Ryangwy's page

47 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


nieo wrote:
I might not have explained it clearly, but what I meant was that without the weapon I provided, their damage would only be 15.

I mean... that's still 1d8+4 minimum. Two hits averages 17 damage. Since you gave them longswords, you can't be talking about any of the dex martials (Rogue, Investigator, Swashbuckler, kinda Monk), which is the only way to have a theoretical lower value (both remaining non-Str martials receive a +4 damage buff, so they hit 1d8+7 after accounting for having +3 Str)

And yes ending things in 3 rounds is perfectly normal for a moderate fight - if it's severe and people are going down a 6 round slugfest is expected.


nieo wrote:
But the players' damage output is low. Without me boosting their damage, the total damage from all four players in one round is only around 15. Each player only manages to hit once or twice in a round, and if the spellcasters and healers are focused on buffing the fighter players, their damage is even lower.

OK, seriously, how is this happening? A striking flaming longsword is 2d8+1d6+Str damage - one strike alone is more than 15 damage on average! And the minimum damage is still 3+Str if you replaced all your dice faces by 1, which means two hits do a minimum of 14 damage (Most martial classes should have +4 Str, any class without that has a damage booster of some sort). I can't actually see a world where your players are hitting once or twice a round and doing 15 damage total.


nieo wrote:
four players level 3,enemies is lv3-lv5,but There were too many enemies in the encounter.

Sorry, could you name what monsters these are and for that matter what your two melee characters' attack bonus and strike damage were? For a 3rd level character using a +1 striking flaming longsword, they should have +10 to hit (+2 trained +3 level +4 str +1 item) and 2d8+1d6+4 damage, average 16.5, at the bare minimum - I believe only the Champion and the Ranger should be hitting like thus, as every other martial has a damage or accuracy booster.

The high AC for a level 3 monster is 19 and 22 for a level 5, so they have a 60% chance to hit a 3rd level and a 45% on 5th with no buffs (they really should have flanking and bless from the Cleric, but I'm guessing your players don't). High end of moderate hp for a 3rd level is 48, 78 for 5th. Landing one hit should be 1/3rd of a 3rd level monster hp or 1/5th of a 5th level with no damage booster (again, every martial aside from the Champion or Ranger gets one) - if they're doing less than 1/7th of the monster hp they either have the coldest dice on the planet or your monster has absurd resistance

Or they dumped Str, which they really shouldn't


Re: the Cleave feat, could it be given for free (or as a 1st level feat, i suppose)? It doesn't really proc that often. The 6th level feat slot could instead upgrade it to Step then Strike.


Eligibility for sanctification might be mystery restricted too. Bones Oracle might be restricted to Unholy, and Life to Holy, for instance. Or maybe you just pick a god with the right domain and sanctify that.


graystone wrote:
It's the way I feel about the Thaumaturge and the Dubious Knowledge skill feat. I have to take the feat, can't turn it off and it activates automatically... I'd play the class more often if I didn't have to beg DM's to let me NOT take the free thing that ruins the class for me.

Dubious Knowledge has an actual drawback, though. Shield Block not only has no drawback, it's also given to so many classes it should be clear it's valued about as much as medium armour proficiency


exequiel759 wrote:
I don't think removing the -1 to AC and/or removing the Intimidation restriction on Rage is out of scope for PC2, even for a class that is not supposed to be getting a rework. The removal of the metal anathema to druids and giving martial weapons to bards and rogues is effectively a change on the same scope as that, the same with the changes to many subclasses like warpriest, ruffian, warrior muse, etc.

... no? The metal anathema was never seriously part of the druid power budget, and rogues and bards already got martial weapons anyway, they just got future proofed.

Rage -1 AC matters not just to barbarians, but to multiclass barbarian and monsters with the Rage action. It's a big balance point and nowhere near as trival as expanding the scope of a category already available.
(Demoralize being Rage exempt is fine)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
exequiel759 wrote:

As a side note, do you think spirit instinct is going to deal spirit damage or void/vitality in the remaster? It currently deals negative/positive damage so the most common conversion would be void/vitality, but since its called spirit instinct...

In the case they went for the spirit damage route, I don't think they would get a choice to sanctify themselves though (probably with a feat? I think the exemplar was like that in the playtest, though its not like it would be that OP for them to sanctify or anything).

The Spirit Barbarian is an undead slayer (I had a player play one in AV), it needs vitality damage to work. A feat that lets it deal spirit sanctified damage a la Elemental would be nice to hit certain evil undead for extra, but not necessary.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote:


No, what I’m saying is that those special interesting things aren’t special or interesting at all. What is interesting about calming down to take a better shot, or swinging two weapons or shoving brutishly or being a lil wuicker to stow and retrieve weapons. Not a lot. And none of my houserules do anything to *nerf* the fighter. I’m *not taking anything away* from them, and are proposing to give them more. It feels strange to me that you seemed to get the *opposite* opinion of what I felt I presented.

I mean, those are very tricky maneuvers people in real life train very hard to achieve, and even looking at the history of 3.PF is worth one or two Fighter bonus feats, which means non fighters get them delayed (like Fighter Archetype).

Dual Slice deserves a callout here, because you can swing two weapons anyway, just without benefit, and the rogue and ranger have their own take on a first level feat for two weapons anyway, that clearly do class identity thing. I think you've normalised the Fighter feats when they really aren't that normal, and not considering that other classes have their own takes on these fighting style deliberately (and you can take Archer/Mauler/Dual dedication if you really want the Fighter take anyway)


OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote:

I know everyone's having fun being suitably shocked at the sacred cow being butchered. And I know, of all the classes that might not need an upgrade...or even a side-grade, it's not the Fighter. But I like Jacob Jett's ideas. Because I find PF2 a little...constrained, and I'm opening it up a little because I don't really think versatility of options are the same as being overpowered.

I'm already houseruling that most 1st level Fighter feats are just Basic Actions in combat that anyone, regardless of class can do. Personally I find PF2 suffers just as much "there should be a feat for that basic, universal activity" as there was in PF1 that was partly the reason Elephant in the Room turned up (I guess the other part was the feat's requiring chains to access).

Now I just have to create some *interesting* things for Fighters to get. Possibly no feats at 1st level, and just basic access to ALL the 1st level feats I deem *aren't* basic actions and any new ones I have made. Then I have less to create. ;)

Making the shield into a Weapon is an interesting idea - Shields have always inhabited a strange place in "Armor" as in Armor "and Shields!!!" so I'm all for them moving over to the "held-in-hands/wielded" category instead of the "worn" category. (Sorry bucklers, I'll still forever love your misbegotten ways!). I'd probably still leave in some interactions with hit points, but will have to think more carefully about "giving all weapons provide an AC bonus" - which leads me to...

Parrying: I'm already dropping the Parry trait from only being "certain weapons" and am just allowing folk to Parry with an action no matter what they are holding because I don't see why the lil guard on a main gauche is the *only* part you Parry with, and makes it an oh-so awesome Parrying trait weapon... You want to Parry, fine, whether it be with a broomstick, scarf or sawtooth sabre. Use the action, get the benefit. A whole +1 to AC. The Parry-conversant feats are a complete joke, with little improvement on that...

I think the issue is that you're thinking of those feats as "basic" actions instead of being (in universe) signs of very specific training and (out of universe) a way to give every martial class a distinct playstyle so they don't merge together into a featureless slop.

But if you must do this, remember there's a whole slew of archetypes (Archer, Dual Weapon, Bastion...) whose entire purpose is "you get Fighter feats but 2 levels after" so you could simply give everyone access to Fighter feats at +2 level and maybe ban Fighter since it seems you really dislike it. That'd be balanced, sorta.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To put things in 3.PF terms, Shield Block is considered equivalent to shield proficiency. So fighters (and druids and champions and...) get shield proficiency, even though they may not use shields, for the same reason they have proficiency in all martial weapons and heavy armour.

For the bastard sword, it got moved from advanced to martial, so it had to trade off something relative to the greatsword. They decided increased cost and losing the ability to pierce made sense for a weapon that had to be rebalanced to be usable one or two handed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Running a Thaum in OoA (1-7, so far) and I think the main points regarding its power are:

In a system with skill growth being mostly horizontal outside of proficiency (which due to level gating is also horizontal), Thaumaturge gets baked in broad vertical boosts. Diverse Lore is numerically the best universal Lore. Regalia and Tome gives broad benefits to many skills.

Thaum gets big flat damage boost with no restrictions (unlike Barbarian or Rogue) that work almost all the time (unlike Investigator or Precision Ranger). It squeezes a lot of mileage especially out of dinky one handed ranged weapons which get a lot of useful things in exchange for crap base damage.

It's definitely playing at the margins - "class which gets most damage out of d4 weapons" doesn't appear to break DPR calls but those weapons are d4s for a reason. And the skill buffs may not look like much in combat. But if there's an optimisation ceiling the Thaum is near it at multiple points.


Leitner wrote:

The way I usually do it is have NPCs die at dying 2 instead of 4. If the party doesn't care whether the enemies are alive or dead then they are presumed dead. But if the party does potentially want to take someone alive for questioning or out of mercy then they have a chance.

Not using nonlethal damage still carries a risk though. If the knockout blow was a crit that immediately puts them to dying two. And even if not, they have a very limited time to try and stabilize the enemy.

Yeah, I use more or less the same guidelines in Strength of Thousands. Hit and you get 1 round to heal or cast stabilise, crit and they're dead, sorry. Declare nonlethal in advance


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah barbarian is a very solid class already and some of the suggestions people are making here is practically a new class. Give Fury an extra benefit? Sure, they've done that a bit. Wrangle Superstition into playability? It's mostly down to anathema, so not much of a problem. Rage trait on Impulse? Again, can be clarified, though given that's RoE stuff it's unlikely to come up in PC2. But making fundamental changes to how Rage works? Changing how the PHB instincts are weighed against each other? That's not just going to be way out of the stated goals of PC2, it's also going to make a lot of people upset. (They might rebalance the animal instinct attacks, but don't bet on it)


Gol Golarion wrote:


So make rage different!

There are loads of examples in media of rage as a super-mode rather than an always-on thing, and I think the remastered barbarian should lean closer to that instead of a compulsory turn-this-on-or-you're-just-a-worse-fighter thing.

Devil Trigger (and Sin DT too, while I'm at it) from Devil May Cry, God Rage from God of War, Dragon Install from Guilty Gear, the Duviri Courtiers' emotional meltdowns from Warframe, that thing shounen anime protagonists do where they get their asses beat and become god. These are what I'd like rage to be more like.

I want a second phase, not an obligation.

I think the issue is that, beyond the fact that this is a bigger change than the remastered class with the biggest change (witch), the class in still going to be balanced around how it functions in rage, and can't have too much stuff outside of rage. So you now have a vanilla martial with nothing, who can only get their slightly better damage booster when the fight is half over?

I suppose it could be a feat chain or a new instinct that increases rage damage further at half hp. That would work


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We could also continue the Fury theme and have it get extra barbarian class feats in general, like the Fighter has. This makes it able to get the most vanilla out of the barbarian


Squiggit wrote:

Champion armor progression is really janky. Ostensibly one of their unique advantages is enhanced armor proficiency but it's... only sometimes? Being consistently one step ahead like Fighters are would make a lot more sense and define their niche better.

I think that's because their armour progression is pegged to the monk - because unarmoured cannot hit max dex until 10th level, the champion has to slow-roll their expert armour or else they'd be awkwardly far ahead (they still are at levels 7-9, except against Mountain Stance monks who hit the full +5 at 6th)


Re: Superstition, I think the easiest way would just be to say you can (and must) reject any helpful (or potentially helpful, there's a bunch) magic cast on you by an ally, even if you would normally be affected (by dint of being in the radius or such)

So if the cleric casts 3-action heal or the bard sings, the Superstition Barbarian just ignores it. No heal, no buff, no problem.

Re: simplicity of barbarian, I find that fighters are easier to build and barbarians are easier to play and that's probably fine? Probably the actual simplest class is Thief Rogue anyway - monostat, incredibly forgiving of build mistakes, neon flashing lights telling you how to play optimally.

(The 'mindless aggro is the hardest to play' thing has existed ever since people discovered mono-red in MtG and honestly applies even in wargames and such, so I'd say it might well be a feature, not a flaw)


Squiggit wrote:

Feels kind of weird for someone to hop in and share a character self-described as "very solid" and then have the immediate response be people telling them to make a different class instead (especially when one of those suggestions is bar none worst class in the entire game).

Did I miss a part where ottdmk said the character was terrible and were looking for advice on new classes to play?

Seeing the sheer number of alchemical elixirs being gone through did clarify why Alchemist over Investigator; I simply wanted to know why, since if the only elixir you need are bestials and you're having issues keeping all skills you need maxed the Investigator is on paper better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ottdmk wrote:
Quote:
the athletics bonus is good, i don't deny that, but 99% of the times in all the games i've played or seen played a mutagenist, the intimidation bonus is worthless due to a severe lack of both Cha and Skill increases available (after all, two of your 3 skill increases, crafting and athletics, are already spoken for)

Depends on your build. My Mutagenist (9th level) is Str +4/Cha +4/Int +1. With Alchemical Familiar, he's down two Batches of Reagents compared to a max Int Alchemist, but for a Mutagenist, that's not a big deal. I don't plan to rush Cha to +5 at 15th, so I'm going to start boosting Int at 10th. Int +4 is plenty for a Mutagenist to finish off with.

He's also Master in both Athletics and Intimidation. Crafting can wait for 11th/13th.

So he's very solid with both. In hindsight, I wish I'd bumped Athletics to Master first, then Intimidation. I did it so that I could buy Battle Cry at 8th. I find I'm not using Battle Cry much though. I find it's tricky... really sucks to Demoralize something and then it goes next in the Initiative order. Ah well. Should I make it to Legendary the free action after a critical hit might be fun.

Bestial is like a lot of other Mutagens... you need to build for it. If you do, it does a lot for you.

I suppose the only question is... why not mutagenic Investigator? That seems to do what you're trying to do here (strike focus, more non-Int skills) better. You don't even have to use strategic strike and you're going to hit more and deal more damage.


Red Griffyn wrote:


The key difference between the thaumaturge and other classes is they only really need to fail at a standard level DC check vs. succeed at a standard level DC check. That alleviates a lot of the pressure to bump the roll stat vs. things like the inventor's overdrive, bard's lingering composition, etc.

To utilize exploit vulnerability to get a personal antithesis which is 2+half level (so 3 to 12 damage) you only need to roll a failure or better an at level DC check. If you start with a 16 CHA and stop at 18 and ensure you have your item bonuses you can only do worse than a fail on a literal 1 on the dice at all levels. So really we're talking about the combat differences between personal antithesis and mortal weakness. The % of fail or better for both CHA 16 to 18 and CHA 18 to 24 are shown in this spreadsheet I made up.

Bestiaries 1/2/3 have a total of 1072 monsters. Of those monsters only 33% have weaknesses at all (this doesn't exclude double counted monsters with multiple weaknesses so that % is lower). 11.85% of that the total 33% has weakness 1-5 so almost immediately the personal antithesis is higher/obsoletes it. You really are...

Like OK sure but you're still hinging an argument that if you deliberately not upping the key attribute of the Thaumturge then diverse lore is not that good. Which. Like, you can do that, and I'm sure someone has made a 10 Int wizard that's actually good somewhere (force bolts/barrages, probably) but "diverse lore is only broken if you make Cha your highest stat" isn't exactly an amazing argument for a Cha main class.

(I'm not saying that diverse lore is broken, I'm saying that the modal Thaum starts at 18 Cha and ups Cha at every opportunity, except maybe the apex item, and evaluating diverse lore on a Thaum that starts at 16 and goes to 18 and stays there is very inaccurate as to how it plays out in practice.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Red Griffyn wrote:

Karmagator wrote:
From everything I've seen, the chance is far from good. Or practically zero for Tome Thaums with Diverse Lore, as they have every reason to stack CHA.
The class barely uses CHA in combat unless you have a DC based implement like the wand. It is KAS 16 martial...

How... how are you not maxing Cha on a Thaum? Your damage booster is tied to a Cha roll! And why the heck are you upping both Str and Dex on a class that gets both medium armour and a big flat bonus damage?

Like I'm not entirely sure if Diverse Lore breaks the RK game but your argument hinges on the class whose damage bonus is tied to making their Cha based RK roll not upping Cha which is quite absurd


Honestly if the Alchemist isn't able to be the dedicated bomber class, we should just have one, separately. Master bombs on the martial track. Can only make bombs with quick alchemy, but one infused reagents makes two bombs (if you have hands). A level 0 bomb for perpetual use from level 1. And all the additives, of course.


If you actually want to determine how much a spell access is worth when you still need to pay to copy it down and all, fortunately there's already an item whose sole purpose is to give access - formulas!

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=250 , though it looks like formulas are roughly 1/4th the price of an equivalent level scroll or half the cost to Learn a Spell, if you want to peg.


SuperBidi wrote:
gesalt wrote:
Consider that the biggest damage bonus around, the barbarian, isn't enough to beat a fighter's +2 except against high resistance/hardness monsters/traps. At least, not without pouring enough extra accuracy on both that the initial +2 is sufficiently diluted. You need a ton of damage before accuracy stops being the superior investment, though ideally you get both.

That's not right, Barbarians are dealing as much average damage than Fighters. Also, it's only Greatsword Fighter that is really competing with Barbarian in damage, if you reduce the dice the Barbarian becomes superior even with low damage Instincts.

The legend that bonus to damage is worthless next to accuracy is ridiculous. Both are important and can be as impactful.

To add to that, having ran a campaign to 12 with a beast gunner gunslinger (most of their weapons don't have fatal) and a barbarian, even accounting for crits, when you're at the striking weapon stage the barbarian more consistently kills something in two rounds than the gunslinger due to how hp pools, flat damage and crits intersect, and I presume a non-fatal fighter will be facing similar issues. It takes a while before barbarians lose that, in which case the beast gunslinger (and 2H fighter, implicitly, but my resident one ran whip-and-board and tended to barely tickle anything esp with resistance) overtakes again


PossibleCabbage wrote:

If your Magus is really leaning on Amped Imaginary Weapon, have them fight more than three things in a given combat and don't always give them 30 minutes free between fights.

Like the basic problem with the Magus in general and the Starlit Span Magus generally is that this is a class that very easily works itself into a rut of "do the same thing all the time."

I mean really the first Amped Imaginary Weapon is the most valuable. That's how it tends to be, in my experience with (in my case) a gunslinger, that the first enemy to take really large amount of damage permanently tilts the fight in the PCs favour. You can sorta cheat by making enemy waves where the real dangerous guy comes out at the back but at that point you're deliberately contorting the fight to soft-counter the magus at which point we're reaching "are PF1e wizards weak because Spell Resist/Anti-Magic is common on all the enemies I fight"?

And if you're sending waves of lower level enemies... it's still a bow wielding martial. With deadly. He's going to reliably crit one person with a regular bow shot then Electric Arc two dudes every round, or whatever.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to show support for combining encounters, so long as they're telegraphed to the players. What I like to do is to roll Initiative for those enemies early then have them spend actions doing all the basic stuff - grab their weapons, stand up, open doors etc. Often they arrive onto the battlefield with one or no actions left, which gives the players breathing space in a way a "true" encounter of that budget wouldn't.

And yes, one main feature is that it props up the value of controlling spells that wouldn't be as useful in a smaller encounter with a TTK of 4. My players have expressed that giving use to previously unutilised spells and abilities was a fun thing... though only in moderation


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluemagetim wrote:
Ryangwy wrote:


I'm going to disagree - the concept of rooting schools in Golarion's lore is good, but what we've actually gotten are hodgepodge schools which have no fixed place and use fairly arbitary criteria to determine what goes in.

I disagree a bit here. What I mean is the focus of a school now can be narrow or broad in concept.

Ars Grammatica is themed on what that school believes to be the underpinning of all magic words, runes, and speech. The power to ward, compel, repel, confine, or unravel are themed in many of the curriculum spells. What ties it together is a story of what these wizards value and believe about magic.
Battle magic has a different idea of what is important, utility of spells on the battlefield, these wizards don't value knowledge for its own sake but for its ability to win battles.

These kinds of themes drive character creation because you don't pick curriculum for the spell they have on their lists only anymore, you choose a school because its values are in line with your character's values.

I disagree about choosing a school in line with your values because many of the schools don't have values, really. I think I can articulate what I find wrong about the schools now thanks to your description - they feel like the name of the school was decided first, and each spell was chosen to match the name of the school but with no concern as to how the school feels as a cohesive whole.

Ars Grammatica has a variety of spells relating to words, but they all relate to words in different ways. What is the value system of a school that teaches mind control and strengthening runes as the same subject. Likewise, Battle Magic consists of spells usable on the battlefield... but why these spells and not, say, fear? It's an arbitrary slice of the potential battle magic space, and it lacks any deeper rationale. Even for the better themed schools, why does Civic Wizardry randomly have disintegrate? Sure, i can understand why any individual civic wizard might have prepared disintegrate, but was there really no other creation based spell they could have taught instead that's more in line with the school values?

The schools currently aren't tightly themed enough to easily understand the themes, and yet have few enough options you can't discover your own theme within. Frankly, if they wanted to sell the schools as something common in Golarion, they should have picked the Common staves instead - they're proof lots of people teaches that exact spellist


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

The feel of a class is as important as the mechanics. For very many players, the feel of the new schools is better than the old schools because they feel unified around themes that make sense, without being a particularly big burden on the character as far as limiting what spells you will really be casting in a day. For other players, the change itself was such a big blow to the feel of the class, that it is hard to get a good feel for it when characters that you used to be able to build are not really the same characters anymore.

Both of those feelings about the class are legitimate. Changing the feel of the class was going to be an inevitable consequence of trying to divorce the game from OGL content. The wizard's role in Golarion is deeply rooted in unique lore that Paizo should be proud of, and the only places that really created a potential problem was with the rune lords, and the characters that players have made over the more than a decade Paizo has been publishing Golarion content. Narratively, characters that used to be possible, really are not going to be the same, but the class itself, in play, didn't get weaker as a result of the remastery changes.

I am just encouraging players to think about whether they are getting tripped up over changes that are really going to change how the class plays, or how it looks on the character sheet.

Again, I am not saying that feeling bad about how it feels on the character sheet is badwrong players who just don't understand the genius of Paizo developers, I am saying that those feelings about characters that used to be possible that are not quite the same isn't really an issue that mechanically crosses over into actual game play balance as much as the people on these threads are making it sound.

I'm going to disagree - the concept of rooting schools in Golarion's lore is good, but what we've actually gotten are hodgepodge schools which have no fixed place and use fairly arbitary criteria to determine what goes in.

Ars Grammatica mixes together language, mind control, runes and countermagic. The thematic link there is supposedly "words" but real-life school don't consider linguistics and communication the same subject, so I'm not sure why this is a single school rather than two that would have more thematic heft.
Battle magic seems to have no idea if it's supposed to be doing AoE damage, non-damaging terrain control, or defensive buffs. Yeah, yeah, "it's what a battle mage would cast" I'm sorry to break it to you every combat spell on the arcane list is what a battle mage would cast.
School of the boundary can't seem to decide whether the boundary is planar or death.
School of civic wizardry has random movement spells in between it's earth/water/creation spells
Only Mentalism and Protean Form really feel like a cohesive whole

(This isn't getting into the old schools which were entirely ditched with no replacement, or the fact two of the schools casually give access to U and R spells which negates the reason for making them U or R)


Dark_Schneider wrote:
Bluemagetim wrote:

I think the problem with int is solved by allowing the trained skills gained by int auto scale to expert at level 5. If you gain a +1 to int at level 5 you get expert instead of trained in the skill right away.

Just dont go past expert without investing with level up skill increases.
The human heritage skilled human has that kind of scaling and would never be picked if it only got to trained. (the general feat from versatile would simply be strictly better even if you wanted skills)
its a better trade off when deciding well do i want a language and expert in a skill or do I want extra hp and fort or extra perception and will. Most people will still take the hp, AC, and saves over expert but it is at least a better option than trained.

Maybe not auto-scale but at least allow to apply to any skill to upgrade up to X, which X could be Expert (safe) or Master (aggresive), Legendary could be excessive.

Also including the 1st level, allowing to use the points from Int to upgrade trained skills to Expert, if not those characters starting with 18 could have many Int points wasted forced to get other skills instead improving those it really wants.

I've suggested before that they could make General feats that are restricted by high Int to progress skills to Expert/Master, like an Int 16 level 7 general feat to take a skill from trained to expert and a Int 18 level 15 general feat that lets you upgrade an expert skill to master. It'd give more good general feats that not everyone will take and due to the limited number of general feat you won't be having more than 2 additional master skills (and the level you can take it means they lag normal skill progression by a bit)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:


Of course, there's the other side of this. We could take a page from the gunslinger, and make DaS let you do something else at the same time. DaS and half stride, DaS and reload, DaS and RK... it might not be everything, but it sure would help, and it might even make a degree of sense thematically. I rather like "plan on the move" as a name for the DaS/half-stride one.

Yeah I like those ideas (though FYI DaS and RK is already a feat)

To put into perspective how hard it is to PaL properly, I GM Outlaws of Alkenstar for myself (look its hard to find players) and one of my characters is an Investigator. The grand total successful PaL is, as of book 2:
The evil alchemist
The first villain
The clockwork sphinx
The pyramid boss, but only after it retreated from the first fight
That's four total across 7 levels


FWIW, I believe even Paizo knows that the non-save stats are weaker; I recall they once stated that having a penalty in Str/Int/Cha was considered a plus for an ancestry.
Int is in a strange boat because its main non-skill utility is getting skills to trained, but because of how skill works in the long run you only need three skills to max plus maybe Athletics /Acrobatics trained, and between background and class you can reach that even with 10 Int most of the time, 8 if you take the ancestry. I'd like some high level Int restricted General feats to up more skills to Expert/Master but as it stands if you don't use Int skills it kinda sucks (especially because untrained improvisation exists)
(The main difference between Int and Cha is that Cha skills - OK, we all know I mean Intimidate - are easier to have middling investment in and less risky to fail at)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Investigator just really, really need to be able to pursue a lead in combat, I don't care if it costs 1 action or 3 but it needs to. That automatically makes DaS free a sufficient amount of the time.
Stuff I'd like but aren't necessary are low level feats to increase your number of leads, ways to purge a bad DaS roll (maybe a 1 action Strike with the misfortune trait?) and giving some of the out of combat early feats a small combat rider.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've had a gunslinger in AV, about to complete the megadungeon, and he's enjoying the character, but one of the thing he specifically enjoys is being able to AFK until his turn is up; he uses the 2 action shots Sniper gets a lot, so he effectively only need to do one two-action shot and one reload each turn and can feel effective despite not engaging with the 3 action system, positioning or the enemies at all. Its surprisingly the least thinky class I've seen played.


Cyouni wrote:
Don't update Foundry then? You don't need to do the update immediately.

I like how after implicitly stating I updated Foundry I got told "why not don't do the thing you already did?"

It's not possible for various reasons, including the fact I'm not exactly bursting with free time to sus out every change. I didn't even know that Divination was dropped prior to hitting update!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Trip.H wrote:


I understand it is painful to have tools like cantrips unarguably nerfed, but when the very first thing the books says about them is that they are weaker, cantrips REALLY must be weaker than proper slot spells.

I think most people's issue with the remaster cantrips has very little to do with the minor nerf to already top tier cantrips like electric arc/scatter scree and more to do with the lack of bringing up known underperforming cantrips like daze or haunting hymn to that tier, or how the damage scaling for AC cantrips is only a smidgen higher than save cantrips despite it being knownthat they have the biggest gap vs minster defenceand also have no effecton failure. This is especially an issue for divine and occult casters who already didn't get the good cantrips premaster and... still have bad cantrips now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In fairness, one of the reason why d8 finesse weapons aren't an issue is that finesse eats up a huge portion of the trait budget, so those weapons are (in theory) about on par with d8 simple weapons without finesse trait-wise.

Well, in theory, anyway.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

OK, another issue with the change:
One of my AV players was a divination wizard. His entire school is gone. Kaput. Turned to ashes. And he was thematically a fortune teller. What am I supposed to do here? Foundry has removed all support for searching via schools, and asking him to browse the books manually is a huge ask for a married person with children who's squeezing 2hrs every week to play. Did I mention his FA was Oatia Skysage (I use thematic free archetype only, so the ghost hunter Cleric is going to have the same problems)

I mean I ended up making a fortune telling school from scratch but that's two hours of my life I'm not getting back. Hope he likes it but I can absolutely state that Renaster shrunk the flavour space of wizards by a lot and the results aren't even good.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

From a mechanical perspective, I'm frustrated that schools are really limited scope wise and no consideration was done for letting them have usable level 1 and 2 spells, which is going to make 1-5 play even more of a pain. No, I don't care they let the GM add more spells, the RAW schools should be usable and good out of the box. That's like saying Swashbucklers are fixed because technically the GM can give them panche whenever.

From a flavour perspective, I'm unhappy the schools are a permanent fixed decision from chargen. That was OK in the original when each school was sweeping and huge and could take your entire life to explore but new schools are, like, tiny. Do you need to commit your entire life to figure out how to shapeshift yourself and nothing else?

For solutions, I have two ideas. The safe one is to imitate Druid orders: level 2 feat to add a new school worth of spells to your school slot list, level 4 to grab the focus spell. The risky one is to let wizards add new spells to their school list in-game via Learn a Spell or similar, perhaps mandating the new spell shares a trait with a spell on the list already (excluding purely mechanical traits like incapacitation and attack)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Having played an Investigator in Outlaws, I think what I'd like is for Investigators to be able to open a case in combat. Maybe make Purse a Lead 3 actions like Mark for Death? It'd still have 10min cooldown but you can actually use half your abilities on the very obvious suspect and still normally DaS on mobs.

Reload DaS sounds like a cool lvl 1 feat Investigator sure needs more of them. Stride DaS? Draw DaS? Possibilities are endless!


One idea is to do it like treat wounds; you can raise the DC as your Crafting improves for more bonus damage

I did like innovations, though I wish they'd have a level 1 option to use advanced weapons as innovations


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Swashbuckler really need to have an enemy independent way of generating Panche from level 1 onwards. Technically they have the "very hard DC" thing but it's a GM optional thing tucked into the back of the Panche rules. They need an Overdrive like action straight out of the box even if it does nothing other than generating Panche.

Also please give them a Finisher that works on precision immune enemies at like, level 2.


I think it might be worth formalising the option of doing something fancy for Panche rather than leaving it to GM discretion. Something like:

Do With Panche!
When you move or Interact, you can attempt to do it stylishly. Make an Acrobatics check or a skill check based on your swashbuckler style at a Very Hard DC for your level.

Success You gain Panche
Critical Failure You do not perform the move or Interact


With the way focus points work, circumstantial but useful is exactly where you want your second or third focus spell to be. Admittedly, witches start with a circumstantial focus spell already, but still.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is a bit hard to do that if your gaming group plays with large gaps between sessions, and you're doing this to relax between work. Also, sometimes the system itself fights you. I remeber for Stregth of Thousands, the players were going to Fire Pot Ubuntu's Forge, and they were all sure that cold damage would be useful. And then I went and checked and it turns out one enemy was weak to water and the rest had zero weaknesses. I hastily applied cold and water weaknesses and bumped up HP, but I lucked out that we stopped the session after the first fight so I had the whole week to add those traits into a battle that didn't have one.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually, from play experience level-2 enemies do get deadlier and level+2 less so as levels get higher. I think its the TTK ratio, which gets higher with level. At low levels a good crit Strike can kill a level-2 and conversely that level+2 can kill a PC in one crit Strike, so the outnumbered party can level the action economy quickly via raw damage. However, as you level up it takes two, then three, then four crits to down a level-2, and suddenly the fact there's twice as many of them than you matters and efficient spread AoE and crowd control becomes better. Reversedly, the big bad level+2 also needs four crits to down a PC now, so you don't need to worry so much about locking down or missing a few swings of your own
This experience is brought to you by level 9 of AV where the goddamn Cacodaemons nearly bodied the party through raw number of rolls and the soul harvester next door died unglamorously with not a single slotted spell used


8 people marked this as a favorite.

This is my first post, so I hope I'm not accidentally retreading old ground, but I think the real issue with Spell Attack is that it's actually a very situational option but it looks like a general option?

What I mean is, there's a lot situational spells that are obviously situational. You don't prepare create food unless you want to create food, for instance. Incapacitation and dispel spells are less obviously dead outside your highest slots, but most people get it once you show them the rules.

Spell attacks, though? You can't grasp that they're behind the to-hit curve unless you know the monster building guidelines or else figure it out from martial attack scaling. To make things worse, they're actually OK at low levels and it takes a while before you hit 5th and see your misses pile up, and this is made worse by how many cantrips and focus spells are Spell attack. Its absolutely not obvious that the (say) Cleric firing divine lance and fire rays from 1st through 4th level is supposed to pivot to slotted save spells, so you instead get bad feeling and tons of misses. You need to absolutely dive into game math to realise that spellcaster progression is tied to monster saves and lag behind monster AC.

That's why Spell attacks are an issue: they're a non obvious specialist spell that people are trained by cantrips to view as the bread and butter damage Spell which they aren't.