Seisho's page

924 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 924 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Octopi are actually a really good example

They are really intelligent, are very aware of their capabilities, can learn to use tools

but when octopi breed the mother stays with the egg cluth till they hatch and usually dies along the way because she can't get out to feed herself

and so, no knowledge can be passed on and the little octopi have to learn everything from scratch

I would be really curious what would happen if you fed a octopus mom and make sure she come healthy through the phase of protecting the eggs

I would guess one big reason is 'civilisation'

Most beasts (just to be sure: talking about actual beasts and not monstrous humanoids (yeah I know they are also technically beasts now)) seem to have either a bad temper, are solitary or similar stuff like that

and without people to work together with the process of creating tools is certainly more difficulty
humans (and other civilized folk in golarion) achieve this through cooperation
one knows how to find the ore, one knows how get the ore, one knows how to smelt it, one knows how to make the tool out of it
while there are certain people who know all of these tasks they rarely are equally good in all of them and while it is possible for a single human to aquire and use all of these skills it is incredible hard and tedious to do all of the work on your own

lets look at a few beasts from the bestiary
-Basiliks - 'nasty disposition' 'solitary creatures' and no opposable thumbs
-Centaur - humanoid upper body, live in groups, use tools and weapons
-Chimera - 'wild, hateful' -also no thumbs but really not a social creature
-Cockatrice - 'ugly and agressive' they sure make no casual travel companions
-Dragons - not technically beasts but as far as I know some dragons (especially those who use their magic to shapechange into humans on a regular basis) use tools. In some cases these tools are more likely scrolls and wands to supplement their magic
-Giant eagles - 'attempt to prevent encroachment of civilisation' well, here you got it
-Ether spiders - 'are interested in items that help them against their enemies'
-Gargoyles - have several traits that make them bad company but they collect items of different kinds and know how to use them

well, it swings wildly but the most common reason for beasts not to have tools is a mix out of beeing uncivilized and the lack of thumbs

It would be certainly possible to create a community of creatures somewhere in the world that went beyond their usual limitations

In another rule system one armor is basically made from overlapping plates cut from mammoth task

So every creature with many and/or big teeth/tusks can be a 'donor' for heavy armor material

Also, if treated right wood can make an good armor (admittedly that would be more likely a medium then a heavy one)

And maybe theres a tribe of people who know how to work the sap of a rare kind of tree into a very hard resin

In pathfinder 1 there were also number of non-metallic armors and materials from all categories:

spider silk-bodysuit
leaf armor
horn lamellar
bulette armor
chitin armor
clam shell armor
coral armor
darkleaf cloth
griffon mane

I think you forget the divine font

It probably makes not much sense to list it extra since it just gives a few charges of either heal or harm

beyond that the monster creation rules say themselves that it's mostly guidleines and you can ultimately tweak all the numbers however you want

Had a sunken temple once

There were old leftover ventilation tunnels, just big enough for a goblin wereshark to sneak through and ambush them
(cursed hold person, poor goblin)

underwater riddles and switches can make for a challange
(on the other hand there could be switches which are easily accesssible because you can just swim to them)

just for fun you could hand them waterbreathing with side effects

and of course there are enemies which dont much care about the underwater aspect (stone golem) since they can be avoided to a certain degree they are probably more like hazards

If your gm allows it (and allows you to use rogue knife shenanigans on it) it seems like an okay weapon for me

more a thing of personal style then for minmaxing, but thats usually not what i go for either

I would personally say it is okay (partially because you overpaid for the second use and it reduces the further options you can have)

But your gm has to be the final arbiter to that

I am not quite certain but it looks like theres a direktion this thread is going...

but in all seriousness

2e is much easier to learn and to run

(and about 18 in the main attribute, well a 16 should be fine already in most cases ;) )

Aratorin wrote:
vale_73 wrote:

Hi everybody!

How do you treat a sort of "drunk" condition in your PF2 games?
Many thanks!
Clumsy and or Sickened depending on how drunk, should cover it.

On the plus side you could get a circumstance bonus to will saves against feat because you can't judge sh!t anymore and a bit drunken courage can go a long way

But magical warfare in Golarion...oh man there are so many factors which can't be easily compared

One of the first thing you would have to consider the the availibility of casters to the army itself. I can imagine that Nex, Magnimaar and Kyonin are rather well in that positions - others probably not so much.

Then there is the kind of casters.
Wizards? Clerics? Magi? Druids? Bards?

Then the distribution of them in the ranks.
Are the wizards concentrated in small units?
Are they spread out between the regular soldiers as 'special weapons'?

The question of what magical schools they use.
Conjuration? Abjuration? Necromancy? etc. ?

Tactics will also wildly differ.
A Kyonin unit of battle mages will probably be way better if they can use the woods to their advantage, while a group of mages from Magnimaar will bring their trusty Golems to the fight and a Shoan'ti Stormcaller sings to the winds in the midst of the heated battle.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

This makes me want to create a thread where one can spitball stupid monster ideas and people work on making them into monsters... we should start something like this

wow...that really sucks, the red mantis assassin archetype which doesnt give that much in terms of assassination only coming online in midgame for many player assassins

I have the rough feeling something about this should be erratad

beowulf99 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Seisho wrote:
Yeah, they have no scores but familars are per definition rather intelligent beeings (at the very least able to understand speech and with the right abilities able to speak with others and use tools)

Speech in no way means intelligence/sapience: My smartphone can understand speech and speak. I can also cast speak with animals but granting those animals the ability to communicate with me doesn't impact their intelligence/sapience. As to tool use, mindless skeletons can do that: Skeletal Giant uses a glaive for instance.

Secondly, Even an intelligent items from the gamemestery guide isn't automatically "fully sapient" even though it has real stats, an alignment trait, and can speak! They even have 3 of their own actions and can do things without command!!! If that isn't "fully sapient", I'm not sure how someone can claim a familiar is...

As far as agendas and personality... That's unsaid: they might have none, being a magic version of a drone.

This is actually a great example. A familiar being a magical being essentially means that they are basically a construct, made entirely of magic. Any evidence of intelligence, or any movement or other abilities they gain are added to them, similar to gray's smartphone example.

It isn't impossible for a smartphone to display real legitimate examples of intelligence, however they can't do it on their own. They need to be programmed to do so. This is a good way to look at Familiars. They can be molded to a ton of different purposes, but must be programmed to serve them.

This is actually an interesting point of view. I had not yet considered the possibility that familars might be something like magical constructs. But it makes sense, you just have to give them some kind of 'artificial intelligence'

I still would consider it a very advanced one - and if they feel emotions, well there was never any kind of rule about it, so I just assume that my familiar loves me and hope it becomes friends with my friends :P

Its probably partly the sad outcome that that would also mean that familiars have no "personality" or agenda, they have no ability modifiers they are completely devoid of intelligence, wisdom and charisma or alignment on that matter.

This is only partially right.

Yeah, they have no scores but familars are per definition rather intelligent beeings (at the very least able to understand speech and with the right abilities able to speak with others and use tools)

since a familiar uses your level as modifier it is basically untrained with +0 from stats, so the mental levels are basically average for whatever they are needed

and about agendas and personality - well, that depends on who roleplays the familar, you or the gm
and alignment, well it most likely matches your own

*sad trombone*

monk stances in general don't work with armor
and you wouldn't get any benefit from from the defensive prophiciencies either

still, that combo would open up several interesting combos with lots of focus spells, solid reactions etc

but you either go stances and unarmored or monastic weaponry and wear whatever armor you like, both looks pretty good

Double the same class, lets look at it class by class

Alchemist - more formulas probably? 2 paths is probably handy but there isnt exactly synergy going on and from what I know the number of potions you get is enough either way

barbarian - more paths means more anathema, but also more hurt, this would probably be imbalanced damage wise but besides that pretty boring, also several paths are mutually exclusive

bard - well the multiple paths is kinda nice but in the end there is not that much going on for bard in this

champion - you can't have multiple paths so you basically just get extra feats, except if the gm houserules it

cleric - this one profits probably the most, better armor prophiciency, more cantrips, better spell progression -> ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!

druid - to a lesser degree you can already have multiple orders, so not much new going on

fighter - plain double feats and not even an option to houserule

monk - also just double feats, martials really loose out here

ranger - two hunters edges sound interesting, now we have two options: you have one with both effects which would be really imba or you can use only one at a time, which would be okay since you have to tactically choose in which case it would be interesting

rogue - why would you? you could sneak attack with spells at level 4+ or get a arsenal of lethal toxins which scale with your class dc? I mean it is not bad but you REALLY loose out

sorcerer - two spell lists with the same attribute is pretty good, more focus spells are also nice, especially since sorcerer has imo a few of the best

wizard - to be honest I have no big idea since I usually stop readins spellcasters after 's' but multiple thesis sounds pretty good though

but double down on one class seem really bland and boring when you can have all the stuff two classes deliver

Castilliano wrote:
Belltowerben wrote:

Pretty sure Telekinetic Projectile was errata'd to say spell attack roll.

Have to look it up but I remember reading that somewhere.
It was.


had the errata not in my head

Produce flame has the little advantage of beeing a possible melee or ranged attack

Telekinetic Projectile is also nice for non-primary casters because it makes a ranged attack roll and not a ranged spell attack roll

but nice guide so far

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know what Brian Worms are but brian seems to be a nasty f*****

nice thing you put here together :P

Staffan Johansson wrote:
Ruzza wrote:
2097 wrote:
Ruzza wrote:
You have yet to justify why this is a good idea.

I don't want Bestiary 4, Bestiary 5 etc to feel like the D-list monsters.

I can't speak for everyone, but I don't feel like Paizo has done that in the past. It sounds like you're worrying over a problem you created. Others in this thread have pointed out why it's not a good idea, why it wouldn't be done, and ways to get around organizational problems if you have them. But this is all stemming from an idea that I feel like you're off the mark on.

I'm not familiar enough with PF1's bestiaries to say if the same applies there, but I noticed a very distinct thread in the monster manuals for 3e. As the number got higher, two things happened:

1. The monsters became increasingly weird and/or niche, because the "low-hanging fruit" was already covered in the previous volumes.

2. The monster design got better, because the designers got better at designing monsters.

I fully expect the same to happen with PF2, because that's just the nature of things.

It was partially like that with pf1 too

But while there was a lot of niche and weird monsters added, there were always some 'familiar' monsters

for example the third bestiary added a version of the sphinx and graveknights while the sixth added stats for a host of archdevils and demigods

and every bestiary expended on dragons and some kinds of outsiders, golems or giants

two questions about the interaction of those

1. Can Metamagic be applied to focus spells as usual?

2. Can Metamagic be applied cross-class if you learn it via Dedication or as Dual-Class hero?

My first instinct says yes to both but I am not quite sure about it.

Lets see...a wand that can be treated as dagger
I would allow it but consider if the magic of the wand and property runes interact in some way (maybe you cant add enhancing or property runes?)

Also consider the interaction between magical material and weapon material, ther is a reason while most wands are classically made largely from wood, bone, horn and other organic materials rather then metal

attaching that to a staff to create a spear?
most likely a regular short spear, not to imbalanced

but there are a few problems with the attaching

to screw on a dagger to the staff both have to have a proper thread, now while this is certainly possible it comes with a few problems
-a thread is a delicate thing, if it is too dirty, not properly maintained int can easily be damaged
-also when not taken care of there is always a chance that it cold fuses while screwing the head on or off
-also the thread has to be long enough to properly hold the dagger and to disperse the strength that is put on it, probably too long to add or remove the point to the 'spear' mid-battle

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:

But think about it from Paizo's point of view.

"We've got our Lovecraftian Bestiary!"

  • People who don't want Lovecraft aren't buying it.
  • Creators are stretching themselves to fill a full book of Lovecraft (and -maybe it's just me- but not every idea is stellar when you're forcing yourself into those constraints)
  • People are asking for certain types for their games: plant, fey, etc. and there's only so much you can provide in that realm before you just go... aberration, aberration, aberration.
  • It takes time to make a book that scale, and now we've got Pathfinder: the mostly occult game until the next release. And then you've got Pathfinder: the mostly underwater game. That's not the overarching design intent for Pathfinder.

I agree on this

bestiaries sortet after differnt notions (be it alphabetical, theme or something else) would work...not so well (at least for a new system)

A bestiary needs some variaty

lets say for example we go with 'monsters a-f' like in the initial post (which probably are already too many letter since that would include demons, daemnons, devils and dragons under d and angels, agathions, azata and aeons under a)
Well I am certain that everyone who like the planes to play a bigger part in their game delights - but then proteans and psychopomps are missing

and what about the people who want skeletons, vampires, zombies?

or harpies, gnolls, goblins - okay, they got bugbears but hob- and regular goblins are probably more important for mosk campaigns

besides the point that the letters d and s both will need their complete own books

and for themes, well that would be nice for later reprint (maybe) but the problem is the same and in some aspects even worse, people will ask themselves 'why did they create about x first and not y? z would also have been okay, but why x?'

And I don't think the pf2e bestiary is a 'greatest hits' bestiary
especially considering that there are many new creatures inbetween, as well as it contains some niche monsters as web lurkers, simurgh or the nilith

Paizo (presumely) just tried the bestiary to fill it's usual role:
Giving thats for important and reoccuring monsters (which is especially for a first bestiary important) and giving new monsters and ideas to make the game more interesting

while I can understand the notion to have a somewhat sortet bestiary (in one way or another) I am kind of glad that paizo did not decide to go that route (at least for now)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the dual class rules but I think that balancing dual class heroes against normal ones seems as good as impossible

If I had a table where one wants to not play dualclass I would warn him and advise him just to take something similar to his own class and double down on what he wants to do (like fighter + ranger for everything archery and 2 weapon fighting or something along the lines)

but admittedly some combos are crazy strong and hard to balance

like the fighter/ranger DMW already said (flurry with that hurts)

or what I noticed (playtest) swashbuckler+rogue -> finisher sneak attacks are crazy strong and probably not within system limits

and a rogue with full spell progession can cause a lot of really nasty damage (although it is mostly more recources then a rogue with one or two spellcasting dedications)

but many combos mostly strike me as adding mostly versatility to the characters reportoire


but non dual class heroes beeing balanced against regular ones? seems not possible to me - or at least really, REALLY hard
mostly because the core abilities that make a class are its bread and butter, the class feats are just the cheese on top of it

Timeshadow wrote:

Remember way back in 2nd ED when we got the Monster manual binder and could just add in the expansions as we got them, put them in any "order" you wanted or take out a few monsters for an encounter.... Of course then you got the holes ripped on frequently used pages or the rings of the binder got messed up after frank stepped on it.....

Good times ... lol

that is actually a good idea - i just 'print' the sites i need as new pdfs, maybe add them together to a new one and have my encounters set (from bestiary site)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

First off - I am not sure about the rules site (or if there is anything at all about it) but this is how I would do it:
(or rather, what I would my players let get away with)

1. as long as the grapple is maintained you hold on. If the creature shakes you off -> you fall

2. Grappling a succubus mid-air? sounds like fun :P As general rule of thumb I would say if the creatures are of the same size category (and the grappler is not obvioulsy much heavier) the creature can stay airborne (if it wants). If the grappled creature is bigger it should be no problem at all, if the grappled creature is smaller, well you might want to rethink the grapple (depending on the height)

3. I would let the players tell me HOW they grapple. Wings free? everything is fine. Wings held? Falling like a stone. One should be careful, a free-winged succubus might try to fly higher and then shake you off. On the other hand if you wall straightup it will most likely hurt you too

4. no, not at all - if they can reasonably turn the succubus to the ground while staying above them (which should be possible, it is in their name after all) one could argue the succubus body softens the blow. Depending on the height that might not make that much of a difference

As Antiflyer option it is probably very effektive (if the grapple has a reasonable chance of course) but it is very risky (mostly the risk of injury with a minor chance of broken pride)

4 people marked this as a favorite.

gimme a x-com combat grid and pf2 rules on top of it anyday

but yeah, its still very early for a pc game, even though it would be awesome

There was at least an option for metallic kobolds, even though it was not like they were naturally born

but I could imagine it as ancestry option

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the problem with splinter faith is that some people want to start in a splinter faith and not be human at the samt time

partially because retraining takes a while the character does not have
I can get behind that idea

graystone wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
\I like the idea of keeping the reach at the expense of the disarm and damage die. It fits really well with how I envision bladed scarves being wielded where the dancer is difficult to approach and can lash out at some distance like a whip when they're in their battle dance.
I think I'd rather drop disarm and trip: reach and sweep would make it a viable non-elf alternative to the curved blade for a higher damage finesse weapon and would feel different from the whip and chain. Heck, even if you had to drop sweep too, a higher damage finesse weapon with reach is niche we don't have.

I agree on this with graystone on this one, seems like a good and elegant alternative

DougSeay wrote:
Abadar because the circus is bringing civilization to the hinterlands, and charging for the privilege.

Yeah...that's totally a thing they would do, f*!$ing capitalists :P

I agree with most od jdripleys choices, although for different reasons

Calistria is among elvenkind mostly known as goddess of freedom, something which is a very important for a troupe of wandering artists. If you are more into the whole thievery or revenge thing the circus could be your cover
You would be most likely some artist (maybe an exotic dancer) who makes the crowd go wild

Caiden Cailean followers could certainly run the tap but as a god of valor his followers would also be animal tamer, knive thrower or acrobats. Also if you want to encourage downtrodden people to free themselves of their lot and occasionally start a drive-by slave liberation, caiden is your man

Irori encourages his followers to self perfection. You can do that always and everywhere. Your natural skills makes you most suited for an acrobat, a stronman would not be wrong though. Or a show fighter who excites the crowd by using martial prowess.

Desna is the most fitting of all core gods - Uberton already summed that up pretty well

Same goes for Nocticula and Shisumos reasoning

Shelyn is and always will be a goddes of art. So a excellent patron for an artistic troupe of any kind.

If you want a strong man and impress the crowd mostly with feats of strength Kurgess would be a good choice. Especially if it is part of the troupe to let people challange your champion in a friendly bout

Sarenrae followers are often skilled in dance and song. And they also like to travel and patching up and helping people is always needed somewhere.

I can't see Erastil, Gozreh and Nethys as circues artist patrons. I mean, it is certainly possible but those strike me as rather unlikely

Well, maybe Erastil if you focus on the family aspect, a circus troupe is often some kind of patchwork family

If you want something more exotic *draws out gods and magic*

Hathor is also a family goddess

Isis combines the family aspect with the healing aspect

Bastet encourages learning of secrets and recelry, certainly two things that (can) align with circus life

If you are the ringmaster horus suits well as his decrees are to protect people over whom you have authority and create harmony within your community

Count Ranalc of the eldest would be an interesting choice if the circus is just your side buisiness

Besides him, eldest as well as elven or dwarven gods make not especially good champion patrons, especially not concidering the circus aspect

But we got a few empyriel lords (and ladies)

Arshea wants to inspire passion and people to abandon what holds them back from it

The Black Butterfly, a minion of Desna. A student of stars who wants to randomly do good seems certainly like a valid choice

Irez makes for an excellent fortune teller

Pulura has a good affinity for travelers

If your character comes from the far east consider following deities:

Kofusachi likes his followers to indulge themselves and help local businesses (and a circus in town certainly can help) not sure about the travelling aspect though

Lady Jingxi is an artist. Poets are rare among circus folk but it could sure worek

Qi Zhong might not be a typical circus follower but probably appreciated among the troupe for his healing - and you can teach healing to all on the travvels who are willing to listen

Sun Wukong - Live life freely, drink, play pranks; thats certain to make a good circus follower

Well, thats certainly a lot, have fun :P

Appletree wrote:
All this waiting is gonna make me perish.

I feel that on a spiritual level

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The boss room has a big key that is oddly shaped like a skull and can only be found in a random other room of the dungeon ;)

Alternatevely a riddle door and clues are hidden in the dungeon

Add sidequests for what else can be in the dungeon (damsels in distress, family heirlooms, rare alchemical ingredients or plants)

Design a dungeon where the bbeg is not the main target but instead one of the things mentioned above

Please don't start this kind of threads, waiting is hard enough as it is T_T

4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
3. A bit weird since pf1e directly called out weapon finesse interaction, personally I like the change as I don't think it is a particularly finessable weapon.

The spiked chain on the other hand still has finesse - and I would consider them equally finessable

A cleric of Irori can get d6 for punches with deadly simplicity

This is very unspecific

If you want to know the pf2 stats for infernal dragons - no, we only got the basic dragons (metallic and chromatic) so far

But a T-rex with flaming teeth is just too cool to not allow.

Sounds rather uncomfortable to me though

3 people marked this as a favorite.
so what does a familiar get you, that you cannot get without?

Nothing because it would be a feat that everybody has to take and they want to avoid that

It still gives flexibility

5 people marked this as a favorite.

From a pure technical point of view familiars can seem a bit lackluster but lets take another look at it from an rp perspective

your familiar can communicate empathically with you over a mile distance (as mentioned this they had before but I'm just considering thoughts here to see if an familiar is worth it)
since they can have their movement adjusted every day they can be spies for basically every enviroment

they can have sccent and potentially notice enemies and dangers none of the players would notice

In the same manner darkvision can be helpful

they can have speech and communicate more complex information, either after spying on someone or after moving from one part of the group to the other

and spell delivery can be very useful, either for damaging enemies or helping your allies

and if you are fine with your companion just sitting around looking cute, just pick 2 master abilities and you're golden

Some familiar abilities are a bit situational, but they can be adjusted every day and be potentially very helpful

If they are worth it is up for you to decide

GM Stargin wrote:
I think corruption should work as ancestry feats. You can take them instead of your ancestry feat. You can also choose to take one by 'giving up' one of your already chosen ancestry feats in order to simulate giving up on your heritage in favour of the corruption at appropriate story beats (losing humanity for example.). You can also choose to take one even if you don't have anymore ancestry feats left to giveup at appropriate story beats, but that's what advances a counter to losing your character to the corruption. Maybe 2 points?

I think corruption as 'ancestry' feat would not be good

Corruption is thought to be something most players do NOT want to contract - and it has no relation to ancestry whatsoever

Corruption could open options for ancestry feats related to the corruptions itself ('while I'm here might make the best of it')

On the other hand I would think corruption is more of a 'free' dedication feat with downsides so you have to choose between your class advancement and corruption progression

Either way - if corruption should work as feats the gm should also hand out a few over time

First off: I'm not exactly a min maxer, I still hope my point of views helps you a little

If you want to make lots of damage consider rapier as your main weapon instead of dagger (I assmune 'Dague' is supposed to mean dagger?)

The increased die size and deadly certainly increase your damage and since you intend to increase athletics your disarm might be useful now and then too

Maybe ask your dm if he considers the war razor (gods and magic) as appropriate rogue weapon

Nimble dodge is probably good when faces with lots of melee enemies, but if you really want to min/max on damage consider twin feint (with a dagger as offhand weapon) for guaranteed sneak dmg even if your flanking buddy is not availible

Since you are going to get intimidate high consider also 'you're next' for opening opportunities and weakening foes

Mobility is useful if you have a lot of fightes to pass, but if you stay close to the regular 'front line' with your flanking buddy consider quick draw (to be quicker ready and make more out of short distance daggering) or unbalancing blow (you want to hit hard, this enables even harder hits and opens opportunities for your allies as well)

If you pick 'you'Re next' you should definitly pick dread striker - increases your sneak potential by a lot

If you want poison weapon you should consider alchemist as multiclass for more and stronger poisons

and as party scout 'scouts warning' is a quite obvious choice, a little initiative might go a long way

twist the knife is good for a skirmisher style (apllying bleed to one enemy at a time) but again, for straight up minmaxing damage I think 'gang up' might work better in your favor

if you pick poison weapon you might want to improve on it at 8th level but I agree that oppotune backstabber is a really good choice, be careful not to have too many reactions or it will be too hard to choose between all of them

For skill feats take intimidating glare to make that whole thing easier

charming liar for deception should certainly have value for a face

quiet allies is helpful - and even more if the group is big

hope that all helps a little - have fun ya sneak :P

druid + ranger, both with pet - you can sorround your enemy with 2 people :P

Double fighters with many knockdown capability - when they stand up they feel 2 AoOs

grappler (monk?) + rogue - one holds the enemy, the others stabs them over and over

2 redeemer champions going side by side, you are basically a walking wall

Monks can't flurry shuriken? That is...kind of a bummer, had to re-read the part to believe it but raw it really is that way...

I think I would allow Shuriken flurry anyway - I mean they are kind of the most...flurrysome weapon around :P

This is most likely an oversight

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The whole game is barely half a year old

no official ninja material

but your character would (if they ought to be a typical asian ninja) likely hail from Tian Xia

for class I would say go rogue and use multiclass archetype monk with monastic weaponry and then a few monk moves to enhance your mobility
alternatevely monk multiclassing into rogue would probably also work

the most 'classical' shuriken users you find in the inner sea are monks from different monastries all around the continents of avistan and garund

Well since every creature, character etc gets +1 on everything relevant per level the 'weak' and 'elite' templates are roughly the eqivalent of two levels

Also it is indirect written as 'These adjustments have a greater effect on the power
level of low-level creatures; applying elite adjustments to
a level –1 creature gives you one closer to 1st level, and
applying weak adjustments to a 1st-level creature gives
you one whose level is closer to –1.'

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Puna'chong wrote:
I think Monastic Weaponry is actually pretty good, as far as a low-level feat goes.

Is it? I mean all it really gives you is proficiency in some martial weapons.

That's fine and all, but the monk weapons that come from stances are mostly designed to be more like advanced weapons, sometimes even better than that.

Without some kind of secondary benefit the feat really feels lacking to me. Especially when Tiger Stance gives me step 10 on top of being just a flat better weapon.

I feel like the main draw of the feat is just if you want to multiclass to pick up some weapon-based feats that don't work with unarmed strikes. Even then it doesn't feel super great imo.

The advantage of Monatic Weaponry over tanking stances is the flexibility. You still can do all your monk stuff without beeing limited and gain a number of good choices for damage, weapon properties and even ranged options that work in tandem with your other monk skills

Get one or two weapons with shifting runes and you always have the right tool for the job

I am sooo looking forward for Zen Archer

On a different note: I think a rather interesting (admittedly maybe a little op, especially with elvish bows) addendum for Monastric Weaponry could be that, if you have Racial Prophiciency, you coun't those as monk weapons

Also interesting would be to count deities favored weapons as monk weapons (scimitar wielding monk of sarenrae, spiked chain using monk of zon-kuthon, glaive monk of shelyn - and scythe wielding follower of pharasma are also not that much worse then dragon stance monks)

The Raven Black wrote:
Some things you could do in PF1 but cannot do in PF2.

Certainly true

The Raven Black wrote:
Several class features are not available with Multiclassing.

But you at least don't loose the features of your own class

The Raven Black wrote:
You cannot start with Inspire courage at level 1 without becoming a master of Occult spellcasting.

which certainly is not a bad thing

The Raven Black wrote:
You cannot start as a caster at level 1 and then devote your life to being a martial without being both a far better caster and a far worse martial than the guy who started as a martial and then devoted their life to being a caster.

That is true but they got their main classes mixed up if you ask me ;)

(And lets be honest, mixing martial and caster was usually not a good idea)

The Raven Black wrote:
You cannot retrain your class.

Which shouldn'T be neccessary (I usually saw that as option to remove your multiclassing mistakes)

The Raven Black wrote:
You cannot be a CG Cleric of Gorum.

not the only god with changed follower alignments, but every change makes sense so far

The Raven Black wrote:
You cannot be a negative-channeling Cleric of Pharasma.

On the others hand some other gods opened up options - it is just not linked to good or evil anymore

The Raven Black wrote:
Despite all this and others, I still very much prefer PF2 though :-)

Totally agreed

CorvusMask wrote:
I'd think there is also that Redeemers aim to turn evil doers into good and Nocticula is CN not CG :p

Well, the first step to becoming good is becoming non-evil

while it does not swing the complete way it's a perfectly fine start :P

Who knows, maybe in pathfinder 3 Nocticula will be CG ;)

1 to 50 of 924 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>