![]()
![]()
![]() graystone wrote:
Not sure you can make dwarf bread in a waffle iron... ![]()
![]() Shain Edge wrote:
I expect someone (or multiple someones) wrote the archetype and the tattoo options, then they got split up later in the process for space and other editing reasons. Still not good result though. ![]()
![]() I would allow it. Cremate says you add damage when damaging undead. Castigation says you damage fiends as if they were undead. Seems like it transfers. In this case, I would err on the side of the player. Its a small thing (fiends with fire resistance will basically ignore it anyway and the damage is small regardless unless the target has weakness). ![]()
![]() CorvusMask wrote:
Spoiler: its shoots big pointy things. ![]()
![]() Stride: you move up to your speed Movement in encounters: Your movement during encounter mode depends on the actions and other abilities you use. Whether you Stride, Step, Swim, or Climb, the maximum distance you can move is based on your Speed. Certain feats or magic items can grant you other movement types, allowing you to swiftly burrow, climb, fly, or swim When you stride, you can use any applicable movement speed you possess (or a mixture of them, if appropriate). ![]()
![]() Artificial 20 wrote: I honestly don't know why they didn't make class traits for weapons, the way they did for feats. Give a weapon the Rogue trait, say that rogues are proficient with all weapons with the Rogue trait, and then you're set for life. P1E's unchained monk even did this, really expected it in P2E too. It would create a long list of traits to add to every weapon and every new class (and Paizo does like making new classes) would require adding a trait to a pile of weapons. Broad categories in the class (simple, martial) are lower word-counts. ![]()
![]() The gunslinger, as it is designed, should be a class archetype modifying fighter or just a set of fighter feats. It does nothing that doesn't fit into those frameworks with trivial adjustments. This won't happen, since Paizo seems committed to making it a stand-alone class regardless. Part of the issue is that "fighter" covers a great breadth of concepts, but even if you fragmented fighter into discrete functions, I still don't like basing a class on a weapon group. That level of focus should be constrained to archetypes if needed at all. ![]()
![]() roquepo wrote:
Rarity shouldn't effect power. Marital weapons should balance against martial weapons regardless of rarity. ![]()
![]() Simple firearms should be on par with other simple weapons, likewise martial with martial. The flintlock is worse than a crossbow unless you crit (d8 crossbow vs d6 flintlock, 120 vs 40 ft range, both reload 1, flintlock gets fatal d10 and versatile B), so it is a garbage weapon unless you are a fighter or gunslinger who crits more often. ![]()
![]() Ched Greyfell wrote:
Fighting defensively or total defense? Crane Style, Crane Wing, maybe a trait? That will get closer. ![]()
![]() Kyrone wrote:
Wow. Totally botched my reading check. Should have looked twice; +2 to hit would be unusual in this system. ![]()
![]() graystone wrote:
But if you have point blank shot, you could be using a short bow and be getting a +2 circumstance bonus in the first range increment, which is 60 feet. 60 feet covers a lot of combats and +2 gets more hits and more crits to compensate for the smaller damage die. ![]()
![]() KrispyXIV wrote:
From a class design perspective, giving shield block as part of the class does carry a cost, so not using it is 'wasting' a portion of your classes assigned abilities. Nothing is really free. If shield block didn't have some design value attached to it, it would be a built-in function of shields rather than a feat. Maybe a given person doesn't care and maybe the designers assigned a low value to it in class design and balance considerations, but it is a non-zero value. I hope that eventual class archetypes give options to trade it out (same with heavy/medium armor on DEX fighters, etc.). ![]()
![]() Curios what scale the minis will be in; if they are similar to the PF Deep Cuts minis, they could be useful for several games. As for the game itself, there are a lot of board games out there; have to see what they come up with.
lowfyr01 wrote:
I still have HeroQuest and play it, but there have been a lot of dungeoncrawler board games since then. HeroQuest, I expect, funded mostly on nostalgia rather than being competitive with more modern competition. ![]()
![]() Lawrencelot wrote:
Frostgrave, Ghost Archipelago, and Rangers of Shadowdeep use a d20 as a core mechanic. All by the same author using the same base mechanical framework and would be considered 'indie' games, though Frostgrave is a big fish in a small pond. Heroscape hasn't been in print for years, but used a d20 for initiative and special abilities. It was widely available in non-gaming stores (Walmart carried it, for example) so was relatively mainstream (as main stream as a miniatures skirmish game gets), though used custom d6 for most combat resolution. ![]()
![]() Martialmasters wrote: Because it's the only Stance that lets you dump dexterity to 10 at level 1. That is mechanically powerful. I wouldn't call it that powerful. You are spending a class feat to get heavy armor that you have to activate with an action every fight. Building for it also locks you out of most combat uses for every other stance. Hope you don't get attacked before you get it started either; no Dex and no armor means crits. I think the restriction is fluff. Fluff that makes an interesting build choice a headache. ![]()
![]() "The object familiar has no Speeds and must select a Speed familiar ability before it can move, coming to life in a way appropriate to the chosen Speed and using the statistics of a normal familiar for that day." A precise reading of this makes it seem that the item familiar does not use statistics of a familiar unless you select a speed familiar ability, meaning the answer changes depending on familiar abilities. So RAW, it either acts like an item or uses the normal familiar statistics depending on abilities. I doubt this was intended, but I cannot glean intent from what we have. Hopefully it will receive errata. The tradition of spotty editing in secondary books continues. ![]()
![]() graystone wrote:
That occurred to me, but the patron rules for Baba Yaga are not sufficiently specific to assume that doing so would be commonly allowed. ![]()
![]() I want the summoner and eidolon to work together, acting dynamically to support and set the other up. Right now, the eidolon is a second-rate beatstick and the summoner hides and heals/buffs from a safe spot. Your 4 spells don't go very far (best case is probably dropping good battlefield control once per fight). Let the eidolon open an enemy up to the summoner's spells, let the summoner be able to survive staying close to the eidolon. Look at 1st ed. teamwork feats as a start, but give each body something to do with its actions that is worth doing each turn (beyond "okay, you get a damage bonus). Frankly, if a class is called 'summoner', I would rather it actually focus on summoning, but for the eidoloniturge class we have, lean in to the tandem nature. If that means no built-in high-level spells, fine. ![]()
![]() Not sure how much of an exploit it is to repeatedly get yourself knocked out. Unless I missed a special rule for the summoner, each time you hit 0, you go to dying X, and each time you get back up, you get wounded +1, making actually dying that much easier next time. Sure, you are in a presumably more convenient location, but not something I would lean into. ![]()
![]() Obviously the class has more important issues to be sorted out, but it occurred to me that a shield based path would be nice. You can fake it now (shields with a boss or spikes are 1-handed weapons, archetyping into everstand stance would make a shield 2-handed), but a path to work raising shield into your action economy and allowing you to deliver a spell when you shield block would be cool. ![]()
![]() Throne wrote:
Best use I can think of for them is to do an end-around the ridiculous pricing on high-level special materials. Turn your cheap silver sword into +X Striking when you need to fight a silver-vulnerable enemy. Runic impression still keeps rune limits, so is less useful for that application. ![]()
![]() Jalmeri Heavenseeker dedication (from the new AP) gives a great use for a spare action. For 1 action, you can add half your level each in electricity and sonic damage to unarmed strikes and monk weapons. Since monastic archer lets you add unarmed stuff to your bow, it should work. Or not. Monastic Archer specifies Monk feats and abilities. So you would need a bow with the monk trait. Which...don't exist yet. ![]()
![]() Dargath wrote: Can you be a full time animal as a Druid similar to a Feral Druid in World of Warcraft, or are you a caster class first and foremost that can sometimes turn into an animal but animals don’t scale like martials so it’s not really viable? The feats to remain in animal form do reduce the spell level of the spell you are copying for the transformation. Form Control at 4th and perfect form control at 18th. The battle forms are not as good of martials as dedicated martials, but in my understanding they are viable for use. Don't expect to replace a fighter or champion, but you can fight as a secondary melee. edit:
Form control let's you increase the duration to 1 hour, but reduces the spell level by 2. This means that until 7th character level, it only works for pest form. At 7th character level, it works for animal form, but only as a second level spell, which is going to be well behind the curve. At 18th level, perfect form control makes the duration permanent, but keeps the -2 spell level penalty.
|