Ryan Freire's page

It’s a little quieter, with considered, measured discussion around a system we love and aren’t giving up on yet. Sure - we know that PF1 has its failings. But it’s what we’ve invested so much time, energy and cash into. And I like this community as it is now: a little less noise than before. And I intend to share, borrow and steal from all of you for the indefinite future. Thanks

Plus the longer it goes on the more likely stuff gets re-looked at and community based modifications to the system will begin taking over

yukongil wrote:

why does the Cleric need more options for Channel when Channel Energy allows them to free up most all of their spells for whatever they want to actually do?

Because healing wands already do that. In Pathfinder, the burdon of HP healing does not lie on the Cleric.

And since you already don't need healing spells, what Channel Energy does is makes it seem that the class is mainly about healing, even though it isn't, and it's only some people who're stuck in the past shoving their nostalgia crap down people's throats. There is no "40 years of weight", because the game only existed for 11 years (12 with the CRB playtest). That it somewhat encourages people to stick to their outdated misdirected believes about the Cleric is part of the reason I would like to see it removed (and replaced it with something selectable, which could include the option to select it still).

Ryan Freire wrote:

Frankly i find the addition of wands to the cheap consumable marketplace to be one of the worst aspects of pathfinder.

Better than forcing people to play classes they don't want to play, that's for sure. I do actually dislike healing wands, too, and removed them for my current game, but that's really a discussion for a different thread.

Heal skill has enough feats now that you don't really need a specific class to play healer anymore.

I'd love to say yes to show my support for PF1, but I don't think that's true.

Nothing physical, and nothing as inflexible as a pdf. I'm also not entirely sure the current team has the same design goals that made the original PF1 something I like.

But, all that aside, I'd pay money toward a project to complete the roll20 PF1 compendium. I'd support a "complete bestiary art assets" project for illustrations and icons for everything they've created to be made freely available; though I'm not inspired by the direction PF2's art direction took, so I'd still wait and see on the project. I'd support an online interactive atlas of Golarion, sort of like this but with a more professional look and better optimized. I'd also support an online project that inserted the full text for identical abilities rather than referencing some other thing in their rules entry.

But a book? No, probably not.

I'd pay for a 1.5 pass over the rules, a condensation of the feat trees and a reworking of old content to take new content and design philosophies into account. (Like all of the old fighter archetypes removing weapon and/or armor training, with the new archetypes balancing those choices between one or the other and bonus feats/bravery)

I'd like a core book to include a visual combat flowchart and sub charts for maneuvers (grapple in particular). Seems like almost every rpg ive encountered eventually has to flowchart some option put out and itd be nice to just have it included in the core book from the get go.

Ryan Freire wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

Umm. Well if you say so, I haven't gotten that impression on either of things you stated. I'm pretty sure there are actually more pages and thus more words than in old campaign setting book. Sad to hear your attempt to try it out didn't go well though.

I mean...they took a -cha race and turned it into + cha kender for one.

I think your complain would be more valid if you said small sized dex/cha+ ;D But seriously, goblins having wisdom penalty makes more sense than charisma to me due to all the singing and ridiculous antics. Either way, doesn't make them kender since goblins don't come with "Oh, but you gotta love those kenders for borrowing your items! Aren't they rascals" text.

(that said I agree that goblins being common instead of uncommon makes no sense considering that I believe tengu should be common instead ;P I would have rather had orcs as new core ancestry than goblins)

Or hobgoblin since they went and gave them their own nations and they have an entire edition of being known for working for/with other humanoids, vs how goblins were portrayed all edition long.

But yes, also yet another + cha race as though small = cute. Could have just as easily been dex/int for all that twisted cunning they spent pages writing about.

Umm. Well if you say so, I haven't gotten that impression on either of things you stated. I'm pretty sure there are actually more pages and thus more words than in old campaign setting book. Sad to hear your attempt to try it out didn't go well though.

I mean...they took a -cha race and turned it into + cha kender for one.

Brawler guide, wombo combo

Brawler guide, debuffin with style

Here are two brawler guides that each have some specific information on how to pick feats to open up the widest variety of martial flexibility options.

Not gonna be 100% relevant to picking up barroom brawler but does a good job of explaining how to get the most out of the ability.

Vigilante: Should just give out both specializations, if a class doesn't have 6th spell casting there is no reason it should lack full BAB.

While its not creating a god wizard or anything, with no weird supplements or feat rulings at all, a vigilante who counts as both rolls out of the surprise round with a 50' charge that will 90% of the time instagib whatever the vigilante charges.

Mad rush + d8 sneak attacks + 1/2 level in damage + TWF chain is too much.

Improved Maneuver:

Prerequisite;
The misguided desire to attempt any Combat Maneuver.

Benefit;
You no longer provoke AoO when attempting any Combat Maneuver. Furthermore, you receive a +2 bonus to your CMB when you attempt any Combat Maneuver.

AND, that fixes 'em all...

Combat Expertise: Prereq int 13. You no longer provoke attacks of opportunity for attempting a combat maneuver, gain +2 to all combat maneuvers. (counts as all improved combat maneuver feats currently in game)

Dodge: Prereq dex 13. Gain a +1 dodge bonus to AC, when moving through a threatened area this increases to +5 vs attacks of opportunity provoked from movement. When making an attack roll you may take -1 to hit to gain a +1 dodge bonus to AC until the beginning of your next turn. Every 4 BAB increase the penalty and bonus by 1.

Declutters a massive amount of feat tangle.

Combat maneuvers are a 3 feat chain to the quick maneuver option and a 2 feat investment for any maneuver past the first. Much more reasonable.

Whirlwind attack becomes a 3 feat chain.

I also like the idea of combat feat chains working more like vigilante talents, where you pick one and get 2-3 options staggered by level.

\

Honestly, there are very few meaningfully useful spells outside of the core books. We aren’t talking about 50 ways to deal damage with fire here.

Kinda the same with feats too

Channeling is indeed very efficient and a (literal) godsend at low levels, but then there are wands. And replacing that Channeling with an ability that prevents you from taking the damage in the first place obviates the need to channel to heal the damage.

Frankly i find the addition of wands to the cheap consumable marketplace to be one of the worst aspects of pathfinder.

edit: more on topic. Any archetype in the advanced players guide, ultimate magic, or ultimate combat should get a polishing pass. Vigilante could use more options as could void and wood elements of the kineticist.

I also find the idea of white room tier lists to be distasteful at best. The issue I have with them is basically the Batman arguement, where we place wizards witches druids and the like at the top because they can solve issues with a (literal) wave of the hand and the statement of "with enough time and prep they can overcome that, so we assume they do" which amounts to "of course he can do it hes The Batman". Well, unless you have knowledge of all spells to know which to even have; the resources to place them all in your books and the foresight to pick those exact ones, time and planning don't help you and you cant always take 8 hours to adjust.

If I WAS to make a tier list I'd place it in order to how easy it would be to be useful to the party no matter the system mastery you have. No optimization needed, no tricks or loopholes and no must have feats to pour over to be useful. This would actually place 6th level casters on top tier since they can always do SOMETHING, and maybe cleric too for the same reasons. It's hard to screw up making them.

Tier lists tend to focus on individual effort vs team help (ie putting spells above teamwork feats) and for PFS I get that. But for regular groups it's totally the opposite and tier lists should be scrapped completely.

I prefer my tier lists to include a floor as well as a ceiling. It tells a better story of where that class fits in the grand scheme of things

Like low tier for kineticist is probably "c or d rank" just because its hard to be an F for a class if you can do more damage than a lightly optimized fireball or lightning bolt every turn.

The available space argument is a valid argument with things like player companions, small batch small page count 15 dollar supplements. It doesn't really fly in a core rulebook with as many revisions as this ruleset has had.

It can be good, but at the same time in my experience going back to old systems can highlight why you left the system in the first place.

Like nostalgically? I love a tightly controlled for power level rifts game. LOVE it...in theory. By about hour 2 of the math involved in filling out your skills in a palladium system and i remember why i dont play it anymore.

I have amazingly fond memories of 2nd edition forgotten realms and birthright in particular as settings. I'm not into going back to racial caps on levels.

Literally any skill choice is going to be either phantom thief rogue or investigator. With knowledge checks you can add bard, with craft and profession you're a human with heart of the fields and the skill focus instead of human bonus feat options.

There aren't many raw int checks, they're usually associated with a skill but AFAIK the only options there are either generic rerolls, one or two spells that add a +1 or 2 and just having a high stat.

Will saves? Dwarf cleric with steelsoul and improved iron will.

Concentration checks are going to involve a ton of surfing through traits, and i think to maximize it you're probably going to end up using the exemplar magic trait to power load magic traits with your feats. Many of those traits are situational but almost all your options will be that way. Bonuses when casting defensively, bonuses that only apply when you're hit while casting, steel falcon has bonuses for casting on a rough moving ship, there are feats for mounts that give bonuses (do reductions i forget which) from casting on horseback while running.

I will offer you a reasonable and easy house rule for perception.

Passive perception: Whatever taking 10 results in for that character is their perception level just existing. They automatically notice anything of a DC underneath their passive perception score.

Active perception: You roll the dice, and actively search a 5foot square as a move action. This is you moving things around, poking and prodding.

Your games will move along much quicker if you set things up like that.

The fact that the feats basically hold no synergy with either the fighter archetype or prestige class makes me think they're in existence solely to splash aldori flavor into other martials.

Like the archetypes and prestige class fit together well, and even if its not the best TACTICAL choice, mechanically its a functional if unexceptional dex "tank".

I feel like the feats are intended to be taken by a rogue or something. At least there's incentive to invest in feinting.

Edit: never mind, just read that last sentence that had no reason to exist in there. does not stack with sneak attack.

Just the worst feat series. Just terrible.

The aldori feats, prc, and archetypes desperately wish for there to be a more mechanically and lorewise fleshed out dueling system integrated into the game.

Its a build for campaigns aimed at martials with low to no magic and even there half the feats are no good.

You go to your pit and find X gold coins worth of salvageable gear from whoever fell into it

Might want to consider how to get spellsong in there.

pad300 wrote:

Your GM is going to have to be careful about encounter choices - you have no full casters, which limits a party (obviously), and very limited condition removal and healing...

Outside of item creation, I think this sort of stuff might be the biggest set of advice they’d be looking for, but from the player side. While an obvious lack of full casting is obvious, going the full casting route may well overshadow the others by accident, which is something the player wanted to avoid.

One interesting thing is that most of the responses in this thread emphasize this guy being better in personal combat. That is not this guy’s purpose. He is the gap-filler and assistant, but he is explicitly trying to avoid stardom; letting the others get glory.

That said, the dwarven scholar is also an interesting take.
Is there some other method that he can grant feats without sacrificing inspiration?

I’ll have to think about the chronicler of worlds, too.

Thanks!

Well, the shared training spell is simply a bard spell, so all it really requires is that you take teamwork feats to then share.

You've got ...more or less three kind of "clusters" of teamwork feats

Melee, which is things like outflank, paired opportunists, broken wing gambit, feint partner shenanigans

Ranged, stuff like enfilading fire, wounded paw gambit, etc etc

And phalanx, which are generally survival boosters, shield wall, whatever the one is that gives you +1 to saves for everyone with the feat adjacent to you, escape route. Generally they just up a defense or provide help with mobility as long as the party fights shoulder to shoulder. With a cooperative party this grouping tends to be on the very powerful for a feat side of things.

Instead of plain bard you could go urban skald as well, you'd have access to that spell, AND the ability to throw out dex boosting rage. In a party with another bard, a gunslinger, and a kineticist that would likely be very welcome. You could go urban/battles scion skald, and instead of handing out rage powers you could hand out teamwork feats with your dex boosting raging song, as well as having access to the shared training spell to share even more of them.

That build, its not inconceivable to be just handing out like 5 or 6 bonus feats by around level 10.

Dwarven scholar. Don't be a social bard, be a knowledge bard and party tactician. Hand out combat feats and teamwork feats to the entire party. Everyone with guns is going to love when you cast shared training and hand out ranged attack teamwork feats.

To be fair, counterspelling is a rarely occurring thing because why wait to see if an opponent casts a spell that *might* be on your list when you can cast a spell that will disable the caster and maybe some of his friends as well?

counterspelling works well to ok but mostly with arcanist, and mostly by laser focus on the dispel magic spell.

This continues to make the argument for Earth/Water kinetic knight.

Hit points-only d8's but con based class.

Miss chance- Water defense talent has a utility that gives 20%

Dr-Earth defense talent gives you invulnerable rager dr for adamantine

Battlefield control- You can eventually become huge with a reach weapon

Resistances-Water element qualifies you for cold and fire resist utilities that are going to be around 10 each most of the time

Mobility- Unfortunately only swim and climb...but 30' reach should help

Battlefield control/Combat maneuvers-Realistically being huge with 30' reach demands trip tanking. AND bowling infusion lets you do that on a hit, with your con mod replacing strength. Without any feats you're probably looking at 3/4 bab plus 7-11 for the CMB

Hit hard-composite kinetic blasts are more damage than your standard fireball and you get iteratives. should average out to ~40 damage a hit around level 10

Saves- You're fort/reflex good with a class that focuses on dex and con already, in addition you get access to the samurai's resolve ability, letting you roll twice and keep the higher on fort and will saves, as well as shake off a number of debuffs.

Crit negation- A natural source with elemental overflow.

Nope, if your read the whole thing on aura it specifies only in vigilante identity.

edit: yep to second question because for all intents and purposes you ARE the alignment of your identity.

and to the third whatever the rules are for level to aura strength.

Just treat the two alignments as though they were standard alignments with nothing wonky about them. Whatever identity they're in, they're affected by whatever affects THAT identity's alignment

gnoams: I hear you.

High level play is such drudgery for a GM. You have to throw waves of monsters at them and pretend to smile when they come up with their amazing feat combos. Tanks or worse, monks with funky archetypes, are just impossible to hit by both weapon or spell. The only time you slow them down is with stuff that don't grant a save like Maze, Scintillating Pattern or Waves of Exhaustion, and then only momentarily for a round or two.

High level villains share the same hatred for heroes that GMs have. Therefore they try to catch the heroes with their pants down when they sleep at night. Or they hide from the Tanks and Monks and target the mages and priests and bards in the back row hoping those guys are not buffed.

It's hard to be a villain. It's worse to be a GM, as it is 'bad form' to truly take the depraved road a villain would take against hero-gods gunning for them.

In Pathfinder, the villains are like "The Boyz" taking on "Supes" that are gunning for them in premeditated organized raids.

start using evil adventuring groups instead of monsters.

Strongjaw doeesn't multiply the dice its like impact.

4d6 (huge) + Strongjaw 8d6 (colossal)+ vital strike = 16d6

You get the trip on the tail right? maybe head toward the trip feats instead of going more than the base vital strike chain. Make that vital strike hit drop them and sneak an extra AOO in.

Pinned will forever be more severe than grappled. Also a grappled opponent can full attack you, a pinned opponent cannot.

The key is "If he isn't a cleric"

You are a cleric.

I'm playing as an alchemist and looking through about it at aonprd, and find out about Annointings. One thing catch my attention among it, yet the rule is not clear enough for me in this particular case.

** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **

My question is, since the annointings need standard action to use, how can I use it with bomb? Since bombs don't actually exist until they're created and thrown at the same action.
Or can I assume it can be used while the bomb is made, hence it doesn't need additional action to use?

Thanks in advance!

A good rule of thumb is that at any point where RAW renders something unable to be used in a way that the example says it can is to play as though the example worked.

Character abilities should work, they should be useful, and there's a part of me that wonders if a market couldn't be developed for a more MMO development style, or something similar to privateer press' CID forums.

As an explanation for those who don't know the CID thing (which yes gets a lot of complaining but its a competitive rather than cooperative game so it will naturally get a lot of complaining) is basically when new content is coming out, during what would be the semi-open playtest period, they will also occasionally throw changes to OLD models and rules in to be tested as well. Things that have been released since the beginning of the game can end up toned down, or dramatically improved.

Bondranx wrote:

Melkiador wrote:

There's a fair chance you could draw a quote from Mark Seifter, the main designer of the class. If that doesn't sway your GM, then probably nothing will.

Personally, I think it's already super clear that you can get iteratives. You might could also look to how it works in the Kingmaker videogame for evidence, but that kind of info isn't always readily available.

I’ve been trying really hard to find a post where he explicitly states this but haven’t had a lot of luck, lots of places where he implies it, but apparently that’s not good enough to counter “I don’t like it so it doesn’t work”

Nothing beats that. If I really don't like something, I houserule it out at my table, and almost any the GM I know does it. But generally, we acknowledge that it is an houserule.

The damage you deal is detcent, especially if you use energy blasts and target touch AC, but an alchemist do it better, a melee combatant do as much, hit better and can do it all day, a archer do that damage at range. I don't see the problem.

hah, yeah we didn't even touch archer builds did we?

Then i'd tell him you want to retire the character and make one that actually functions.

At the time the realms was written psychic abilities were wildly different from magic.

That said it was also handled WILDLY differently than pathfinder 3.5 handles it and i think some actual and a lot of perceived balance issues will arise if you choose to treat it differently from arcane and divine magic.

I’ve made these arguments and more in favour of my ruling, but he says “it’s too much damage to be allowed to work that way, no other class at 9th level can make iterative attacks at 10d6 damage in 1 round.” (Was using a composite blast)

No, any half decent 2handed martial build should be doing WAY more than avg 30 damage per hit by level 9

If it were only one attack ever, period, it makes absolutely not the slightest sense to write "The kinetic blade deals your kinetic blast damage on each hit".

It would also not make sense to exist as a 5' step and normal blast has the same ultimate effect

The blade disappears at the end of your turn

This would be the relevant text. The blade is in existence until the end of turn, not end of a single attack.

Rerednaw wrote:

Several of the infusions that are available are from other, older, sources which don't tell you which blasts may be used. For example Deadly Earth is normally used with earth, magma, metal, and mud...which wood blasts work with it? Same goes for say Entangling infusion. We can assume it works with wood (physical)...but what about positive blast? And which composite blasts?

The answer is right on page 58 of Ultimate Wilderness (along with probably most of the answers to other questions you might have about the wood element)

Quote:

Simple Blast: A phytokineticist gains her choice of wood blast or positive blast as a simple blast wild talent, though most phytokineticists start with wood blast. She can use deadly earth, entangling infusion, impale, and pushing infusion with wood blast and its composites.

So you can use them with wood blast but not positive blast.

Quote:

It appears if you take wood again as your expanded element (at 7th), the class doesn't have a composite blast? Is that correct?

Verdant Blast is the composite blast for wood/wood.

Phytokineticists are an interesting theme, but there's really only two situations in which they have a mechanical niche better than another kineticist. 1: You're in an undead-heavy campaign where positive blast and its composites are an advantage. 2: You're playing a "dedicated healer" kineticist in which case you have a (small) numerical edge with your healing bursts.

Three: Party synergy. At will plant growth without occupying a spell slot makes the druid/shaman/hunter's thorny/thirsty entanglement punch significantly out of their weight class.

this is literally what the living monolith prestige class is supposed to represent.

edit: part of why i hate all the advice that flies around here about dipping into it

jocundthejolly wrote:

The refrain of "I don't want politics (such as players kneeling during the anthem) when I turn on the game, I just want to watch my sports." really means "I want the politics I'm used to when I turn on the game, which I don't even perceive as "political" because they're the air I've breathed my entire life."

It is easier to disagree with people if you get to pick the meaning of their words. Disregarding people's stated intent is why we end up in gridlock dialogue, I don't recommend that tactic for anything other than annoying people. Or perhaps you feel that other people claiming you mean something other than you intend is compelling?

The "I don't want politics" folk sound much more like the "I don't want to see commercials" folk. They're not buying, just being annoyed. They could even be sympathetic in the right scenario. The "I don't want contemporary politics in fiction" folk sound like they just have a higher bar for quality in their entertainment. Oddly anachronistic political expectations in fantasy date the material making it look pathetic after about 10 years. It's easier to see the longer you live and the more often you see political ideals turn to much. "Sliders" is my favorite example.

No its just the truth.

The assumption that people are being honest about their positions when that position can be proven to be rank hypocrisy is a bad assumption.

"I dont like politics" does actually mean i dont like politics that are different than/make me feel bad about the politics i hold.

Otherwise you wouldn't be in a thread complaining about it.

Frankly two of the best recieved adventure paths were blatantly political.

Both war for the crown and hells rebels are well received by the playerbase and frankly one deals with appropriate responses to authoritarianism and how those responses affect the nominally uninvolved people of the area and the other deals with the idea of divine right of kings, conservatism vs liberalism and traditions vs equality.

The university of lepidstadt has a dueling tradition and its own style. Look up Ustlavic duelist.

I assume theres some sort of martial school there in light of that.

I mean CR ratings aside, there's a room with two cloud giants, three stone giants 24 hill giants and a dozen ogres in that module. It was not designed for monsters to get + con

certain monsters are WAY tougher. Dragons and Giants stand out, but basically anything that was intended to be a big bruiser is a lot meaner converted directly to pathfinder than you'd expect.

I had a friend try to convert against the giants right when 3.0 came out and the damage output of those first few hill giant encounters was insane comparatively.

I'd like an int based monk.

Raistlin Majere, often described as sickly and weak, had a CON of 10 in most “official” stats IIRC.

So this points out something to consider: an author can have their character survive all sort of deadly encounters simply due to the power of Plot. An ROG character, with rules and dice to decide the outcome, could be dead many times over. So don’t use what a character accomplished in fictional novels as justification to run a concept.

I think I it’s pointless to run a CON 3 character. Sorry, try all the clever builds you want, you are going to be running far behind on hp and will always be dealing with abysmal Fort saves. Plus 3 points of CON damage and your character is dead.

You just go wyrwood for a race, get enormous dex and int on that character, toss con entirely because they're constructs and get a one time +10 hp

*Khan* wrote:

Go Undead... !!!!

Is that an option? Playable undead?

You guys are all awesome and hilarious, thanks.

The unalterable totals (no re-arranging, no re-rolls) are:
Str 15
Dex 18
Con 3
Int 17
Wis 19
Cha 8

It's really four amazingly good stats. But surviving...

go Wyrwood Low con problems solved.

Steal mechanics shamelessly.

Find gods similar to the ones you're using and lift their nuts and bolts wholesale. Tweak them slightly for campaign flavor if you want. Don't do the work for any gods not currently in use by players or antagonists and only worry about the NPC's info as the pc's will come into contact with.

Or just don't allow those prc's thats an equally viable option.

Teisatsu vigilante. Social identity is a samurai, vigilante identity is the ninja

I mean, duergar and derro are grey with white hair.