Razgriz 1's page

21 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


I believe you can retrain out of Warpriest into cloistered with one of those 30 day retrainings, which do take a lot of time but you got a pretty big "deadline" because cloistered and warpriest are more or less the same at levels 11-14 so you got 4 levels to do it.

So if you talk about that with your GM he can almost definitely set a time for you to retrain.

Henro wrote:
Hbitte wrote:
So always cast slow because it is the best effect when you fail to do what you want and you will fail.
Fear, Stinking Cloud, Confusion, Command and Crushing Despair are all examples of crippling debuffs that aren't spell attacks, aren't incapacitation and and have equal or greater effects than slow for when you fail.

He was talking about slow being the best spell to throw when you're almost sure the enemy will pass the save (bosses) and you're talking about failure effects I assume because command doesn't do anything when the enemy succeeds.

There is also the fact that if you do die to trap, your body is probably gonna be unrecoverable.

Seems like a very extreme trap all around, with the trap either doing almost nothing to you, or it being worst than quite a few of other traps that have a chance to one shot you.

Well yeah, but if you're already houseruling initiative you might as well houserule the feat too.

I just think that the official rules should be as consistent possible in the biggest number of cases as possible in this case.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You won't won't lose these things when you fall, no. But because you never had anything supernatural in the first place I'm not even sure if it counts as falling.

It's like joining a order of paladins to learn how to fight and saying "so long suckers" after getting trained.

In the gloom blade's case, it's because that's a blade that's usually a +1 shortsword that "transforms into" a +2 striking shortsword in dim light or darkness.

If they didn't say that line about improving it beyond a 2+ striking shortsword, you could interpret the blade as getting weaker in dim light once it gets upgraded into a +3 greater striking shortsword, because then going into dim light would transform it back into a 2+ striking shortsword.

Zapp wrote:
Strill wrote:
That's fine, but it just doesn't make sense that it would affect the amount of time a character is flat-footed.

I don't follow.

You don't count time by the number of foes that act while you're affected by something.

You count time by the number of times somebody acts.

From the instant I make you flat-footed, the condition lasts exactly one round - until the start of my next turn. No matter when I act, the amount of time you're flat-footed remains the same.*
*) Ignoring exceptions

But the thing is that you're not making him flat footed on your turn, you're making him flat footing on their turn with a reaction (blocking).

So for it to last exactly one turn as you said, it would need to wear off at his next turn, not at my next turn.

Zapp wrote:

Adding runestones and the concept of movable runes to the game is great. It solves the problem when a player must decline to use a weapon because its form is inconvenient for his character.

Mandating runestones and the concept of movable runes, on the other hand, is not great. The GM should totally be able to hand out a magic item whose abilities are locked to that item.

I know there are such abilities - a Bloodletting Kukri, for instance, deals persistent bleed damage, and since this isn't represented by a rune, it can't be moved.

But while I guess I can technically hand out a Flaming Longsword whose Flaming ability is a non-removable part of the item, I cannot do so without coming across as miserly, screwing the players out of their Flaming rune. This is because the rulebook doesn't even for a second discuss this possibility.

The rules went too far. Adding transferable runes is okay (great even). Stipulating that every weapon with an ability that matches a rune does have a rune is taking it too far.

I want to be able to hand out a Fighter's Fork, say, without the players instantly scavenging the Striking rune and trying to sell the trident, or just throwing it away.

tl;dr: The rulebook sorely needed at least one example of a specific magic weapon whose ability duplicates a rune without actually having it, making this practice explicitly supported canon rules usage.

Aren't the unique magic weapons already like that?

Core Rulebook page 600 wrote:

Specific Magic Weapons

These weapons have abilities far different from what can be gained by simply etching runes. A specific magic weapon lists its fundamental runes, which you can upgrade, add, or transfer as normal. You can’t etch any property runes onto a specific weapon that it doesn’t already have.

So in your example of the Bloodletting Kukri even though it is a +1 striking kukri you won't be able to remove the generic runes in addition to not being able to remove the unique runes.

That's what I mean, from level 7 onwards he is tied to a weapon type. After level 12 he can get a higher amount of freedom if he choses to use a feat for it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You take the 35% chance of failing the first.

Then you calculate 65% of 35% which gives you 22.75%. This is the chance that you'll get less than 8 the first time but then get 8 or more the second.

Now you either add 65% + 22.75% or you subtract 100% by (35% - 22.75%). Both should give you 87.75% which is the total chance of you succeeding at either roll.

BellyBeard wrote:
Zapp wrote:

The only alternative is to make Magic Crafting a mandatory feat tax for every adventuring party. If you want that, sure.

I'd only like to point out that parties are much less tied to specific weapons than in PF1 (even when the weapon groups alternative rule was added) thanks to feats like Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec before. It's viable now to simply use the weapons you find while adventuring, since most fighting styles have broad weapon requirements like 2 hand weapons or 1 hand agile weapons, so you don't have to transfer runes unless you have a build tied to one weapon like longbow or thrown weapons. Of course transferring runes will be preferable at some point but I think a party could survive without it.

Aren't warpriests super tied to a certain weapon type?

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Narxiso wrote:

Would spells feel better if they only had a binary system: failing the save gives the failed result without a chance for critical and a successful result does nothing? Because that honestly seems a lot worse to me, but it would get rid of the perception that spells are meant to fail.

I don't think the sucess result is what makes it feel like the spells are meant to fail, it's more the different results plus the rate to hit spells versus at level enemies. Even the lowest save will have better than 50% chance to resist a spell many times. In a sense they are meant to fail (and the failed result still be useful).

To keep using your example, if you remove the crit fails and made a sucessful save make a spell do nothing, the spell would be underpowered and increasing the chance for the spell to hit would make it balanced again, and that would make the spell not look like it was designed to fail even if it would introduce other problems (more binary gameplay and making incapacitation spells even more useless versus bosses, because the incapacitate would always bring the failure into a sucess, that would then do nothing).

These terms are relative to each other, not to a certain level. As long as you don't find a lesser staff of transmutation that's stronger than a greater staff of transmutation it's fine.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Rarity is a language. It is a way to talk about what you, the GM, consider acceptable in your game and to what degree.

Having a common set of terminology to talk about this is an extremely useful addition that PF2 has made to the game.

See above, but as I stated, the problem as is is it's a badly written language IMO.

I disagree. The Protection spells are Uncommon because almost all Alignment spells are, leaving only one thing on the list (Spell Storing Weapons) that isn't part of a very few specific categories. Which makes the language work much better than you're implying it does even on the face of it.

But perhaps more importantly, what stuff falls into what category is much less important to it being a language than the mere fact that everyone now knows what 'In my games, Resurrection is Rare' means.

Yeah but why are most alignment spells Uncommon or rare is the thing? Detecting alignment makes sense because that's a spell DMs have to make all social encounters around if you get it but Divine wrath and Decree aren't uncommon for example, and protection spells are more like Divine wrath than detect alignment.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

A player arguing with the GM after he decides to ban something seems more like a player problem than a rule problem.

I feel like the same thing happens with these players regardless of rarity:

GM bans for the aforementioned reasons, player complains, GM > Player so the rule stays, player then decides if he plays anyways/looks for another group/doesn't play Pathfinder at all.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kasoh wrote:

What continues to bother me, especially as I've read through the two Lost Omen books is that people buy these books. Pay 40 dollars a book for things they can't use unless the GM says so. There is no wholly player facing product anymore. Its all on the GM which means that the GM either bears a higher expense or you risked buying a fancy book of neat Schrodinger's Character Options.

It doesn't solve the problem of someone buying product they can't use. It doesn't solve the issue of new rules options being put into the adventure backmatter.

It was always like this, if a DM felt like something was too strong or didn't fit the campaign in a expansion book he'd just disallow it, if he disliked a big enough part of the book he'd just ban the whole book instead of picking and choosing the parts he wanted.

Don't really have a problem with uncommon rules themselves, more with what is or isn't uncommon in some cases. Have to get GM green light and then researching some potentially story breaking stuff like ressurection can be a really big boon but doing it with stuff like protection/circle of protection/drop dead kinda feels really bad.

Don't really care about asking the GM for being allowed to use spells (as you said if a GM didn't want a spell in a game he already was going to remove it) it's more the extra downtime and researching that gets me.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:

But all three answers below are equally valid and reasonable:
* "yes"
* "no"
* "maybe"/"don't know"/"haven't decided yet"

In the last case the player will simply have to suck it up. After all there are rules for retraining available if the feature ends up not being introduced after all.

In short, it's perfectly understandable if you tell your player not to build a character reliant on any uncommon features. In fact, that's very good advice in general.

Yeah but in the third case scheduling downtime for retraining is also a resource like most things in this game, so while is understandable for a DM to say that it's also understandable for a player to be slightly annoyed at it.

That does mean that your advice to not plan around uncommon things when the DM says that he isn't sure if he'll put them or not gets even more reasonable though.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I believe the +8 to healing would be too strong to put it in the AoE variant anyway.

This way it is now the spell is incredibly flexible, imagine if the different action versions of heal/harm were different spells entirely that you'd need to choose from with the limited number of spells slots in 2E.

I kinda prefer how it is now.

nicholas storm wrote:

I like the warpriest early on, but I feel like you get punished later being capped at master magic and expert melee. Seems to me like all spell casters need the legendary magic in order to land spells later on. As such, I don't think I would ever play a warpriest in a campaign I expected to go higher than level 10.

If you play a warpriest and dump wisdom (say start with a 14), you will be behind a cloistered cleric dc by 3 (1 for stat, 2 for proficiency).

I think cloistered cleric with MC into paladin is pretty much superior to the warpriest.

It's not level 10+, it's level 15+ . The proficiencies in weapons and spell attack rolls for warpriests and cloistered clerics are exactly the same between levels 11 and 14.

I also think you can retrain it under the rules counting as one of the long 30+ days retrainings so if you like warpriest early on but dislikes what happens with it later I think you're allowed to switch and then grab a champion dedication or something. 30+ days of downtime is a lot but so is a 4 level deadline, if you ask your GM he can probably make room for it.

Warpriests also get shield block at level 1 with their first doctrine. In addition Fighter only gets to have Will saves become crit successes if they are fear effects.

I don't know how their feats compare but I do know using 2 Cleric feats to multiclass champion and get heavy armor didn't hurt too much. Might hurt more if Paizo releases more class feats in the future.