Staffan Johansson's page

690 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 690 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

The box looks bigger than the old ones. Is that just the mock-up, or is it actually bigger?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RiverMesa wrote:
But on the other hand, I really like sorcerer's tradition-determined-by-bloodline shtick, and the witch would seem like the perfect opportunity to allow for that as well.

I'm actually not super-fond of that. It's a neat idea, but I don't think it works out all that well in practice.

The main issue is that the traditions are not balanced on their own. The divine list is built for clerics, the primal list for druids, the arcane list for wizards, and the occult list for bards.

The most glaring problem is the divine sorcerer. They are pretty short on ranged attack spells (basically only daze, which deals pitiful damage, and divine lance which requires a deity and is limited in its use). That's fine for a cleric, particularly a war priest that's trained in decent weapons and armor and has 8 hp/level, but not as good for a sorcerer without armor, only simple weapons, and 6 hp/level. Also, many of the divine spells require that you worship a deity, which is unfortunate since one of the draws of the divine sorcerer is being able to cast divine spells without that baggage.


Also, I like that this seems to be the "proper" Magaambya archetype. The Magic Warrior from the World Guide was... not very impressive, particularly not as the main representative of what's supposed to be the most prestigious magic academies/traditions in the world. This seems a lot more attractive, particularly how it makes the mask an asset rather than a liability.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I guess Majora was a Magaambyan...


Ediwir wrote:

Hideous Laughter can target creatures who don’t speak any language.

It’s no longer about telling a joke. We officially have magic laughing gas.

Well, the traditional material components for Hideous Laughter (though I'm not sure they made it into Pathfinder 1 on account of not being OGL) are a tiny tart and a feather waved in the air. So I guess pie-in-the-face and tickling are universally funny.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Purple worms are animals.

With a burrowing speed.

Which means (some) gnomes can talk to them.


Mellored wrote:
You can get 16 Str at level 1 without significant investment (especially if you don't invest in Dex). And then Cast + Strike people with a greatsword.

Most spells require a free hand to cast, so no greatsword. Unless you're using one-action spells, using your second action to grasp your sword, and then your third to Strike.


It has been my understanding that at the very bottom of the scale, they chose to make level -1 monsters hit about as much as level 0 monster, but do less damage and be easier to kill.

In addition, a Strength-based character might not quite be at their optimal AC yet. The equipment chapter suggests that Champions start with Hide, for +3 AC with a max Dex of +2. Assuming they're eyeing Full Plate eventually, they might not have a Dexterity bonus, which will give them a starting AC of 16. If they could afford proper armor, they would instead have 19 (prof +3, item +6).

That said, the whole point of minions is that they're dangerous enough that you can't ignore them and focus on the boss.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
gnoams wrote:
Yeah, it definitely feels like to get the most out of spellcasting you need to have read through your options and spend a lot of time comparing them. Like as a 5th level slot you could prepare a heightened animal form, or a heightened dinosaur form, or elemental form.

Or, you might have to consider either preparing remove disease or dinosaur form... which should I take...


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I prepared Explosive Runes this morning.


breithauptclan wrote:
Is it completely unreasonable to think of the shield block reaction is a last-ditch option done out of desperation - much like overcharging a wand.

That's a reasonable thought, except a fair number of the magic shields have effects that are specifically based around blocking, like the dragonslayer or arrow-catcher.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Zooming out a little...

The game's main defensive stat isn't AC or saves. It's hit points. Ever since early D&D, hit points have been some nebulous mix of luck, skill, stamina, divine favor, and actual toughness, and it has been the main thing that keeps you from losing a fight. Things that can lead to a loss and bypass hit points should be rare.

PF2 has made IWIN-buttons unreliable by having relatively low chances of success, particularly with incapacitation effects. But this is one area where I think 13th Age and, to some degree, D&D 5 handles this better: by making hit points a threshold for incapacitation effects. For example, 5e sleep works by rolling 5d8 (IIRC), and then putting up to that many hit points worth of creatures to sleep, starting with the lowest hit points.

These effects work on current hit points, which creates a mechanic where you need to "soften up" a target before using incapacitating abilities on it. For an example that's relevant to disarming, see the legendary duel between The Man In Black and Inigo Montoya, where it's not until after they've been fencing for a few minutes that Montoya is properly disarmed and defeated.


Aenigma wrote:
Hmm. Then magic sense wouldn't be as useless as I thought. Actually I'm trying to make a sorcerer character with the imperial bloodline. But the bloodline grants me detect magic as a free cantrip. While magic sense is clearly better than detect magic, would it be a huge waste of feat to take magic sense if I already have detect magic as a bonus cantrip?

I'd say it depends on your previous choices. In the CRB, the only other option at 12th level is Bloodline Focus, which lets you recover up to two focus points when you Refocus. If you haven't taken the Advanced and Greater Bloodline feats, that doesn't do much because you still only have one focus. Even if you have the feats, you might not use the bloodline focus spells all that much - I haven't played an imperial sorcerer, but their focus spells seem neat but situational, so how often do you really need to cast more than one without 10 minutes passing in between them?

That sort of question seems like the kind you'd need experience actually playing the character to answer. Do you feel hampered by lack of focus? If so, Bloodline Focus might be the better choice. Have you forsaken Extend Spell and Arcane Countermeasures in order to overpower resistances and/or cast spells despite distractions? If so, Magic Sense makes more, well, sense.

Me, I'm currently playing a water elemental sorcerer - only 2nd level so far, so pretty far from making this particular choice. I don't know if I'll take Advanced Bloodline (getting a Swim speed and water breathing isn't all that sexy, unless you're Namor the Sub-Mariner because Abslantis will not be denied), but Greater Bloodline seems sweet (elemental blast, dealing 8d6 in a flexible AOE and scaling with +2d6 at level 11 and every odd level after that) and thus Bloodline Focus looks appealing. But that's a problem for future Staffan to worry about, assuming the campaign gets that far.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Aenigma wrote:
Yeah, but since detect magic is a cantrip, after taking the arcane sense feat, I can cast it infinitely. So having detect magic(which cannot even be heightened to 4th level) on constantly doesn't seem like that good to me. Simply taking arcane sense sounds like a better idea.

Detect magic does not have a duration. It's a single ping for magic within 30 ft that tells you if there is any unfamiliar magic around or not. If you want to keep a constant scan for magic up, you need to use the exploration activity Detect Magic, and be reduced to half speed. This is noisy, because detect magic has a verbal component which has to be spoken in a "strong voice". I would also rule that just like the more generic Repeat a Spell activity, doing so for too long would be fatiguing - essentially, you're taking three actions per two rounds (two actions to detect magic one round, one action to Stride the next) instead of the default exploration movement of taking a single action per round (Stride).

Magic Sense gives you an always-on detect magic. If there's any unfamiliar magic within 30 ft, you know it. You can then Seek and in addition to the normal Seek effects, you gain the benefits of 3rd-level detect magic on things you see - this means you know what item/location has what aura, instead of just "There's a Transmutation effect nearby." That's a pretty big power-up compared to the spell. Should you need to scan for unseen magic, you can then take the time to cast detect magic normally and gain the benefits of a 4th level spell as well.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
dirtypool wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Wouldn't that run the risk of Lex Luthor stealing them?

Only if you've got 40 pages of notes. That's as many as four tens.

And that's terrible.


Deriven Firelion wrote:
Does Inspire Competence work for exploration or downtime activities? My player is trying to use this for Craft-Repair. I recall reading that you needed to be able to use the ability the same time as the skill your aiding to gain the advantage. I can't find this portion again.

It would fall under the "Repeat a spell" exploration activity, which says you generally only use it for short periods of time to avoid fatigue (though I can't find anything specifying how long, but I'd use the 10 minute mark from Sustain a Spell).

So I'd allow it for a task taking 10 minutes or less, but not on consecutive tasks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
You could always print out your notes literally on cakes...

Wouldn't that run the risk of Lex Luthor stealing them?


Worldmaker wrote:
Ediwir wrote:
I’m still waiting to see who these characters are, so I can have a feel of how impossible a task this is.

I don't want to post a pages-long thing to put all of them up here for your perusal, but here's one of them.

Bloody Teeth (Player: Darren W)
Male Goblin Feral Gnasher Barbarian 13
CN Small Humanoid (Goblin)
Init +6; Senses: Scent, Perception +4

OK, so what does this guy actually do?

* Bites foes when raging. That's like the whole thing with Animal Instinct barbarians.
* Infects things with the bite attack. OK, that doesn't exist at this time. That said, hitting things in combat with something that won't hurt them until 1d4 hours later seems less than ideal. Otherwise, make it a fairly low-level barbarian feat with the Animal instinct prerequisite.
* Grapples. So, go for the Shark totem which adds the Grapple trait to your Jaws attacks. You won't get any claws though.
* Grapples bigger things. That's the Titan Wrestler feat.
* Scares things because he's buff: That's the Intimidating Prowess feat. Requires Str 16 though, but he'd likely have that in PF2. He should probably have the Raging Intimidation barbarian feat too.
* Scent: Acute Scent barbarian feat.
* Jumps heedlessly into combat gnashing and thrashing all over the place: that's like half the barbarian feats right there.

So this particular fella doesn't seem all that hard to convert, other than the infected bite.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wolftame wrote:
Thanks. The Warhammer is a martial weapon though and I'm aiming for a simple one (Deadly Simplicity feat).

Deadly Simplicity is not meant as a power-up. It is meant to bring simple weapons sort of up to the level of martial weapons, in order to allow clerics and champions to be competitive with their deity's favored weapon even if it is simple.

As a comparison:
Warhammer deals 1d8 damage and has the Shove trait.
Mace normally deals 1d6 damage and has the Shove trait. With Deadly Simplicity, it instead deals 1d8 damage - other than being a Club rather than a Hammer, it is functionally identical.


QuidEst wrote:
Feats that hand you free damage shouldn't scale because (as far as I can tell) that's damage above the expected curve- your feats are rarely sources of raw damage bonuses.

Some feats do scale, but they usually start out significantly lower. For example, Burn it! deals an additional point of fire damage per two spell levels when you cast a fire spell, and Dangerous Sorcery deals +1 point per spell level if the spell doesn't have a duration. But something that starts out as +1d6 damage probably shouldn't scale.


Scaling effects seem to start out significantly lower than 1d6 as well. For example, the Sorcerer's Dangerous Sorcery adds spell level to the damage dealt by a spell cast using slots/focus, and there are various ancestral feats that essentially add +1 damage per die of weapon damage in particular circumstances.


Frogliacci wrote:
The Least and even Lesser versions aren't problematic. The Greater Dragonmarks are when balance gets wonky. By spending 2 feats as prerequisites, you can now cast spells of 5th to 7th level 1/day at level 9. Most 5th level spells I can deal, because the wizard or cleric could also reasonably access them, but Mark of Making gives you Fabricate as a spell like ability. That means you can cast it without paying the otherwise fairly hefty cost.

OK, that's a little wonky. Still, it's something you've spent three out of four (OK, five if you're human, and if you have the Mark of Making you are) feats on.


Frogliacci wrote:
Dragonmark feats are meant to be more powerful are core feats, because in both 3.5e and 5e, the feats are stronger than anything else you can get at the level (the 5e Siberys version lets you get Foresight, a 9th level spell, at level 15). The drawback, at least in theory, is that Dragonmarked characters have a lot of narrative requirements.

Really? The 3e dragonmarks, at least, always looked fairly underwhelming to me - the Least version giving either a cantrip 2/day or a 1st level spell 1/day, and with those being chosen from an extremely limited list of spells with limited adventuring usefulness, as well as not scaling their caster level with the user's level.

I mean, sure, a 1st-level spell once/day and +2 to a skill sounds powerful for a feat, but I think there are fairly few characters for whom it's actually a good option (and remember that 3e characters only get feats every 3 levels). The one I can think of where it actually makes your core abilities better is a monk with the Least Mark of Sentinel who can cast mage armor on herself once/day.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RiverMesa wrote:
Yeah, Wizards is nowhere near as reliant on D&D's financial success as Paizo is on Pathfinder (which is to say, WotC could straight up cancel D&D tomorrow and be totally fine since so much of their profit comes from Magic)

Not sure that's true anymore. D&D has grown enormously since the release of 5e, to the point where Hasbro's annual (or maybe quarterly) reports have included language to the effect of "Dang, that D&D game sure is bringing in a lot of dough."

According to ICV2, RPG sales in the USA and Canada have increased from $15M in 2013 to $65M in 2018. That increase is pretty much all D&D.

I mean, it's still significantly smaller than Magic, but now it's at least a significant chunk of their income.

Quote:
- thus the former can kinda just ride it out on sporadic supplement releases and (let's be honest) D&D's immense brand recognition, while Paizo needs to continually support their game to stay afloat - thus we have several product lines and some kind of substantial release basically every month (even if it's 'just' another AP book).

The slow release schedule seems to be working out great for Wizards. It's likely that it helps with player acquisition - the game really only has two player-facing books so far (the PHB and Xanathar's Guide to Everything - other books may have some player material, but not much), which makes recruiting new players a lot easier than if you want Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, a setting book, and a dozen player companions and whatever else. The PF1 sales model is strongly focused on selling more to existing players, while the D&D model is focused on expanding the audience.

That said, I'm not sure D&D's sales model would work for Paizo. It is strongly reliant on bringing in new players to buy those PHBs and possibly other core books. That's why the PHB is #71 on Amazon's sales rank in the "Books" category five years after release.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
I think tactics, smart play and luck could let you go tvrohvh 3 80 XP or less fights, but then you need to rest for 30 mins.

Resting more than 10 minutes rapidly runs into diminishing returns. Treat Wounds has a cooldown of 60 minutes on any one target (though if you have a single medic and multiple people who needs treatment you may need several goes at it), and multiple refocuses don't work (because you can only recover focus spent since the last time you refocused).

So 10 minutes is almost always useful, 20 is often useful (because it lets you Treat/Refocus and do something else like Repair or Search), but more than that would likely be rare.


GM Sedoriku wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:

2. A big portion of the divine list, and one of the main points of being a divine caster, is healing. But healing isn't limited to hit points - it's also a matter of condition removal. Unfortunately, PF2 went with the old model of having different spells for almost every single condition (neutralize poison, remove curse, remove disease, remove fear, remove paralysis, restoration, restore senses, stone to flesh), and learning all those is a big ask - particularly with counteracting being level-dependent so you pretty much need to make those your signature spells. And if the sorcerer can't do that, you need some other way in the party of fixing what they can't fix, which is likely going to be another divine caster, or maybe a primal caster.

On thing that helps this is they can use scrolls or wands of those spells as well and it's not too heavy of an investment to have one at relevant levels. (Okay the wand is expensive, but you'll rarely need a once per day casting of the spell)

Scrolls seems to be less of an option in PF2 than in PF1. For example, take remove curse, a 4th level spell. A scroll of remove curse is a 7th level item costing 70 gp. In the process of going from 6th to 7th level you're supposed to find/get two 7th level consumables, and you're getting two more on the path from 7th to 8th. That's total consumables for the whole party - including potions, talismans, and assorted other things. Or if you're doing starting wealth, that's a little under 10% of your lump sum wealth, or a little over half the amount of currency you're supposed to start with in addition to permanent items. And you can't reduce the price by rolling your own - time spent crafting could as well be spent on Gain Income.

And that's for one spell. If you want the whole suite, that's 7 of them (at 4th level - one more comes online as a 6th level spell), and given the counteracting rules you want to use them at top level. That's a really big investment in highly situational stuff that you're not really guaranteed to have a use for by the time it's obsolete.


Hsui wrote:
Divine list is actually quite bad since cantrips are quite important since they are unlimited and autoscale.

There are two more problems with Divine sorcerers.

1. Many spells are dependent on having a patron deity, which causes issues (particularly since many of those spells are on the granted spells list for several bloodlines - but we already have a thread for discussing that problem).

2. A big portion of the divine list, and one of the main points of being a divine caster, is healing. But healing isn't limited to hit points - it's also a matter of condition removal. Unfortunately, PF2 went with the old model of having different spells for almost every single condition (neutralize poison, remove curse, remove disease, remove fear, remove paralysis, restoration, restore senses, stone to flesh), and learning all those is a big ask - particularly with counteracting being level-dependent so you pretty much need to make those your signature spells. And if the sorcerer can't do that, you need some other way in the party of fixing what they can't fix, which is likely going to be another divine caster, or maybe a primal caster.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
I'm sorry to break it to you but that's not the PF1 design, needing specific feats is part of the d20 model. The only difference between PF1 and PF2 in this regard, is that PF2 did away with most feats that only increased numbers. But, the need to choose things feats accordingly is still very much there.

I don't know. I'm playing a sorcerer, and as I'm looking at feats to consider what to choose at higher levels I'm not really seeing any must-take feats. For example, at 2nd level I might take either Dangerous Sorcery for plain damage, Reach Spell because some of my spells have sucky range, or Widen Spell do do bigger AOEs. I could take Counterspell as well, but it seems quite situational. Either of those would be a valid choice, and neither would commit me to a particular path.

But the alchemist pretty much has to take Quick Bomber, or possibly Far Lobber. Same at 4th level, he's pretty much locked into Calculated Splash. And so on.

Back in PF1, if you wanted to play an archer fighter, you pretty much had to take Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Weapon Focus (longbow), Weapon Specialization (longbow), and so on, just to keep up. The PF2 fighter doesn't need that, and can focus on taking some things that give them cool moves with their bow, and quite possibly some that branch out into other fighting styles. The alchemist does not at all feel like they're in the same situation.


Zapp wrote:
I haven't seen a clumsier xp system than the one in PF2 since... actually, I can't remember seeing a worse one in recent years. In this particular case, just anyone actually could create a better one than that was made by multiple professional game designers.

The 3e one was far more complex in its approach to the same goal.

In 3e, the XP were designed around the following axioms:

1. Going from level N to level N+1 required N*1000 XP.
2. On average, you should need 13 1/3 level-appropriate encounters to go up a level.
3. A monster 2 levels higher or lower should give double/half the XP.

1 and 2 together means that a CR N monster facing a level N party should give N*300 XP. Combine it with 3, and you get a chart that's so big they had to split it into two charts.

PF2 works on the same principle, but since you don't need more XP to level up you don't have to inflate the XP per monster - instead you can just compare monster level to party level and go from there.

And if you want to talk weird XP systems after that, you could always take a look at Rolemaster...


9 people marked this as a favorite.
dmerceless wrote:
My experience so far with class balance and design has been pretty similar to a lot of people here. Basically summing up as "everyone's fine, except for Alchemist". We only played until level 4, so this could change in the late game, but I highly doubt it since I can only see more problems with the class later on (like being the only class who has to take class feat taxes to make some of their stuff scale properly).

The Alchemist feels a lot like a PF1 class - they need to make very specific choices with their class feats in order to match the expected math, while other classes get the math stuff as part of the class's "skeleton" and can instead pick feats that let them do specific awesome stuff. For example, bombers pretty much have to pick Calculated Splash to increase their splash damage to be equal to their Intelligence modifier. Cool story bro, my primal sorcerer's electric arc already adds Charisma to damage, hits two targets, and has a basic save instead of an attack roll (so it basically deals half damage on a miss).

I think the class basically suffers from two issues:

1. Big re-design after the playtest. In the playtest they were heavily connected to the Resonance system, which was nuked and instead they needed something different. The result was a little rushed.

2. Conservative design. Since the alchemist is doing something entirely new, I feel the designers probably low-balled its power level because they were unsure how it would shake out, and didn't want to risk having it unbalance the game. This is similar to how the Sorcerer worked out in D&D 3e.


Kyrone wrote:
Arthropod form then?

Or "bug form". Bug is a colloquial enough term that it works.

I mean, the Bestiary is careful to point out that pterosaurs aren't dinosaurs, so calling scorpions insects seems wrong.


Smoak Shadow wrote:
The Monk Catchers up to the fighter at Level 5 ,expert unarmed and passes them at level 13 Master unarmed.

Not quite true. Unarmed proficiency increases when Simple weapons do. So the progression is basically (unless the fighter decides to specialize in brawling weapons which is probably a bad idea):

1st - fighter expert, monk trained.
5th - fighter expert, monk expert.
13th - fighter master, monk master.
19th - fighter legendary, monk master.

So in pure proficiency, the fighter is ahead at 1st through 4th level, and at 19th and 20th level. The monk has other advantages when fighting unarmed however, so I don't see that as too much of a problem.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Justinian9 wrote:
That is true! And I should have had the damage die 1d10 as Mtn strikes (i can't remember there name) are d10

No, Falling Stone strikes deal 1d8, which seems to be the default. Dragon Tail deals 1d10, but have the worst traits and the stance itself has fairly weak benefits.

Out of the level 1 stance strikes, we have:

d6: Crane stance. This is the defensive stance, since it has a straight up AC bonus, and as payment you deal less damage.

d8: Falling stone, Tiger claw, and Wolf Jaw. Falling stone is the odd one out, as it does not have either Agile or Finesse - Agile is somewhat compensated for by Forceful so it does more damage on multiple attacks, and since it's intended for monks with bad Dex Finesse isn't needed. It also comes with a very strong stance benefit, giving an AC bonus without the need for Dexterity. Tiger Claw has a pretty strong benefit in potentially dealing persistent bleed damage, and gives good mobility against wary foes (i.e. those with AoOs). And Wolf Jaw is pretty awesome, with Backstabber and potentially Trip, but the stance doesn't really do anything else.

d10: Dragon tail. Agile is replaced with Backswing, which is a straight up downgrade. You also don't get Finesse. So this is the stance for monks who have both good Strength and Dexterity - Dex for AC, Strength for attacking. I'm not sure how good the stance benefit is, ignoring the first square of difficult terrain on a Stride - that seems like a very context-dependent ability. It would be very helpful with hit-and-run attacks though: Stride over some terrain with Incredible Movement, kick'em twice with Flurry of Dragon Tail strikes, and then Stride back.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I read over insect form earlier today, and I have a big problem with the spell.

It allows you to take the form of an ant, a beetle, a centipede, a mantis, a scorpion, or a spider.

Three out of six options are not insects.

Sheesh!


Justinian9 wrote:
10th level monk with 20 str unarmed strike 1d6 +5 twice so 2d6+10 if you hit both times as you do have the multi-attack penalty on the second attack

Most of the time, you will be using a stance that increases your damage to 1d8 or possibly more. In addition, by 10th level you probably have +1 or +2 striking handwraps of mighty blows giving you one more die of damage, so with one action the monk makes two attacks for 2d8+5 (with the second either being -5 to hit and +2 damage, or -4 to hit). You could be making more attacks, but you'd be eating a double multiple attack penalty which would pretty much remove your chance of actually hitting. So that leaves two actions open for movement, letting you dash both in and out of combat.

Quote:

10th level MU, 20 in key spell ability, the first cantrip in the book is acid Splash so let see what that does... (I don't normally play Magic Users so I may not have the dam correct).

2d6 +5, if crit + 3 points persistent dam, + 2 splash damage to everyone in 5 ft of target.

With the handwraps included, the monk is pretty far ahead on damage. But then again, the monk doesn't have the nova capacity of a caster.


Cozzymandias wrote:
What about a divine Sorcerer casting one of the divine battle form spells (righteous might, avatar, the other one I can't remember atm)? None of them explicitly require you to have a deity, but all of them (except righteous might iirc) have different effects depending on your deity. Do you just choose one of the options as a non-worshipping character?

Ironically, avatar does not require that you have a deity but is heavily based on having one, and righteous might does require a deity but is less dependent on one (it only gives you a 3-die version of your deity's favored weapon, and that would be easy to change into "whatever weapon you're wielding").

I see these as less of a problem than divine wrath and the others, because for a spontaneous caster the solution to "I can't cast this spell without a patron deity" can very well be "So don't pick that spell." But the Angelic, Demonic, and Diabolic bloodlines all grant you spells that do require a deity, and that makes it more of a problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
It's funny. D&D 4th ed was meant to remove the Christmas Tree effect. Except it hardcoded it into the game. That would have to have been the biggest broken promise in 4e.

It did not so much remove it as reduce it. In 3e/PF1, you had the Big Six items you needed: weapon, armor, amulet of natural armor, ring of protection, cloak of resistance, and whatever the booster for your primary stat was. In 4e, it was reduced to three: weapon/implement, armor, and cloak/necklace. And PF2 reduces it to two: weapon and armor.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I haven't looked into this much, but as a gut reaction: I don't really have a problem with the hardness of high-level shields, but they should definitely have more hit points. That way, blocking with them still wouldn't help all that much defensively, but at least the shield wouldn't be blown to smithereens.


Aservan wrote:
I think a lot of the confusion here can be laid at the feet of the play-testers.

The confusion comes from the book being inconsistent. In one place, it says "You know X spells, one of which is the one granted by your bloodline." and in another it says "You know one spell per level granted by your bloodline in addition to the ones you learn from the Spellcasting feature."

Given the examples I'm pretty certain the first one is correct (X spells including one bloodline spell), but the book ought to phrase it better.


Thomas Keller wrote:
Wait, spells known is the same as spells per day? So you can only cast each spell you know once a day? That's a giant step backwards, in my opinion, for this class.

The numbers are the same, give or take. But you can still cast spontaneously. For example, my elemental sorcerer knows Burning Hands, Heal, and Grease. I can cast 3 1st level spells per day. Maybe I will cast Burning Hand thrice in one day, or Heal once and Grease twice, or one each - I can determine that on the spur of the moment.


Lucas Yew wrote:

If so, why does the <Creatures by Type> section in the Bestiary's pg.348~349 not include them?

If not, why do their individual stat blocks include the Humanoid trait (and every single one, as of now)?

By the way, no other "creature type" Traits have this issue, they only share "subtypes", not the bigger category...

There is no creature type trait in PF2. There are just traits, some of which serve more or less the same purpose as creature types in PF1. The Giant trait is defined as "Giants are massive humanoid creatures.", so yes, all* giants are humanoids.

This is not a PF2 change. Pathfinder 1 changed Giant from being its own creature type into being a humanoid subtype - that was one of its changes from D&D.

* Until they make one who isn't.


Mathmuse wrote:

How well-known will the goblin scuttle be? It did not exist in PF1, so I have no experience with it being in the folklore. If a figher asks about the goblin warriors' tactics, should I tell them about their AC and saves or their weapon attacks or the goblin scuttle? AC is probably most useful, helping the fighter judge whether to make multiple attacks. The weapons are probably the best known of the three. Goblin scuttle is merely the most unusual. It would make a good flavorful additional information on a critical success.

Maybe the GM ought to ask a followup question to be more useful and more specific, "Would you like their AC and saves, or full details of their weapon attacks, or the nature of tactical ability called Goblin Scuttle?"

I wouldn't give PCs the actual stat blocks for things.

Anyone seeing a typical goblin would know "That's a goblin. It's small, and it is armed with a blade of some sort and a bow."

A successful Recall Knowledge would tell you either that they're fast on their feet but easy to manipulate (good Reflex, bad Will), or that they can Scuttle. You could also get information on their society and stuff like that, but that's more likely if you use Recall Knowledge out of combat.

Goblins are a fairly bad example though, because they don't have much in the way of abilities. A better example would be a ghoul. Ghouls have the following abilities:
* Creature type - undead, includes negative healing.
* Movement - being able to burrow is definitely a thing worthy of a Recall Knowledge check, unless you encounter it as it is burrowing its way out of the ground and attacking you. So is Swift Leap.
* Defenses - AC 16, Fort +4, Ref +9, Will +5, or "surprisingly quick, but rather frail in both body and mind."
* Immunities - death effects, disease, paralyze, poison, unconscious. I might throw in this for free, because it's a fairly standard undead thing, and things that are common across multiple monster types should be fairly easy to know.
* Offense - the fact that it has a bite and a claw attack should be fairly obvious just by looking at it. Knowing about ghoul fever and paralysis is not.
* Special - Consume flesh. Yeah, being able to heal mid-combat by chomping on some dead folks is definitely a thing.

So, in an encounter with a ghoul, I would start by saying something like "You see a feral-looking humanoid with blotched purple skin, hands ending in long, vicious claws, and a maw full of horrid-looking teeth and a grotesquely long purple tongue." A successful Knowledge check would give "It's a ghoul, which is a type of undead that feeds on corpses. They have the normal undead immunities, including heal/harm working in reverse." I'd also give one of: defense assessment, ghoul fever, paralysis, or swift leap for the initial Recall Knowledge. Things like burrowing or consume flesh would likely be later ones, as well as bits about ghouls often organizing in vile parodies of living society.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This whole thread reminds me of the player profiles Wizards uses when talking about Magic players:

Timmy/Tammy: plays for the experience. In Pathfinder, this would be the player who takes the path of least resistance when it comes to character building - decide on a theme and pick the stuff that matches and call it a day.

Johnny/Jenny: plays to express themselves. In Pathfinder, these would usually be the players who create oddball concepts and tries to figure out how to make those concepts in the game.

Spike: plays to prove themselves. These are the ones pushing the game engine to its breaking point to squeeze out every advantage.

Being aware of these different player types is a Good Thing, as is realizing that clearly not everyone wants the same thing out of the game as you do.


Squiggit wrote:

I'm not holding out hope for more fight-y versions of spellcasters tbh.

The Warpriest/Cloistered Cleric is the model Paizo set out for making a dichotomy between pure caster and a more martial version of said character, but the Warpriest doesn't actually get better at swinging weapons than the CC, it just advances its proficiency a few levels earlier.

What I'd mostly expect from the skald, as we might call it, is something like proficiency in martial weapons and medium armor, and perhaps advancing somewhat faster in weapon and/or armor proficiency (though, like the warpriest, not necessarily higher). I would also expect a bunch of possible feats that improve their fighting abilities in some way, or let them do things like cast a composition cantrip at the same time as they Strike, or be able to perform Somatic components with a hand holding a weapon, or stuff like that.


If they're doing more class paths, I'm sort of hoping for a fight-y version of the bard.

I'm not really seeing it though, because the way they made that work for the cleric was to put the casting proficiencies and stuff in the Class Path to allow for variance, and the bard... doesn't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AgentBlack wrote:
As far as my monkey familiar is concerned, reloading the heavy crossbow while I'm holding it is no different than my character reloading ballistae—I don't need to be actually "holding" the huge siege engine to Interact with it.

This seems like exactly the kind of shenanigans the "Ambiguous Rules" bit on page 444 is meant to handle:

"Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed."

Having your familiar reloading your crossbow while you're shooting things with it seems patently ridiculous.


Unicore wrote:
Yeah, I don't recommend having new players make high level casters to start out with. PF2 spells generally do a good job of saying what they do, but it takes a long time to read through them and make sure that you understand all of the traits and specific terminology. But that was true in PF1 as well.

This reminds me of a thing I'd really like Paizo to do, perhaps as a PDF: Properly organized spell books. Back in AD&D, the primary caster classes had their own spell lists, and the spells were organized accordingly: 1st level cleric spells, followed by 2nd level cleric spells, and so on until 7th level cleric spells, which were then followed by 1st level druid spells, and so on. Basically, the same way class feats are organized.

In 3e, they skipped that because (a) someone thought it made for a better reference if you knew you'd be able to find fireball between fire trap and flame arrow without having to know it was a 3rd level wizard spell, and (b) it allowed them to have the same spell on multiple lists without either extra word count or clumsy references ("Cure light wounds, 1st level druid spell, see the 1st level cleric spell"). But the disadvantage is that if you want to decide what spells to choose, you need to flip around all over the book.

So, it would be really neat if there was a PDF I could download that had all the spells properly organized: by tradition, and by level. It would have been even better had the core book been organized that way from the start, but that ship has already sailed.


I'm hoping the Swashbuckler will be a class that's primarily martial but with some form of limited-use powerful "stunts" (possibly via some kind of panache pool). Something along the lines of the 5e Battlemaster fighter, or the 3.5e Tome of Battle classes. If it could incorporate the Warlord-type class (martial support class), even better.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mekkis wrote:
This is further exacerbated by having feat chains that are heavily siloed - so if you want to take a certain sixth-level feat at sixth-level, you'll need to take the prerequisites. So now you need to understand what the sixth-level feats do before you make your choice at first level.

I looked over a few classes, and the prerequisites tend to fall into a few categories:

1. Improvements on the previous feats. For example, the fighter's Furious Focus requires Power Attack, because it improves Power Attack.

2. Class paths. Some feats are siloed to different class paths. For example, the Champion chooses a Divine Ally at 3rd level: shield (defensive), blade (offensive), or steed (animal companion). Many defensive champion feats, particularly those that defend others, require a Shield divine ally. That's pretty logical.

3. "Free" prerequisites. Some feats have prerequisites that people of that class automatically get. This is, I think, mostly to keep them away from multi-classing and also future-proofing for when we get archetype dedications.

4. Skill prerequisites. These usually allow you to use the skill in question in new ways.

I don't see any of these prerequisites as particularly onerous. None of them is anywhere close to e.g. PF1's Whirlwind Attack, which required four prerequisite feats, none of which seemed particularly logical and only served to make the feat harder to get.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
I've been thinking about how to make FE actually worth it. I think the answer is to just give it to the Ranger for free. Keep it out of the Dedication to stop poaching.

If there's going to be any poaching anywhere, it should be in the ranger class.

1 to 50 of 690 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>