Ryan Freire's page

2,456 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 2,456 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

LG Paladins being vastly more common than the other two kinds makes sense even without any sort of metaphysical reason, since one thing Lawful Good has on the other kinds of Good is "getting people organized and pointed in a specific direction".

Like with the liberator focus on individual self-determination, it makes recruiting incredibly difficult. Mendevian Crusaders can just walk up to people and say "Hey, you should devote yourself to Iomedae and go kill some demons up in the Worldwound."

Yup. Plus there's the whole 'Iomedae's church is the most likely to have Paladins because she was one' factor.

And the fact that Gorum doesn't have Good followers while both LN Gods do (Abadar even has Paladins in significant numbers), while few Neutral deities are gonna have such things (Nethys and Gozreh just make little sense...I can see some following Pharasma), is also probably a contributing factor.

Gorum not having Good followers is a PF2 thing.

You could even have Good Clerics of Gorum in PF1. Not sure if there was any in canon though

Raw mechanics allowed good clerics of gorum, the fluff and doctrine of the church doesnt make it seem particularly lore accurate though.

Also boo non LG paladins, adios 2e

Slim Jim wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:

Monk of the Four Winds 14/Heritor Knight 6//Mobile Fighter 20

Long story short, every round, 3 full attacks done as standard actions (plus a leftover move action), every attack in those full attacks has the effects of Greater Vital Strike, can sacrifice 1 attack at highest bab in any full attack to simultaneously do an extra move action, and enemies cannot AoO you.

Heritor Knight's Mighty Strike merely lets you Vital Strike as a standard action. With MoFW's Slow Time, you could get in three Mighty Strikes, or three full-attacks from Mobile Fighter's Whirlwind Blitz (unless your GM rules that you can't full-attack at all with Slow Time due to its specific text, with him deciding not to allow Whirlwind Blitz to override Slow Time proscribing full-attacks), or a mixture of Mighty Strikes and full-attacks -- but none of the attacks in a full-attack will be a Vital Strike (at least not from class abilities anyway).

BTW, you probably should have put Martial in the title of the thread if you're only interested in the most powerful gestalt martial.

Heritor knights mighty strike applies the effects of vital strike whenever you make an attack as a standard action. Vital strike is ALREADY a standard action. So, with mighty strike, whenever you make an attack as a standard action (as opposed to an attack action) you get the vital strike. Cleave, Deadly strike, all the class abilities of heritor knight, dual strike from the two weapon trick all apply the vital strike damage.

There are only two things to consider with mighty strike RAW.

1. Are you making an attack?
2. Is the attack part of a standard action?

If yes to both, then apply vital strike.

the entire point of a deathtrap is it isnt fair

26 people marked this as a favorite.

"its only a playtest" isn't a rebuttal to "its not fun" I've been in a number of playtests where the game was fun...buggy and in need of work but fun.

David knott 242 wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
I'll miss that Paizo missed a chance to do an evolutionary PF1.5 and instead decided to do a PF2 which is a very new and different game from what preceded it. However, I hold out hope that a change of heart/plan by Paizo is still possible.

Purple Duck Games is working on a new game that basically appears to be a PF 1.5. Of course, they don't seem to be set up to do things at the same scale as Paizo.

Paizo wasn't exactly set up to do things the same scale as paizo after the initial 4e release either though

2 people marked this as a favorite.
OmniMage wrote:
Is there a good version of Infernal Healing? If so, whats it called and where do I find it?

Neither of those spells should exist in the first place. sorcs and wizards don't need healing and level 1 shouldn't have a heal spell that outperforms the benchline CLW

Gorbacz wrote:
Well, D&D 3.0/3.5 didn't entirely replace earlier editions - there are still many folks playing either straight AD&D or OSR clones - yet nobody in their sane mind will call a 3.5 failure.

what % of the TTRPG playing population do you assume for "many" How many 2nd ed tables are there at gen con for example and how do you know they aren't disproportionate.

AD+D Is Certainly not adding NEW players at any significant rate and relies on luck in used book stores or knowing where to find pdf versions online (and being willing to do so, a lot of people take great offense at having to go online for rules)

23 people marked this as a favorite.

Everyone knows its just playtest and not a finished product. Making the statement convinces no one and is just a restatement of something that literally everyone involved already knows.

Look, people judge a game by whats available, not what will be available in future books years from now. If what they're presented with doesn't scratch whatever itch they have that causes them to play TTRPGs, they aren't going to spend their leisure time on it.

Which brings me to the other pointless argument I keep seeing. "If you quit playtest you'll lose your opportunity to give input". Its a condescending statement, of course they will, everyone quitting playtest knows they're done giving input. Playtesting is work and time and tbh the risk of losing input on a game you've lost interest in playing is a negligible consequence.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:

You must be talking about an entirely different Pathfinder level 1, because there realistically isn't much in 1E unless you compare 9 years of material to a Playtest book that's shorter than the CRB.

What's the difference between a level 1 paladin and fighter?

Depends on the build, but Saves, stats and stat priority (one can probably be a face) number of feats, general survivability.

Cyouni wrote:

Or any two swashbucklers?

Rapier vs dervish dancer vs dagger/starknife thrown builds

Cyouni wrote:

How do two martials play differently - what differentiates a sword-and-shield character from a greatsword-user in play besides damage and AC?

The sword and shield character requires a higher dex which by necessity lowers their strength. They're feat heavy but the sword and shield character is going to survive tougher adventures than the greatsword user.

cyouni wrote:

Moreover, what can two level 1 characters do differently in skills in PF1? They may have different skill totals, but in the end they're going to do the exact same things with them.

And they're going to have variance in which skills they have available or choose to use. A level 1 taking a class skill which is a primary stat is going to have no real difficulty making a dc 15 check, someone who throws a rank into a non class skill with a +1 stat modifier is going to struggle. Thats not doing the exact same things with a skill.

Cyouni wrote:

What is different about two CRB elves?

Depends on how they're built. Elves can be strong rogues, or wizards, or ranged fighters. CRB elves vary based on stat allocation.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
That's the funny thing to me the two drastic camps. For like 10+ years constant complaints that magic was to strong and it made other classes useless but soon as they go to change that all you hear is MAKE MAGIC GREAT AGAIN! *eye roll*

"Magic is too strong" = My gm exerts like zero control over spell access, handwaves components, and plays antagonists badly in a world that should be aware of magic.

People don't actually want balance. Balance doesn't make a fun game. Fun makes a fun game. Treating RPGS like they're competitive pastimes kills them dead.

Many excellent cooperative board games are balanced, yet incredibly fun. Gloomhaven, Descent, Imperial Assault, Aeon's End to name a few.

RPGS are not board games.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
That's the funny thing to me the two drastic camps. For like 10+ years constant complaints that magic was to strong and it made other classes useless but soon as they go to change that all you hear is MAKE MAGIC GREAT AGAIN! *eye roll*

"Magic is too strong" = My gm exerts like zero control over spell access, handwaves components, and plays antagonists badly in a world that should be aware of magic.

People don't actually want balance. Balance doesn't make a fun game. Fun makes a fun game. Treating RPGS like they're competitive pastimes kills them dead.

doomman47 wrote:
Eldritch knight is literally wizard in full plate but cant actually cast spells because they didn't give them the ability to cast in armor which imo is really dumb.

Spell failure only affects spells with somatic components, Still spell + spells without somatics don't care if you're in full plate.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ive never once had difficulty teaching the rules to a degree that they could be played to new players. Not people 40+ not people 12-18. I think that's a fallacy more based in "these people aren't actually that interested in the game" than the game being difficult to teach.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Cylerist wrote:

Yep works fine for metagaming and mechanical stand point but when using it to make an immersive logical game word it is ridiculous.

It's always interesting (I mean genuinely interesting, I'm not being facetious) to see what breaches from reality do and don't bother people.

Being able to survive a fall from the upper stratosphere, being able to fire a crossbow twice in six seconds, or a creature with a 60-foot wingspan 180'ing on a dime are all generally accepted, but stealth rules in particular seem to be a thing that people have a strong intuitive opinion of how it "should" work.

I literally just watched a video where someone shot a crossbow twice in 6 seconds

Literally survived a fall from the stratosphere

Christopk-K wrote:
nighttree wrote:

I suspect a lot of people are simply focused on PF2.

A slow down here is to be expected, and I don't imagine it will get better in time.

Those of us sticking with PF1 will just need to get used to it ;)

Yes, looks like it

What new stuff is there to talk about?

Divine casters have a less versatile spell list than arcane casters, arcane casters can already rival or exceed the defenses of heavy armor wearers, to allow them to put on heavy armor without significant resource investment on top of the layered magical defenses they could have would lead to an "arcane warrior from dragon age" type of game.

You could also have one of them be a vigilante with a safe house. I forget which version of vigilante has the blast you unconscious attack. Avenger vigilante's aren't that different from fighters tbh.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
But man if being on these forums isn't killing my enthusiasm. The amount of negativity and lack of respect for Paizo is crazy disheartening.
I disagree. I've found that these forums have all too often adopted a tone of "love Paizo or get out" that discourages criticisms, critiques, and speaking up about things that aren't wanted, liked, or otherwise appreciated. That so many people are willing to express views of the Playtest and the new edition that are something besides wild exaltation is something I find quite heartening.
Dude... This is blatantly false. Look at the ratio of threads on complaints vs appreciation.

Thats because the people who complain create threads and the people who demand appreciation or get out show up to crap all over those threads. Its a pretty standard forum dynamic.

Loreguard wrote:

Simply making wands more expensive per charge only removes wands from being viable items for use by proper level adventurers and simply makes them economically viable for people once they are a high enough level that that cost isn't significant any longer. So actually that just makes encourages the use of sublevel items at higher levels. Your suggestion of reducing the number of charges to 15, probably just makes the the same price as potions, assuming you were talking about he old P1 version of wands and their prices and charges, since you mentioned the P1 number of charges for a wand.

Which doesn't matter when placed as treasure, only when crafting.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

I see people say things like this. "Exponentially" is a word with a lot of meaning. I also see quotes similar to "Because Wizards is killing Paizo in marketshare..."

For people who say these things like this, I ask: Where do you get this insider information? When I asked one guy (the guy who made the marketshare comment), his response was that it was because in his little town in Iowa, D&D was displayed way more prominently on the shelves.

While actual sales figures are likely company secrets for both Hasbro and Paizo, there are some public figures we can look at. One indicator is the number of games being played on the popular platform Fantasy Grounds. There we see that D&D has 66% of the games played, and Pathfinder has 12% (and Starfinder 1%). That's not sales per se, but it's certainly an indicator of popularity. Roll20 posts similar numbers, 61% for 5e and 10% for Pathfinder.

We also have Nathan Stewart stating that D&D sales increased by 44% from 2016 to 2018.

But when you look at the raw numbers on roll20, pathfinder games have actually increased, just not at the same rate as d+d games. MORE GAMES IN GENERAL are being played on the site, including an increase in pathfinder games.


Seriously at 15 charges a wand they still might be worth crafting but you're going to chew through them like candy healing up at mid to high levels.

9 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope they fix it by tossing it entirely and reworking how many charges wands get.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Domains missed the entire point. Domains were a nod to sphere access which was one of the limiting aspects of 2nd edition clerics. Without sphere access limiting their spell selection (based on what kinds of powers a deity would actually grant their followers) clerics took the front seat as the most powerful class in 3rd, and frankly remained top 3 in pathfinder 1.0

3 people marked this as a favorite.
glass wrote:
Wandering Wastrel wrote:

A-freakin-MEN! If PFS is causing problems, then abolish/fix PFS.

Don't f&&$ up the entire game for those of us who wouldn't even notice if PFS died in a fire and never came back.

Oh, you'd notice, if you ever wanted new players or new products. Because without PFS providing a bunch of almost-free marketing for paizo there would be considerably fewer of both.

Also, PFS does not cause problems. What it does is highlight them.


PFS regularly bans and limits far more options for the lower powered martial classes than it does for the casters. PARTIALLY this makes sense as it requires time to suss out the potential problems of an option, but the ISSUE is that options to improve and balance weak classes are put through a tighter lens than the power options the most powerful classes have from core book.

I submit that throwing obstacles at post core balancing options is in fact causing problems.

12 people marked this as a favorite.

And yet balancing around Item availability is a thing that my gm has done reasonably and easily for decades.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
I don't play PFS and I hate CLW wands. Makes the game too easy. If you want the game to be easier just ask your GM to lower the difficulty. The game shouldn't be just easy mode because some people don't want to be challenged.

Or, yknow, you put limits on wands not potions permanent items and X use per day items, which is the actual issue.

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Skeld wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I will tell you what why don't you give me the specific issues and I said specific on what you don't like about resonance. The impression I've gotten is you like being fully healed for every fight and nominalizing healing in general. Also you prefer using 5+ magic items at 1st level per character. I've already answered that question of what its fixing in other forums but you refuse to acknowledge it so lets go again I guess..

This is an unnecessary attack. Just because someone doesn't like Resonance doesn't mean they free, unlimited, full healing between fights or that they want 1st level character covered in magic items.

I personally don't like Resonance because it's a dumb solution to a marginal problem. The whole reason it exists in the playtest is because the Paizo devs, who go to conventions and see a lot of PFS being played, don't like CLW wand spamming. They think the people who do that are playing the game wrong, so they've crafted a ham-fisted "fix" that causes other problems (read: healing in general, a well-recognized problem with the current playtest). This "problem" has much better solutions on the wand side of the equation that don't break other parts of the game.

This is a great example of how "problems" in PFS can have a huge effect on those of us that play home games.


This, PFS has crapped up the game in pf1 and now its crapping up the design of pf2

8 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
You could start by not responding to peoples unhappiness with "nothing is wrong with the game its surely the players who are wrong"

"Bulk is bad and needs to go away because my 8 STR Alchemist cant carry his equipment & 15 other things without being encumbered."

This is no different, you're actively choosing to leave your Cha at a negative score and you complain about the drawbacks.

Having a Character die because of poor rolls is one thing and it feels bad that I'll admit, but when the player knowingly chose to endanger the PC by relying on luck in order to use a Healing Potion... that on the player, not the system.

I agree it's like the bulk issue. For me, it's be like out of the blue saying heavy armor and heavy shields now require a 14 intelligence and fighters and paladin players complaining they have to spend the extra points to the basic functions of the game and their expected equipment. Or wizards spell books suddenly upped to 6 bulk and every wizard now needs a 14 strength.

From my perspective, if the game expects everyone st start with a 14 stats, you should JUST start with the and then make your character. This illusion of choice is annoying.

The game also doesn't work if you dont maximize your main stats

17 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:

Don't dump CHA or pay the price, its all about risk v reward... especially if you don't have a healer, its really quite simple.

Cheap unlimited healing for everyone is going away, and it needs to, you'll adapt.

No I won't, I will just play a different game.
How am I supposed to react to that? K bye?

You could start by not responding to peoples unhappiness with "nothing is wrong with the game its surely the players who are wrong"

35 people marked this as a favorite.

At what point does "you need to optimize and play just right or its not even fun" become a problem er-archetypes/high-guardian-fighter-archetype

Combat patrol


19 people marked this as a favorite.
Rules Artificer wrote:

I do think that this indicates that the scaling with Resonance is a little off. The developers have also stated that the current mechanics of Resonance do little to limit the huge quantities of cheap magic items that high-level players can use, which is (by dev statement) one of the design goals of the Resonance mechanic.

It seems like an easy solution to me to have Resonance start higher and scale slower than 1/level. This both helps low-level characters from being scrapped for Resonance when they arguably need it most, and helps high-level characters having way too much Resonance (according to the devs).

Its not about resonance being "a little off" its about it being a bad solution to a "problem" fewer people want solved than some think. An easy solution is to scrap resonance entirely, up the prices of wands and/or change their mechanics to work more like 1 spell staves.

25 people marked this as a favorite.
Funky Badger wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
Cheap unlimited healing for everyone is going away, and it needs to,

Why is this?

Does it improve the game?

No, it doesn't as evidenced by how much people hate resonance, hate having to stop adventuring due to hp loss, and hate the idea of a dedicated healer being required in party.

9 people marked this as a favorite.

The modern world of tabletop games sucks.

I mean the other thing is even in E8 the people who killed one were probably level 17 equivalent in advancement...feats and the like.... Yeah, By a CR equivalent level of exp you're level 8 + 249 other feats.

Plus its such a high crit weapon that maximizing your static damage bonuses make a big big difference in long term combat effectiveness.

I feel like bloodrager plays to the strengths better, and sorc (weirdly) plays to versatility.

Personally, i havent tried bloodrager, but its the one i'd pick if i were making a dragon disciple

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No that would be something that makes a sub par martial choice remotely playable.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:

[FWIW, 4E fans also assured us that the complaints online were meaningless....]

FWIW 4E was blatantly and significantly influenced by loud voices on their forums, a LOT of what some of the most obnoxious "3.5 is not up with modern game design" posters wanted was included in 4E. Then it tanked.

TBH the pf 2.0 playtest feels a lot like the WotC forums immediately pre 4e.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like the sorts of fans who are super-super mad about the Last Jedi are the sorts of fans who are a net negative to have in your community anyway, and everything is better off if those folks are relegated to their dusty dimly lit corners and leave the rest of us alone.

Just because someone buys your game doesn't mean they aren't also actively driving people away with their awfulness. Unlike movies which are a solitary experience even if you go with other people, tabletop games need a community which is not actively unwelcoming otherwise they die.

People who get super passionate about a property are the ones who buy your merch and make sure to go to every single thing.

Where the comparison breaks down is that pathfinder is not the cultural touchstone that is Star Wars. Star wars is in a pretty unique place as basically the only long term space fantasy/opera property given significant funding by the entertainment industry, its backed by freakin Disney now and with a sea of merch that contributes to the growth of that property, whether the movies are critically accepted or not.

Pathfinder is in a SEA of other rpg options and despite the increasing mainstream absorption of TTRPGs (thanks mainly to the internet) its still a relatively niche hobby in comparison to even things like MTG. When you're in a niche like that the risk of a poor reception from current fans increases. In a lot of ways the idea that these sorts of hobbies are going to tap into some large untapped market of growth is like assuming there's always administration and waste you can be rid of to balance a budget. Its a risk, and that waste you can cut isn't always actually there.

It is unfortunate that often times the most passionate advocates for a thing take it far too seriously.

Horseback archer might be able to take it down if the horse is jacked up to be at least as fast as the dragon.

The characters saves matter in a fight vs an ice linnorm. The character you list has a roughly 50% chance to eat 1d6 con drain each time he gets bitten. and a greater chance to eat the full 80ish damage from a failed reflex vs its breath weapon.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Few people actually want caster nerfs, most just want martials to have good options for out of combat contribution.

I was going to say drop some terrain on them to pin them down and whale on them while they cant fight back effectively but ice linnorms have freedom of movement soooooo

thflame wrote:

The difference between getting a STEM degree and learning to cast magic, is that getting a STEM degree doesn't give you skills that make supernatural tasks mundane.

Heck, unless you get a job in your field, most of that information is useless to you. An unemployed wizard can still cast spells.

Not to mention that the difference between the Average Joe and a STEM degree holder is NOTHING compared to the average peasant and a Wizard.

It also doesn't take 7 years to learn how to cast magic. Any fighter can go raid a tough dungeon and be able to cast spells shortly afterward, without ever having to have studied magic at all. (Yes, I know the lore says otherwise, but the game mechanics say no.)

At least in PF2 you have to have training in Arcana and 16 INT (though a fresh wizard can have a 10 in INT).

Regardless, game mechanics could definitely reflect the lore of Golarion better. A LOT better.

Granted, nobody would want to play a wizard if it took 10 levels to be able to cast cantrips without risking death or dismemberment.

Except commoners aren't going to go into a dungeon and come out learning to cast spells. They're going to take a far safer and slower path to learning. Also, the stuff you gain at a level is supposed to be stuff you've been working on in downtime.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It totally is. 6 years on average to get a masters, Characters with wizard, cleric, monk, druid roll 2d6 (avg 7) for starting age.

It requires roughly 5 years more effort to become a 9 level caster.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just to point out that whole "why doesn't EVERYBODY study magic" line of thought.

Pretty much the same reason people don't all have STEM masters. Its hard, it requires devotion, and you need to feed yourself while you're learning it. Thats not even considering the places where "powerful mage wreaks havoc" is recent history. Or the rulers who maybe don't want their peasants shooting magic missiles when the time comes for an uprising.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
So if a *player* with an arguably low IQ rolls an Int 18 Wizard, do you tell them that they need to quit playing the character because they can't realistically roleplay the rules? Will your group constantly pressure them to drop the "smart" aspect of the character?

No what happens there is that the GM steps in with things an 18 int char may not overlook but the player might.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

We could always start up some more goblin, paladin, and alignment threads.

Just for comparisons sake, to remind us how good we have it right now.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

More than usual does not a toxic environment make when the usual is 1 in every 100 threads or so.

1 to 50 of 2,456 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>