, I don't like it.
Anyone willing to lift my spirit by telling me why I am wrong?


Harmona gun and jezail.
The first one is pretty obvious since i really like a big 700 nitro express Elephant Gun, the second one is a bit more subtle since I tend to identify it's role as the 44 mag. of the setting.
A big gun that you can one hand but you probably shouldn't because it will loose accuracy (and possibly break your wrist).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pixierose wrote:

...

A stars related druid archetype.
...

ohohohoho yeeees. I can see that going very tentacly very fast, love the idea


Gortle wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:

For this reason I tend to pick a different target than the rest of the party. Works better if I soften up another target, while the other focus fire one. Better action economy for me and better use of my abilities. If I have an animal companion and a flurry melee ranger, I move to solo lower level targets.

I don't like feeling like I wasted actions using Hunt Prey on something that dies in a single round.

But then I feel inefficient. Focus fire is the right tactic. I'm not getting a bonus by firing on a different target, just covering a weakness.

I frankly never felt it as too much of an issue (even though I have a 7 people party).

Low levels are harder since enemies tend to die faster but rangers in my experience just need to apply some tactics:
-attack a different target. Usually focus firing a single enemy is more efficent but i find that dividing the enemy forces can also be a good tactic, expecially at higher levels when monsters start getting quite a bit of aoe abilities.
-scouting ahead and using hunt prey out of combat. Stealth is of course quite important and some builds could not manage to but as a general rule rangers are quite good scouts.
-investing in action economy improving feats. Besides flurry rangers that have a built in good action economy, everyone can get something that helps a bit (albeit at higher levels).

When you go past level 10 then enemies tend to be quite hard to kill, even if they are lvl-2 unless someone specializes in save or die effects like scare to death, wich is another issue altoghether.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Something i really feel the need for are unalligned champion causes, something like knightly orders of old


1 person marked this as a favorite.
roquepo wrote:
RaptorJesues wrote:
roquepo wrote:
... the other Ranger guides are very outdated...

well, that is a bit unkind, I made one just in october xD

Not a very good one, I'll give you that but still

Last time I checked they were outdated*

Didn't know someone beat me to it. I want to read yours, where can I find it?

sure thing, there you go guide

i suggest you to temper your expectations though xD

Really like your guide btw, i will give you some feedback when i find some time


roquepo wrote:
... the other Ranger guides are very outdated...

well, that is a bit unkind, I made one just in october xD

Not a very good one, I'll give you that but still


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Potions are very important in my experience, expecially whithout a healer cleric or similar characters in the party. Medic archetype (expecially with free archetype) is pure cash to have on a healer in the party thanks to doctor's visitation, winning the action economy is important. You should have a single action activity to use in case you do a two actions heal like a martial strike or spells like magic missle(which is why i believe that warpriests are better healers than cloistered clerics).
Also i would agree that keeping people up is better than getting them up.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

But what about knights of lastwall? I am extreamely excited about thst too but there are little to no info about it, even less so than book of the dead


Pretty much everything turns me on on several levels but if i have to pick something I will say that i am exedingly happy about the vampire archetype, undead master archetype and the undead summoner


Get bleeding finisher, done


Ascalaphus wrote:
I'd say Snagging Strike > Combat Grab > Dazing Blow ...

i call it the grab and stun. Gotta love the free hand fighter


1 person marked this as a favorite.
egindar wrote:
A Crushing rune shouldn't stack with Demoralize. Clumsy/Enfeebled and Frightened are all status penalties. That said, it's still a good rune on a fighter; flails/hammers mostly do bludgeoning and already had a really nice critical specialization.

I would go as far as deifning it sidegrade of the fearsome rune that is better in martial oriented parties and worse in caster heavy ones (since the effect lasts untill the end of YOUR next turn instead of the enemy's one). It is also considerably cheaper adn avaiable earlier wich is definetly a plus.

Although I feel like the greater version is worse than the fearsome equivalent if they are both avaiable but since the greater crushing is avaiable 3 levels earlier i would say that it could still be a good investment.

And of course there are also enemies that are immune to fear so there is that


Does the adventurer kit count as an item? Because it probably is the holder of the "best stuff ever" title


2 people marked this as a favorite.

BASE CLASSES:
-Alchemist: versatile moderate damage, moderate support and healing, crafting. Not as bad as people make it up to be but not a top dpr either
-Barbarian: huge damage per hit, choice between being a grappler/controller, reach hitter or an area damage/single target damage hybrid. Moderate tankyness.
-Bard: best support in the game, amazing focus cantrips, spontaneous occult caster.
-Champion: moderately smashy tank, paladins can be nice reach hitters, evil champions are power turtles with the best one being the tyrant. Will wreck opposite allignment outsiders.
-Cleric: best healer in the game with healing font, still good at it without. Prepared divine caster that knows every spell avaiable so very versatile. Warpriest is a bit tankier a slightly better in melee, cloistered becomes better with offensive spells.
-Druid: prepared primal caster that knows every spell avaiable. Incredibly versatile and can hit rather hard with combat forms.
-Fighter: best hitter in a vacuum but starts falling behind other martials with good teamwork. Can choose between tankyness, archery, reach and crit wfishing with two weapons. All rounder in combat, can be a good support for other martials too.
-Monk: best action economy in the game, great mobility, good damage martial. Can put out quite a bit of damage with some builds or be a excellent tank. Very versatile.
-Ranger: best recall knowledge potential in the game, high single target damage, best switch hitter in the game, great martial support.
-Rogue: highest single target damage in the game, best in the game at skills, potential for good debuffs. Good teamwork required to make it work.
-Sorcerer: any magical tradition spontaneous caster with loads of spells per day. Really depends on tradition for role.
-Wizard: arcane prepared caster with potential for the best offensive casting in the game.

APG CLASSES:
-Investigator: great recall knowledge potential, good action economy potential, moderate damage, great support. Second best at skills in the game. Requires some brain work from the player and good planning.
-Oracle: rather complex divine spontaneous caster, good healing/blasting potential, great selection of possible spells thanks to divine access. Requires good planning and a bit of system mastery.
-Swashbuckler: very mobile melee hitter with potential for very high damage from level 8. Very fun both conceptually and mechanically, can be the best at intimidation in the whole game.
-Witch: any tradition prepared caster, has a very cool familiar and very nice focus spells. Has less spell slots than a wizard though so probably a bit lower in pure power.

SoM CLASSES:
-Magus: High burst damage ghish striker/wave caster, a bit squishy compared to others but has potential for more tankyness, mobility or ranged. Quite glass cannony
-Summoner: Unconventional ghish wave caster, good damage potential, strongest "pet" in the game, interesting action economy. Can be a bit complex.

G&G CLASSES:
-Gunslinger: G U N ranged critfishing striker. High damage potential when supported and can be build up to fight in melee as well.
-Inventor: high damage multi target martial. Very good at crafting and very versatile with armor and construct builds.

MAGIC TRADITIONS:
Arcane: has a bit of everything except for healing. Good blasting and controlling, mediocre buffing potential.
Divine: support centred tradition with healing, buffing, and negative or allignment based blasting. Lethal against outsiders.
Occult: buff and debuff centred tradition with moderate healing and negative/mental blasting potential. Very versatile, lots of controll spells.
Primal: lots of element based blasting, good healing potential, has elements of controll. Lots of battle form polymorph spells.


bandoleer and a pack mule, because i am a compulsive hoarder


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:

I finally played the current iteration of the summoner. I have to say I don't like it.

Why?

1. The Joined Hit Point Pool: I understood why they did this. I see there are ways to exploit it. It sure feels bad in play. Sending your eidolon into battle leaves it open to getting smashed. When it gets crit and goes down, then you drop it feels pretty lame.

If you are far away, then the healer has to make its way to you to heal if they are close to the melee battle which sometimes takes a move or two depending on how far away you are from the eidolon.

Then getting back into battle is pretty clunky. Three action summon providing the eidolon one action to move back into battle is very action intensive in these short fights.

Someone clarify for me. If my eidolon is knocked down, do I gain the dying condition? I roll the death checks right? If they are critically hit when knocked down, I'm dying 2?

2. Shared MAP: Shared Map feels pretty terrible. You can't cast an attack cantrip while the Eidolon attacks and have a good chance to hit. So you're stuck with save cantrips which is pretty limited.

You also can't use a weapon, so you're very limited in actions which usually consist of Boost Eidolon, a save cantrip or spell, or a skill check like intimidation.

3. The Eidolon's damage output isn't that great for all the actions it takes to do. If you're going to have this eidolon that plays much like a martial with no shield, there should be some advantage to their damage output.

4. Limited Spell Slots: Just not fun with the summoner. If you take something to deal with invisibility so your eidolon can keep attacking, that can take quite a few spell slots until you're high enough level to get the eidolon it's own means to see invis.

This can be somewhat mitigated with magic items.

Now it's not all bad. The summoner has some interesting advantages:

1. Sustaining Spells: You can sustain some spells on yourself using the eidolon with Act Together. That can useful if you want to use the...

So your main gripe with the class is that you don't get to play two characters at once? xD

Don't get pissed, I'm mostly joking.
My biggest gripe is that until either synthesist or a proper undead eidolo is out i have next to no interest in playing the class, mostly because of flavour but not only


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I would say the Earthfall and subsequent Age of Darkness are pretty easy to compare wirh the bronze age collapse


14 people marked this as a favorite.

Fixed DC items are just plain bad for the game since they loose relevancy very soon turning into junk loot. Materials are way to expensive for what they provide. I also do not like that recall knowledge is ruled very loosely and would appreciate some clarity. There are quite a lot of skill feats that are pretty useless while others are so good you cannot possibly skip them.
I think that is it, i mostly love everything else.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I love pf2 but fixed DC magic items really grind my gears. And walls. I really despise walls


Guntermench wrote:

And there's the silencer item...

That is consumed After the first shot rending it useless in combat


I usually try not to be a jerk by linking fights that are not supposed to be. That said, if you are trying to be stealthy maybe a gun whithout a silencer is not the best idea, just like chopping someone with an axe and having him scream his lungs off would not


Sounds more like wrong expectations than anything else. I would agree that items that have DC based effects are extremely lackluster and in need of house ruling but most of the other stuff seems right to me. If they do not like investing money in necessary numerical upgrades just use ABP


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really like the class as a whole altgough i believe like the early game is not exactly stellar. I feel like bleeding finisher is a huge change in how the class feels, turning you into a very respectable damage dealer in medium to long fights. Braggart and wit are my favourite styles, braggart in particular feels like the best in the game at intimidating. My biggest gripe with the class are probably the capstone feats wich i find rather meh


Yes?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*CHIVALRY INTENSIFIES*
cant wait for some marshal and cavalier stuff


an inquisitor


I second Kyrone, the ranger is probably your best bet


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would not say no to some more subclasses and feats


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tender Tendrils wrote:

On historical weapons, I want to echo a previous poster's call for an Atlatl. It is one of the most overlooked weapons in history despite it being a super important weapon/hunting tool in human history. (It is also terrifying to see what someone can do with an Atlatl).

Javelins and slings are very overlooked in general - most video games and movies and tabletop games would have you think that armies have always just used large numbers of archers, when for most of human history slings and javelins where the dominant ranged weapons. I was very happy to see the halfling sling staff expand on the amount of slings in 2e.

On fantasy weapons, I really like the setting specific fantasy weapons like dogslicers and ogre hooks and sawtooth sabres. More stuff like that tied to various ancestries and organisations would be really cool.

I feel like hobgoblins are a good place to expand on setting specific weapons and equipment - they are highly militaristic while also being goblinoids, so that seems like a space for unique weaponry to crop up.

throwing weapons could indeed get a bit more loving. A propeller like the atlatl could be an interesting addition to the bunch, maybe as an attachment that increases the weapon's range


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tender Tendrils wrote:

I do get that the longspear doesn't really correspond well to the reality of pikes, I just don't know if a weapon with double reach will happen.

I am also not sure if pikes make a whole lot of sense in the type of combat that the game portrays - they lose most of their effectiveness when not used in large formations. A pike isn't so much a weapon as a component in a large machine made out of a mass of bodies holding long pointy poles. They are effective in massed formations because you present a forest of points that the enemy cannot avoid - a single pike on its own is unwieldy enough that you can pretty easily avoid it.

I have some miniatures with full on pikes, but will probably only use them as troops rather than on their own (wielded by a troop they make more sense, because a troop consists of usually about 25 creatures combined in one that can actually create an effective wall of pikes).

against people sure but against a huge beast, like say a dragon, i feel like the extra lenght could actually have a place. I suppose that such a long weapon could not be used on adjacent enemies. Anyway pikes are lowish on my list and i would like my polehammer now


Tender Tendrils wrote:

Pikes are already represented (the description for the longspear explicitly says that they are also known as pikes).

What we really need is the bohemian earspoon.

But i want some freakin giant pikes with 15ft reach, the longspear does not scratch the itch for me. As for the earspoon i suppos the ranseur kinda of covers it but i would not mind a brevosian earspoon


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Frikin polehamner/lucerne hanmer and beaque de corbin! I NEED a D10 reach bludgeoning weapon pronto while the beaque could ve a d8 reach pick. Also i would really like the estoc, a martial gauntlet, double weapons and another (possibly bigger) jousting weapon, like a hussar lance or something similar. Oh, and pikes. Also the pollaxe that could be a d10 no reach pole weapon with the possibility for all three damage types

1 to 50 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>