Psychopomp, Shoki

SuperBidi's page

Organized Play Member. 1,875 posts (2,626 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 8 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,875 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think the Frightened duration persists after the end of Dirge of Doom. It has a duration of one round, so it should stop all effects after this round.
Other ways to give the Frightened condition either don't have a duration or have a duration of "varies".


Hi everyone,

Just a small trick for Bards who want to use these compositions at the same time without using Harmonize. You need your party initiative to be grouped together (so, it works better against bosses).

Just follow the following sequence:
You play: Inspire Courage + Lingering Composition
Your party plays (Inspire Courage bonus)
Enemies play
You delay
Your party plays (Inspire Courage bonus)
You get out of delay: Inspire Defense
Enemies play (Inspire Defense bonus)
Your party delays
You play: Inspire Courage
Your party plays (Inspire Courage bonus)
And so on...

So you can maintain Inspire Courage all the time while having Inspire Defense every two rounds (or three if you don't want to lose a round of Lingering Composition).
Hope this helps.


What I don't see, N N, is what you would consider an appropriate set of abilities for the Ranger? Are you complaining because the Ranger is weak in regard of other classes or because he should have abilities that no one else can have?

Because having abilities that noone else can have is the best way to never use them as noone would ever write an adventure where at some point you either have a Ranger or go home.

As a side note, I find the link between Hunt Prey and Survival right on spot. Hunt Prey gives you a small bonus on Survival. Nothing impressive, but it should allow you to stay the official tracker on your team. And Being able to follow tracks before combat allows you to Hunt Prey and then get a bonus in the first round of combat. So, if you do your schtick, you fight better (which is in general one of the major concern of most players).


Kitting consists in using high mobility + ranged attacks to kill a melee enemy without possible retaliation.

Flurry Rangers want to use all their actions attacking while Precision Rangers don't have much incentive in using their -10 attacks. If you just make 2 attacks per round, Flurry is nearly useless.


In my opinion, they should be fine as long as you avoid putting them against AoO enemies too often. A Ranger and a dwarven Alchemist should tank well if needed.

As a side note, your Ranger should go Precision. Flurry Rangers are extremely static, Precision Rangers are extremely mobile. Considering your party, kitting will be an awesome strategy if the Alchemist manages to land some Frost Vials.


Unicore wrote:


For players that are frustrated by the general tone of play, there is a really great fix for this problem that can be implemented on the GM side, without touching how incapacitation works: Stop designing encounters with solo monsters that are much higher level than the party. You can even keep the general difficulty of the game high, by throwing 8 or more on level or level -1 creatures at the party, or having the very occasional level +1 boss creature accompanied by armies of level -2 creatures or having the boss fight in rooms with level +1 hazards that will still keep the challenge up. This not only will make your anti-incapacitation players happy, it will also make the players that feel like they are always failing happier as well, because general levels of success go up, but singular instances of great success are less significant over all. This will fix both issues without having to drastically change base rules of the game and seriously over complicate game balance.

I love accompanying bosses with spellcasters mook. The low level Cleric casting Reach 2-action Heal every turn on the boss and the low level Bard using Inspire Courage + Magic Missile on the fallen PCs are the kind of enemies you want Incapacitation spells for.


Claw + Claw + Horn loses 1.2 points of damage against Jaws + Jaws when facing an AC 25 character (which should be the AC of players by that time). So, yes, it's worse, but not incredibly worse.
On the other hand, it gives you an extra chance to score a nat 20 for your Draconic Momentum.
But I agree with you, it's quite bad for an ability. Especially considering spellcasters dragons get a whole lot of spells to compensate.

About increasing monsters, I'll advise you to check PFS adventures. They deal very well with that, using the concept of Challenge Points. Roughly, every extra character gives a small bonus to challenges. There are tons of examples in PFS adventures to inspire you. Most of the time, it's an extra monster, but sometimes, they replace one monster with a higher level monster of the same type.


There's a typo in the title, certainly the cause of Zapp's misunderstanding.


HumbleGamer wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:


- Finally, outwit and flurry goes with this feat with no issues. Wouldn't be strange that they deliberately decided that precision would have been out of this specific context?
Outwit gets improved but not Flurry.

Why not?

With the once per round ruling, Precision and Flurry behave the same if you have one or multiple targets.

With the once per target ruling, Precision is improved if you have multiple target as you go from 1d8 extra damage per round to 1d8 extra damage per attack as long as you switch target.
I clearly think in that case the conservative ruling seems more fair.

And the main goal of double/triple preys is to improve your action economy.

While it's true that you could achieve 2x +1d8 damage, it's also true that you have to hit.

Imagine something like:

- Double prey
- hunted shot on the first prey ( +2d8 )
- Strike on the second prey ( +2d8 )

You will have 2 extra dices per hit, yeah, but you'll have to hit.
And also you will find yourself splitting damage, instead of bringing down an enemy asap.

However, I am not convinced about the outcome damage ( for both flurry and precision ). some comparison with other fighting classes could be helpful ( maybe a precision ranger would be simply good at spreading damage ).

Ok, the occurence would be low. But is it a reason to improve Precision? Is "it will happen rarely" a good reason to choose a ruling over another?

I find "it doesn't change Precision efficiency" to be a better reason.

Anyway, at the end of the day, it's quite DM-dependent as one could easily read it both ways. I'd clearly choose the conservative reading, but you can choose another one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HumbleGamer wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:


- Finally, outwit and flurry goes with this feat with no issues. Wouldn't be strange that they deliberately decided that precision would have been out of this specific context?
Outwit gets improved but not Flurry.

Why not?

With the once per round ruling, Precision and Flurry behave the same if you have one or multiple targets.

With the once per target ruling, Precision is improved if you have multiple target as you go from 1d8 extra damage per round to 1d8 extra damage per attack as long as you switch target.
I clearly think in that case the conservative ruling seems more fair.

And the main goal of double/triple preys is to improve your action economy.


HumbleGamer wrote:


- Finally, outwit and flurry goes with this feat with no issues. Wouldn't be strange that they deliberately decided that precision would have been out of this specific context?

Outwit gets improved but not Flurry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaterie wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Also, walls don't have to follow the grid directions, so they can go through multiple squares.

I don't think you can, since the rules don't say you can't. It's linguistically the same as saying you can't.

Yeah, but the rules don't say you can follow the grid either, so you can't position them at all!

You're right.

But look around yourself; I guess you're surrounded by 4 walls, and those walls are perpendicular one to another (and are touching themselves). Hence, a wall spell has to be cast adjacent and perpendicular to an existing wall.

Since existing walls usually follow grid directions, the wall you create using the above rule (which is totally the official rule) will usually follows grid directions as well.

I'm currently surrounded by trees and flowers. So walls don't exist?

I should stop taking these pills...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaterie wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Also, walls don't have to follow the grid directions, so they can go through multiple squares.

I don't think you can, since the rules don't say you can't. It's linguistically the same as saying you can't.

Yeah, but the rules don't say you can follow the grid either, so you can't position them at all!


I've played (and DMed) a PFS adventure where you are attacked in the middle of the forest miles away from anything by creatures who happen to have a 300 year-old document from the person you are investigating on.
I changed it as there's no way I'll inflict that to my players. But I know I'm a rarity.

Playing a Ranger in PFS is frustrating if you expect to use Survival a lot as there's extremely few logic and context around encounters. How this creature got there? How does it survive? Why is it not moving from its cave? Where are his friends?
So many questions handwaved. As such, determining what clues you can gather before meeting it can be hard and completely at GMs discretion. And considering that the creature can have a 300 year-old document despite being a random encounter in the middle of the forest, avoiding the encounter like any sane party would do can just be a bad thing...

Very often, encounters are thrown at you without any kind of warning. And, actually, I don't criticize it too much. If you want to keep an adventuring vibe you have to chain combats. If you spend half an hour before each combat in context and preparation, the game becomes way too slow and boring.

It is better for me to consider as a GM that Survival will be sometimes very important, and create a real and proper skill challenge for these moments and mostly ignore it the rest of the time to keep a proper pace (and to balance each player contribution as the Ranger is not the only character in the party).


Deriven Firelion wrote:

Anyone try running a non-cleric healer in a party without weakening the encounters to allow the party to survive? How is it going? What level are you at?

I'm wondering if the cleric has become overly necessary to survival for a party given how hard things hit.

What are some good non-cleric healer options? Angelic sorcerer? How is the druid as a main healer? Any info would be helpful.

First, there are alternate healers. Divine and Primal Sorcerers are very close to Clerics in healing output.

Also, I don't think the best thing is to have one healer in a party. There are lots of classes with access to healing (Cleric, Sorcerer, Bard, Alchemist, Druid, Champion) + Battle Medicine that anyone can take. Having 2 healers (or more) is way better than only one. You have higher healing output in the situations you really need it, your healers can do something else than being healbots (which is quite a boring role) and if the enemies put one healer down, there's another one to raise him back in the fight.


Squiggit wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
So, when you say that someone can be altruistic and evil, I disagree. You may make apparently altruistic actions while being evil. But you don't really make actions out of altruism while evil.

That means the morality system you're proposing has absolutely no room for an "ends justify the means" character. "For the greater good" at all costs is a really common fictional archetype. Clearly willing to commit acts that are objectively evil (because that's something that exists in Golarion), as much as necessary. Horrible atrocities in the name of protecting people or bettering the world is bread and butter for this character, there's no real way to call them Good or Neutral. But they're also clearly altruistic, often characters who fall under this archetype aren't just not selfish, but are outright self sacrificing.

That paints a pretty clear picture of a character who is both very clearly evil and still altruistically minded.

The character you're painting is neutral to me. Evil acts but altruistic goals, both evening out for a neutral character. But he may very well shift one side or the other depending on the balance between his evil acts and his good ones.

But these types of personnality generate lots of discussion. If you build a time machine and kill an awful dictator while he's still a child, is it an evil or a good act?
I don't think you'll find a definite answer.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
That's why animals are all neutral, because they don't have a sense of morality and as such can't commit crimes out of evilness or goodness. The Tarasque destroys worlds and is neutral.
The Tarrasque is the Herald of Rovagug and Chaotic Evil in Golarion, actually. Animals are indeed another matter due to lacking moral agency, but that's a rather different matter than how the morality of those who do have moral agency is determined.

They changed it... Well, it wasn't originally.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
For example, per the Creative Director and other people at Paizo, slave ownership is Evil. For everyone, everywhere.

So, let's take a rich chelaxian who's sensitive to the halfling condition there and buy lots of them, giving them very decent living conditions. Maybe this chelaxian owns a factory, and has his halflings working there. He gives them money, and the maximum freedom he can in this country considering their condition as slaves.

Maybe he can do more, really freeing them. But maybe he can't, I'm not sure Cheliax government would see very positively someone who fights a bit too obviously for the halfling condition.
Is this guy absolutely evil for owning that many slaves? Is he neutral? Is he good?
This is what Schindler did, roughly. And I don't think anyone would consider him evil.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
They should have an end when you're discussing things as written in the rules and setting, as those are objective facts.

Allow me to strongly disagree on that. Writing about morality takes way more pages than Pathfinder books will ever contain. And that's not much of a necessity, people have a sense of morality, I don't think Pathfinder has to explain us what a moral and an immoral actions are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To me it shouldn't.

If you hit your second prey, it's the second time you hit your hunted prey in this round so it should not trigger.


Squiggit wrote:


Quote:
Owning a slave in Cheliax isn't evil

I think this is a really hard argument to make too and not all that in line with the relatively objective standards of morality Pathfinder tends to have.

In a society that's normalized evil behavior, you might see more people willing to tolerate it, but that doesn't make that behavior non-evil.

You're right. What I mean is it's less evil to own a slave in Cheliax than in the River Kingdoms. Many neutral people own slaves in Cheliax. In the River Kingdoms, owning a slave makes you evil in most cases.

Also, selfish profiteer is more neutral than evil for me.
For example, reducing the wages of your employees is not evil. Reducing the wages of your employees because there's abundant manpower is not good, but still not evil. Reducing wages of your employees under minimum wages by abusing the system (and your employees) is evil.
For me, the difference between evil and neutral is that you are ready to make immoral actions out of selfishness.

So, when you say that someone can be altruistic and evil, I disagree. You may make apparently altruistic actions while being evil. But you don't really make actions out of altruism while evil.


siegfriedliner wrote:
Tactical how do most people end up balancing spell-casting and wildshape ?

It's a choice you make at the beginning of each combats. Depending on the encounter, you choose if you go wild or not. Lots of fighter type melee opponent => Wild. Low on spells => Wild. Ranged combat => spells. Boss => spells. For example.

But you should avoid as much as possible to switch between wildshape and not wildshape during the same combat. It may happen, but it must not be common.

In your case, you are your main party combat healer. So you have a strong incentive in not going wild. You may end up using wild shape only in very specific situations where you don't have any spell left, for example.

In my opinion, your party doesn't seem balanced around healing. In a party of 4 there should be 2 healers. Otherwise, the only healer ends up being a healbot against his will (I assume you didn't play a Druid to be a healbot).


Staffan Johansson wrote:


That said, I like the interpretation of alignment that Keith "Eberron" Baker uses (or at least how I understand it). Law vs Chaos is about whether you care about institutions or people, and Good vs Evil is about your methods.

It's not the case in Pathfinder. Good vs Evil is about intent. In the wake of a bunch of paladins there are numerous corpses. The thing is: These deads are evil so the paladins are good.

Killing to protect innocents is good. Killing to protect oneself is neutral. Killing for profit or pleasure is evil.
That's why animals are all neutral, because they don't have a sense of morality and as such can't commit crimes out of evilness or goodness. The Tarasque destroys worlds and is neutral.

And amoral means that you don't have a morality. Animals are amoral. So it means neutral in Pathfinder.

Also, following the law or the local moral tend to make you neutral. 100 years from now, many people were beating their children. They were not evil because of that, it's just that it was not immoral by the time. So you also have to consider, to some extent, the local morality. Owning a slave in Cheliax isn't evil while owning a slave in the River Kingdoms is. Following the law makes you less evil and less good, as your intent is not to cause harm or do good.

Alignment discussions have no end, so I don't expect this one to get anywhere. But I like to chat about it :)


Deadmanwalking wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
Neutral Evil could just represent someone who is selfish, but otherwise wouldn't naturally murder the innocent or do outwardly evil acts for evil's sake. They may just decide that Payday Loans are an OK way to make money.
I tend to disagree. If being selfish makes you evil, there's not much room left for neutral. Someone who has never murdered anyone, who doesn't prey on innocents and who dislikes torture and sexual abuses is not much evil to me. He may be on the nasty side of neutral, but far from evil.

Canonically, selfishness alone can't get you to Evil, but exploiting or hurting innocent people can even if that harm is a lot less than 'murder'. A slumlord or the aforementioned payday loan guy can easily be Evil, as can an amoral bounty hunter, a repo agent, or a host of other perfectly legal professions. And that's just profession, on the personal side a spousal abuser is probably Evil, as is someone who seduces people specifically to fall in love with them then breaks their hearts to see the look on their face, as is someone who sells out their friends for a few bucks.

None of them are murderers or sexual predators (at least in the normal or legal senses), but that doesn't mean they don't hurt people.

I don't know what payday loan is (on these kind of very specific notions being not a native english speaker doesn't help).

But a spousal abuser is not evil for me, nor an amoral bounty hunter. If the amoral bounty hunter is giving a part of his money to the church of Sarenrae who raised him as he was an orphan, he's neutral. Most people have dark and bright sides, judging someone on his worst actions will put nearly everyone in the evil side of morality.
Now, if the amoral bounty hunter is also a spousal abuser and many other evil actions, then he's certainly evil. Has he commited any crime? Maybe not. Will the world be better without him? Sure.

Alignment discussions tend to be endless as everyone has different visions of them. But for me, to be evil (or good) you need to do a lot more bad stuff than a normal person (and normal persons do a lot of bad stuff). This is more an alignment for monsters and antagonist NPCs than for the everyday man. Like good is an alignment for PCs and PCs allies, but not for the average farmer.

As a side note, amoral describes a neutral character. Immoral describes an evil one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As long as the player doesn't get any mechanical benefit out of it, I would certainly not roll anything and consider that as part of his way to fight.
Maybe I would ask him to have Assurance(Acrobatics) to justify not making any single roll for all of that.
Asking for checks, unless they are trivialy easy, will push the player to just forget about his special fighting style, and I think it'll be sad for him.


Nimble Dodge is nice. Not incredible but nice. It's replaced by Opportune Backstab at some point for most Rogues. But for a multiclassed character, it's also very handy. Especially for spellcasters who don't have any built in reaction.


Very interesting subject.
I would just point that triggers are less important than effects as all your reactions compete for your single reaction per turn.

For example, Nimble Dodge has a common trigger but a meh effect. If you just have it, it's nice. But once you start adding Opportune Backstab or impredictable reactions like Attack of Opportunity, you'll stop using it to give you a chance to trigger your other reactions.

Top tier:

Fortutious Shift: Awesome reaction. Both easy to trigger with excellent effects even if random. A must have for any class without a built in reaction.

Drop Dead: Common trigger, strong effect. The only drawback is the resource cost, but at high levels it's awesome.

Good Tier:

Goblin Scuttle: Can be triggered voluntarily by your allies. The effect is nice if you need it, meh otherwise.

Breath of Life: Saving an ally is awesome. But it should happen very rarely and it's a high level spell.

Divine Grace: A staple. Also, it's a circumstance bonus to save which is hyper rare.

Average:

Spontaneous Counterspell: Ruining nearly a whole enemy turn for a reaction and a spell is awesome. But the trigger is still hard to meet, and you need preferably to counter a Signature spell so you can choose the best level to counter. Still, some spells (Heal, Harm, Dispel Magic, Dimension Door) are cast a lot by enemies.

Clever Counterspell: Makes prepared counterspelling usable.

Below Average:

Unexpected Shift: Easy to trigger but the effects are random and you take a penalty for one round. Better to wait for the next one.

Pride in Arms: The effect is too low, even if you can meet the trigger quite often.

Anathematic Reprisal: I love the thematic part, but it's not incredible otherwise as it will rarely be triggered in combat. Free damage still.

Poor Tier:

Prepared Counterspell: It's so hard to get the good spell at the good level that I hardly see how to use it without Clever Counterspell.


Malk_Content wrote:

Anytime you arent surprised by the enemy you should have hunted them, or tried to.

GMsnot giving the relevant information needed to hint might require prompting from a ranger player, but these sorts of environmental descriptions heighten the game regardless.

But the one you hunt is not the one you fight. Hunting in a dungeon means that there's one enemy in the whole dungeon that is marked. If there are 5 combats in the dungeon, you have 20% chance to meet the enemy at the next encounter. And then it must be the enemy you attack, as he could be hidden, dead, or at the other side of the room with his bow.

And it's also considering there are neither civilians, allies or external creatures that went inside the dungeon recently.

Most of the time you hunt air.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Components are no more linked to number of actions since the release. You can have single action spells with multiple components and single component spells with multiple actions (magic missile is a good example). Elemental Wrath is one as it costs 2 actions with one component.
Fiery Body is an example of a spell reducing a cantrip's actions but not its components.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Rasiel wrote:
Goodberry is how is killing me in healing. Starting out with two focus points lets him make two good berries for 1d6+4 healing that he can then refocus and make more of letting the barbarian pop healing from his bandolier on demand during combat. His herbalist background lets him outdo my medicine check because of it's bonus in natural surroundings and we are otherwise tied.

Whaaat??? It's 3 actions to take a Goodberry during combat. And you can't refocus your second focus points before level 12. Also, Goodberry lasts for 10 minutes, so most of the time you can't cast it before combat (unless you always manage to have time to prepare before combat, but I highly doubt it).

Goodberries are only for out of combat healing.


I play an Angelic Sorcerer.
So, my first question is: How come that you don't heal more than a Druid? You have more spell slots, you are a spontaneous caster and you have Angelic Halo (which helps both of you but you are the one using it actively) so you should out heal a Druid easily.
Now, if you speak of out of combat healing, then it's pretty worthless in PF2. Anyone trained in Medicine will put the party to top quite quickly (depending on his feats). You should not consider out of combat healing to be that important.

About buffing/debuffing, the best buffing spell of the Angelic Sorcerer is Circle of Protection cast at 4th level. Maybe you haven't access to it right now, but it should arrive quickly. Unfortunately, it's Uncommon. Speak with your DM to see if you can get it.

When it comes to damage, Divine Sorcerers are quite good once they get to level 7 thanks to Divine Wrath. The strength of this spell is that it deals good damage, and all good and neutral creatures are immune to it. So your party should be completely immune. It's one of the best damage dealing spell in the game at these levels.

Also, at level 8, you can take Crossblooded Evolution. It will allow you to choose a spell from any tradition. If you like debuffing, I encourage you to take, once at level 9, Synesthesia. It's certainly the best single target debuff in the game.
At level 13, you can take Haste. Haste 7 is certainly the best buff spell in the game.


If you are the DM, I encourage you to read your AP and look at what monsters will be immune to your player Incapacitation spells. I'm pretty sure it'll be a very small portion, nearly negligeable. If it's the case, then your players are complaining about nothing.
If you see that most encounters will resist Incapacitation spells, then maybe you could modify them a bit by increasing the number of enemies but applying a difficulty-reducing template (like the weak template) and consider they are one level lower. It should do the trick.


Malk_Content wrote:

You absolutely can use actions outside of encounters. You dont roll initiative when the players attempt a Ling Jump just because the Long jump has action Chevron. Hunt Prey is pretty clear, you can do it off sight or sound. If my player hears the mighty flapping of a rocs wings above the canopy, they can hunt that roc. Or should we roll initiative, have no actions taken for that round outside of the Ranger hunting and the Roc flying away and then drop out?

I mean a target can remain hunted an entire day.

If you hear the roc then you can roll initiative. Other characters will cast buffing spells, Barbarians will rage, it's a classical first round of encounter. But because it's not funny to start an encounter with an enemy that is still not visible, most GMs start the encounter when there is visual contact. I have personally tried both approach, and starting an encounter with clues but not direct contact proved to be clunky. So, even if it's illogical, I try to avoid as much as possible.

The fact that you won't have signs of your enemy before the fight quite often and the fact that even if you have signs the enemy you'll mark is not necessarily the one you'll attack make me consider that having your target marked prior to the fight is an exceptional situation, with 10% occurence at most. I play mostly PFS (it may have an impact).


Deadmanwalking wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
I'm a bit worried that the more classical heritages (Snow Goblin, Cavern Elf) will become dull and weak compared to Dhampir Goblin and Tiefling Elf. Is there anything expected to make them on par with the new ancestries and as cool as them?

The thing about this is that the baseline generic Heritages thus far are, mechanically, basically Cavern Elf inasmuch as they just upgrade vision.

All that makes them 'special' is that they give you access to additional Ancestry Feats, which is only relevant if you prefer those Feats to the ones from your base Ancestry.

So...there's probably a few super powerful mix/match combos, but probably only a few and not everyone will use them.

If they give the same advantage with more feat choice, then they are better. Chances are high that you'll find a cool feat among the Dhampir, Changeling, Tiefling, Aasimar and whatnot feat list. So, it raises the question: Why would anyone play a Cavern Elf if it's a straight up worse choice?

And I don't speak of the increased identity of the new heritages over the old ones.


I'm a bit worried that the more classical heritages (Snow Goblin, Cavern Elf) will become dull and weak compared to Dhampir Goblin and Tiefling Elf. Is there anything expected to make them on par with the new ancestries and as cool as them?


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


So we have 3 different ways this does damage.

-Upon creation. Great if you have multiple waves of enemies approaching, or if you have larger creatures. However, it's horrible in that casting it upon the enemy means they don't have to make a saving through to move through it.

-They attempt to pass through the wall. If they critically fail, then multiple attempts will be required, since a critical failure on the spell does shun them back out and requires another attempt to pass through. But otherwise, this only occurs once on the creature's turn. Forced movement like from shoving or other abilities would not warrant this because it's not an attempt to pass through the wall, though if they are shoved past the wall for some reason and attempt to go through...

Being shoved through the wall is an obvious attempt to go through it, just a forced attempt.

Also, walls don't have to follow the grid directions, so they can go through multiple squares.


mrspaghetti wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
You don't? I do. Like me and my buddies can walk under it fine while that giant has to crawl.
I don't see that as game-changing in the sense that it either OPs or unreasonably nerfs the spell. If you walk under the wall the giant can melee you just as if it came to you. I'm sure it would be situationally great on rare occasions, but that could be said about almost any spell or feat.

I've thought a bit about it and I tend to agree that it won't imbalance the game.

Still, with the proper party a flying Blade Barrier can be a grinding machine. Being able to keep your whole mobility around the enemy and knock it on the wall with feats like Knockdown or some critical specializations (Club, Polearm, Shield) can be quite efficient. Going through a wall does roughly 2/3rd of the average damage of a martial first attack. If you can do it multiple times per turn, you greatly improve your damage output.


I'm with Hammerjack on this one. Battle Cry says you can Demoralize an observed foe. Demoralize is an action, and the action has a range limitation, ans Battle Cry doesn't say anything about removing this limitation. It actually adds a limitation: The foe must be observed, as Demoralize can be done on a Hidden or Unobserved foe.

Ninja'd by Hammerjack!


beowulf99 wrote:
Neutral Evil could just represent someone who is selfish, but otherwise wouldn't naturally murder the innocent or do outwardly evil acts for evil's sake. They may just decide that Payday Loans are an OK way to make money.

I tend to disagree. If being selfish makes you evil, there's not much room left for neutral. Someone who has never murdered anyone, who doesn't prey on innocents and who dislikes torture and sexual abuses is not much evil to me. He may be on the nasty side of neutral, but far from evil.


Same than Zapp and Taja. The only rounds I haven't marked a target with my melee Ranger were rounds where my previous target didn't die. Precombat marking has been rarely possible and never useful as my premarked target has always decided to roll low on initiative or go on the other side of the fight.


KrispyXIV wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:

4 point offensive swing is +2 to hit, -2 ac from frightened from a spell. Critical successes are even crazier, but not worth worrying about. The "defensive" portion of that is that the frightened also is a to hit penalty...

Success rate on Inspire Heroics is pretty good if you're legendary and have a good item - and worth blowing a hero point on. The focus point cost of keeping it going is offset by additional focus point recovery granted by feats.

Frightened 2 is unreliable against some targets (because spells) until you get Scare to Death, which i believe you can run off of your legendary Performance.

Ok, I get it (I thought the last point was just Demoralize or Dirge of Doom). Yes, clearly, it's a lot. But I don't think Bard is overpowered. In my opinion, these bonuses (especially the status bonus) shouldn't be limited to the Bard. I hope they'll add more buff spells to the Divine spell list, which was a great buffing list in PF1 and is nowhere close now.

I mean, I do think bards are off the top of the curve, but no one really hates on overpowered support. Not too much at least...

I'm playing in my first game (mostly GMing) as a Cleric, alongside one of my players who runs a bard in one of my campaign. You should hear the disappointment in his voice every time I cast bless and he asks, "So its just +1 to hit? Not damage? And only so close to you?"

Divine spells aren't actually bad... but Inspire Courage is just that good.

What I don't understand is why Circle of Protection is Uncommon while Divine Aura isn't. Divine Aura is just the higher level version of it. Anyway, a few months to see what the APG will bring for divine casters (my main PFS character is an Angelic Sorcerer).


mrspaghetti wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:

Sesquipedalian statement aside, you haven't refuted my actual argument.

Let me restate the argument, since the fun I had illustrating the argument has clearly distracted you: "It doesn't say I can't" cannot be the reason for allowing a ruling because it supports everything equally - regardless of how absurd it might be.

"Hey GM, can I make my wall of fire green?"

"I'm afraid not, the spell doesn't say you can do that."

There is a GM in this game precisely because not everything can be reasonably specified in the rules. Judgement must be used to determine what makes sense in context, so IMO "it doesn't say I can't" is a perfectly good basis for a ruling sometimes. It's a game and people like to do fun things they think of. As long as those things don't clash with the spirit of the written rules as I see them, or significantly unbalance the game in some way, I'm usually inclined to allow them.

I'll side with the noble drake on your specific argument. The main reason to put the wall above the ground is to affect enemies but not allies. It's not a cosmetic modification of the spell but a functional one. It's closer to removing the spell attack roll than to make the fire green.

@nobledrake: What do you think of Blade Barrier? This one is not even called a wall, and is clearly a bunch of flying object. Would you allow a player to position it above the ground to only affect enemies?


At high level, it's strongly dependent on the DM giving access to Wand of Heal I in big quantity. With proper access, you can heal everyone back in a few rounds.


KrispyXIV wrote:

4 point offensive swing is +2 to hit, -2 ac from frightened from a spell. Critical successes are even crazier, but not worth worrying about. The "defensive" portion of that is that the frightened also is a to hit penalty...

Success rate on Inspire Heroics is pretty good if you're legendary and have a good item - and worth blowing a hero point on. The focus point cost of keeping it going is offset by additional focus point recovery granted by feats.

Frightened 2 is unreliable against some targets (because spells) until you get Scare to Death, which i believe you can run off of your legendary Performance.

Ok, I get it (I thought the last point was just Demoralize or Dirge of Doom). Yes, clearly, it's a lot. But I don't think Bard is overpowered. In my opinion, these bonuses (especially the status bonus) shouldn't be limited to the Bard. I hope they'll add more buff spells to the Divine spell list, which was a great buffing list in PF1 and is nowhere close now.


KrispyXIV wrote:
Not sure what to say here. Bards are pretty much pure awesome, and arguably completely break the game. Inspire courage distorts the math THAT much, especially once you get Inspire Heroism - on top of the fact that they can be one of the best vehicles for putting Frightened on enemies around. A 4 point offensive, 2 point defensive accuracy swing in 3 actions (inspire, fear) can make a tough fight trivial instantly.

Well, for a 4 point offensive and 2 point defensive (which comes from where? It should only be one point defensive), you'll need to be level 10 and critically succeed at a hard Performance check. Also, it's one round only if you don't want to start losing Focus Points (2 at level 12).

So, I won't argue on the fact that a critical success on an Inspire Heroics + Inspire Courage is crazy good, but it's not that common. It's a bit like speaking about how good a Pick build is and only consider critical damage.

Also, as a side note, I think Bard is the worst spellcaster gish. Gishes have a big action economy issue, as they need to attack, move (if they are melee gishes) and cast spells. If you add compositions to the mix, it becomes an unsolvable nightmare as you'll need 4 to 5 actions per round to be fully efficient.


Hello everyone,

I have a question: Is it possible to make a Wall spell in the air?
For some of them, I'd say no because of gravity. But things like Wall of Fire or Blade Barrier are not much affected by gravity. Putting them a few feet above the ground would allow them to not affect your allies while affecting big enemies, so it'd be quite powerful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HammerJack wrote:

Harming hands applies when you cast harm.

Channel smite is not casting harm.

I tend to disagree with you. In my opinion, your reading is too strict. You are supposed to add the spell's damage. When it is cast, obviously, as it's a spell.

Otherwise, you could use this sentence: "Both prepared and spontaneous spellcasters can cast a spell at a higher spell level than that listed for the spell. This is called heightening the spell." to justify not counting the heightened bonus and just add 1d8 to Channel Smite.


siegfriedliner wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Divine Power. For Warpriests to finaly shine in melee.
Heroism pretty much covers that. A +1 to +3 keeps the warpriests attack bonus on par with a non-fighter martial.

Heroism is not a personal spell, so you better cast it on the Fighter. Divine Power was way better than Heroism back in PF1 and that's what I expect for the Warpriest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Divine Power. For Warpriests to finaly shine in melee.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You gain special senses (Low-light Vision and Scent), move speed and new forms of attack.
Not an incredible feat, but can be useful sometimes (mostly to get to 50 feet of speed).


Unicore wrote:
So far, in the game I play and the 2 I have GM'd for, there hasn't been a static answer to that question.

Same for me. I'm playing mostly PFS, so the party composition varies a lot and as such the duration of rests. In my opinion, it has more to do with the party composition than anything else. If I bring my Angelic Sorcerer, I top everyone in a few rounds, so we never stop. If there's a dedicated medic with Continual Recovery or a Plant Druid or Champion, it takes in general a few 10-minute rests. If there is no such character, it may last for hours.

In my opinion, it's not dependent on the DM or the adventure, just on the characters. I don't think there's any baseline but "how much it takes for your players to be confident and continue".

I also don't think you can stress your players by giving them too few time to recover. I've seen in Fall of Plaguestone that if the players are not confident in their ability to continue and the DM push them they just disengage. So, it turns short rests into long rests.


Atalius wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Atalius wrote:
Sorry Captain I meant enemies that have True Seeing as a constant ability.
Just heighten Invisibility to level 6 or 8 and you should go through non heightened True Seeing.
Really? Then what is the point of Nondetection? I thought you needed to just heighten the Nondetection at the start of the day then pop the 4th level heightened Invisibility in combat?

Different spells for different uses.

Another funny thing you can do is casting a 7th level Spell Immunity (True Seeing) on the enemy and then a Dispel Magic to remove his constant True Seeing.
There are lots of nice combinations to remove annoying spells, they take a few casts, still (or Quickened Casting). But sometimes, this is what you really need to do.

1 to 50 of 1,875 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>