Succubus

Samurai's page

Organized Play Member. 1,030 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 271 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leon Aquilla wrote:

Darrington Press isn't the same as CR. Tal'Dorei Reborn is 5e compatible but not printed under the D&D brand. I'd be shocked if they were foolish enough to lock it in with some exclusive license*.

*Especially because they didn't even get to use the D&D brand on it!

Actually, page 280 of Tal'Dorei Reborn is the Open Game License v1.0a. This book may have needed to be done that way because much of the book is the same as the Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting book that was released by Green Ronin back in 2017, and pg 143 of that book is the 1.0a Open Game License. If something was once released under 1.0a, I don't think you can legally do a "2nd edition" that is closed or not part of the Open Game Licensed.

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:


Or maybe people were done with the era of "casters win games, everyone else need not apply".

...which leads to the "Thank goodness the casters were kneecapped so hard, that's a feature of 2e, not a problem" vibe that is so prevalent on these forums.

It's not a matter of "casters win games" that we all want, it's "casters actually matter for more than buffing and healing the martials."

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
Ruzza wrote:
I would pay actual money to not have this thread again.

IMHO, until this problem is actually addressed and fixed (and it's definitely a real problem), you will continue to see thread after thread about this same topic. That's the cost of not fixing it during the playtesting (either because not enough playtesters mentioned the issue, or maybe too many of the loudest responses were "Kneecap the spellcasters even harder!")

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Hero points.

Then, if Hero Points are meant to provide a Heroic Moment when needed/desired by the player, it could maybe provide not just a re-roll on an attack, skill, or save, but also provide a bonus to it. Maybe "Reroll with a +5 or +10 bonus". Then it feels more "Heroic"...

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Thunder999 wrote:

Doing almost as much damage as a not that focused ranged martial a few times per day isn't some great feat we've all not noticed, it's terrible.

Limited resources are meant to produce better effects, not worse.

Right. Imagine if the martial character was able to, only 3 or 4 times per day, throw a dagger at an enemy within 30'. It does 1d4 + Str mod damage, and on a critical hit, a specific minor debuff (like -10 move, or no reaction) for 1 round.

In exchange for this impressive ability, he doesn't have any armor proficiency, can only use a few specific Simple Weapons, only has 1d6 hit points/level, and can't ever get any magic items to help with that "thrown dagger" attack or damage rolls (It's an innate ability, not a weapon, so it slowly increases on it's own and can be used a few more times per day at higher levels).

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
WWHsmackdown wrote:
Plenty of people think magic is working as intended and is as accurate as it needs to be

There are also plenty of others who disagree and feel that some classes (especially certain casters) need a lot of help as written, but that's just my opinion.

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Henro wrote:

I think the big disconnect comes from the fact that 2E operates opposite to how you expect the fiction to work in this regard.

Fiction: "It seems my foe is coming in for a devastating attack... I have no choice but to sacrifice my trusty shield if I want to remain standing"

2E: "It seems my foe is coming in for a devastating attack... Now is the time to intentionally not block with my shield, taking the attack head on and dropping unconscious. Falling in combat is just a temporary setback, while losing my shield would be near-permanent damage"

Yes, and also combine that dichotomy with the fact that armor never takes damage, no matter how many hits it takes, and weapons take no damage either, even if it's a wooden weapon smashing a metal shield to bits. In fact, there are no rules for any of your equipment being damaged or destroyed, even from multiple Fireballs, or when swallowed by a purple worm. Your wizard robes, backpack, and 50' rope will survive it all, just don't ever try to use your shield to block (it's intended purpose)...

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.

The rule "You always know how much damage a hit does before deciding whether to block or not" is another strange aspect of this system.

Weapons and armor are effectively indestructible (no sundering rules or real damage to them), but shields can very easily be broken or destroyed in a hit. To preserve your shield, you must choose to take the most deadly and painful hits to your face instead. And to do that, you must know how damaging the hit will be before deciding whether or not to block!

That just seems wrong to me... characters should have to decide whether to block or not as soon as they are hit, not after all the damage is rolled and they then have to ret-con whether they blocked or not (with the answer being a yes on only relatively weak hits, and a no on the hardest hits, which is counter-intuitive IMHO).

Here are the basics of my homebrew rule (No Endgame-level time jumps needed here): If you are wielding a shield, you can use the Raise a Shield action to increase your AC by it’s AC bonus until the start of your next round. If you have the Shield Block class ability or feat, you can also use the raised shield to try to prevent some damage if an attack hits you. Make a Fortitude save vs a DC of 10 + the foe’s attack bonus. If the shield has any special abilities, the Fort save activates them on a Success or better roll. For the Shield spell, the caster makes a Will save instead of Fort, using the same results below.

Crit Fail: Block ½ the Shield’s Hardness in dmg, loose the shield bonus to AC until Raised again
Fail: Block the Shield’s Hardness in damage, loose the shield bonus to AC until Raised again
Success: Block the Shield’s Hardness in damage, shield remains Raised
Crit Success: Block the Shield’s Hardness x2 in damage, shield remains Raised

There are a few other notes for specific feats and cases, but that is the general idea. The character decides whether to try blocking the instant he's hit. It is a contest as to how much damage he can block, and whether or not the shield remains raised or the bonus is lost until next round, but the shield isn't broken or destroyed any more than his armor is. He doesn't get to wait to see if the attack only does 1 or 2 points of damage (thus it may be better not to risk loosing his shield bonus for it on a bad dice roll) or a devastating hit where he needs the shield to survive.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
Samurai, I wonder what you'd think of the Harnmaster Gold ruleset, or Columbia Games' Harnmaster 3 ruleset (I'd link the latter, but the website seems to be broken at the moment).

I've played and read a ton of RPGs in my 40 years as a gamer, but I've never read or played Harnmaster. I've only vaguely heard about it, it's not something I've ever seen on store shelves in my area. Looking up Columbia Games online , it seems they focus more on miniature wargaming, and while I know D&D grew from that base, I've always preferred creating and playing unique and interesting character with personalities rather than strategically maneuvering armies around a battlefield. It's 1 reason I didn't care so much for D&D 4e, where position was very important, and moving an enemy or ally 1 square could make a big difference (Which is a similarity I also see with PF2e btw, where you may have to spend 1 of your 3 actions just to step 1 square in order to attack in melee. That 5' adjust used to be a free action back in 1e.)

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:

With respect, the fact that you disagree with the rules doesn't make them wrong. In this case, dividing the damage between user/shield is mathematically incredibly strong, to the point where everyone should be running a shield-user. For example, a level 1 shield vs a level 4 High-damage enemy will take 3 hits to destroy, saving the user 15 HP on average. You might note that's worth their entire health pool, and absolutely nothing stops the player from just pulling out another shield.

(PS: Warpriest with this ruleset is functionally unkillable.)

True, my disagreement with some/many of the rules in 2e doesn't make me "correct" and the game "wrong". It's mostly a matter of opinion. But the entire game is a matter of opinion, as is "which game/RPG should we play tonight?" But if "too many" people have "too many" issues with the rules and decide to just play a different game instead, that's a problem, and it's why Paizo tried to get feedback on 2e before it was finalized.

I ordered a copy of the playtest rules, planning to give plenty of feedback for it. Unfortunately, for much of that year I was in the hospital after a major heart attack and stroke that left me in a coma and very nearly killed me. I had to relearn a lot of things, including how to walk again (still not where I used to be, but I'm getting better slowly.)

So the playtest book arrived and just sat in my apartment instead of being read, played, and analyzed. By the time I came home from the hospital, the playtest was over and the actual book was on it's way to me. So, in a lot of ways, I looked at my "house rules doc" as the changes I would have made to PF2e, had I the opportunity to do so.

As far as shields, I personally would not have made them destructible at all, any more than armor is (yeah, in downtime you can melt it in a forge, but in battle, no damage is suffered from blows). I gave my "Indestructible Shields" optional rule in my house rules doc too, as a choice for others that may feel similarly.

Again, not saying my way is the only correct way, just "the version I prefer..."

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
Samurai wrote:
Ruzza wrote:
Samurai wrote:
So, I'll be waiting until Pathfinder 3e, when I suspect they will look toward 5e for inspiration. Like 4e, I feel PF2e is a failed experiment that has a few interesting ideas worth scavenging for the next edition, but that's about it... I've tried fixing it with house rules, but there is just too much that needs fixing to really be worthwhile.
Have you tried playing it without 5+ pages of houserule/homebrew?
Yes, I wasn't the GM when we played, but the actual GM, after saying he didn't want to use any house rules, still made one of his own on day 1 because he felt the shield rules were broken. He made a few more before the game fell apart at level 3, but it was mostly RAW.
So... Basically you have never played system without houserules because you assumed your GM knew what they were talking about?

No, that's not the reason. I didn't assume anything, my GM assumed that Paizo had created a well-thought out set of game rules for the second edition. He had read the rules, but had never run or played before our game, and he didn't understand the 2e shield rules as written. He thought that you first subtract Hardness, and then divide the remaining damage between the shield and user. When he learned that, no, both the shield AND user take the remaining damage, he didn't agree with that. He also didn't like the fact that the attack hits and the damage is rolled before you must choose whether or not to shield block.

However, those rules didn't affect me personally. I didn't use a shield, my character was an Ancient Elf Ranger/Wizard. The change was for our party Champion. So my character was played RAW.

CorvusMask wrote:


You statement about 2e needing lot of houserule fixes sounds absurd when that description is what 1e is like(5e is so simple that house rules won't fix it, you'd need to actually write completely new rules :P). Though granted, not lot of house rules for 1e are "necessary to fix broken system", making power attack free feat is more of quality of life ;P

Meanwhile I've run stuff on levels 1-7(no single continous campaign unfortunately, just Plaguestone and Slithering and various PFS scenarios) and your experience of system so broken that gm "had" to house rule it sounds alien to me.

We very seldom used house rules in our long-running Pathfinder 1e campaigns. (The most I can think of was that you got a minimum of half your die type in new HP when you leveled up, so if your class gets 1d8 HP, you instead got 1d4+4).

I have a few house rules for D&D5e, but not NEARLY as many as PF2e, and they are mostly optional additions that the players are free to choose if they want to use them, like new backgrounds, new sub-class options, racial ability tweaks, etc. That is vastly different from a ream of rules fixes needed to play the game. The list of "changes that affect everyone" is small, such as "If you drop to 0HP/dying and you are brought back, you suffer 1 temporary level of Exhaustion each time from that experience (each level requires a nights sleep/long rest to get rid of)." That's to help prevent the "up/down/up/down/up" comedy of errors that some players have talked about in 5e. You can do that, but you are hurt a bit more each time it happens, and after a while you will actually die at Exhaustion level 6, so it's never been a problem in any game I've run.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
Samurai wrote:
So, I'll be waiting until Pathfinder 3e, when I suspect they will look toward 5e for inspiration. Like 4e, I feel PF2e is a failed experiment that has a few interesting ideas worth scavenging for the next edition, but that's about it... I've tried fixing it with house rules, but there is just too much that needs fixing to really be worthwhile.
Have you tried playing it without 5+ pages of houserule/homebrew?

Yes, I wasn't the GM when we played, but the actual GM, after saying he didn't want to use any house rules, still made one of his own on day 1 because he felt the shield rules were broken. He made a few more before the game fell apart at level 3, but it was mostly RAW.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Dargath wrote:
You know I expected people to adamantly disagree with me, partly because 4E is the edition everyone hates (except me, it’s still my favorite) and doubly so because the reason Pathfinder exists at all is due to people hating 4E so much they wanted 3.x to go on forever seemingly. Yet here we are agreeing and everyone being like “yeah it IS the 4E spiritual successor and it is very great” :o
It's not that suprising that after years of wrestling with the 3.x framework, Paizo devs and WotC devs came to many similar conclusions.

True, but I think they would have been MUCH better served if they instead decided to create a "successor" for the far more popular 5e rather than the failed 4e. Unlike 3.5, where fans clamored for someone to keep publishing for it (which Paizo did successfully), very few gamers have fond, loving memories of 4e games and are asking for more...

So, I'll be waiting until Pathfinder 3e, when I suspect they will look toward 5e for inspiration. Like 4e, I feel PF2e is a failed experiment that has a few interesting ideas worth scavenging for the next edition, but that's about it... I've tried fixing it with house rules, but there is just too much that needs fixing to really be worthwhile.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I strongly agree with the point dmerciless is making with this thread. How popular do you think D&D would have been if the very first module released along-side AD&D1e was the deadly Tomb of Horrors? Sure, any players and DMs that actually stuck with it could eventually learn to reduce the lethality of it, and create their own less deadly dungeons themselves, but as a "welcome to a whole new game you are just learning!" module, I think it would have turned many people off from ever playing D&D again.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another problem with the 1 action Metamagics is that Concentrating on a previously cast spell also takes an action. If you have to concentrate on a spell, that only leaves you 2 actions to actually do anything else, like being persistent Slowed 1 after casting any ongoing concentration spell. That is crippling for casters.

5e solved the problem by allowing casters to maintain 1 Concentration effect per round as a free action that can still be interfered with by damage or situational/environmental disturbances. Why didn't Pathfinder 2e do the same?

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
That sounds like a feat tax for something that should just be an item.

Or an innate ability...

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RPGnoremac wrote:
Sporkedup wrote:
Frankly, any game without a fighter has happy casters. The stack up really well against rangers and rogues and monks and champions and all that so far in our games. It's just the fighter that's so much more effective than any other class that's making casters (or rogues and rangers and champions and monks and so on) feel like they aren't contributing well.

I did want to say I do feel the game is completely different when our player switched from a Ranger to a Fighter. Fighter's hit chance / crit rates make everyone feel indirectly worse imo.

Of course if someone compared classes damage in combat Fighter might not always be on top but it sure does feel that way when I see one in PFS and our campaign.

It might just be because they are so easy to build though, you can pretty much take any feats since +2 attack and attack of opportunity are amazing.

I pretty much have just played casters in PFS and overall have felt most classes felt good. When a Fighter joins things just feel so different.

That's why the Wizard School Specialists should have their proficiency in their school bumped to Expert. So, an Evoker, for example, would be Expert at all Evocation spells, and Trained in the rest. This mirrors how Fighters specialize in 1 weapon type, and become better with it.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder for Savage Worlds is now live on Kickstarter, and already well over $160,000 on day 1 as I type this! It is scheduled to end February 15th.

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Is that strange looking Goblin Dog included too? ;)

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with Meatshed, it should be based on armor proficiency, not weapon proficiency, if you want to do it this way.

I agree with giving shields the shove trait though.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Important new information about Savage Worlds Pathfinder!

Official Pathfinder for Savage Worlds Kickstarter
Starting mid-January 2021, Pinnacle will launch the official Pathfinder for Savage Worlds rulebook along with the entire Rise of the Runelords adventure path converted as a box set!

I for one am really looking forward to this. I already love the Savage Worlds rules, and the new Adventure Edition is a nice improvement.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, RPGnoremac, I knew Suggestion had Incapacitate, but didn't remember that Fear didn't. That seems pretty inconsistent to me.

And yes, it is hard to remember and use it properly. I'd prefer if the trait were either removed or changed in some way. Fireballs don't suddenly become much easier to save against just because the target is a certain level. A higher level target can't get a +1 step bonus on saves against your illusions, etc.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
RPGnoremac wrote:

I am confused how you say PF2 character don't feel heroic.

Just this week I had 2 great examples.

In my current campaign I used suggestion as a Bard to stop a caster from killing our entire team while riding his dinosaur. I admit it was a gamble since I had no idea what level the monster was and he failed the save.

In PFS my level 3 sorcerer cast fear and the main boss rolled a one so he was frightened 3 and fleeing. I also could have tripped him and the ENTIRE party could have got a net gain of 5 from a level 1 spell...

There are just crazy amount of examples I could mention. Yes hit rates in general are lower but characters still feel quite heroic.

Also in PF2E clerics can decimate whole rooms of undead at level 1 too while healing the party.

Honestly, it sounds like your GM wasn't using (or didn't know) the Incapacitation trait in 2e. A boss riding a dinosaur that was "killing your whole party" was not high level enough for Incapacitate to kick in and change the Failed save into a Success?

And a "main boss" at 3rd level wasn't at least 2nd level, turning the Crit Fail into just a Fail? (or did you Heighten the Fear spell, meaning he could have been as high as Level 4?)

In our games, the party is very afraid of using Incapacitate spells on anyone but obvious mooks, because almost all the bosses are higher levels than we are, sometimes significantly higher.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
Does this document include all the crb errata, and are they all in green?

Yes, I believe everything I wanted to use is there. I think there were a few things I decided to do differently, and those are not in green. But they have been changing thing without declaring it, without listing the changes that are new, so I might have missed some things.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

Only playing PbP at the moment, the one face to face game I am involved with is a PF1e game of Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh converted that I run for my family (son, brother, nieces, nephew) when we get together.

Are you converting the original module? Do have/know about the Ghosts of Saltmarsh? Ghosts of Saltmarsh pretty much turns Saltmarsh into a 12 level campaign, though you can also break apart the adventures and run them individually. Even if you don't care for 5e, you can turn them into PF1e adventures, if you don't have all the older modules.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I too have been looking at D&D5e much more lately, after being almost entirely PF1e for Pathfinder's history. My long-time group, after buying the PF2e books and reading them, had far too many issues with the game and refused to even play it once.

But 1 player in that long-running PF1e group, missing gaming during the pandemic, finally decided to give 2e a shot and run a few games of PF2e. So I created my character (An Elf Ranger/Wizard), as did 2 other newer players We've played for a while now, through 3rd level so far. There is a lot of dissatisfaction with some of the 2e rules as written. The DM made his first house rule change in the very first session (he hated the way shields work), and a few more changes since.

But, to get to the point of this thread, one of the players in that game, who knows and loves PF1e much better than the 2nd edition, has agreed to DM a new PF1e game for our group, to give the dissatisfied 2e DM a chance to be a player again (which I think he honestly prefers). So we have all created our new 1e characters (I'm a Tiefling Occultist!) It's homebrew setting of her own design, and I'm really looking forward to game 1 next week!

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here is the latest version of my house rules, now including the new second edition Errata: Samurai's House Rules 1.6+ w/Errata 2

I'm still slowly working on the APG. There are a few early notes in here, but I'll update it more as I go.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:

Hope the errata is helpful to everyone! :)

Before folks start talking about the errata in detail in this thread, I just want to take a moment to tell everyone how amazing the work of Katina Davis, Maryssa Lagervall, and Andrew White was to get all of these coordinated and up. We hadn't realized Humble Bundle orders were coming out until a few hours ago, and they managed to get this all up and running at lightning speed. They are the heroes who got you this information tonight!

Thanks for finally releasing it. It doesn't contain everything I was hoping for, but it's still nice to have.

Also, why didn't you release a pdf version? Just reading it on screen is much harder than downloading it as a pdf.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
ikarinokami wrote:
Arakasius wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Martials in PF1 are not 100% worse, that is something spouted by people who cant see eveything martials can do. Usually because they are too busy comparing them to Casters.
Yes a martial is a 100% worse in PF1 to a well built wizard, druid or cleric. There is no debate at all to this.

I do not agree with this. play pathfinder 10 years. and fighters and barbarians blew up for encounters and caused more headaches than any caster. This is not to say that casters when built properly werent also broken.

there were quite a few classes in PF1 that when built properly overwhelm the game. Casters have been nerfed, but martials were also nerfed a great deal.

The issue i think is that vancian magic does not fit well into PF2 game system.

I think when the promised non vancian system of magic gets released in mysteries of magic, people will like wizards a lot better.

I totally agree. When I GMed a campaign of PF1, the party Barbarian was by FAR the most difficult. The Wizard was nothing compared to him. He once did well over 300 points of damage in the 1st round of combat, killing the Ancient Dragon that was the big final party boss of the adventure before most other party members even got to their initiative!!

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
The fact that Paizo has moved on to a second edition of PF should not stop anyone from continuing to play with first edition rules. After all, if the idea is that it doesn't matter which ruleset you use, which is something Paizo has pretty much said since they started with PF2E, then why not continue playing with the 1E ruleset?

That's true, and for more than a year my group did keep playing our 1e campaign, until the Covid lockdown hit. Not sure what will happen once the lockdown is lifted here in CA, but right up to the end the group said "no way" to PF2e, even though most of them bought the core book just to see what it was like. We are an older gaming group, all of us in our 40's and 50's, with decades of experience in many other systems. Maybe this rules set appeals more toward younger players? I don't know. But I've kept all my PF1e books, and I think we will probably be going back to using it after the pandemic passes.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
/ragequit much? :-)

Getting there, but as I said, I'm currently at "almost" because this is just the playtest. If the final book comes out and it is still the same, I'm pretty much done. Our long-running group of pathfinder 1 gamers had no interest in even trying PF2e, It took a long time but I finally found a new group willing to play now and then, but their interest is rapidly fading. Everyone else in my small town sees it as a time of D&D5e resurgence because the main competitor to it, PF1e, was pretty much killed by Paizo themselves.

So, more of a /sadquit, as I played PF1e far, far more than D&D5e before PF2e came out, but I'm heading in that direction now.

Sovereign Court

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Greg.Everham wrote:

This is the way.

That said, with how awful these classes are, I'd like to see a 2nd round of playtesting opened up. Afterall, a bad game delayed is eventually good, while a bad game released on time is bad forever.

I agree,PF2 was rushed to market too early because of the upcoming convention season, and and I'm so disappointed in the Magus that, at this point, the Secrets of Magic is off my buy list unless huge changes are made to the Magus, and very possibly so too are any future PF2e books. The lack of errata fixes, the overall game balance issues, the massive need for homebrew fixes for a ton of stuff (from shields to spellcasters and much, much more), and the seeming entirely wrong direction of this upcoming book's classes means I'm almost ready to toss PF2 on the obsolete game pile with my (admittedly too large) D&D4e collection!

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is there some way to download the errata rather than just look at it online? I don't have my desktop running during games...

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:

Maybe it's because it's the Age of Lost Omens, so prophecies about when Errata will happen just don't work?

/s /s /s /S /S/ S

Or maybe it's because the Paizo staff is too busy writing Pathfinder 3?

(jk?)

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think this whole idea of "You only get 4 spell slots, but they level up as you go" could only ever work if they got all their spent slots back after a short rest, the way the 5e Warlock does. Even there they need the best Cantrip in the game (Eldritch Blast) and Invocations and patron-granted powers, giving them some additional abilities to help even things out.

Trying to do something similar in PF2e without all those extras (or something comparable) is a recipe for disaster.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

GM Stargin, this question has been asked quite a bit around here. Some feel everything is fine as is, others (like me) feel as you do, that they don't take advantage of the 3-action economy.

The favorite solution has been to allow spells that RAW take 2 or 3 actions can be cast with -1 action by taking the Flourish trait. This means they can cast only 1 such Flourish spell in a round, but they will still have 2 or 3 actions to move, sustain a spell, cast a 1 action spell RAW, etc.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
richienvh wrote:

Completely agree. Magi spend a lot of time honing combat and magic to blend them effectively. They are not a Warlord that spends their years fighting in formation and participating in super elaborate drills.

Moreover, the narrative of spellstrike should indicate reliability. You’re imbuing a...

I agree. If you have a flaming & shock magic weapon, you don't need to make additional attack rolls for the flaming and shock effects. So why should a weapon with Shocking Grasp imbued in it that hits the target have to make a separate attack for the spell? I thought the spell merely required a touch (or at least it used to), and that touch has obviously taken place on a hit.

Perhaps, at the very least, it the weapon attack succeeds, the spell cannot crit fail, any crit fails become failures instead. Or use the result of the weapon attack for the spell too.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think of it as your 1, 2, 3, 4's instead of the letters. And that's often the order I do them in too.

1 boost for your Class. (Choosing your class is one of the first choices you tend to make for a new character)

2 boosts for your Background.

3 boosts for your Ancestry. (Ok, only 2 if you choose Human, but that's easy to remember, and you could say that Humans must choose 1 flawed stat, giving them 3 boosts to spend as well...)

And then 4 boosts for your finishing step.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:
...

It took a little while, but then the forum came up with a very elegant solution: Reducing the casting time for a spell by 1 action gives it the Flourish trait. That means you can only cast 1 such spell in a round. The other actions can be casting a 1 action RAW spell, sustaining an already cast spell, moving, raising a shield, attacking with a weapon, using a skill (like Recall Knowledge, Perception, or Stealth to hide) or using Metamagic. It's not about spamming multiple spells in a round most of the time, it's actually being able to do something with the action economy of 2e.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As the Wizard in my group, I have been attacked (and downed) quite a bit more than the other players. Our GM is used to PF1e, where enemies generally tried to kill the spellcasters first, so he still plays that way in PF2e as well. Technically, given the general weakness of spells, it may not be the optimal path to victory like it used to be, but that remains to be proven...

Sovereign Court

7 people marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:

If a person can't reconcile knowing they are helping and having fun, they are playing the wrong character. It's not that their character isn't actually fun - it's that their fun hinges on something other than what the class is designed to provide.

No point eating meat if you don't like the way it tastes.

Why aren't the classes "designed to provide" basic usefulness and competence, equivalent to the other classes in the game?

That distinct (and, in most people's eyes, unfair) difference is what they are angry about. Fighters are the best attackers and start with Expert weapon prof. They have a purpose in the game and the game provides them with the ability to do that job. They may not hit every time, but they know that they usually have the best chance of hitting compared to the other characters. And they know they will have a chance to find/buy/create magical weapons and armor to further increase their chances of success, as well as use things like flanking to further help.

By contrast, the player that instead wanted to blast enemies with magic has several options (Wizard, Druid, Sorcerer, Witch), but none of them are very good at that job. They can only cast their best spells a few times per day, and once those slots are spent, they are left with only lackluster secondary options, like cantrips and lower level slots. Their chances of hitting are usually worse than the rest of the party. If a save is required instead, very often the enemy makes the save, so the PC only gets a minor "pity effect" for 1 round or so. And he knows that there are no magic items to be found in the game to bolster his abilities is any way. He also knows that he will be well behind (about 2 whole levels) the other characters in improving the rank of his main abilities, attacks, and defenses. Finally, it's hard for a caster to gain positioning bonuses because they are not front line characters.

So you combine all of those things (few effective slots per day, poor chance of a full effect, no magic items in game to aid/improve their spells, slower rank progression, hard to gain positioning bonus) and playing a "blaster caster" seems like it is not something that Pathfinder really allows anymore. Technically, there are ways you can still do it, (or an approximation of it), but it's clearly not supported or encouraged by the game anymore.

As far as the "no point eating meat if you don't like the taste" comment, here's a better analogy. Imagine if you and your group of friends have a habit of going out to eat every Friday night. Your favorite place to go is a place called P.F.'s, that was popular because it had great salads and vegetarian options for the vegans in your group, and great steaks and chicken for those that ate meat. So everyone could order what they like and enjoy the meal. Then one day, P.F.'s decides to go entirely vegan. They now only have meatless "beyond" patties and tofu "steaks" instead of the real thing anymore. The vegans in your group may be overjoyed by the change, but the rest of your group, who enjoyed a good steak or rack of ribs most Friday nights won't be happy at all!

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grankless wrote:
So you nerfed shields for a pointless reason like simulationism? Wack.

I removed shields taking damage too, so it all works out fine. The player just has to decide before the damage is rolled if he wants to chance possibly loosing his shield bonus to AC vs further possible attacks this round in order to block some damage from the current hit, or instead take the hit and keep his shield raised vs later attacks this round (if there are any). That is a conscious decision that a character can make in the heat of battle....if he surrounded by a bunch of goblins and so far this is the first one to attack him, it may be better to just keep the shield raised for now. If he only has 3 HP left, it may be better to reduce some damage now and hope the later attacks miss because of MAP, or they attack another target, or that you do well enough on your shield block Fort save to keep your shield raised even after the block.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:


For example, I've never seen it argued that saying "the creature is Huge" instead of using words like immense, massive, towering or the like damages immersion, and that is identical to saying "the creature is higher level than you" instead of using words like "dangerous-looking" or whatever else - using a game term because sticking to just adjectives doesn't actually communicate anything meaningful: a "hulking hound" could be dog that is large for it's completely mundane breed, or it could be bigger than a horse, and an "imposing warrior" or "wizened scholar" could be any level.

"Huge" is a game term, but it is something the character can actually see, which is different that a monster's actual "level". Creatures don't have a level marker floating above their heads like in some MMORPGs. You can watch them and see what they do, and if they cast a spell you could try to figure out what spell it is, which could possibly give you a hint of their minimum level (but it could also be one of their lower level spell slots and their actual level is much higher).

Again, in our group the rule on what players can learn is limited to what their characters can see, hear, and sense. They can tell if something is size small or huge just by looking at it, but that may not be a full indication of that creature's powers and capabilities.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:


No one in my group takes spells like Neutralise Poison,, Remove Paralysis, Remove Fear, or Remove Disease now. They are niche spells now that you would only take if you knew you needed them for a fight. They're mostly worthless now. Too bad. They could have been designed in a more interesting manner to be useful for lower level spell slots.

They should have combined all/most of them into a single Remove Affliction spell so that no matter what affliction the party encounters, you'd be ready to remove it/decrease it's severity, depending upon your roll.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:

Casters need a way to help vs more powerful single target enemies. True strike is an example, but not one all casters can get.

As such my group just runs a NPC caster/buff monkey so we don't have to worry about a player feeling weak and frustrated.

I think this kind of thing will probably become more and more common as caster players get more and more fed up with the system, unless things start to change dramatically very quickly. Depending upon the group, the NPC support character could be a Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, etc. We only have 3 players in our party and the GM decided to do 2 things to help us:

1) He allowed Dual Class characters from the GMG
2) He gave us an NPC Druid tag-a-long.

It makes me think back to BECMI and 1st edition when no one wanted to play the Cleric, so it was often an NPC, or handled with potions. Now it looks like most casters and the Alchemist are falling into a similar boat. Right now I think people are still looking for and hoping for improvements or finding some way to still have fun (and as I said, Dual Classing is definitely 1 way to do it), but after several more years, what's going to happen if players get more frustrated and no real changes have been made?

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you do this, are you going to make armor as flimsy as shields are currently? Or will it reduce damage but not take it itself?

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:

I think I will just go with my solution. Using a linear runic bonus, some shields, particularly dragonhide shields, will be too much of a draw.

I will have a better draft posted in a day or so.

I am thinking that each shield will be able to get a single enchantment but they will be gated by material. So, I will leave sturdy, but that will work only for regular steel shields (I will draft a similar enchantment for bucklers with lower shifted numbers). It won't be as much of a draw though since the special material shields will be boosted a fair amount.

The other runic enchantments could then be affixed to other shields depending to their material (like how reflecting only works on silver, and the like).

Anywho, I will play with it. I am starting another PF2 campaign soon and want this ready for it since one of the player's loves to be the tank.

You should try to create some way for Druids to get Sturdy shields in your rules too. I have 2 ways:

First, applying a sturdy rune to a regular wooden shield

Second, I wrote a new Ritual, inspired the game's past:
Ironwood (new 6th level ritual spell):
Cast: 10 minutes or 1 day Cost: powdered fossilized wood worth either 15 gp, or 150 gp
Secondary Casters: 0 Primary Check: Nature Secondary Check: Nature
Range: Touch Target: 1 wooden object of 5 Bulk or less
Duration: 1 day, or permanent
Effect: This ritual causes wood to become as hard and inflammable as steel for it’s duration. If if is cast as
a 10 minute ritual, it uses only 15 gp of powdered fossilized wood, takes only 1 primary skill check, and
the effect lasts for 1 day.
If cast as a day-long ritual, it takes 150 gp of material components, requires a
secondary check halfway through, and the effect becomes permanent. This ritual is used by Druids to
create wooden shields and wooden armor that is as strong as metal. Objects affected by Ironwood can still
be affected by spells and effects that target wood, like the Shape Wood spell.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Data, I simply turned "Sturdy" into a Shield rune that can be placed on other shields, including ones with other abilities or made of special materials. Here is what it does:

Sturdy Rune (new shield rune): These removable runes can be added to any other shields, including wooden, precious materials, and specifically enchanted shields. They modify the regular listed shield’s stats. The level and GP cost remains as listed.

A Minor Sturdy rune adds +3 Hardness, +40 HP, +20 BT.
A Lesser Sturdy rune adds +5 Hardness, +60 H0 HP, +30 BT.
A Moderate Sturdy rune adds +8 Hardness, +80 HP, +40 BT.
A Greater Sturdy rune adds +10 Hardness, +100 HP, +50 BT.
A Major Sturdy rune adds +12 Hardness, +120 HP, +60 BT.
A Supreme Sturdy rune adds +15 Hardness, +140 HP, +70 BT.

Depending upon what shield the rune is added to, it doesn't come out exactly identical to the Sturdy shields in the book, but it's close enough for me.

If you are using my indestructible shields rule, you only need to apply the added Hardness, HP/BT are not really used in that system.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We already have Goblins to fill the "small, tricky, evil race made into a PC" option, I don't think we need yet another one. They could expand on the Goblins with more ancestry feats characterizing new types of Goblins, (some we may not even know about yet, like a fey-touched Goblin) that is all that is needed.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:


It is a serious problem because those 26 spells make the arsenal of an entire TYPE of caster. If we for the purpose of discussion reduce all casters to Blasters, Buffers, Denyers, and Disablers, it invalidates an entire category of Disablers - namely those that target BBEGs, and not just groups of mooks.

That's a hefty subset of a FOURTH of all casters. (Again, let's not quibble whether it's really 1/4 instead of 1/5 etc. I trust you see the point made)

So the Incapacitation trait basically crippled this type of casters, the lack of any items to increase spell attack rolls or spell DCs crippled the blasters, having the caster's lag behind the martials by 2 levels for advancement of their core abilities ranks (expert attacks vs expert spellcasting, etc), and forcing nearly all spells to take at least 2 actions each while martials get a shiny new 3 action economy and lots of action economy enhancing class feats all hammered the final nails in the coffins....

Right now, I think PF2e is a game that basically requires massive modding and house rules to have fun playing, and at this point I think the APG will probably be the last PF2e book I buy. I had high hopes for the game before it was released, but the much-vaunted "numerical balance" doesn't fit my views of what is and isn't balanced in numerous ways. Here's hoping PF3e takes the lessons learning in 2e and makes a better game, the same way WotC did from D&D4e to 5e...

1 to 50 of 271 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>