Catfolk

Tectorman's page

948 posts. No reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 948 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Two problems with, I think, easy-to-implement solutions.

First, "trinkets while unarmed".

Trinkets are nifty little one-use magic items attached to either your weapons or your armor. You attach them ahead of time, and then use them for whatever effect they grant. They thematically fit for a Monk. Monks usually eschew equipment, preferring to rely on their own talents, but a one-time use item that they have to be patient and judicious to use to its best effect? Right up their alley. Which is not to say that Monks with constant-use magic items aren't thematic, just that trinkets definitely are.

And Monks are even allowed to benefit from armor-trinkets, through the use of Bracers of Armor, which are specifically called out as able to be treated as light armor for the purpose.

So what's the problem?

"So is everyone ready for the upcoming battle?"
"Yes!"
"Ready!"
"Weapons sharpened? Trinkets affixed?"
"Took care of it ahead of time."
"And Mr. Monk, you've got your trinkets on your dagger?"
"Yep."
"The not-magic dagger you haven't used as a weapon in hundreds of battles?"
"Yep."
"The dagger you only carry for the express purpose of being able to use trinkets, while exclusively punching and kicking?"
"You seem to be driving at something..."

Except for weapon-affixed trinkets that specifically operate based on what the weapon they're affixed to does, it technically works, but it's contrived and unthematic as hell.

Solution: Let Handwraps of Mighty Fists be able to be affixed with weapon-affixed trinkets, the same as Bracers of Armor. And if necessary, specify that they can only be affixed with trinkets that work on melee, brawling, light bulk weapons (the same criterion as what determines which property runes the handwraps can have).

"But how do you use a repair kit to affix a trinkets onto a strip of cloth?" I hear some people ask. "The same way you etch a rune onto that same cloth," I'd say.

Second, "armor property runes".

As mentioned above, Handwraps of Mighty Fists can have weapon property runes (as though they're melee, brawling, and light bulk), letting a Monk character enjoy the diversity of weapon enhancements available to other martial combatants even if they decide to operate unarmed.

But unfortunately, Bracers of Armor do not allow armor property runes to be used on them. Those properties, like magic weapon properties, are magic effects both fun and useful to front line martial combatants, which a Monk is, even if he's using otherwise going unarmored.

In particular, I've always been disappointed that Glamored was always something that could only be applied to armor. It provides a certain freedom of aesthetic expression*, letting your character go through a dungeon wearing something besides bog-standard armor.

*

Spoiler:
"But doesn't the Hat of Disguise give you exactly what you want, anyway?"

No, for two reasons. One, there are other armor property runes that a Monk would want (Energy Resistant, Ethereal, Invisibility, Shadow, Slick, even Antimagic if he can get his hands on it). Two, it's not the same freedom of expression, due to Specific Overrides General. Generally, Illusory Disguise (the spell effect provided by the Hat of Disguise) lets you make your clothing and items appear different, and there's no real qualification beyond that. The Hat of Disguise specifically only let's you change the hat itself into another piece of headwear. I.e., you cannot forgo some form of headwear, and since that's a stipulation that Glamored doesn't have, that's why it's preferable.

Solution: Allow Bracers of Armor be able to have armor property runes etched onto them. Specifically, allow one once the potency bonus is +2, two property runes once the potency bonus is +4, and a third at +5 (to match how many regular armors are allowed to have). And if need be, specify that Bracers of Armor only count as light armor for the purposes of property runes, the same way they count as light armor for trinkets.


Dasrak wrote:

If you had an issue with the "Wand of CLW" in PF1, you'll be driven crazy by it in PF2. It's not one wand that you wave at your teammates: you have a bag of holding filled with wands that you pull out and wave one at a time at your teammates. I can seriously see a high-level party with 50 or more wands stowed away for out-of-combat healing.

Also the Spell Duelist's wand is problematic and should go. It's an equipment tax to use certain kinds of spells and powers, and for the most part most characters can't really afford that equipment tax.

I'm not after breaking the magic item use economy of an individual day at all. I don't have a problem with wand use costing Focus and if there's the potential problem of buying a buttload of low-level wands just for a buttload of 1/Day pre-Focus-expenditure castings of whatever spell got put into all of those wands, then I agree that should be looked at.

I'm after a character being able to use the same wand after dozens of individual adventures where the wand got used during each one, even if that means only a few uses per adventure. And that's really my only reason for liking the Spell Duelist's Wand. Were they to tweak the SDW and the math it interacts with to prevent it from being an equipment tax but leave it as an inexhaustible magic item, it would still be a better wand than something that eventually becomes a toothpick.


Another idea I had that might be easier to implement: keep wand use as is, charges and all, but introduce a recharge process. Something simple to accomplish, but only possible during downtime.

For example:
"Wands have a limited number of charges and can be potentially exhausted. However, as long as there's at least one charge remaining, you can regenerate the magic within the wand, eventually up to its full capacity. The process takes ten minutes long and can only be done at the end of a day during which you haven't spent any Focus. Spend (some amount of) Focus, and the wand regains a single charge."

"Useless stick" averted, maybe?


shroud wrote:

But if they are lasting, then they are staffs.

Both will be 1 free spell/day and 1/focus.

Well, there'd still be the difference in options (staves have multiple spells, wands have one (further, one of 4th level or less)). But even discounting that, why would it be an issue that wands are lasting? Why would that make them stepping on staves' conceptual toes?

Coming at this from a different perspective, within the larger universe of the genre, in settings where staves and wands both exist and both are lasting, what is the difference between those staves and wands? Or more to the point, besides D&D-derived fiction, what is a setting where "can be exhausted" is an integral part of the concept of a wand? Where it must eventually become a useless stick, or it isn't a wand?

"The fiction and inspiration of the wand are one thing, 3.5/P1E/(current)P2E present something else and something lesser" is my point.


Lelomenia wrote:
School doesn’t really make much of a difference at this point (in 1e it wasn’t just finding something for your school slot, it was avoiding opposition spells). Second point is truth, but really I wish class specific powers were just listed with the class. Trying to compare school powers is hard enough, trying to compare domains...I gave up.

Speaking from experience here, even only being useful for identifying spells for your specific school still justifies the practice, IMO. The 5E PHB has its own spell lists and they are no more detailed than in the P2E Playtest (neither mentions what school various Wizard spells belong to, and in fact, the P2E list is still more detailed in that it points out what is heightenable and uncommon or rare). Most players I know of wrote the abbreviations for the schools back into the lists, as well as what was a Concentration spell and what was a Ritual. By the advent of Xanathar's Guide to Everything, WotC had picked up on this and was also putting these helpful notes in their lists.


shroudb wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Nettah wrote:
How would a wand differentiate from a staff with those rules?
How does a Spell Duelist's Wand currently differentiate from a staff? And while I'll certainly concede that there should be an obvious difference between wands and staves, why pick "can be exhausted"?

Spell duelist just has a specific spell/day.

Wands have a specific/day and then 1/focus. But are limited.
Staffs have 1/day and then 1/focus. But have the added benefits of adding the spells as Spontaneous and won't burn out.

In all actuality, there's 0 reasons for wands to exist atm:

If you want 1/focus (and 1 free/day) go staff.
If you want consumable, go scroll.
Wand being worse versions of consumable staffs, with only upside of "it's cheap"

Just doesn't add anything in the game imo.

And that right there is my whole point. Wands, however they work in their various fictional sources, are iconic and integral parts of whatever character is using them. As such, they deserve a better* representation in the game.

*And yes, I'm defining "better" as, no matter what else, "lasting and not to be thrown away".


Nettah wrote:
How would a wand differentiate from a staff with those rules?

How does a Spell Duelist's Wand currently differentiate from a staff? And while I'll certainly concede that there should be an obvious difference between wands and staves, why pick "can be exhausted"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. This isn't particularly necessary for any spell list besides the Arcane spell list (and even then, only for the Wizard rather than the Sorcerer), but for the Wizard's sake, could we have the Arcane spell list tell which school each spell belongs to? It would be as helpful here as divvying the spells by school was on the Sorc/Wiz spell list in P1E. And it wouldn't even need to be that delineated; just put an ABJ or a DIV or an ENC in superscript next to each spell name, the same as the H for Heightenable or the U or R for uncommon or rare spells.

2. There are a significant number of spell powers and a significant number of classes they could come from, and it isn't particularly obvious where one should look. For example, the Agile Feet spell power boosts your mobility. But where does it come from? Is it a Monk or a Ranger spell power? Sorcerer or Barbarian? Is it a spell power granted by a magic item? Turns out it's a Cleric Domain power, and that never would have been my first guess. So can we put additional powers lists for the classes after the spell lists, so that players can see a power and not have to tear the book apart trying to figure out where it comes from?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Back in 3.5, staves and wands were those odd magic items that you couldn't really have as an integral part of your image for your character because they would eventually and permanently run out of charges. And sure, you can just buy another just like it, but that was never the point. If I'm going to have a magic staff or a magic wand, I believe I have a decent expectation based on the genre that THAT specific staff or wand should last the same as a martial's magic weapon or armor.

3.5 did fix half the issue with the introduction of the Eternal Wand in Eberron. Only two uses per day, but useful for as many days as you like. Much more fitting to the concept.

Then P1E comes out and, while wands are still those things that eventually become useless sticks, staves finally get to match the concept. Once you have a magic staff, it's for keeps. You may exhaust it in a day, but it won't have to stay exhausted.

And in P2E, staves still get to last you your adventuring career. You get to have your magic staff be an integral part of your character's identity.

But not wands. Do you imagine your character having a signature wand just like her buddy and his signature staff? Too bad. You get ten charges and then a big toothpick.

And even the latest update still insists that wands must be those things that eventually become useless sticks.

Why? Why must they? And yes, I'm aware of the Spell Duelist's Wand. In truth, it quite fits the concept, in a similar fashion as the Eternal Wands from 3.5 Eberron. The issue is, you can make a wand for any spell, but there isn't really a template for making a Spell Duelist's Wand for anything besides Acid Arrow, Enervation, Disintegrate, or Polar Ray.

So this is that request: can we have, in addition to exhaustible wands, sustainable wands (well, more than just the four existing Spell Duelist's Wands) that can finally last as long as our characters and better fit the likely inspirations that go into having a wand in the first place?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
I'm sorry I'm just not a fan of PF2 Alchemist having everything tied to a pool. But that's for another topic.
Well, the PF1 alchemist also had their stuff tied to pools it's just that one of them was spell slots, and it never made sense for the alchemist to be a spellcaster. Besides, tracking "bombs left" as separate from "extracts" separate from "do I have a mutagen handy" was more things to track anyway.

I always thought of the Alchemist as the one instance of Vancian casting (that is, not just preparing your spells for the day ahead of time, but also preparing how many of each individual spell) where it made sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:
-Wands will become cheaper than having multiple scrolls, but is limited to 1/day. Spending Focus on the wand overclocks it to free usage for the day (up to its regular maximum charges).

My impression reading this is that it means that wands can now be used indefinitely over the course of a character's career. Only 1 time per individual day (unless you spend Focus), but theoretically 100 times over 100 days.

As in, no more "use a wand until it becomes a useless stick". Now, if you consider a magic wand to be an integral part of your image for your character, you can find one at low levels and still be using that same wand a dozen levels later.

Is that a correct understanding or not?


shroudb wrote:

ah, i see.

you don't see a problem, but you fear that because a few weapon specific feats exist, there might be such a problem in the future.

right?

well... i personally like that direction:

i.e. a rogue is effective with all weapons, but he also has some specific "weapon styles" that he has extra things for.

i think that's healthy.

i mean, ranger has clear weapon styles, barbarian has 2 clear weapon styles depending on totem focus for him, paladin has weapon styles, so why not the rogue having some for his own?

Because the game covers multiple modes: downtime, exploration, and combat. While the class facet of character creation is a player's primary source of how their character interacts with those modes. Which means that picking the Rogue class isn't necessarily going to be influenced just by "what weapons do I want to use?".

For example, the 4E Rogue had a whole lot of Utility powers based on being sneaky, mobile, clever, etc. Picking the Rogue class for those Rogue Utility powers was a valid method of expressing your character. Right up until, clear out of the blue, the class's attack powers all say "You may only use this power with a light blade, sling, or crossbow".

It's essentially the same thing as saying:

"So you're playing a Fighter?"
"Yep."
"So your character's name is Mark?"
"... I ... You ... What?"
"If you're playing a Fighter, then it's a valid assumption that you want your character to be named Mark and we're going to go ahead and codify it into the rules that you may not pick a different name. You don't mind, right?"
"Yes, I mind. I didn't sign onto that at all. The two have nothing to do with each other."

And while yes, I'm leary of those other classes having specific combat styles, that's still an improvement over not even being able to pick which weapon you can use.


shroudb wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Nettah wrote:
You can be a brute rogue if you want access to sneak attack with other weapons. I still think brute rogue need some buffs if you want to compete with the standard finesse rogue and the ability to have str as your key ability instead of dex, but the option is there.

I don't think you quite get my concern. I don't want to have chosen Rogue as my class for non-weapon-related reasons, decide that I want this particular character to use a trident above any other weapon choice because "Why not?", and then find that the game decided to curtail my imagination for me.

To put it another way, I don't want the list of weapons Rogues are supposed to use to go up. I want the list of weapons Rogues aren't supposed to use to be zero, if not less.

Let's put sneak attack behind.

You obviously shouldn't be able to sneak attack with a greatsword.

So, we're looking at an option that allows a rogue to effectively use other weapons effectively even without sneak attacking.

A more martial focused rogue if you will. Someone that trained more with weapons.

Isn't that a rogue with the 1st fighter dedication already?

I already did put sneak attack behind. Looking at the numbers, at first level, the Rogue is putting out, at most, 1d8 + 1d6 before stat mods (avg 8), whereas a d12 weapon without sneak attack, before stat mods, is avg 6.5. Fast forward to level 20, and that d12 weapon is now 6d12 (avg 39). The Rogue, on the other hand, is putting out 6d8 + 4d6 (avg 41). Pretty darned close; close enough for me to call P2E sneak attack JUST a math corrector.

I seem not to be phrasing my concern well. Let's try this:

"Except for sneak attack, dismissible due to how it seems to only exist to make the math work right, and a few feats like Footpad's Focus (less dismissible), the P2E Rogue seems to have successfully avoided 4E's, 5E's, and Starfinder's pitfalls regarding a hyper-specific vision of what a Rogue/Operative gets to use. This is good. If I take Weapon Proficiency and start using a greatsword or a battle axe or a halberd or a pick or a scythe or loterally whatever happens to strike my fancy, I can still use almost all of what the Rogue class grants.

"I can still Surprise Attack, Deny Advantage, Debilitate on a Strike, Double Debilitate on a Strike, and Master Strike. None of the Rogue's 1st level feats, all but one of his 2nd level feats (Footpad's Focus), none of his 4th level feats, all but one of his 6th level feats (Twist the Knife, since it's gated behind Sneak Attack), all but one of his 8th level feats (Sly Striker, similarly because its benefit is Sneak Attack contingent), none from 10th, none from 12th, none from 14th, all but one of his 16th level feats (Dispelling Slice, again because it's gated behind Sneak Attack), and none of the rest of his feats herd him into only using 'proper Rogue weaponry'.

"This is good. It could be better, and the fact that those exceptions still exist is worrisome because they're indicative of the potential for back-sliding, for the mindset that 'Rogues are only using daggers, shortswords, and rapiers for these class features, so let's go ahead and curtail using anything but those weapons for everything else' to take root. But as long as said back-sliding is avoided, it's not a problem."

Better? I don't think the Rogue has the problem I'm hoping to avoid. I think it has the potential for said problem, I want to avoid that outcome, and I think that goal is better served by stating it outright rather than just hoping the developers can read my mind.

And yes, I think a few of these feats could be modified to not be Sneak-Attack-dependent. Maybe not Twist the Knife or Sly Striker (since they're just damage), but Dispelling Slice could be modified to "If your Strike deals sneak attack damage (or otherwise would if not for your choice of weapon), you can apply the following enhancement:". Same effect, no additional damage, still the requirement for flat-footed, but now usable for greatsword Rogues.

But this thread is less me saying "Here's the problem, please fix it" and more "You've mostly avoided this problem, but since said avoiding might be accidental, let me tell you specifically what you're avoiding so you can consciously continue to avoid it".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nettah wrote:
You can be a brute rogue if you want access to sneak attack with other weapons. I still think brute rogue need some buffs if you want to compete with the standard finesse rogue and the ability to have str as your key ability instead of dex, but the option is there.

I don't think you quite get my concern. I don't want to have chosen Rogue as my class for non-weapon-related reasons, decide that I want this particular character to use a trident above any other weapon choice because "Why not?", and then find that the game decided to curtail my imagination for me.

To put it another way, I don't want the list of weapons Rogues are supposed to use to go up. I want the list of weapons Rogues aren't supposed to use to be zero, if not less.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There were two major parts of the rules that didn't, by themselves, explain themselves well to me. The first was the section on using Craft or Lore or Perform to make a living during downtime. This was mitigated by the helpful examples, explaining what I'm rolling, what numbers I'm using, what I'm rolling against, how much time is represented, etc.

The other was Counteracting Conditions. Which had no helpful examples.

So is there any way we can put in an example or two for what this all means? What am I adding to my roll, and what am I rolling against? I mean, I'm sure that I could suss it out eventually, just like I probably could have eventually (maybe) figured out the downtime earnings for skills. And maybe this is already on the list of rules where the language needs to be cleared up, anyway. But if it isn't yet, then this is me asking for an example or two in the final product.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Reading the book front to back, naturally, I found the skills chapter that outlines how various skills (mostly Athletics, some Acrobatics and Deception) cover what P1E handled as combat manuevers. By the time I had gotten to the Basic Actions part of the Playing the Game chapter, I knew it was possible to Shove creatures in this game, but I must have tore through that chapter several times before I'd remembered that those actions had already been covered almost half a book ago.

The Basic Actions details things every character can try to do and how those actions translate on a mechanical level. I don't think the rules for things like shoving, disarming, and feinting need to be rewritten here, but this is still an intuitively logical place for players to go to learn how those sorts of actions work in this game.

Maybe this has come up before or been asked before, but can we have some kind of a redirect in this chapter so players can more easily find/remember where those combat-manuever-sort of actions are? Page 307 doesn't re-detail how casting a spell or using magic items works, but it does at least recognize that players may look for that sort of information here, and tells them to go elsewhere instead (pages 195-196 and 376, respectively). Adding in a blurb for skills in combat such as shoving and feinting wouldn't go amiss.


As per the rules for rituals, your secondary casters make their secondary skill checks before the primary skill check. Failure penalizes the primary skill check.

Are these secondary skill checks supposed to be Secret, so the players don't know something went wrong until they're making the final primary skill check? Otherwise, why go through with a ritual with a penalty when you can restart and avoid the penalty (as many times as is necessary)? Are these skill checks (both the secondary checks and the primary check) not supposed to be done until after the full investment of casting time, such that that serves as the potential limiting factor against "try until guaranteed success on secondary checks"?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

When I'm picking Rogue as a class for one of my characters, the goal is never because the concept requires my choice of weapons to be limited; if anything, it's the opposite. I'm after being the skills guy or especially sneaky, or acrobatic and nimble, or because the character, regardless of what weapon they're using, fights in an ill-defined though still recognizably Rogue-y sort of way. Whether they're using a dagger or rapier or whip or greatsword or glaive or warhammer.

So when Starfinder and D&D 4E and 5E made the Operative and Rogue classes stuck with a hyper-specific list of weapons from which you MAY NOT DEVIATE, I wasn't happy. My first ever Rogue was in 3.5, where she started with a shortsword, learned she was going into a skeleton-heavy area, bought a light mace instead, and continued without the slightest functional hiccup (nor any expectation of such a hiccup had I picked any other weapon). I couldn't reproduce that when I remade her for 5E; the closest I could get was using a sling and hoping to be at range.

So the P2E Rogue being artificially herded into using agile, finesse, or ranged weapons is worrisome to me. That said, I get that Sneak Attack is pretty much exclusively a damage fix, a means to let a Rogue using a finesse or agile weapon match another character using a weapon with a larger damage die. None of the other Rogue feats or features seem to require Sneak Attack to work, Debilitating Strikes are independent, etc. This is somewhat relieving.

On the other hand, Footpad's Focus calls out a specific list of weapons you can get this feat's benefit on. And while I get that that might be a form of niche protection for the Fighter, it still represents a trend I'm uncomfortable with. Picking the Rogue class is not giving up hammers, polearms, flails, or anything not agile or finesse, and I'm really hoping that what I'm currently seeing in the playtest for the Rogue represents the furthest that mindset goes, for the entire edition.

...

Also, Footpad's Focus uses the term "light" and I'm thinking it should be "finesse" (because otherwise, it would be talking about bulk, and I don't think that's meant to be the criterion).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LordVanya wrote:

I still think this is the best solution:

Knight Class: Has an Allegiance feature.

Order Allegiance: any alignment, no deity requirement, no alignment powers, defender/armor specialists.

Paladin Allegiance: change class name to Paladin, LG only, holy powers focused on smiting evil.

Crusader Allegiance: change class name to Crusader, CG only, holy powers focused on fighting heretics and protecting pilgrims.

Dark Knight Allegiance: change class name to Dark Knight, LE only, unholy powers focused on draconian application of laws.

Ravager Allegiance: change class name to Ravager, CE only, unholy powers focused on smiting good.

As long as the Order Allegiance's "no alignment powers" isn't "no auras or anything supernatural of any kind", that could work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
This would easily be addressed by adding a rule saying that the counteract level of a cantrip is reduced by 2 from its actual spell level. This way, if you're a 9th level caster with 5th tier spells, you can use light to overwhelm Darkness (which says it defeats light of equal or lower level, so would require a 3rd tier light spell to dismiss). This seems fair to me, eventually the caster is so puissant that even their at will tricks beat the resource investment of a lesser caster, but it doesn't happen on-level.

That seems fair to me.


Mats Öhrman wrote:
DerNils wrote:

But they are still limitless in their use. That should be a factor in their power level. If my damage Cantrip became better than my Level 2 Damage Spell, why would I ever use the slot?

That is the argument here - if you have to expect that a large number of casters of your powerlevel will have the unlimited ability to cancel your Darkness, why would you ever learn it?

A bow is limited by the number of arrows in the quiver, while a Claymore sword can be used indefinitely. That does not mean that the arrow necessarily does more damage than the sword.

The arrow makes up for that by being useful against foes further away than adjacent, while the best you could do with the greatsword is throw it (once).


DungeonmasterCal wrote:

I didn't want to watch Discovery. The cosmetic changes didn't set well with me. But after some research about why they did them I settled down a bit. Once the assurance that the series will follow established canon finally piqued my curiosity enough to check it out. I'm absolutely in love with it. I have not finished the first season just yet but am close to doing so. I really look forward to Season Two now.

I have seen all of the first season and I found the bolded to be a hollow promise. I just watched the trailer for season two, and that, a whole season later, was the first time I saw anything that actually met the goal of the bolded: I saw a hologram of a Klingon battlecruiser that obviously looked like a Klingon battlecruiser.

I'm still looking forward to the new Picard series, but right now, I feel like the Orville (which comes out Dec 30, woot!) fits in with established Trek canon better than Discovery.


And now, the ruthless pragmatic question: now that the Dark One has ascended, does he stay ascended? Do the other three quiddities have an infinite amount of time to make nice with him? I mean, yeah, letting this incarnation of reality go the way of the sapient movie snacks would suck for all of its current denizens, but do the pantheons have that option from a long-game standpoint? Or is the fact that the Dark One would have to similarly "cash out" his followers a point Durkon can use to make the bargain?


The Dream Council spell states that all targets of the spell either immediately fall asleep or don't participate in the Dream Council. How long is that grace period supposed to be? I agree that a participant who got caught in the middle of a battle should forgo sleeping and have to pass on that particular Dream Council, but what if they're traveling on horseback? Do they have enough time to call for a stop and dismount? Is their participation supposed to be dependent on an admittedly hilarious sudden fall off of their horse?

The casting time for the spell is 10 minutes. Does anyone else think that that 10 minute period should be the time in between a participant finding out they've been Sleep-Skyped and arranging to be able to actually participate?


Draco18s wrote:

Its a domain power, not a spell.

That said, its spell entry says its a spell (but it's granted by the Nightmare domain as the "basic power").

Ah, that makes slightly more sense (though I will eventually get around to a thread asking that the Spells chapter include a "powers list" for all the classes that have spell powers; this just gives me another reason). Thanks!


Angelic and Demonic Sorcerers can cast Spiritual Weapon without having a deity. What does their Spiritual Weapon look like?

Edit: For that matter, what would such a Sorcerer's Spiritual Guardians be holding?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zwordsman wrote:

I personally think that it might not be a horrible idea to close pre 1.4 (when that comes ot) threads. or otherwise mass mark them "pree 1.4" somehow like reddit has those meta tags?

because once 1.4 comes out... soo much previous discussion will not be valid now.
but also will confuse folks and annoy search functions.

What about pre-1.4 threads that haven't been addressed yet, either because they're topics that have been around a while that the design team just hasn't gotten around to yet, or because they're threads that were made after 1.4 was made but before it was posted?


The Detect Alignment spell text tells us that "only divine spellcasters, undead, and beings from the Outer Sphere have an alignment aura if they are 6th level or higher". Therefore, divine spellcasters, undead, and Outer Plane creatures of 5th level or lower don't have an alignment aura. The table for Detect Alignment on the same page, however, tells us that "clerics and other divine spellcasters with a patron deity are treated as 5 levels higher, as are undead and creatures from the Outrr Planes". With the exception of 0-level undead such as skeletons and zombies, every single such creature's minimum level is 1, therefore they are treated as a minimum of 6.

So, I can only see two things to conclude from this. Either, the text and the table do not contradict each other and they are written the way they are to account for the corner cases of skeletons, zombies, and divine spellcasters that DON'T have a patron deity (Monks that use divine spell powers and demonic or angelic Sorcerers). Which seems like an odd distinction to make in such an obscure manner. Or, the text and table are telling us different things.

Which is it?


Shapechange lets you turn into anything you could turn into using a different polymorph spell you know. It's on the Primal spell list, so this is something Druids can use.

But how? They don't know spells. They prepare spells. Is the cutoff line, then, supposed to be "a different polymorph spell you prepared" (meaning a Druid that has prepared Shapechange but has neither prepared any other polymorph spells nor taken Wild Shape or other Wild-Shape-derived class feats can't actually use Shapechange)? Is it just "every common polymorph on the Primal list"?


As the title. It's a 1st-level spell, but which spell list? Probably Arcane or Occult, but it should say.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The Ring of Wizardry allows you to prepare or cast three arcane spells. It also has the addendum that only two can be the same level. The lesser variety has a maximum spell limit of 1st level. You can't deviate up, and since there are no 0-level spells (cantrips count as the highest spell level you can cast), you can't deviate down, either.

So is the lesser Ring of Wizardry supposed to effectively only allow you two additional prepared or cast spells, or is this an oversight?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:
I don't think it's unreasonable for a Light cantrip to beat the Darkness spell. If it's a 2nd level darkness, then it's just second level. Period. If you are so mighty and powerful that you can can cast a third level Light cantrip, then you ARE manipulating the magic of the universe at a greater efficacy than that lowly 2nd level Darkness. You SHOULD blow it away with a twitch of your highly magical pinky, regardless of whether you use a "spell" or a "cantrip".

I disagree on the basis that one is costing a resource while the other isn't. One caster made a certain amount of commitment learning/preparing that cantrip but isn't sacrificing any supernatural oomph to use it. The other made the greater sacrifice and that should count for more.

I generally agree with cantrips auto-heightening, but this seems like an outlier. And requiring casters to use the equivalent power of a Wish spell just to match a cantrip (even if that cantrip is also 10th-level) strikes me as an artifact of the system (like P1E's mobile monks doing best ehen they stand still), rather than intended. It makes me wish Daylight were still a spell, so its light could be distinguished as magical light (and therefore interacting with/defeating Darkness while still costing a resource on its own) and have the Light cantrip's light (even at 10th level) be considered nonmagical light.


shaventalz wrote:
So you're telling me that an axiomatic one of these would technically be a "monitor monitor lizard"?

More importantly, if such a creature and I are watching each other through desktop cameras at our home PCs, does that make it a "monitored monitoring monitor monitor lizard on a monitor"?


Lady Melo wrote:

you have misread staves, investing in a new one requires you to EXPEND as in lose a number of charges equal to your highest level. If your highest spell slot is 5, and you have a staff attuned at 3 charges and a new staff with 5 charges, you can pay the cost to transfer your attunement 3 form the old one and 2 from the new one.

If the new staff only had 1 charge in it, you can not drain 5 charges from either to pay the re-attunement cost and therefor simply cannot attune to a new staff this day.

This is an exact counter weight to the 5 charges you gained by attuning to the first one, as a reduction in capability. It's a tax for swapping a powerful item to a new one. Staves are very powerful and basically balanced around only having 1 at a time.

I... think? ... I get what you mean by this, but it seems unnecessarily punitive. So is it actually the intention that a Wizard with multiple staves invest in them all one per day duribg downtime, just so that if he faces a scenario during the middle of an adventuring day where he needs to switch to a different staff, he can take the hit to his total charges distributed throughout his staves and still use the alternative staff?


Lady Melo wrote:
Tectorman wrote:


Another example: "the first staff you invest in a day neither gains nor loses charges". So if I only have one staff, that staff will only ever be the first staff I invest in on any given day (until such time as I buy or loot another one). How, then, do I ever gain any use out of the thing beyond the minor benefit (like a Staff of Fire setting things aflame)? My staves can't gain charges until after I've invested one already.

You also missed a part here, literally the sentence right before you started quoting, "If you didn't invest in a staff during daily preparations, you can still invest in one later"

staves only recharge when invested in during daily prep as to prevent prepared casters from owning multiple staves and charging up which one they need when they need it (making them more spontaneous).

So "investing in a staff during daily prep" is exempt from the "the first staff neither gains nor loses charges". The implication then, if I understand correctly, is that a Wizard who doesn't yet have a staff (and therefore couldn't have invested in one during daily prep) and who finds a staff later in the day, can't actually do anything with that staff for the rest of the day? He can invest during daily prep tomorrow, but it's just a fancy stick today?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Did anyone else find the description of how investing staves works to be unintuitive?

For example, what is the line "If the two staves don't have that many charges between them, you fail to invest the new staff" supposed to accomplish? The previous line tells us we can divvy up the charges however we want. Presumably, that would include "take all of one staff's charges and put them in another". Or "only move one charge". Or any gradation between the two. Is the line just a convoluted way of saying "you don't get to manufacture charges out of thin air", that if you start with five charges you should end with five charges? It seems like this is trying to proof against some potential misinterpretation, but for me, it only seems to be adding its own.

Actually, I'm not even sure the bolded is how it's supposed to work. The language for expending charges to transfer spell energy almost seems like you're supposed to lose charges (due to the taxing nature of the process, which sounds like it's supposed to be inefficient) just to gain the ability to transfer your remaining other charges between the staves.

I.e., if my highest spell slot is 5th level, and I spent several individual days investing three staves one per day (so that they have charges even after I'm no longer invested in them, since they stay in the staff indefinitely until used), then I have a total of fifteen charges floating around. Let's say I use all five charges from one staff but I anticipate I still need that staff rather than the others. Am I losing another five charges just to gain the ability to put my last five charges in the first staff?

It doesn't seem like that's supposed to be the way it works, but I only suspect that. I don't feel I can really point to anything in the rules for staves to say "No, that's definitely not how staves work". I think this section could stand an example the same way using Lore, Crafting, or Performance to earn a living got examples to illustrate how they worked in practice.

Another example: "the first staff you invest in a day neither gains nor loses charges". So if I only have one staff, that staff will only ever be the first staff I invest in on any given day (until such time as I buy or loot another one). How, then, do I ever gain any use out of the thing beyond the minor benefit (like a Staff of Fire setting things aflame)? My staves can't gain charges until after I've invested one already.


The Bullheaded Mutagen has amongst its drawbacks a loss of RP. What exactly does "lose" mean in this scenario?

Are those RP "tapped out" and unavailable while the drawback is in effect, only to return once the mutagen wears off? I.e., using a Lesser Bullheaded Mutagen temporarily drops my RP by 1, but if I use 3 LBMs over the course of a day, I didn't lose 3 RP.

Are they lost and never to come back that day, just as surely as if you had spent them for anything else? I.e., does using three Lesser Bullheaded Mutagens lose me 3 RP?

The Drained condition's use of the word "lose" suggests the latter, in that recovering from drained raises your maximum hp total back towards normal, but your hp have to be recovered independently. However, that seems so excessively punitive and out of proportion with how the drawbacks of other mutagens work (to a one, every other mutagen's drawbacks take place then and don't affect the rest of your day) that the former seems like it's supposed to be the correct conclusion.


According to page 194, there are some types of magic, mostly associated with magic items, that don't belong to one of the four main traditions of magic. Arcana is tied to Arcane spells, Nature for Primal, Occultism for Occult, and Religion for Divine, but what skill corresponds to "none of the above"?


The text for the Alarm spell says that creatures aware of the spell can avoid triggering the spell with a successful Stealth check. But are creatures supposed to generally be able to be aware that there is an Alarm spell? Obviously, if they witness the spell being cast, they're aware of it. And after the spell has been cast but while it's still in effect, a creature using Detect Magic can become aware of it that way. And granted, using Detect Magic is considered such a common exploratory tactic that it has its own entry.

But are those two circumstances (saw the spell being cast or Detect Magicked it after) the only two circumstances where a creature can be aware of an Alarm spell or is it supposed to have some perceivable element beyond those two circumstances?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Again, if we're not fixing this here and now, before the final product comes out, when does it get fixed?
Isn't broke, doesn't need fixing.

Isn't clear enough, could be clearer.

thenobledrake wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Having them all have that same name creates the dxpectation that they are all interchangeable from a power level perspective...
That's silly. Especially because they don't all have the same name (the names have 2 words, not 1).

Irrelevant. The expectation is still there; Jason remarked about seeing it multiple times before the Halfway to Doomsday thread. More to the point, it's a discussion the developers had had before releasing the Playtest. And of note is how the discussion wasn't "we considered one way to name all these different character elements (everything ending in the word 'feat'), and we purposefully didn't consider another viewpoint because it was silly and don't anyone in this thread dare discuss it further". No thought-policing.

Rather, "we had one valid way to name these things (everything ending in the word 'feat'), we had another also valid way to name these things (differentiate it with 'trait' or 'training' or 'talent' or something else), we chose at the time to go with the former".

Last I had checked, that little sub-thread of discussion was still going and still welcomed.

Edit: Just checked and it was invited to a thread dedicated to the subject rather than remaining a sub-thread within the Blog thread.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folks.. this thread is really not for arguing about the use of the word feat, but it has been made clear that some feel that the adjective delineation is not sufficient.

If folks want to continue the discussion, please start another thread (and try not to use big text to make your point, it not necessary).

Which is still a far cry from "I disagree that this is even a worthy discussion to have, so stop having it!" Heck, it isn't even an accusation of being silly.

See the difference?

thenobledrake wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
That's not really your decision to make. It's Paizo's.

That's a nonsense argument, as it applies equally to you declaring this element a thing that "needs fixed"

Tectorman wrote:

Skill feats are also General feats.

Oops, I ruined your argument.

No you didn't. At best, you failed to understand my argument.

Who are you quoting?

thenobledrake wrote:

I think it's a little bit funny that me having my opinion, and sharing it, is "brow beating" but nobody else doing the same thing gets accused of that.

Or is it just because I happen to disagree with the premise of the thread that I'm being painted as if I were overstepping my place on this, a public forum?

Draco18s wrote:
"Paizo, you should look at this, its possible to misinterpret this."

It's possible to misinterpret every sentence ever written, so that's not a great benchmark for suggesting Paizo spend time looking at whether an adjustment needs to be made.

And, again, if it's not my decision that this isn't worth their time, how is it not also not your decision that it is?

We're not asking them to adjust every sentence ever written. We're asking them to look at either the description of Encumbered or the Armor table or both.

It isn't your decision that it isn't worth their time. It isn't our decision that it is worth their time. It is their decision (not yours or ours) whether it is or isn't worth their time. It is our decision to raise what we find to be an issue in what we consider to be the most appropriate time and place. And you do get to disagree with that. After I acknowledged that and asked you if you had anything else to add, though, you went right back to the brow-beating and attempting to pre-emptively make Paizo's decision for them, rather than letting them be adults and decide for themselves. Ad nauseum.

See the difference?


Ediwir wrote:

Wands and Scrolls are a world apart, because they are consumables that allow you to conserve class resources - you get the choice of using your own class resources instead of relying on them.

Snares are all the snares you have.

Sure, definitely, they only take a minute to set up, which means that while your cleric patches up everyone's wounds you can set 10 of the little nasties around the place and then... leave, because baiting foes into them is a tactic that works only against the dumbest of creatures (even Goblins call reinforcements if possible).

But they're still consumables that either retain their usefulness from level 1 to level 20 due to being a spell that has neither a save DC nor a spell roll, or they're only useful for so long until the artifacts of the game's math say they aren't, when, if you cast those same spells off of your spell slots, the spells aren't artificially hampered.


thenobledrake wrote:

I genuinely can't believe you just equated an actual error and a thing which has to be deliberately misunderstood in order to not be clear.

And no, this being a play-test does not mean there is no such thing as an issue so unimportant it shouldn't even be raised. There are all kinds of things which someone might view as an issue that a) aren't actually important at all, and/or b) are outside the scope of what a play-test is and does.

But I wasn't going out of my way to deliberately misunderstand it the first time I read it; it not being as clear as it could be was there on its own. Yeah, believe it or not, this wasn't me going of my way to waste my, yours, or the developers' time. I genuinely had no idea this would garner THIS much of a negative reaction; it's astounding. And while I'll cop to some responsibility for this, if a developer takes any amount of time that could be called "inordinate" reading this thread, it's because of all of this back-and-forth. My goal was and is to get all of this working, the big and the small.

Again, if we're not fixing this here and now, before the final product comes out, when does it get fixed? After the final print? Isn't that, by definition, too late to do anything about it? And while this isn't an issue with the game itself but rather how the game is presented and understood, it's still an issue with the game. If I'm not bringing it to someone's attention here, where else do you suggest (besides the open-question survey, of course)? Is there a Pathfinder Playtest Presentation forum somewhere I didn't know about?

Edit: Another example: over in the Paizo Blog: Halfway to Doomsday thread, an issue was raised regarding the naming of feats; namely, that they're all named feats. Class feats, ancestry feats, skill feats, general feats. Having them all have that same name creates the dxpectation that they are all interchangeable from a power level perspective when, according to Jason Bulmahn, they were never meant to be. It also means new players can get confused and accidentally pick one in place of another. The flipside is that changing the names increases the terms players have to be familiar with.

Again, not an issue with the game so much as how the game is presented. An issue that 99% of all gaming groups can resolve themselves, but it still merits discussion here and now before the final product is released. A valid topic of discussion that the developers had amongst themselves before the playtest was released and that is still ongoing now amongst forumgoers, including Jason (hmm, I guess the developers aren't quite so pressed for time or to pay attention only to the critical issues as you seem to think).


Ediwir wrote:
LordVanya wrote:

You also forgot that they have a stupid name.

A snare is a specific kind of trap.
Naming all traps as snares when they functionally and descriptively aren't looks dumb.

Snares in 2e are a specific kind of trap.

Other kinds of traps are described in the Bestiary, under "Hazard". All traps have the "Trap" trait, and snares have the "snare" trait to indicate that they follow some specific rules dedicated to their subtype.

We are trying to whine constructively here.

Tectorman wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:

That's all correct, and there's one more problem too: like the alchemist, a snare user suffers from the save DCs not scaling to their level.

My group and I actually love snares conceptually but are put off by how bad they are in practice. We want them to stay, but to become a GOOD option. Our vision of the ideal is a Ranger being able to focus on snares instead of or in addition to animals or etc, tossing down snares as casually as a barbarian swings an axe, acting as a martial controller.

Isn't there a high level Ranger feat that lets a snare user's snares scale to their level (which, granted, suffers the problems of not being available until high level)?

Level 16. And it only does that. Also, no benefit if the original DC is equal or higher than yours (which applies to nothing, as nothing gets close to the ~DC31 you'd get with it, or the higher ones you'd have at the later levels). Until then, you're stuck with DC22 and three options (three damaging traps that will deal at best 6d8 damage... y'know, if someone miraculously critfails), or no DC and three options (alarm, slowing, and signaling). The only scaling one is the Warning snare, which uses your Craft DC and is basically a more subtle Alarm.

I mean, sure, any feat that says "add +10 to your DC" would be massively powerful in any other context, but here it feels like ransom.

Regardless of all, it's the Slowing Snare that catches my eye and...

True. The other issue is that it divides snares into two categories: those with DCs (which therefore exist within this strange world of "useful"-useless for several levels-"useful" again) and those that don't use DCs (and therefore retain what utility they have regardless of level). Which I find to just be a glaring artifact of the game system rather than an mechanical expression of an in-universe phenomenon.

And yeah, I have the same issue with Spell Caps on Wands and Scrolls.


thenobledrake wrote:

No, that's not what I am suggesting at all.

I'm suggesting the time spent reading this thread would be better spent reading another, and the time spent fixing this "problem" and others of the same sort/magnitude (minuscule things with no serious impact on the game as a whole, that it is likely most people aren't even going to have any issue understanding) would be better spent doing some other part of polishing up the new system.

Nothing more than that, as that would be ridiculous.

So, again, when does this ever get fixed? Now is the playtest. Now is when we have the best opportunity to polish up the entirety of this game, both the system at large and all the lesser things that CAN potentially trip a player up and don't need to be there when we can be clearer.

How many entries in the updates are things just like this, potentially confusing elements that a player can probably figure out what was meant yet still got fixed anyway?

The first time I read the Alchemist class, I tripped up over this odd thing called a Feral Mutagen. Where the crap is this thing? Surely it's got to be with the other Alchemical Items; every other Alchemist feat that references a mutagen refers to a specific set of items in that section. Maybe it's supposed to be the Bestial Mutagen and the name is simply wrong. Yeah, I'm 99% sure that's the case and other players can probably figure that out and/or help a new player if he's one of those rare ones that lacks the capacity for literacy.

And even then, that was still on my docket of issues to bring up. The only reason I never did is because someone beat me to it. Something we can probably figure out anyway, but where's the profit in leaving it to chance? What was the cost of a developer taking the time to read that thread and fix that issue?

This is the playtest. "An issue so unimportant it shouldn't even be raised" is not a thing that exists right now.


Fuzzypaws wrote:

That's all correct, and there's one more problem too: like the alchemist, a snare user suffers from the save DCs not scaling to their level.

My group and I actually love snares conceptually but are put off by how bad they are in practice. We want them to stay, but to become a GOOD option. Our vision of the ideal is a Ranger being able to focus on snares instead of or in addition to animals or etc, tossing down snares as casually as a barbarian swings an axe, acting as a martial controller.

Isn't there a high level Ranger feat that lets a snare user's snares scale to their level (which, granted, suffers the problems of not being available until high level)?


Yes, and clarity of intent, or if possible, improved clarity of intent (and since we're a year-ish away from the final print and this is what's called :low-hanging fruit", it certainly is possible) is just a part of presentation.

I mean, are you really suggesting that if P2E, in its final draft, still has issues, even large-scale issues, where the game doesn't function as intended or advertised, it's all because a developer took the three (if that) minutes necessary to change "-"s to "0"s? That would be like Fry in Futurama lamenting that the Titanic sunk because it only had five thousand hulls, rather than five thousand and one.

You disagree that this is worth the time and effort. You've clearly established that. Any other objections? Can we move on?


14 people marked this as a favorite.

"Create a new edition of Pathfinder that's much simpler to learn and play—a core system that's easy to grasp but expandable—while remaining true to the spirit of what makes Pathfinder great: customization, flexibility of story, and rules that reward those who take the time to master them."

Uh oh. This isn't the return of the days of Monte Cook and his Ivory Tower mentality, is it? I'm especially after choices and character options that, if they, rather than other choices, better fit the player's vision of their character, are as worthwhile as those other choices or at most, result in a character whose lesser contribution is something seen as a mistake that slipped through the cracks, rather than due punishment for not sufficiently mastering the game.


It's neither a deliberate distraction nor any other kind of distraction. Nor a waste of effort when such effort is so trivially small to implement, anyway. We're at the playtest, where we go out of our way to stress-test every aspect, big and small, of this game to see how it can be improved. And that includes areas where the phrasing isn't clear or as clear as it could be, and can be made more clear. If we're not addressing this now, when will we? This isn't a zero-sum game, where effort, any small amount of effort, spent in one place must be a detriment somewhere else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I reiterate:

Tectorman wrote:

Thenobledrake, you were talking earlier about the virtues of saving ink and not changing the table. Okay, let's save ink and not change the table. Instead, the last sentence in the Encumbered condition can say "You also increase your armor's check penalty by 2, or take a -2 penalty if you don't have one." where it previously said "You also increase your armor's check penalty by 2, or take a -2 penalty if you're unarmored."

Literally the only difference between those two sentences is what I've bolded.

Previously: 're unarmored (one apostrophe and eleven letters)
My version: don't have one (also one apostrophe, also eleven letters, and fewer gaps in what the rule covers)

Any ink getting wasted? Any tables need to be changed? What was the objection, again?

I noticed a place where the language lent itself to some ambiguity (no, not 100% guaranteed ambiguity) that would be completely mitigated by a very simple-to-execute modification to the existing text.

How did that become something THIS objectionable? What did clarity of language do to deserve this?


graystone wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Actually, I was only ever after a change in Encumbered's phrasing
If there are going to be things that modify an armor's ACP, a '0' makes more sense as you don't need to mention unarmored at all: for encumbered for instance, all that needs said then is "You also increase your armor check penalty by 2" as every armor, including unarmored/no armor, is 0+ ACP. Now that's ink saved. ;)

Yeah, you're right. I do want my Monk characters to be able to apply a Dex bonus to AC (not possible if "-" means "0"), and that would save precious, precious ink in the description of Encumbered, so I guess we do need to work on the table, too.

1 to 50 of 948 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>