Search Posts
I hope it allows you to destroy a thrall to sustain said Summon Undead as a free action. Or at least destroy a thrall to cast it as a 2-Actions spell. Considering how many thralls you can summon in a single turn, that strikes me as a little unbalanced. But it sure would make the necromancer feel unique.
I had been bothered by the rule word "action" before the Remastering. Action was a general category for a character doing something. The four types of actions were activity, action, free action, and reaction. The Remastering corrected the ambiguity in the second type of action by carefully calling it "single action." It's less clear to me in the Remaster. Previously I understood Action to mean a single action, and activity to mean 1 or more actions, or a longer duration. Now action and activity appear to be used interchangeably, which muddles their definitions more than ever.
A creature eating another creature is merely a natural transfer of vitality. That energy is often used later to beget new life via procreation. And so the cycle continues. The same is not true when a void creature creates another void creature from a vitality creature. That vitality is lost and the natural cycle is disrupted.
I intend to bring back my 1st Edition character, Vicroar Sesnaben, a nihilistic harpoon-wielding madman and cultist of the Old Ones. Rather than a fleshy legion of zombies, the instruments of his will are going to be tentacles and eldritch horrors. He'll either be an old human man, or a fleshwarp. Whichever way I go though, you can count on him having tentacles and body horror to the max.
Golarion has non-undead undead with things like the anger phantom eodolon and dhampir. I see no reason we can't have undead, which are always evil, and also the unalive, which are neither here nor there, in the setting. ;P
If you're playing a Hellknight in PFS, some scenarios become beyond absurd IMO. How so?
Breadcrumbs, trapsmith and chef (CN male irongut goblin tinker rogue 2) Thanks, Franklin. I'm glad you love it! Please let me know if you use him in your adventures any. :) Prediction: remastered Eibon Ruiz will be a Necromancer. I had considered it, and will probably consider it again once I see the full class, but at the moment I'm actually leaning against it. I think "wizard that studies the divine" fits the more refined and gentlemanly vision I have for him. Whereas a necromancer strikes me as more grunge and uncivilized. Yes, I know there's a school And even a nation for them and all, but something about being inherent outcasts on the fringes of society first kind of precludes their being able to just walk into a ballroom and cozy up to nobles and the like (exceptions abound).
I think it's pretty safe to rule out the Rare tag for Necromancer, seeing how there's an entire school dedicated to training them. That would make them at most the sort of regional Uncommon that Gunslinger and Inventor are, although I suspect that necromancy is more widespread than that. I'm sure once the book drops it will be very much like Skyrim, where you can't walk two miles without encountering a cult of necromancers or their thralls.
Spoiler: ...appears quite prominently in Agents of Edgewatch. Celestial binding...
Actually it was not just extraplanar energy, it was fiends themselves. The foundations of golemcraft was the binding of elementals with abjurations and illusions to pacify and imprison them. The Jistkans experimented with binding fiends and celestials themselves into the cores rather than the traditional practice of elementals. Can you provide the source(s)for that? I'm curious to know more.
I for one am wholly unconvinced that undead are innately evil. Any scholars who say otherwise likely have little to no proof (and what little they have is all circumstantial). There's just far too many examples non-evil undead for that to be the case.
That looks correct to me.
He's got that full metal alchemist deal going, and I can respect that. Ooh! I hadn't even considered that! I wonder if the character was in any way inspired by Alphonse Elric.
Most of those other shenanigans work fine with a STR monk though. Circumstances bonuses to AC don’t stack and the level 10 prevailing position monk feat trumps all the circumstance bonus stuff you’re likely to have. It gives you the 50/50 vs the equal level enemy’s best attack that you are looking for and you should only personally be looking at one of those a round in the severe encounter, or you should be getting a lot of help from the allies you are tanking for. The Dex based monk is not getting anywhere near as close to the damage boost you are going to have over them. I'm not a fan of AC boost reactions that require you to risk gambling your reaction away. Change the trigger from "you're targeted" to "you're hit or fail the save" with retroactive benefits, then it would be worthwhile.
…Okay you didn't need to specifically go in and add [sic] to all my spelling errors, the post is two up, people can see it for themselves. Sorry. Editor/journalist habit.
Pharasmin with a sign that says "To Ghouls!" LOL!
I'm comparing it to the Creature Numbers table on the GM screen. Please explain what is a defensive class then ? A class that's expected to reduce or nullify half or more of the attacks it's likely to encounter; a class that doesn't feel like it's sporting a glass jaw. Isn’t a full Dex Monk only one better at this level? 3 better with a shield, or possibly 4 or 5 better with other shenanigans.
*Waves political sign in the air energetically*
...some official openning [sic] up of Automaton lore is welcome. The "Jistkan Soul Cage" flavor is fun but might feel a little restrictive to some players, official recognition that the same technology has arrisen [sic] with different origins and designs gives people more licence [sic] to be creative with it. I agree! That's one thing that I really LOVE about this new blog post.
Ugh. Just realized that a level 10 monster only needs a 6 to hit my AC 29 level 10 monk. It doesn't become a 50/50 proposition unless my foe is two or three levels lower than my monk! Hardly makes it feel like a defensive class.
You would also lose out on the monk's incredible speed bonuses, which many of their class feats depend on to remain effective. It might be a better idea to play a fighter or other martial class with the martial artist archetype at that point.
LOL! That just made my whole day.
I appreciate how much experience and knowledge you bring to Pathfinder discussions. You're clearly passionate about the game and have helpful insights on builds, mechanics, and optimization. That said, I wanted to suggest something that might help your posts land even better with more people: a slightly softer phrasing on some of the advice. Sometimes the direct/straight-to-the-point style can come across as pretty blunt or dismissive to folks who are newer or just looking for encouragement alongside the critique. A little extra "hey, this is a solid start, and here's how to push it further" or acknowledging the effort first goes a long way toward keeping the conversation positive and productive. For example, framing things as "One common pitfall I've seen is X--here's what works well instead..." instead of jumping straight into stronger wording with terms like "inferior," "garbage," and "worthless." It's a small tweak, but it reduces the chance of people getting defensive and helps everyone benefit more from your expertise.
Not a fan of the artwork this time 'round. The story is good, but a little halting, presumably to better reflect Pallemi's unique personality. I really thought he was going to be badly burned rushing into the fire to help people, and then would have his body rebuilt into an automaton. I kind of think that was a missed opportunity. Oh well, it rocks plenty as is!
Sometimes stuff just works better if you read it like a ten year old. My brain immediately went to childhood cowboys versus Indians imagination games. XD "My psychic casts his focus spell at you!" "No he doesn't! Psychics don't have focus spells. You missed!"
Casting on a monk, especially so at high level, feels massively underwhelming. You literally lower your damage and feel weaker casting. I've got amazing, character-defining mileage out of spellcasting archetypes a number of times--even when I chose to limit myself to 3rd-rank and lower spells going all the way up to 20th-level one time. I guess it's all in how you use it. I agree that trying to turn a monk into a spellcasting blaster would probably feel pretty limiting. Buff and utility options though? Sometimes they can be complete game changers when used in the right way, or in the right situation.
While they are no longer solid blocks, given that they can still attack AFTER being summoned, it would probably still make sense for an enemy to destroy them, rather than just move through them and ignore them. It does paint that classic undead scene of someone attempting to push or sneak through a herd only to suddenly find themselves completely surrounded, overwhelmed, and torn apart. Feed the herd!!! >D
I typically get spells first, then weapon and armor runes, then skill items, then everything else.
Thralls no longer blocking enemies but instead acting as difficult terrain is a HUGE change to the class' combat dynamic. It's a hell of a nerf, but allows for so many other necromancer themed options to exist within the power budget. I guess that's why they are fine with 1st-level necromancers creating as many as 7 thralls in one round now. I wonder if super thralls at higher levels will be solid enough to block foes?
Thanks, Tridus. I'm not 100% convinced that it is as clear as you say, but I am a little closer to coming around.
Yep. You can use your 10th rank slot to cast a hightened 10th rank fireball if you wanted. Cantrip ranks likewise don't cap at 9.
Found a potential flaw with doubling rings. You have to be wielding both weapons. So staff in one hand, bastard sword in the other. Can't use the sword two-handed unless you drop the staff. Staff loses its bonuses until you pick it up again. Not a big deal, I think. I never assumed to be holding the sword two-handed along with the staff anyways. It's either one-handed for both, in which case the doubling rings work fine, or it's the sword two-handed alone, in which case the doubling rings aren't needed.
*Lifts blindfold and stares down in wide-eyed disbelief at his open palm, where the grenade used to lay.*
And you don’t need permission from the GM to use legacy content. You need them not banning it. Which they could, but that’s not standard. That's fair. I've encountered more who are inclined towards banning it than not though. (Mind you it generally seems to come from a "I'd rather just not deal with it" sort of attitude.)
Irrelevant. They didn't think it was important enough to put into errata properly. On a 3rd party platform, a game dev is just another person. And one game dev making a remark alone does not have the same weight as a peer-reviewed official announcement. There's also the fact that I remember Devs saying that the Dedication wasn't enough, even though everyone thought otherwise. We're going to have to start citing sources to get anywhere I think.
So what part of an archetype grants spellcasting ability exactly? Edit: It appears the post showing errata regarding this issue that I was responding to has been deleted.
You don't need permission to use legacy options so long as they haven't been reprinted. You keep telling yourself that. While supported by the devs, I don't believe it's actually printed among the rules anywhere. It doesn't take much to find a GM that disagrees with the statement. In my experience GMs don't take kindly to players telling them how to run their games with no rules backing them up. Let's not pretend that a single dedication feat for scrolls/wands is "heavy archetype investment." Especially when multitalented exists. Last I heard, you you need Basic Spellcasting in order to qualify for scrolls, wands, and staves. That's at least two feats and likely a lockout of ther archetype options as well.
But monks don't cast spells. So now you need both permission from the GM to use legacy content as well as a heavy archetype investment.
Mobility is big for the monk if you don't need to stand in close to Reaction attacks. A monk with rogue archetype and mobility can move around a battlefield without provoking AOOs causing a monster to have to exchange movement for your attacks. No one can kite as well as a monk, especially after picking up something like Air Walk. Do you mean wind jump? Air walk is a legacy spell that wasn't reprinted in Remaster (presumably replaced by fly).
I'm a big fan of both the high damage stances, like Dragon, or the defensive ones, like Crane. Tiger is pretty cool too for the mobility. Most of my monk builds to date have been in the ballpark of level 10, give or take a few levels. If there's one thing I've noticed, is that most characters keeping up their AC up will have about a 30 at level 10. My monks consistently seem to have 28 or 29 instead. EDIT: Just looked up my various monk builds. LVL / AC (multiple values indicate multiple characters of the same level)
Almost 2/3 of them have Strength as 1 higher than Dexterity. Roughly 1/3 of them tied Strength and Dexterity. Only one of the level 1 characters had a higher Dexterity than Strength, and it was toting around a Tower Shield along with a lesser drakeheart mutagen, and Rain of Embers Stance. XD
Monks have a reputation for having a high AC, and yet whenever I build one their AC seems to lag behind other characters by a few points unless I (1) add a shield, (2) prioritize Dexterity over Strength, or (3) make them high enough level that I can get 20 Dex even as a secondary attribute. What else might I be missing? If I'm unwilling to compromise damage or wield a shield, what is your advice for keeping AC parity throughout the character's career?
For those of you willing to risk your mental health for additional context, here is the original Reddit discussion.
Oof! Never bought into HeroLab myself because (1) costs and because (2) it always seemed to make things harder rather than easier. I was actually reconsidering it on account of our recent conversations, and the hopes that it might allow me to better catch mistakes, but after reading the above I think I might continue keeping my distance from that software tool.
In a debate about the Psychic class on Reddit, I got down voted into oblivion for stating the following facts. So now I'm fact checking them here. True or false? - Courageous anthem is a cantrip. - The Psychic doesn't have focus spells at all. It has cantrips that it can amp with focus points. That doesn't make them focus spells. They're just modified cantrips. - Cantrips all have the cantrip trait, focus spells all have the focus trait, and psi cantrips have the cantrip trait, but lack the focus trait. - The Psi Cantrips and Amps class ability of the Psychic even says "you don't gain focus spells that cost Focus Points to cast." These all seem self evident to me because I read the rules. If you answer "false" to any of the above, I'd appreciate an explanation as to why you interpret the rules that way.
As an aside, must you be flying to cast this spell?
It's because it shuts down half the classes in the game, as well as a great deal of spellcasting NPCs and monsters. I view the Uncommon tag in this case as being a warning of a potential balance issue or impediment to fun.
That does make the RAI/intent pretty clear. Still doesn't change the fact that you have two separate bonuses being applied to two different stats per RAW.
Paizo has stated on items and such before that if you have a fly, swim, climb speed that is correlated to you normal speed, your special speed can't get a bonus from the same type. Source? In most games I've played and run the answer has been "Yes" just for ease of bookkeeping, but this isn't as clear cut and can really go either way. This is how I intend to handle it in my games. It's not exactly game breaking and I don't see much point in making a ruling that could diminish my players' fun.
Given that a bonus to one stat does not negatively interact with a bonus to another stat, can my Shory Aerialist stack his feat's +5 status bonus to Fly speed with his monk class' Incredible Movement status bonus to land Speed? Normally like bonuses don't stack, but in this case we're not adding them to the same stat. One is applied to base land Speed while the other is applied to Fly speed; two different stats. And since the fly spell's Fly Speed is equal to his land Speed, the IM bonus is already baked into his base Fly Speed. Example: Aiuvarin Shory Human Monk 13 with Fleet, Nimble Elf, and Shory Aerialist 25 base Speed
Do I have that right? Is this possible? Why or why not?
|
