Raxius Malgorian

Shinigami02's page

Organized Play Member. 997 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.

1 to 50 of 365 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Sliska Zafir wrote:
Also running Plaguestone. Fighter not happy Ranger has higher AC without needing to have shield and take raise shield actions. Fighter at 19+2=21 when shield raised; Ranger at 20 just walking around.

Wait, what? How? The rules do not support this at all. Any Fighter with Dex 12 should have higher AC than any Ranger, assuming they grab Heavy Armor, and equal assuming they don't.

This sounds like a straight rules error or someone making a profound mistake in their armor selection.

A fighter with Dex 12 and in Hide or Scale is going to be lower than a Ranger with Dex 14 in the same armor. Both are Trained proficiency until 11, at which point both become Expert. It's not until level 17 that the Fighter gets an inherent advantage. As for the Fighter being decked in Heavy Armor, well, that stuff's expensive. Getting the cheapest Heavy Armor (Splint Mail) at level 1 is going to cost nearly the entirety of your starting gold, leaving barely enough to pick up the forementioned Shield and a weapon, let alone any QoL gear.

On top of that, the Ranger has the option of taking the Outwit Edge, which while not quite "just walking around" is the equivalent of permanently having a Buckler raised against your Prey at the cost of only a single action at the start of the fight.

That said, I do still think there's a mistake somewhere, as unless they're level 3 (in which case the Fighter probably is in Hide or Scale Mail with 12 Dex, or Light Armor with slightly higher Dex, and probably should have upgraded to Chain or a Breastplate if not Heavy Armor by now) I'm not seeing any way that the Ranger can have 20 AC casually.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

In general, if you have two single-action Cantrips (or even a single-action and a two-action e.g. Shield and any offensive Cantrip) you can cast them both in the same round.

That said, you specifically cannot cast both Inspire Courage and Inspire Defense in the same round, not because they are Cantrips but because they are specifically Composition Cantrips. The Composition tag has a clause specifically saying you can't cast more than such spell per turn. You could totally cast Inspire Courage or Defense and Shield, or Daze, or any other non-Composition-tagged Cantrip in the same turn though. Heck, a Bard could get three Cantrips off in one turn through a combination of Inspire Defense, Shield, and Guidance.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kelseus wrote:

For those who are concerned that you can't really work up your character concept b/c you don't know who your GM will be, therefore you can't ask them, I would say that this is just as likely to happen in P1 or D&D 3/4/5/80000 etc. You might have a GM sit down and say that you're playing in his home-rule setting, and there are no monks. Or its an East Asian themed adventure, or you're all playing talking animals. Nothing about the P2 rarity rules changes the fact that your PC is subject to GM fiat.

I literally had a GM who said that there are no clerics in his setting, and this was back in the APG only days, where there weren't a ton of options to keep a party at full HP.

This is definitely one of the upsides of playing mostly published adventures, I do at least know the setting ahead of time even if I don't know the GM. Some GMs may not like me bringing a Tian to a Varisian game but at least I'm not trying to bring a Kitsune to a Humans-only game or something.

That said, sometimes the published adventure can be a downside. I mentioned the one who wouldn't even change given weapons to better equip the rest of the party, but even besides that GM there's several who are incredibly hesitant to add even a homebrew quest to a published game. And to add a sidequest for a single party member to gain a single option, let alone adding several for the entire party to get their items? There might be one or two of the, like, dozen GMs in the group that might be willing to do that. For the most part though, it's pretty much down to what's already in the adventure or maybe something easily subbed into the drop list.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

So many people talking about the Flurry, but I'm surprised no one actually mentioned how it interacts with Incredible Movement (well I saw one mention of the tactic but not details). With Flurry and Incredible Movement Monks become nearly unmatched in hit-and-run tactics, eventually able to move up, hit twice, and retreat far enough that most enemies will probably need to burn 2 actions to catch up. And of course you can play this up as an Elf, with a potential 70 foot move speed eventually. And while it might not be the most likely choice, if you add in their capstone option that gives them permanent Quickened for moving, you can basically get to the point that in a large enough arena a Monk can probably kite any melee opponent to their doom.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
Zwordsman wrote:
Huh if they can't. I'm less sure what an Alchemist's familiar is that useful for in comparison to other lv 1 feats . Huh.

I'm not caught up on Alchemists, but wouldn't the Manual Dexterity/Lab Assistant combo be useful?

There's also the Extra Reagents ability, or extra senses like Scent to help target bombs at invisible or hidden opponents.

On a turn where you're commanding your familiar you only get 2 actions (which presumably are being used to either draw and use an item or Quick Alchemy and use an item,) so if the familiar is using Lab Assistant it would probably have to apply the item too. This isn't horrible for Elixirs, but if you're doing something like bombing that means that the familiar needs to make the attack roll, and its attack rolls probably aren't great given its only bonus is your Proficiency modifier (fortunately including level, but even still). And of course giving your Familiar Lab Assistant takes both of your familiar abilities for the day so that's probably about the only thing it can do. Maybe useful for some Alchemists (like, I can see why the example Mutagenist has a Familiar now, spending 1 action to make/retrieve and drink a Mutagen is pretty good for them) but for a lot of alchemists it's probably not great.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Are we sure about that though? Because the Titan Mauler ability specifically says:

Titan Mauler, page 87 wrote:
You gain access to one weapon one size larger than you, of any weapon type otherwise available at character creation.

Emphasis mine. This implies that oversized weapons are probably at least Uncommon, and that you only gain access to one. But then again, much like anything else Uncommon, if you find them in your adventures (such as fighting a lot of Large enemies) you could probably take those with you and either just use them or... whatever it takes to gain Access for Crafting purposes.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I was looking at the Disarm maneuver, because I remember its Success effect being not great in the Playtest. I noticed that it does grant a -2 penalty to attack now, which sounds nice on the surface... but then I noticed that it (like the bonus to additional Disarm checks) seems to only apply until the start of the target's turn. This is great if you're fighting something like a Paladin or some Fighters, where they can get a lot of Reactions they can use to hit things, but it seems like most of the time this penalty is going to be wearing off right when it actually becomes useful. And I'm just curious, is this intended? Because it seems to make Disarm still not very useful unless you can reliably crit-succeed it (which is not an easy state to reach I don't believe).

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The original We Be Goblins at least mentioned that Goblins can and will pickle anything they can get their hands on.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing to get out of the way right off the bat: I'm an Anime and Video Game nut. I have this weird obsession with oversized swords. So I'm just going to share how to get the most insanely oversized sword that I've found, just in the CRB.

Also, something I'm taking as a Given, though table variation might exist: When the Barbarian's Giant Instinct allows you to use a weapon two sizes larger than you at base (aka a Small creature using a Large weapon) and then that same Instinct gives you abilities that explicitly grow your gear with you, I am going to assume you don't suddenly lose the ability to use your weapon just because it grew with you and you are no longer Small or Medium.

So going off this: Halfling or Goblin with a Large Greatsword. I can't remember exactly if PF1e gave an exact length, and the book doesn't seem to give an exact length for Greatswords, and Google has turned up Zweihanders being as long as 7 feet so I'm going to say that a Medium Greatsword being 6 feet isn't unrealistic. Follow the PF1e standard of increasing gear's size by 1 increment doubles the size. So Large Greatsword would be 12 feet. 3 foot creature, 12 foot Greatsword, already off to a great start. But it gets better.

Level 6, get Giant's Stature. You grow to Large (+2 Size Increments) and your gear grows with you. Your character is now Large at 12 feet tall, and your Greatsword is now size Gargantuan at a whopping 48 feet long. But still it gets better.

Level 12, Titan's Stature. You can now grow to size Huge (+3 Size Increments) and again, your gear grows with you. So now your character is 24 feet tall... and wielding a sword that is a whopping 96 feet long. If you pointed that thing straight up and let it fall it would probably cleave a moderately sized building in half. But there is one more point to this study...

You see, one of the hilarious things about Pathfinder is that for the most part the length of your weapon has nothing to do with how far you can hit. So that 12 foot sword you're starting with? Yeah, you can still only hit adjacent creatures (up to 5 feet away). The 48 foot Gargantuan Blade? 10 feet. And the 96-foot monstrosity? 15 feet. I guess 80-some percent of the sword must be incorporeal or something. Oh, and of course, at all these points it still does the same 1d12 damage, I'm pretty sure.

This has been a study on insanely huge blades and how to use them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Metaphysician wrote:
... if it is altering the psychic medium of an entire planet, in what way is *that* not detectable, like a giant beacon?

If you dropped a drop of dye into a swirling tank of water (the swirling in this case being representative of the telepathic communication occurring on the planet anyways, which would theoretically muddy the telepathic medium), even a minute later would you be able to look at the now colored water and pinpoint where the drop of dye was dropped in? Because I think that's the comparison (or at least similar to it) they're making. Using it changes the entire medium of the planet via a cascade reaction, rather than a constant input.

Of course it's not quite a perfect comparison given the effect does change if you remove the device, but then the water would revert to colorless if you removed the dye too, that's just a bit more complex.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
Even when published materials sometimes fall well under WBL.

I think except for hells rebels every adventure path I've seen has left my characters horribly under WBL: kingmaker, dead suns, pirates, .. I think kingmaker was the worst. My character at 7th level had starting wealth and his spellbook which had increased in value from him scribing into it...

Funny thing: In my group (at least for Pathfinder APs) we quite often houserule sale price = full cost rather than the default 1/2. Despite that we still wind up under WBL (sometimes dramatically so) surprisingly often.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
"Dr." Cupi wrote:
It has a hardness of 20 and, by Pathfinder rules, the hardness of a substance a weapon is made out subtracts from the hardness of the object it is attacking. This allows a weapon made of adamantine to ignore the hardness of any nonmagical substance.

...Pretty sure this isn't a thing, and Adamantine's ignoring 20 points of Hardness is unique to it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's really two ways I can see it being explained, since I don't know of any official reasoning:

1) Adamantine Alloy is, when compared to raw Adamantine, kind of like comparing Steel to raw Iron. Iron's good, but Steel is better, and likewise the Adamantine Alloy is more effective than raw Adamantine would be.

I think there's stuff that goes against that somewhere in one of the books though, so the other option:

2) It's a few thousand years past Pathfinder. Metal refining has gotten much better, allowing for metallurgists to work with something closer approaching Pure Adamantine than what their relatively primitive predecessors were using in Pathfinder days. And since by this time it should be relatively simple to examine the effects different elements have when alloyed with Adamantine, it should be simple enough to create an alloy that stretches Adamantine supplies as far as possible while still retaining that strength that the purer-than-Pathfinder-era Adamantine possesses.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
EltonJ wrote:
FormerFiend wrote:

I want more biotech augmentations. Specifically, I want disgusting, body-horror-esque biotech augmentations. Kinda stuff that the PF 1e alchemist could do to themselves; tentacles, removing & preserving organs, parasitic twins, tumor familiars.

Pact worlds has a picture of a (half?)elf who's biotech'd his arm into a tentacle as the picture for the Biotechnitian theme; so far as I'm aware, something like that isn't actually possible under the current rules, although it would be easy enough to home brew.

Necrographs & some velstrac gear are a good start but I don't feel that we're there yet.

Can I say that this sounds sickening?

Meanwhile, maybe it's the [PG Unfriendly] in me, but it sounds kinda awesome to me. Tentacles are fun.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
Zed Flashbang wrote:

Me, I imagine there are races from 70,000 light years away that shortcut through the Pact World's system daily to take advantage of the Starstone's beacon, much to the consternation of the Verces-originated Pact Worlds Stewards and the Triaxian-originated Skyfire Mandate!

You've been hired to keep part of the Absalom Station Armada safe after two unknown interstellar powers with strange technologies decide to use the Starstone as a beacon for a place to go fight...

I don't think that actually works. The Pact Worlds system is indeed 1d6 days away from any place in the Galaxy, but stopping by that system on your way to somewhere else simply adds 1d6 days to your trip. The only considerations for how long a trip to a given place takes are the number of Drift beacons in your destination system and the quality of your Drift Drive.

Which is why it makes a much better Trade Hub than Waystation. Assuming you figure out it's not some galactic anglerfish, 1d6 from your Vast homesystem to Absalom, trade your goods, and however long home is better than however long to some Vast trading hub, then similar amount of time home. So it seems like the biggest blockade to Absalom becoming such a galactic landmark is figuring out that the big bright spot in the Drift is not going to kill and/or eat you on arrival.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Metaphysician wrote:
Uchuujin wrote:
Ixal wrote:
The cynic in me mostly expects a big power creep with the new classes and that they together with shields break the math for monster attack bonus.
My thought on shields is more along the lines of the developers expecting PCs to use cover more than they generally do, so it's more of filling in that gap in AC.
While I agree that there are probably far too many players refusing to use cover, I think the better solution is to keep killing off PCs until they learn their lesson. Eventually, they will learn that the solution to all problems is not "stand in the open, do full attack".

Shields strike me more as a replacement for Cover for the melee-inclined, who can't exactly position for cover while in the middle of a cluster of enemies melee'ing it up.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Garretmander wrote:
Reskin an existing operative weapon to the kind of weapon you want it to look like? Same stats, different name and different physical appearance.

Fun Fact: Not all GMs let you just reskin stuff as you please, even if it doesn't make a mechanical difference. Especially when you'll be reskinning something like a dozen (possibly very different, given how sporadic some of the advancements can be, when they even exist in the first place) weapons by the end, because of how the Starfinder equipment system works.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dracomicron wrote:
How many years into Pathfinder did the custom weapons/spells/magic items/whatever rules appear? I'm legit curious now.

The original Custom Magic Item rules were in the CRB, as were basic NPC creation rules. Custom Weapons were in Weapon Master Handbook roughly 6 years after Core. Custom Monsters were in Bestiary 4, 4 years after Core. Custom Spells were Ultimate Magic, only 2 years after Core. Classes (and by extension Archetypes) were Advanced Class Guide, 5 years after Core. And Races were Advanced Race Guide, 3 years after Core (and about a year before Monsters, interestingly enough.) Those are all the custom rules I know of off the top of my head.

And I've really got nothing else to add to the conversation other than to say that these things take time, especially one something as chaotic as weapon design. Mostly posting to answer Draco's curiosity.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
Dracomicron wrote:

Everybody in Starfinder is ambidextrous and can dual-wield for free.

They just don't get any more attacks out of it than any other combat style.

What's the point then if you're still making only one weapon strike per round?

Aesthetics, flexibility of damage types, some feats (Deflect Projectile works really well with a longsword in one hand and a plasma sword in the other), flexibility of range (sword-and-pistol style, or sword and rifle with the right build), exploiting a multitude of weapon traits... there's lots of reasons to dual-wield besides extra attacks.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another combination of rules:

Holding and Wielding Weapons, page 168 wrote:
You can attack with a weapon (or threaten an area with it, for all melee weapons except unarmed strikes) only if you are wielding it with the correct number of hands.

Unarmed Strikes are listed as a One-Handed Basic Melee weapon. The fact that Unarmed Strikes are called out as an exception to Threatening but not attacking in this sentence implies that they are still subject to this rule. So normally you would need one hand to wield an unarmed strike. Improved Unarmed Strike then removes that requirement.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The action economy system does limit using items in one big blast. In contrast though, using something that's intended to be (and balanced around being) used once per minute every round, or something that's supposed to be used once per day as an opening for every fight. Something doesn't have to be used in a nova to be problematic.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Without an item limit there are only two balance points for items: Price and Availability. Availability can, will, and as written in the playtest should, vary from game to game, possibly dramatically. As for price, that leads to my earlier point:

me again wrote:
every item made down the line would still have to be designed around "what if a higher level character had 5, 10, 20, 50, etc. of these instead of a level-appropriate item"

because price does not scale linearly but more like exponentially or quadratically (I'm not the greatest at distinguishing them) so one higher-level item costs the same as several lower-level items. Because price is the only concrete balancing system in such a place this causes a couple options:

1) Wealth By Level becomes set in stone, for to vary from it in the least causes power to shift, possibly catastrophically. I've dealt with this for 4 years in PF1e, I'd really like to see PF2e be more loose in how much treasure GMs are allowed to hand out.

2) All, or at least most, items have to have at least one line, and likely in most cases several lines, placing down hard limits of what happens if you try to use multiple of that item at once or in rapid succession. Given books with items tend to have several at once, that's a lot of book space that could be used for other, more interesting things.

3) Items at the low end of the price scale cannot be much more than trivial in power, or else higher cost items get left by the wayside because the lower cost items just render them worthless.

An Item Limit, while it might not completely eliminate the issues, does help alleviate them. It produces a situation where there is a real trade-off against collecting as many small passive bonuses as you can get your hands on rather than having one big item that can do some thing cool a limited number of times per day. It allows low-cost items to be able to do some cool thing a limited number of times a day without adding extra text to each one saying that no you can't buy/craft 10 of these and get 10x the uses of it each day. If combined with a well-applied limitation on accessibility (again, it varies wildly, but that does mean sometimes it is a valid point of balance) you can give the party loads of money without having to worry about them picking up dozens of passive bonuses or small items that allow them to balloon their strength beyond what is reasonable for their level. In short, it allows for more dynamic balancing of power level because there is that extra axis to balance things out.

So in conclusion, when you say

The DM of wrote:
Yet you still think we should have a limit anyway, just because who knows what the future holds. I'm not going to argue theoretics with you.

I think you are only looking at half the picture, and completely ignoring what could be. And if you don't think the possibilities that it opens up are a valid reason to include the extra balance point, well then we shall just never see eye to eye, so I bid you good day sir.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfox wrote:

I find those two concepts quite different. Tactically, there are similarities, but conceptually the sorcerer is a half-monster using something related to monster powers, while the wizard is a magical engineer. Not the same at all in my mind.

[This isn't directly about Vancian casting, its about sorcerer and wizard as concepts.]

Voss wrote:

How would the sorcerer be half monster? They do the same things the same way another PC would.

They're really just clerics, druids, bards or wizards with the class abilities stripped out. So they're more like half PCs, but with a choice of who to be a poor clone of at first level.

I don't thinks "half" monster was ever the goal; though in-humanoid ancestry is a large part of it, but it's more like... probably somewhere around 1 part per million or so. Enough that you can draw some power from it, but not necessarily enough to be obvious at a glance. Though, of course, particular instances can modify that, because flavor is infinitely flexible, and PF1e at least had a great many races with strong hints of particular ancestries.

That aside, while mechanically they can be seen a bit as a "poor clone" of the other casting classes, that has nothing to do with the concept and more to do with Sorcerers maybe being a bit undertuned at the moment. And in my opinion they are undertuned, and maybe a bit overly pointed towards Arcane (though that can hopefully be fixed with more content, but the bloodlines really should be fixed now so they don't become a precedent towards sadness.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
...I feel several of us have presented reasons why having a limit other than just price can be useful...

You have not presented any valid reasons why a limit IS useful or beneficial. In fact your last post was about how Rings of Wizardry could be abused to give spellcasters 50 or 60 spells. That was pointed out to be forbidden by the rules and thus impossible. That's why there is still an open call on this thread for item combinations that say, "Hey, you know what? There are combinations of magic items out there that need some work to prevent them from ruining the game."

So, no, you especially Shinigami02 have not demonstrated a case for a limit on magic items being needed for any reason.

No no no, my last post was, and I quote myself:

Shinigami02 wrote:

I swear that line wasn't there before. Okay I'll concede that one. I still feel that given the way price scaling works it's still better to have an item limit now if only to prevent abuse later. Even if nothing currently is capable of breaking the game (which is debatable, I'm just not invested enough to go do another major dive) every item made down the line would still have to be designed around "what if a higher level character had 5, 10, 20, 50, etc. of these instead of a level-appropriate item" and [I] feel that having a second balance point would allow for cooler low-level items rather than locking everything neat and possibly semi-powerful behind high-level and the associated costs.

Most important bits (IMO) emphasized. Could this be done by adding one or more lines to every single item created that creates specific limits on how they can or cannot be used in multiples? Sure I guess. But that's going to be a lot of book space that could be used to, say, print more cool options, or more lore, or more whatever else is in the book. In contrast, a simple item limit makes that balance point implicit (though some exceptions might need to be made for extreme cases, a la the Ring of Wizardry, but it wouldn't need to be made for every single item,) while having the option to adjust the limit or even simply remove it (if you know and trust your players enough, like you clearly do) to adjust the feel of home-games.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

When did actual flat-out game breaking become the goal anyways? I think it might have been somewhere on page 1, but definitely wasn't OP. Your own OP was just asking if there was any point in introducing a limit at all, which I feel several of us have presented reasons why having a limit other than just price can be useful. So at this point is it a thread derail to find actual game-breaking combinations or are goal posts just being moved?

3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
What needs to happen is everyone has to be on the same page. If you're playing a casual game, you know you're a jerk if you hyperspecilize. If you know you're playing a tooth and nail epic fight for the universe, you as much a jerk for bringing in a casual character. If you build a character to actually fit your group, it's not an issue.

So what do you do if, in a party of 4, you have 2 people are only experienced enough for the casual game and 2 are highly experienced and want to do the tooth-and-nail epic? If the GM sides with the casuals, the experienced pair are going to be having distinctly less fun being forced to gimp themselves, where if he sides with the experienced players the casuals are going to get steam-rolled (which is only very rarely fun.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dracomicron wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
It is really confusing when you just go ahead and use the same letters and change who they represent.
I don't think I did? I just added one for a second enemy.

Technically you did, BNW was using 'B' to represent a Boss enemy and 'X' for the Vanguard's ally.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:
Tridus wrote:
The idea that this is an "unattainable amount of gold" is nonsense. It's clearly attainable, unless increasing your Armor rune is unattainable. They cost the same. This is entirely expected within the standard wealth rules of the game.

I can't understand the point you're trying to make with this. If you use table 11-2 as a guide, then by Paizo's own standards, it's not an expected amount to have at L20.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're misreading 11-2. A character of level X has both the list of items listed there *and* the currency beside it when created. And this exists for one of two reasons; either A) they just wanted really consistent equipment lists for Playtest characters to minimize that variable (which wouldn't be surprising) or else B) they themselves realized that gold alone is not a good balancing feature, and thus restricted where most of your wealth can go to prevent people just pouring gold into more cost-efficient items. Convert it to a straight-forward WBL chart and it'll look very different. For instance, I just did level 15. Taking the average cost for every non-consumable item of the indicated levels, and adding them appropriately a level 15 character should have 17,340 gp worth of items. The level 20 you keep bringing up has approximately 133,733 gp worth of items. That's a lot of Rings of Counterspell.

And say you even go by the chart. A level 18 item is worth 22,000 gp on average. Sell one of your two, and with the bog-standard 50% resale value that gives you 11,000 gp cash, on top of the 20,000 you already have from being level 20. That's enough cash right there for 33 Rings of Counterspell. Remind me how having a bunch of them isn't economically "reasonable"?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do feel I should note somewhere in here that I actually do agree with BNW, I just tend to Devil's Advocate and was explaining what I saw as the other side's argument. There's a lot of "Technically right but logically stupid" arguments that can be drawn from Paizo's rule text sometimes.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Then it makes no sense that a Paladin who is trained in Thievery never actually used Thievery in its obviously intended usage, since now you're justifying Paladins being Legendary Thieves, which is an absolutely ridiculous character concept.
I have a really simple reason for a Paladin in the playtest to be Legendary in thievery: They're a Paladin of a less-violent deity and would rather not kill. But, and here's the kicker, tying someone up uses Thievery DC to determine escape DC. So the less skilled your Paladin is in the arts of Thievery, the easier it is for those they're attempting to bring in for legal trial to slip out of the bonds you tied.

There are so many other, better ways to make due with the bolded part besides raising a morally ambiguous skill's proficiency. Using non-lethal weapons and attacks, for starters. Furthermore, effects which incapacitate (but not physically harm) the target sound like valid approaches as well. The only entities a Paladin can't really do this sort of stuff on are oozes, undead, constructs, and other similarly non-negotiable things that a Paladin otherwise has no qualms in destroying.

Interesting point on the bondage rules. But if I remember correctly, most items like Manacles have a set DC and # of successes based on the kind of manacles being used, meaning the Paladin carrying manacles isn't very difficult, even if it is heavier. Similarly, he can have someone who is better qualified to tie up prisoners; the Paladin doesn't have to do everything by and for himself, after all.

The bondage rules were the entire point I was going for, since the primary way to bring someone in alive is to, you know, restrain them. As for Manacles, few things there. One, anything but the most basic manacles is decidedly expensive, due to the whole non-linear cost growth thing PF tends to have. Heck, Master tier Manacles cost 75 times the cost of the basic form. But having the best would be important because the DC is purely determined by the quality. Not to mention that (at least by the Playtest rules, as of the DC update) once you get past level 10 those Master tier Manacles are now an easier DC than most DCs you can expect to face. And on top of that... Manacles are kind of lacking in restraining people. Heck, unless you stick them in a spare suit of armor too, an Elf with Manacled legs is still likely moving as fast as your (likely Heavy Armor, given the game's un-subtle push towards it) Paladin. A spellcaster with bound hands will still successfully cast 75% of the time. In short, if you really want to make sure they won't give you trouble while you bring them back, Restrained is really the way to go.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Then it makes no sense that a Paladin who is trained in Thievery never actually used Thievery in its obviously intended usage, since now you're justifying Paladins being Legendary Thieves, which is an absolutely ridiculous character concept.

I have a really simple reason for a Paladin in the playtest to be Legendary in thievery: They're a Paladin of a less-violent deity and would rather not kill. But, and here's the kicker, tying someone up uses Thievery DC to determine escape DC. So the less skilled your Paladin is in the arts of Thievery, the easier it is for those they're attempting to bring in for legal trial to slip out of the bonds you tied.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:

Let's say you are trying to infiltrate a party to get information. Some characters might sneak in. Others may bluff their way in. Others may need a distraction to climb the fence. Perhaps the caster has a spell for this situation? Maybe a character could use Diplomacy before the party to get an invitation? Someone could lure a guard out, knock him out, and steal his uniform.

Regardless, everyone doesn't have to follow the same plan.

The problem with different people using different methods is simple: It splits the party, which tends to get people killed. It's why I stopped taking Stealth after a while in PF1e, after I came within an inch of losing my Rogue because one person cannot handle stumbling into a level-appropriate encounter during a solo mission.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
spells are much more limited in how often they can be cast as well as who is casting them.

While Daily Uses is still arguable, though there are ways around that (not the least of which would be a martial alternative to spell points) in the playtest Spells are arguably more widely available than many martial abilities. Every spell list is usable by two full casters (Whatever the list's normal caster is and the Sorcerer), and across the spell lists a massive number of spells are not unique to a single list. So that means a lot of spells are cast-able by at least 3 classes inherently. In contrast, most martial class feats (there are exceptions but they're more the exception than the rule) are unique to a single class. Heck, even as far as Multiclassing a multiclassed caster can get up to 8th level spells, while a multiclassed martial is completely unable to access roughly half the multiclass's feats (everything above level 10).

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Playtest page 17, Shield Bonuses and Shield Proficiency sidebar wrote:
A character is proficient with shields if they are proficient with light armor and either advanced melee weapons or heavy armor.

They already have a method of identifying which classes have free shield proficiency. Going off this Solarians and Soldiers get proficiency for free, Exocortex Mechanics can get it for free at level 7, and I believe anyone else can get it for free with a single feat (since I believe everyone gets Basic Melee Proficiency for free and that's the only prereq for Advanced Melee. Heavy Armor is also an option but requires 13 Strength so it's more of an investment.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ikos wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Ikos wrote:

Yes, the numbers bloat in double-digit levels of the playtest ruleset currently borders on satire and can be squarely placed in the “worst parts of the 3x system” file.

And yet the funny thing is the numbers have been cut far back from PF1, which was cut far back from 3.5.

I'm going to assume you just want 5e bounded accuracy, even though that in no way fits for Pathfinder.

The baseline numbers are higher in PF2. This is not debatable. I’m assuming you did not play the second half of the playtest to claim otherwise. It is a consequence of adding +1 to everything. I don’t need things as flat as 5e; but would rather not have them higher than the previous edition.

The Floor was raised, yes. The Floor could be argued to have been too low in the past. The Ceiling however, which I'm pretty sure is what Cyouni was talking about, is undeniably much lower than it used to be. It is possible in PF1e to get some numbers into the hundreds (just yesterday a couple of the people in my group and I did an exercise and found ways to get a character to 220 Initiative through maximum cheese for instance, and one member had a player in another group who got an effective 616 Acrobatics modifier for jumping completely legit) which for some is far too ridiculous, and for others is Tuesday. In contrast, another character moderately invested (full ranks, class skill, 16 base stat and a +6 item) in a skill (say Acrobatics since I gave a numeric example there) might have a mere 29 at level 20. And a third (non-Fighter) character with no investment and, say, Full-Plate Armor with just enough Dex to cap it would have an awe-inspiring -4. And it's possible for any of these to be the maximum Acrobatics score in a given game. Makes it really hard to have any challenge that might involve jumping, given the third physically can't do it, and the first can auto-succeed at things a couple times the max the second can manage on a nat 20.

Contrast this to the Playtest. Yes the bare minimum Acrobatics is going to be 11 at level 20 (for an Untrained level 20 character in Normal Gray-Maiden Plate for some reason) but in contrast the maximum reliable value is going to be roughly 35 (20 levels, 7 Dex, 3 Legendary, 5 Item) plus competence and circumstance, ultimately you're probably not getting too far above 40. Which granted is still a roughly 30 point difference, but is much easier to design around than a 620 point differential.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I only really played the first adventure (issues in my group caused it to fall apart during char gen for part 2) but during that, I can say that for my Monk any time I tried to use Dragon Style attacks after my first attack felt pretty useless. An attack cycle of +5/0/-5/-5 against opponents with AC around 15 is pretty feel-bad, especially when your luck is notoriously bad. Swapping to non-Stance fist after the first attack (or even just not dropping into Stance, did that a lot) for a +5/+1/-3/-3 helped a little bit. Wasn't much I could do with maneuvers, given my Athletics was taking the same penalties Dragon Style would take and it was generally better to just go for the kill, and I didn't have any fancy actions I could use instead really. I'd really kinda built for speed, with 35 speed at level 1 that would've been 70 in the last act (75 for a theoretical level 20 build), but given the first act is all about cramped rooms and poor visibility there wasn't exactly much chance to leverage that.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Neutral_Lich wrote:
as a player i shouldn't need the gm permission to select a option that the rules give to me

Then you'd be pretty out of luck with a great many GMs, both on this site and elsewhere. GMs can and will decide what is and is not okay for their game (frequently involving banning entire books, and sometimes even extending to banning or houseruling core classes if they don't fit the setting,) and while a good GM will work with the players to help them create characters they want to play, ultimately the GM is the one laying the setting and determining what works or doesn't work for their game. So just expecting to show up with an off-the-wall concept that sounds more like a big-bad than a hero and just assuming it's fine is quite a stretch.

Neutral_Lich wrote:
again with that b!@@~*+% argument of wait until they have hard coded it released it and made it official to ask for a big change will you stop with it its a cheap dishonest tactic to dismiss criticism

You're literally the one assuming that rules that don't exist yet are bad. Yes, there is a possibility that things might go the way you fear. There's an equally valid option that they might go the way others are saying. And frankly, being argumentative and dismissive of others' ideas (which calling it a "b!@@~*+% argument" and "cheap dishonest tactic to dismiss criticism" is straight up being argumentative and dismissive) isn't likely to sway the devs towards your preferences.

Neutral_Lich wrote:
they are not supposed to know i'm a necromancer until i decided to reveal it except its gonna be hard to keep it a secret on 2e with his ritual b#@%%*~!

...How long were you expecting to keep it a secret? Whether it's a ritual requiring multiple people, ritual requiring 1 person, or a 1-Action Spell, that secret is out the moment you try to, you know, Animate some undead. And if you're trying to do this in a party with a Paladin and Pharasmin Cleric, well, chances are it's PVP time, and even if you have undead to outnumber them, well, given the undead will probably be weaker than party members, you're probably going to be the one re-rolling.

Neutral_Lich wrote:

Maybe when you stop trying to bring the most obviously, openly evil concept possible and then get upset when people that, you know, fight evil as a profession take offense to that. Assuming you even get the concept past the omnipotent GM you're trying to avoid checking with.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will note for all the people asking for shields, those are apparently coming in the Ops Manual, judging by the playtest for it.

Personally, a few items on my wishlist:

- Rules for upgrading a weapon, so you can stay true to your favored weapon while respecting those effects that care about item level.
- A Maze Core that can work with Analog weapons to satisfy the RWBY kick I've been on lately.
- A Rapier line would be kinda cool. Kinda like a Dueling Sword, but Piercing, to better fit the still canon Core deities that always favored the Rapier.
- Non-Magical Weapon Mods, because why are Fusions the only way to really toy with what your weapon can do?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
And +1 to weapon traits, too. Not to mention adding weapon dice to actally keep a damage gap between heavy and light weapons instead of just making crit range straight king.

Weapon Traits are awesome, I just wish it was a bit easier to play with them some. I have some concepts *coughtotallynotinspiredbyAttackonTitancough* that would love to be able to stick Twin on a pair of Longswords for instance. Who knows, maybe that can be a future Fighter feat (or feat chain, but I hope they cut down the chaininess of feat scaling.)

Bit less sold on the +X = +XdY damage thing, great in theory but in practice does hurt some flavorful builds, but given this thread is about yays rather than nays I'll digress.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, have people who wanted "the difference between the target number and the modifier gets smaller as you go" played Wrath of the Righteous? Because with a full book to go in that one, we had a group capable of murking a demon lord in a single round (Baphomet had like 12HP left after the person who won initiative went) for which basically every skill check was automatic.

Stuff like this is fun occasionally, but it should not be the default setting.

Which is why mythic is an optional subsystem and not a default presumption.

I'm pretty sure it's possible, possibly even easy for some people, to get a party like that even in a non-Mythic game.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

You still don't get it.

Yes, fireball will hit more targets.

That's an increase in power when you get it.

That increase will Never scale further.

It is 100% static increase. Once you get it, it's done. It will never be lower or higher power. It is not bound to your caster level at all.

Calling this static increase as +A gives us


that's the definition of linear increase

Forenote: All of this is as of 1.6

You get fireball at level 5, spell level 3. It deals 8d6 damage and hits Y targets. Two levels later you get level 4 spells. Casting a Fireball with at spell level 4 now deals 10d6 damage. Two levels later you have level 5 spells so that Fireball will now do 12d6 damage. And at all of these levels it's still hitting Y many targets. That sure seems like scaling to me. And of course, if you actually use spells of that spell level rather than raising a lower one, the higher level spell's damage is generally stronger.

But oh, I know what you'll say, that Martials get the same scaling. Except... how? Through magic items? Casters have (or at least are supposed to have) the same amount of gold, so whatever the Martial's spending on magic weapons to keep up, the caster can spend on their own magic items to do other things. Seems a wash to me. Feats? Well Casters get 80% of the same feat slots, so again, basically a wash. Numbers... everyone gets level, and casters eventually gain Legendary in their spells (better than anyone save the Fighter gets in their weapons), still seems a wash.

About the only thing I can think of is those odd-level class features that non-casters get.... Class features that they rarely have control over I might add, compared to the flexibility of spell-casting. But hey, let's compare the options:

Level 5: Casters get 3rd level spells, stuff on the power level of that 8d6 Fireball (which can mass-clear mooks or deal a good chunk of damage to a boss.
- Barbarians get the ability to not be Flat-Footed from flanking, stealthed, or invisible mooks (the level restriction makes it basically useless against bosses, and of course any of the various other ways of flat-footing someone still work).
- Fighters get to remove the "Success" tier from the four tiers of success for Fear, reduce the severity by 1, and a bonus against getting spammed with Fear effects (does that ever happen? I don't think I've ever seen it happen in the 4 years I've done PF1e. Fear effects just aren't *that* common in my experience.)
- Paladins get a +1 to weapon attacks.
- Rangers get to be harder to track (just them. Does that ever come up?)
- Bomber Alchemists get a +1 to attacks (others get stuff that I'd assume is supposed to be equivalent to that.)

Level 7: Casters get stuff on par with (or more likely greater than) 10d6 damage with a massive AoE.
- Barbarians get +1 to Fort Saves and remove the Success tier.
- Fighters get a +1 to Perception (that becomes +2 when it's use for Initiative).
- Paladins get +1 AC in Heavy Armor (the worst armor arguably, but that's a side issue,) +1 Fortitude, and remove the Success tier on Fort saves when wearing Heavy Armor.
- Rangers get +1 to Reflex Saves an Perception, and remove the Success tier on Reflex.
- Bomber Alchemists get the equivalent of a level 1 Cantrip, level 5 if they have the Int-to-Splash-Damage feat (again, I'd assume others are supposed to be equivalent.)

Level 9: Casters get stuff on par with (or much more likely greater than) 12d6 damage with a massive AoE.
- Barbarians get up to 4 points of Resistance against 2 damage types (3 for Fury Totem) with varying usefulness depending on totem.
- Fighters get 1 class feat of up to level 8 (this level cap doesn't scale for another 6 levels) they can swap out each day. You still need all prerequisites for it so unless you specifically planned around this feature chances are this means a level 1 feat.
- Paladins get an ability to add up to 4 persistent damage off their Reaction.
- Rangers get to flat-foot enemies in natural terrain (not very common IME) or Snares (expensive).
- Alchemists get to double their output from Quick Alchemy at the cost of double the input, basically an action economy enhancement.

So how do these non-caster options compare to caster options? Well, YMMV. To me, they often don't even compare to each other very well.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
As for Lingering Performance potentially not using a performance-based Perform check, frankly that's a little silly. Especially given that Bards can substitute Verbal Casting for Material Casting by playing their instrument. (P196)

Here's the thing: Using Perform for Performance is one thing. The issue is when the items (again, literally every item that grants a bonus and does not use both hands to use) grants a bonus to "Perform checks made to [Specific Performances Here]." So, is Lingering Composition "acting, orating, performing comedy, or singing"? Some GMs may say yes... but just as easily some GMs may say no, in which case again, your only options are items that take up both hands. So for one, possibly very small, subset sure you can reach that absolute maximum score and it's technically possible. The issue remains though, how many are going to be guaranteed access to that maximum bonus and be able to use it when they need it?

Edge93 wrote:
And really all of this is one of those things that we can safely expect to be cleaned up in the CRB. With the math expecting you to have certain items at certain levels (Whether or not that's good is an ENTIRELY other discussion), there's no way we won't have +1-+5 items for every skill.

To be totally honest though, this is the crux of my issue: The game, IMO, shouldn't expect you to have these items (and otherwise be absolutely min-maxed to the extreme for that matter) to be able to reliably use a class feature/feat. Especially not a level 1 class feature/feat.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:

It's a team game.


Work together, be a team, solve the challenges, overcome the foes, loot the dungeon. Have fun. Who cares if some other character at the table can cast spells that do more damage than my sword? I'm glad he's there; he makes the team stronger.

This would be fine if the game had different chances to let different people shine. The issue arises when the Wizard (or other caster) has the right tools to dominate every part of the game. Not much point to the team when one player is solving every challenge.

DM_Blake wrote:

Oddly enough, when the caster melts the monster's face, everybody gets an equal share of XP and an equal share of the loot. Further, there is more martial loot than caster loot so, in most groups I've seen, martials get more stuff. For doing less work.

I sure wish my boss let me do less work for extra pay...

For a job being able to get more pay for less work is great. For a game, getting to sit there and be told "it's fine, you're getting all the loot you don't really get to use anyways" is, well, to me it seems rather boring.

Ideally everyone should be able to have at least a roughly equivalent amount of time in the spotlight. The thing is, even if martials absolutely dominate the battlefield and put casters to shame, which many claim is the current state of the Playtest, that's still not even assured. In the grand scheme of things combat is relatively minor, and quite possibly the most easily bypassed part of the game. Heck, there are players and GMs who go out of their way to minimize the amount of time spent in combat (I know, there's a few of them in my group) which makes it really hard to feel involved when combat is the one thing you're allowed to be good at with your class. Add on to that the fact that unfortunately often casters tend to get more skills than martials do on top of their magic, means martials can frequently get forcibly shoved out of and barred from the spotlight.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

^The name succubus/incubus goes back to times before copyright existed, so no chances to take.

So does the name Tiamat, but if you call your five-headed dragon goddess that, WotC might sue you into oblivion. The name might be public domain, the monster might not. IP law is funny like that.

To be totally fair, I'm pretty sure in that case they would be more opposed to the whole "five-headed dragon goddess" bit than just the use of the name, since that particular depiction of Tiamat was if not created by DnD at least popularized by it. In contrast, the depiction of a succubus as a sex-based (generally female) demon, well, that's just straight up the Lore. Would be a much harder case for Wizards to make.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For Aberrations, Animals, Humanoids, M. Humanoids, Oozes, Plants, and Vermin there's no change and you're probably better off just using the free use like anyone else yes. Where this ability is relevant is Dragons, Fey, Magical Beasts, and Outsiders (Life Science) or Constructs (both magical and technological) and Undead (Physical Science.) Lets you now identify any creature while investing only 2 skills (normally getting all creature types will involve 3, though admittedly the third one is rather niche), and those two skills are skills that it seems more logical for a sciency-type to focus on anyways (as compared to Mysticism, which almost half the types used.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Metaphysician wrote:

I continue to hold the position: psionics have no real place in a setting that already has magic, because psionics *is* magic. Its just a different flavor. Either you have space opera magic or high fantasy magic, you don't have both.

In the context of Starfinder, this means there is no need for a psionics "class", because all magic using classes are *already* "psionic".

Maybe it's just my Valdemaran upbringing, but I have never understood what was wrong with having both mind-magic and true magic in a series. They don't have to step on each other's toes, and the interplay of the two can even be downright fun.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DerNils wrote:
Yeah, but Incubi had a different MO than Succubi. And Paizo has been good in getting away from one gender Monsters - there was already some mentioning that Succubi don't Need to be in female form at all.

And this is why when in a thing I did in the past I made a male Succubus and was very insistent that he was very different from an Incubus. /off topic bit

If I remember correctly though, I think Incubi did come up in the old thread at some point, but it was a bit too hard and they were having a hard time keeping it up. /bad joke bit

Anyways, for on-topic stuff, I have a couple points.

1) They have finally managed to simplify Grapple rules, Gods be praised. You can even go two rounds between checks if you're good enough to consistently crit-succeed. I do kinda miss the bonus for maintaining on subsequent rounds, but something something knife-edge balance.

2) I really like the Succubus Lust Demon getting to swap out Diplo instead of Acrobatics, and would love to see more abilities like that on both sides of the GM's screen in the future. Though I suppose it would have to be carefully considered to prevent being too exploitable.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Raylyeh wrote:
In parting I will say that unless you're fighting a significantly higher level enemy than you, crits are more common than you're making them out to be.

Maybe I'm missing something, but every math breakdown I've read on these forums has had the optimized Fighter hit maybe 10% crit rate on first attack against an equal level opponent, and anything less than that at 5%. I don't think equal level counts as "significantly higher level" and I certainly wouldn't count "nat 20, maybe nat 19 with the best possible build" to be particularly common.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Everyone (or nearly everyone? A lot of people at least) who plays in Golarion knows that Pharasma is super anti-Undead. The Pharasman Church considers Undead the most abominable abominations, to be destroyed on sight, stuff like that. And yet... Pharasmins can be NG, qualifying for the new Redeemer Paladin introduced in the 1.6 update. Part of the Redeemer edicts is that you must be compassionate towards everyone, and must always try to redeem or rehabilitate Evil before killing them.

But hey, it's fine right? Cause Anathema falls behind Deity Anathema, and surely Pharasma's Anathema calls to destroy Undead on sight right? Well let's look at Pharasma's entry:

Pharasma, Playtest page 289 wrote:

Alignment N

Edicts strive to understand ancient prophecies, destroy undead, lay bodies to rest
Anathema create undead, desecrate a corpse, rob a tomb
Favored Weapon dagger

*Emphasis mine

Uh oh. Destroying Undead is on there alright... but it's not mentioned in Anathema. It's in Edicts, and the Paladin Code has no interaction with Edicts, just Anathema. So it looks like by RAW (especially for PFS and PFS-esque games where GMs are extremely limited in/unwilling to modify the RAW) Paladins of Pharasma are going to have to do the exact opposite of what you'd expect a Pharasmin to do.

So what's the point of this thread? Well, mostly to point out that oddity, but also to mention this: This undoubtedly isn't (or at least won't be once other Deities are re-added) the only such... quirk of Edicts clashing with extra-deific Codes. I think it might be worth-while to add a mention of Deity Edicts to such Codes so that such clashes hopefully won't result in Deity getting shoved to the wayside because the Class calls for something else (seemingly not the intention, given Deity Anathema are placed at Tenant 1.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Creatures with the summoned trait can't summon other things.

This is 100% true. And that's the problem here.

Both Summon Monster and Summon Nature Ally say "The Creature gains the Summon Trait."

Abyssal Pact however, makes no mention of this.

Interestingly, Abyssal Pact actually does make mention of the summoned Demon(s) gaining the Summoned trait... but only in the Critical Failure effect. Which makes things all the weirder, given how the Summoned Trait works with Action Economy, since Summoned trait creatures are only supposed to act when the caster (the person they are currently hostile to and presumably actively attacking) Concentrates on the spell, and otherwise are supposed to take no actions.

Meanwhile the Infernal Pact (the Devil counterpart) has no such clause at all, and in fact its Crit Fail effect is as simple as the ritual failing and the Devil you tried summoning "[sending] word of its displeasure to your master."

It is notable though that you physically can't move up to summoning Demons/Daemons from Devils by Ritual, given that both Infernal and Abyssal Pacts require being a Devil or Demon respectively to even use the Ritual... probably just so that there's no realistic way for PCs to make use of them.

1 to 50 of 365 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>