Skeletal Technician

Squiggit's page

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 6,953 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,953 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
XXSUPERHEROXX wrote:
Morningstar mase

That says bludgeoning, not slashing.

Quote:
But it is missing vast amounts of data needed for running a campaign

Not really. It doesn't have lore material, and it's missing certain monsters from APs, but in terms of the fundamental rules of the game everything is there.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It does not take an action for a versatile weapon to change between damage types. You're thinking of the modular trait. With a versatile weapon you simply declare what kind of attack you're making when you attack with it.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

If you're asking whether you can benefit from Sweep when shooting your Axe Musket, no. The musket form of the weapon does not have the Sweep Trait.

If you're asking whether you can shoot your axe musket, switch to melee mode, and then benefit from Sweep with your second attack, that's slightly murkier and I've seen GMs rule both ways.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
keftiu wrote:
As has been said, Witch has the flavor and Kineticist will have the playstyle. PF2 isn't just 'Good 5e,' it's its own game.

To some extent, but the mechanical and flavor combination is a mark that PF2 never really hits, and it's a fairly popular one (you single out 5e here but the class has been a part of D&D for three editions worth now and going strong). So I think it's not particularly strange to see people talking about it.

Honestly I'd say the Witch probably does the worst job covering that design space though. It has overtures toward esoteric magic and pacts baked into its flavor, but in terms of raw mechanics instead it's really the closest thing Pathfinder has to just a generic spellcaster.

The original Pathfinder witch felt like a more obvious counterpart to the D&D Warlock (particularly the 4e version which had more utility than its 5e counterpart), but the PF2 witch decided to ditch the focus on at-will magical abilities and the esoteric spell list in favor of being... the PF2 Witch.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Between Wellspring, Spellshot, Elementalist, and flex-prep, I assume the "kind of a downgrade with a feat tax" is the design goal. It's too consistent otherwise.

TBH I wouldn't mind seeing Paizo giving up on class archetypes and just introducing alternate class features/pf1 style archetypes again. It seems to difficult to make them balanced and satisfying when you interlink class feature replacements and archetypes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:

two feat in fighter dedication doesn't give full scaling martial weapon why should one general feat do that

the mistake was the existence of general feat not that they didn't give scaling proficiency

Fighter dedication sucks. It's an outlier in how bad it is. Not a standard you should be holding up to other thing.

SuperBidi wrote:
But how can you create a weapon that is both strictly better, easy to access and not a no-brainer that everyone takes over the more classical options?

If the differences are small enough, the feat cost can be considered prohibitive on its own.

Like... literally right now. Advanced weapons aren't particularly expensive to pick up if you really want one, a human can grab nearly any of them for a single ancestry feat, ancestry feats (which are also accessible via adoption) make them only slightly more expensive for other classes, but we still don't see them being all that ubiquitous (other than the flickmace, which was an outlier, and even then not particularly omniprevalent).

A comparable option using the rarer general feat resource doesn't seem particularly out of line with what already exists.

Quote:
In my opinion, weapons like the barricade buster (I haven't looked at it but it seems awesome from what I read) should be only accessible to Inventor. The class could really fit the niche of "weird weapon user".

Ironic then that the Inventor is the only class in the game literally barred from using weird advanced weaponry.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Really kinda wish Iron wasn't two hand specific. There's no real reason it needs to be and have had a few characters who would have otherwise liked to try it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Eh, in 3.5 and PF1 anyone could get an advanced (then exotic) weapon for a single feat. It didn't even have a requirement so even wizards with their janky horrible proficiency could pick up a spiked chain or bastard sword at a manageable cost.

I really dislike how hard it is to just pick up a weapon in PF2. While I like the idea of exploring tradition and ancestral history, I dislike the concept of culture-locked armaments, or of the idea that appropriating that culture is literally a special ability humans have (to the point where it's easier for them to learn to wield weapons from other cultures than pick up something local).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean a central problem in PF1 was that it was impossible to make an obstacle that was a challenge for someone who specialized in a thing while not being literally impossible for someone who dabbled, or to make a challenge being accessible to a dabbler but not trivial for a specialist. This is a problem with addressing.

Like I remember book 6 of Hell's Rebels featured a series of negotiations with the Chellish ambasadors where the DCs were something fully half the party could not fail at even if they rolled a 1, and the rest of the party could not succeed at even if they rolled a 20. If nothing else that this could happen organically because people figured out "this is a social AP" and decided to roll up characters who were socially adept makes it the adventure designer's job significantly more difficult.

It's also a good idea to make "the rules for skills, saves, armor class, difficulty class, and combat are all basically different applications of the same rules."

And tightening the numbers so that gap is smaller is great. No complaints about tightening the gap. The issue comes in which gaps are tightened, by how much, and what the final balance point ends up being.

I much prefer it when the untrained has little chance, the expert has a decent chance, and the legendary has a great chance. But in PF2 the untrained have it impossible, the expert have a low chance, and the legendary have a decent chance. PF1 by comparison had 0 ranks = no chance, half ranks = decent chance, full ranks = extremely high chance.

Yeah, I think the treadmill of PF2 proficiency is a bit too tight. It makes it a game about specialists, which means you're not really "pretty good" at something, you're either competitive or you're not.

Part of that is design, PF2 suggests using static DCs that players can easily overcome from time to time, but often adventures don't do that.

And in combat I think it would generally feel better if success was more frequent but outcomes were more managed. Unreliability feels uniquely bad and I think the developers may have underestimated that a bit, because the result is a lot of times that if something is secondary or tertiary to you you struggle because challenges are often balanced for the best character in the party.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
S.L.Acker wrote:


Picture a level 3 party facing off against a severe threat. The tanky character drops, perhaps for the first time, and the cowardly rogue decides to cut his losses and flee. The rogue isn't strong enough to fight off even a fairly easy encounter if they run into a wandering patrol and probably isn't sneaky enough to avoid that patrol either. The party isn't strong enough to win the fight now being two characters down and everybody dies.

That seems less like merely RPing in combat and more like one player actively refusing to participate and then the GM engineering a scenario to sabotage the rest of the group for it.

The notion of half the party not having great odds of handling a boss designed for the whole group isn't really a PF2 specific phenomena either (especially with the added layer of an extra ambush on top of that).

Quote:
In a less extreme case building a pure evoker, an elemental sorcerer, or an offense-focused melee Warpriest are all options that are likely to weaken a party

Not really. Warpriest has some mechanical issues, but the former two are fine. Which turns this less into a systemic issue and more "this particular option wasn't balanced well", which is a fair complaint and one I've raised before, but a far cry from "If you RP you will suffer a TPK"


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
S.L.Acker wrote:
removing the ability and desire of a GM to say, "Sure, roll for it." because such off-script moments ruin the balance.

It's interesting to me how "the game has no room for improv" has become a new complaint about PF2, when when the system was new it was common to hear people complaining about the exact opposite and the system wasn't nearly strict and explicit enough.

I feel like ultimately how much your GM lets you "roll for it" really comes down to their own preferences as a GM more than the system, though.

Quote:
Your character is more mechanical than PF1 because the game expects optimization and you'd better not RP in combat or you could lead to a TPK.

I feel like this one is only half true. PF2 does, for better or for worse, expect a minimum degree of optimization, but hitting those notes is also relatively easy, significantly moreso than in PF1, since it really comes down to making sure you have a high stat in the thing you're good at and use your class features.

Not sure why RPing would lead to a TPK, that seems like another weird GM quirk, though.

Temperans wrote:
Yeah the math will be broken if your group decided that the only way to play is that everyone has to play superman.

I mean, isn't that sort of just restating the problem? Having to carefully curate your character so you don't build yourself into a nonfunctional trap, or unexpectedly break the game's math by just playing is not really indicative of quality system design. Yeah, you can have a well balanced and measured experience, but you're fighting against the game to make that happen.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I sort of wonder what the thought process was with the Balor.

Did the writer who made the Balor know how significant damaging gear was in PF2? It's such a weirdly powerful ability in the right context that almost hard counters martial melee weapon users (while doing nothing to ranged ones or casters, unarmed combatants are hurt by it, but that's usually less significant than losing a weapon), yet also seems like mostly a footnote in the monster's writeup rather than a centerpiece of its design like a wrecker demon or rust monster.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:


Sure they are. The rogue gets MAP while the investigator doesn't.

The advantage the rogue gets is they can potentially apply sneak attack to the other target while the investigator can't, but MAP is still MAP.

The to-hit and damage loss actually ends up not leaving you significantly ahead with your MAPless second strike.

And that's even assuming a second strike is on the table. If you're fighting a boss or can't easily reach another enemy you simply can't attack unless you burn through two actions... and then you have MAP and your underwhelming non-strategic strikes (or more likely doing something else from an also underwhelming list of options).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
I believe the point is that you can toss out a bad roll, which no other class can do.

Against non-pursuit targets, spending an action to toss out a roll and spending an action to miss aren't really significantly different, except that the rogue can try again and the investigator can't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
gesalt wrote:
Not to mention that 30% fail rate of literally wasting your action and accomplishing nothing.

You never lose an action, though. Worst case scenario is you just apply IC/ID normally and don't spend your focus point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Perpdepog wrote:


In fairness, having access to flight isn't as encounter-warping when everybody's got a gun.

Yeah, but it's not like it's that expensive or difficult for anyone to have a bow or crossbow or gun or cantrip in Pathfinder, either.

It's also sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, where making flight rarer because it warps gameplay causes it to warp gameplay even more.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
pauljathome wrote:


At its simplest, there is something that the class does better than ANY other class (or, by now with the plethora of classes, better than all but 1 or 2 other classes).

So, for example, the fighter is the best in the game for accuracy. Nothing can beat it.

I'm not sure how much I'd call that niche protection.

It's something Fighters are good at, but it's not explicitly a unique ability or skill. It's more just another way to create a combat mechanic.

I feel like that's less niche protection than say... Perception scaling. There are traps and hazards that you will simply never be able to spot if you're a Cleric or Champion or whatever, because certain proficiency bumps are the sole property of a couple specific classes. In that case there are real gameplay limitations being imposed on you in order to make Rogues (and rangers, investigators, gunslingers) more special.

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
and if they don't get off their strategic strike, they can:

I mean they can, but a lot of those things are either not particularly amazing (like attacking with no martial mechanic, or using a cantrip without even full proficiency).

Or things anyone can do on their own anyways without the penalties. And it's not like Investigators are blowing things up when their mechanic does work really either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Lord Fyre wrote:
And I will say that the more I've learned about Pathfinder 2nd Edtion, the more I like Pathfinder 1st Edition.

Yeah I can see that. I miss some of the assumptions about PF1 and the flexibility it had (in certain respects) a lot when I play PF2.

But PF2 has spoiled me so much in terms of core mechanics and the way the system is put together. I wish it had some of PF1's flexibility, but in terms of actually playing a game it's really hard to stomach all the downgrades of going back to PF1.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

TBH my main concern with the math of the game is how asymmetrical it can be at times and how simple things get weirdly difficult depending on how when you want to do it.

The way options are so limited to get proficiency with a new weapon, the way it's almost impossible for a rogue to use a martial weapon not on their list, or for anyone to use an advanced weapon that isn't tied to an ancestry. That the best way to get many weapons is to cram an adoption backstory somewhere into your build, because god forbid you can just grab the weapon you want to use. Instead we get the creepy racial undertones of ancestrally locked weaponry and techniques.

Armor's more straight forward to get proficiency to, but it's still bizarre to me that for more than half the game, a general feat is all you need, until suddenly you hit a point where you need to rebuild to maintain that same proficiency, for reasons that are difficult to scrutinize.

Speaking of armor. The way the Champion is the "armor guy", but has 8 levels where they have the same armor proficiency as a fighter. It just feels weird. Why those levels? Is there a conscious reason why a Champion should have the same AC as a fighter at exactly 12 but 2 more AC at 10 and 13?

Similar complaints about feats like Canny Acumen. Admittedly I just don't like the idea of 'tactical retraining', and the way certain feats are good for X levels and bad for Y levels and you should freely retrain in and out of the feat, potentially multiple times even, in order to maximize value.

Maybe I overvalue these things, but the unevenness choices like this creates in terms of building and progressing characters just feels so strange to me, and it's hard to often identify a reason why these things exist the way they do.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
But that's an issue with the design of those spells more than anything.

A bit of both, I think. If the goal is for these types of builds to be super niche or not viable, then it feels kind of bad to make them easily accessible, core options. It can create the illusion that it's meant to be a legitimate way to focus your character (this is especially true of Glutton's Jaws, which demands you warp your build around using it).

On the other hand, PF2 heavily focuses on accuracy gating as a means of niche protection, which I think contributes to some of the 'feels bad' aspect of the builds being discussed, because you're not merely worse at an activity, but you're more likely to waste your turns doing nothing while attempting it. Obviously there are advantages to this design, but it's also the one most likely to make a character feel incompetent.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Guntermench wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:

"Class Archetype? Never heard of her!"

In all seriousness though, at this point, I'm seriously left wondering if there is a kind of bias on the development team against Class Archetypes akin to how JJ has a distaste for anything "traditional Dwarf". The kind of mechanical niche they offer has IMMENSE potential and to date, it's sorta just been ignored. I mean, seriously, the potential for making cool stuff with Class Archetypes is so huge that they could EASILY make a book with NOTHING both Class Archetypes, say 10-15 of them per Class they've printed to date and I would guarantee it sells like hotcakes, especially if they make the, flavorful and include a lore/fiction section that ties each of them to a region, cause, role, or organization in the setting.

I think there is a bias against them, but mostly in that they're limited in who can take them. It's content that can't be used by everyone, might as well just make another normal Archetype and give everyone some more fun.

I feel like this argument falls a little flat them when those "normal archetypes" include things like sleepwalker dedication or psychic duelist. Yeah like, strictly speaking the synthesist is a single class option and therefore has a narrower potential set of use cases, but that doesn't inherently make it less usable. I've seen orders of magnitude more people express interesting in the synthesist than I've seen anyone even mention Crystal Keeper.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:
I'd be shocked if that weren't the case, frankly.

I don't think you would be, because if they don't we won't be able to do electricity damage.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
This CAN'T happen with a reload 1 weapon: you CAN NOT have a hand free when you Strike with those a reload 1 bow.

Sure it can.

You hold the weapon in one hand and you make sure you don't hold anything else in the other.

Bam, conditions satisfied.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
aobst128 wrote:
In the case that you are walking around with a free hand, it isn't loaded

If that's in the rules for the weapon, it does make the designation kind of pointless, yeah.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

They've made some comments about elemental combinations and impulses, but nothing specific about alternative blasts or cryo/electro/aceto/etc kineticists.

Sanityfaerie's right that Paizo likes to make fans happy and this is not exactly a huge ask.

But sometimes Paizo can be really firm about certain directorial decisions irrespective of balance or fun, so like... who knows.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I mean it does what 1+ does in every other function. It lets you wield the weapon while having a free hand. So you can walk around and open doors and drink potions and stuff without having the same hand economy problems 2h weapons do. Unless the weapon in question has text that changes that, in which case yeah it's kind of an odd choice.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I mean 1+ weapons say they need two hands to wield them. It's pretty unambiguous. It's actually much clearer than the criticisms of reload 0, since the only way to be confused is to ignore part of the ability.

That said both of them are pretty easy to parse and the confusion is mostly only relevant so we have something to do on the forums, so who knows when (if ever) Paizo will make any changes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm not sure it's necessarily a point worth making either. Spend actions as a support character in order to make things better for your high damage counterparts is a fundamental conceit of PF2 and to an extent team-based RPGs and other games in general. It's not really new information in any relevant way.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I've never met a GM who houseruled the Thaumaturge's level 5 ability to be worse. Why would you?

I mean the example in the book even specifically mentions switching implements to use a reaction (although it references the wrong implement).

I think you're the first person I've ever seen suggest it shouldn't work.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like the "free interact action" describes how, for example, if your two implements are a spear (weapon) with a flag (regalia) on it, you present the thing differently depending on which implement you're using.

Worth noting that RAW is that you can't free switch from weapon (or any other implement) to regalia because Regalia has no implement action.

Right now you either drop the weapon and draw the regalia (1 action) or stow the weapon and draw the regalia (2 actions). So in the two-for-one scenario you'd have to spend two actions to 'reconfigure' your weapon into regalia mode, which feels a little awkward and bad but I guess works.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
The worst alchemist to the most beginner friendly... for an alchemist. I am not claiming it is the most beginner friendly class.

I'm not sure I agree. A dedicated bomber only really has pacing as a learning curve. A bestial mutagenist can be played almost like a martial. Chirurgeon has to juggle its different formula and balance its consumable creation more than any of the others, while struggling to have a good answer to what to do when you don't need to heal. The subclass has the fewest obvious answers for what it wants to do and the most variation in what you need to do with it to make it work.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Super Zero wrote:
Any other character would have just missed, accomplishing the same thing.

While true, worth pointing out that the Investigator (often) requires an extra action of setup and their whole combat gimmick revolves around that first check. The odds of a rogue or barbarian hitting a boss with their second attack is low, but an Investigator doesn't even really get that option if their Devise is low, and even if they hit that follow up attack is going to be pretty weak.

Pursuit helps fix their action economy trouble, but doesn't do a lot for their damage woes.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
When Paizo (or anyone else) censors content because something mildly offends them (or might offend some nebulous "other"), my brain often likens it to Big Brother attempting to manipulate society by wiping away any knowledge or memory of the thing. The end result being that the reality of the thing will continue to exist (as one's ability to change facts is very limited), though people will refuse to believe it.

We're not talking about content being censored or removed or people being silenced though. We're not talking about governments using their instruments of power to silence dissent, or the role major corporations have in controlling speech in our age of massive private communications platforms.

We're talking about how a piece of errata let me rebuild my Poppet Swashbuckler to be slightly more accurate (at the cost of a little bit of charisma). That's it. That's the whole change.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Note how in PF2, literally no one has an int penalty.

Skeletons, Leshies, and Lizardfolk do, though.

Ravingdork wrote:

Double plus good!

If we're not permitted to even discuss immorality or evil, then it is only a matter of time before it ceases to exist within the perception of society.

I don't see how you get from someone (incorrectly) claiming there are no int penalties in PF2 to some perceived moral decay in the world.

Someone being able to make a charismatic dwarf or a smart leshy in a weird niche tabletop game is not going to destroy the foundations of society.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Leon Aquilla wrote:

Yeah, sure, a location splat with several ancestries, none of which have a flaw just happens to be released a couple months before they announce the change. Pure coincidence.

Own it. Don't give me this "If you like your core rules, you can keep them" line.

Paizo first published a Fixed/Free ancestry almost three years ago now.

Like or hate the errata but this conspiratorial righteous indignation just seems kinda goofy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I mean, having a game with characters that are fundamentally different and opening up ability scores aren't mutually exclusive.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
breithauptclan wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Aobst considers the new Coffee Consummable.

Must be really new - probably in the new book coming out, yes?

Because all I am finding is the Bloodeye Coffee. Or non-mechanic flavor coffee.

It's in Treasure Vault, yeah.

Insight Coffee:
level 6(12/19) item that turns your strategic strike dice into d8s and gives you a +2(+3/+4) item to an RK based on the flavor of the coffee (i.e. pumpkin spice occultism). Lasts an hour.

One quirk is that higher level versions only improve the RK bonus, not the damage bonus or duration. So even without Alchemical Sciences the bigger strategic strike die eventually become something you can have up pretty regularly, since eventually 40g stops being a significant cost


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Dubious Scholar wrote:
Devise a strategem is about 80% of a True Strike or so (if Pursue a Lead is active, it's on par or better due to being a free action), with the caveat that you have to have a plan for low rolls.

Part of the problem is that (ironcially, considering the class themes) the Investigator isn't really well equipped to have a strong backup plan.

Like target switching is good, but target switching as a traditional investigator does a number on your damage by reducing your to-hit and depriving you of strategic strike, and might not be an option in certain fights. Cantrips work, but cantrips aren't exactly a power move even for full casters and you're going to be behind on proficiency a lot of the game. Athletics is okay, but can be swingy with a traditional investigator build.

None of these are really power plays. Casting Electric Arc or Telekinetic Projectile on a big solo boss is kind of lame, and you might potentially be doing it half the time. And it's not like the Investigator is kicking ass when their gimmick does work either.

Strength Investigator with a polearm gets around some of these issues by doing more consistent damage even while target switching and having better athletics and second attacks, but that's also a build that intentionally ignores some core aspects of the class so I'm not sure how great that is in terms of class design.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
I think that's because it serves as a stealth errata to fix the damage exploit.
What damage exploit?

Exploit is probably too strong of a word because it's just how the ability is written. More like maybe not thought out all the way?

But you can dismiss the mutagen to do damage based on the remaining duration for the greater and major versions. The damage you get if you drink and then immediately end the mutagen is rather high at that level considering how many elixirs an alchemist can make in a day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
breithauptclan wrote:
That still feels very much not intended.

I mean, the rule and language is pretty straight forward. It's something that's been referenced since then in other places.

Maybe it's just not a huge deal if you save a few GP buying an item later in your career. There's certainly nothing suggesting it's some kind of typo.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Thoughts:

Flamethrower:
A little strange that it does less damage than a regular alchemist's fire at 1 and 3 , but then jumps up to doing significantly more at 11 and 17.

It being a once per combat ability is something I'm not a huge fan of regardless. Just in terms of mechanical niches I feel like alchemists (especially non-bombers) could have benefitted a lot more from an alternative to a weapon, rather than something you just use and then drop on the floor. At least that's what I was hoping for.

Ah well, guess I'm less bummed about it being rare now


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The big thing you're missing from the argument is that spells scale on multiple tracks. Accuracy is one gate, but spell level is another, and even if MCD spellcasters had better proficiency they'd still be gated on slot number and level. Our MC caster is usually 2-3 spell levels behind and limited on slots too.

The problem with gating both is that it just makes some spells especially bad because they get penalized twice, while other spells are especially good because they don't get penalized at all.

It's not something Paizo will errata, and it's not something worth worrying over too much, but even with spells that auto heighten, a rogue being slightly more accurate with ray of frost would not exactly be some kind of balance breaking game changer.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Twilight2k wrote:
But that line is NOT a rules line.

It isn't? Why not?

As far as I am aware, there is no style guide or formatting laid out by Paizo to indicate which pieces of text we're intended to ignore and which we aren't.

Quote:
A rule would have been "The Dhampir counts as undead for purposes of positive damage and negative effects".

Which is literally what the part you're saying doesn't count says.

Negative healing should get cleaned up in general, but the dhampir entry is pretty clear on how it works for them.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Sword being bad and the damage ones not scaling very well seems more like the big outlier here than anything else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Twilight2k wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
The second bullet point you posted seems pretty abundantly clear.
I agree it is clear on intent. However, that is just descriptive fluff referencing the mechanics in Negative Healing (which does not say what that descriptive text says it does).

We're not talking about intent, although I agree intent is clear, we're talking about what that line of rules text says, which is also pretty clear.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The second bullet point you posted seems pretty abundantly clear.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Unfortunately yeah, the wand is pretty bad, especially if you aren't upgrading it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Taja the Barbarian wrote:
A sneak attacking rouge with a short sword or rapier typically gets better 'weapon damage' than a greatsword for any other martial (2d6 vs. 1d12)

Why are you comparing a rogue using sneak attack to a martial benefitting from zero class features, though?

2d6 vs 1d12+4 because you're a dragon barbarian is not higher damage for the rogue.

2d6 vs 1d12 and +2 to hit because you're a fighter is not a win for the rogue either.

etc. etc.

Quote:
so this class is an obvious 'potential problem' if better (and rogue-appropriate) martial weapons are ever introduced.

Not when martial weapons are already by design meant to have a degree of parity to them. Like, give me an example. Which martial weapon do you think is overpowered on the rogue? The main-gauche the OP talked about? The Piranha's Kiss from grand bazaar that's just a worse short sword? Which one?

This feels sort of like a kludgy, after the fact attempt to explain away the issue than a conscious and careful consideration on Paizo's part to be very scared about the future proofing of one particular class for no particular reason.

Seems more likely Paizo just made a decision out of hand and there's a reason they've never repeated it since.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Taja the Barbarian wrote:
Presumably, Paizo wanted to future-proof the class and minimize the chances that weapons added in the future might cause issues (or just give future martial weapon designs a little more 'breathing room' by not having to worry about rogues easily 'abusing' them).

Weird to have that concern only for rogues.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
WWHsmackdown wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
A little bummed to hear the flamethrower is Rare, especially given that it was one of the items featured in the product description about their new alchemy options.
I personally wouldn't deny any alchemist trying to squeeze a little extra umph with official material (if only to see more alchemists at my table!), but yea it's a bummer that the item that rekindled my interest in alchemists could possibly be vetoed by a stingy dm. Luckily the rest of the items (and hopefully the new crafting rules) do seem to pump some juice into the class. Idk if it brings them up to the arbitrary power level in my head where the other classes are.....but they definitely sound more FUN with this stuff.

Yeah, I absolutely agree that a lot of the new options look fun and interesting regardless. Just a minor bit of feelsbad that one of the items specifically used to advertise the book that sounded like it had the potential to open up new options the most is something that many players and characters won't be able to use.

Pixel Popper wrote:
graystone wrote:
No Alchemical Crossbow! Boo!
Are you looking for something different than Alchemical Crossbow?

I think they were hoping it would be reprinted and standardized in the book, like apparently some other alchemical options were.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Quote:
So...is there a game balance reason why the Rogue doesn't have the main-gauche available in PF2e as a class weapon by default?

Not really. Martial weapons are designed to be roughly comparable to each other to begin with. That's why they're all martial weapons.

Rogues simply don't have full martial proficiency, perhaps a legacy thing because they had similarly limited proficiency options in both 3.5 and PF1 (although in PF1 gaining a new weapon was very easy), although Paizo devs have (generally) said this is untrue of how PF2 was designed.

Paizo has never commented specifically on their reasoning for this decision regardless.

Quote:
I know the rogue can take Weapon Proficiency general feat to become "trained" in martial weapons (so I could use the main-gauche at the Trained level), but I am unsure how I promote that skill level to Expert, Master

You can't. There is no generalized way to gain full proficiency progression in a weapon.

There are ways to gain specific weapons, such as Unconventional Weaponry or other ancestry feats, but to my knowledge none of these apply to the Main Gauche.

1 to 50 of 6,953 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>