Catfolk

Tectorman's page

1,416 posts. No reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,416 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BaronOfBread wrote:
Apparently I didn't make it clear, but the idea is that the runewords last until your next daily prep and you don't expend them when you activate them. When you write your runewords for the day you are selecting which magical effects you have and where they will come from, similar to a prepared caster working with cantrips.

So, the 3.5 Binder? He summons and binds his vestiges at the beginning of the day, and he can only bind so many at a time, but while they're bound, the abilities they grant him are mostly inexhaustible (a few have per-day abilities, others had 5-round recharge times, but most were "you do this all day long").

Like that, but with rune-based fluff?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DeathQuaker wrote:
I always feel like superhero shows like this would work so much better if the writers team consisted of at least 1 actual comic book writer, 1 gamer, and 1 five year old. The 5 year old will find any plot loophole the others overlook.

Evil Overlord Rule #12: One of my advisors will be an average five-year-old child. Any flaws in my plan that he is able to spot will be corrected before implementation.

http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

Lore does not state what a class does.

There were already Priests in PF1 that were not Clerics, and PF2 NPCs have titles that have little to do with existing classes.

A spear fighter does not have to be a Swashbuckler. Just ask all the Barbarians, Champions and Fighters who already fight with polearms.

But lore and mechanics do go hand in hand on the broader level. If a game has a game mechanic, especially one gated behind worshipping one of the setting's deities, then it exists in some form in the world's lore. In like and equal fashion, something existing in the world's lore may not have its corresponding mechanics under the same name or format, but it exists* in some way (those P1E Priests weren't Clerics but they were SOMETHING; they didn't just exist in the game as uninteractable collections of "hp error 404 not found").

*

Spoiler:
Excepting, of course, game mechanics that they haven't gotten around to YET, because they can only do so much at a time. I.e., Psychics existed in-universe before the playtest dropped recently.

All of this to dispute the notion that "flashy polearm warrior" isn't a concept that needs to be expressed or even exist.

You even agree with me when you suggest that fans of the concept should just settle for Barbarians, Champions, and Fighters, which is not the same thing as saying "you shouldn't even look for a means to express that concept and just have your polearm warrior be not-flashy like God intended".

And yes, that is technically true. And it's just as true to say that players who want a Barbarian should have just settled for Fighter. That players who wanted a Champion should have just settled for a Fighter with a Cleric dedication.

Happily, they didn't get invalidated. We're not all so lucky.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

For me the thing is, can you think of any characters in media or fiction who can be best described as "investigators" or "swashbucklers" for which wielding a enormous axe or a polearm would not seem weird?

Like the investigator thematically isn't going to want a weapon that's going to draw attention to them, and the swashbuckler isn't going to want a weapon that negatively impacts their ability to move around.

The Bladed Brush feat from P1E let you apply Weapon Finesse to a polearm. I would submit that any character conceived in that manner (that is, to be the graceful dancing warrior whipping their glaive or other polearm around just as much as they let themselves be whipped around by it) is such a swashbuckler.
I would be extremely wary of allowing a PF1 feat in PF2. They are totally different rules system.

I brought up the P1E feat as an example of that design space (a swashbuckler with a polearm) having already been expressed in this world. Of course the P2E expression of that concept would be different, so long as the concept itself still gets to be expressed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

For me the thing is, can you think of any characters in media or fiction who can be best described as "investigators" or "swashbucklers" for which wielding a enormous axe or a polearm would not seem weird?

Like the investigator thematically isn't going to want a weapon that's going to draw attention to them, and the swashbuckler isn't going to want a weapon that negatively impacts their ability to move around.

The Bladed Brush feat from P1E let you apply Weapon Finesse to a polearm. I would submit that any character conceived in that manner (that is, to be the graceful dancing warrior whipping their glaive or other polearm around just as much as they let themselves be whipped around by it) is such a swashbuckler.


Golurkcanfly wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Golurkcanfly wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
I don't see the problem. You could say the same thing about the barbarian. They only get strength and are discouraged from using agile weapons. Is that too restricting? They don't get dex as a key ability. Barbarian is a strength class, as swashbuckler is a dex class. If you want strength, play something else.

Barbarians are still allowed to use those weapons and still get the bonuses. In addition, a DEX option for them *would* be nice. Plus, there's nothing about "Flashy Warrior" that has DEX > STR in the concept whatosever. In fact, the most prominent real-world "Flashy Warriors" would be STR specialists, being professional wrestlers.

It's not about whether someone wants to play a STR class or a DEX class. If that's your approach, you're totally in the wrong mindset when it comes to a class built around encouraging a specific play pattern like the Swashbuckler.

It's about someone who wants to play a character concept using the mechanics that best support that concept, but isn't allowed to because they happen to use a Trident instead of a Rapier.

This right here has been my lament on the Rogue since 3.5/P1E. Deciding to play "the skillsy guy" should not auto-equate to "wants to use finesse/agile/light weapons". And in 3.5 and P1E, it didn't (the Rogue started out with more specific weapon proficiencies, but anything else was a feat or a multiclass away). But 4E decided to make them be contingent on each other. And 5E just had to follow suit, Starfinder had to do the same thing to the Operative, and P2E is now doing the same thing to the Rogue and later the Investigator.
Yeah, I had the same issue with Rogue before they introduced Ruffian after the initial playtest, and even then Ruffian doesn't do a very good job. Just because it's the common trope doesn't mean it should be the only trope it supports. It'd be like making every Bard that awful horny stereotype.

Oh, tell me about it. Best P1E archetype for the Bard was the Archaeologist for almost completely excising any dependency on music or performance. And the only way I could stand to play my last Bard (in 5E, where you're either pulling random junk out of a spell component pouch or you have a musical instrument) was by using a flute, except really as a flute-shaped wand that she never played as an instrument. And while I'm aware that the P2E Bard CAN be played as non-musical/non-performing, I don't think enough was done to dampen the expectation.

...

Or did you mean something else when you said "horny"?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Golurkcanfly wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
I don't see the problem. You could say the same thing about the barbarian. They only get strength and are discouraged from using agile weapons. Is that too restricting? They don't get dex as a key ability. Barbarian is a strength class, as swashbuckler is a dex class. If you want strength, play something else.

Barbarians are still allowed to use those weapons and still get the bonuses. In addition, a DEX option for them *would* be nice. Plus, there's nothing about "Flashy Warrior" that has DEX > STR in the concept whatosever. In fact, the most prominent real-world "Flashy Warriors" would be STR specialists, being professional wrestlers.

It's not about whether someone wants to play a STR class or a DEX class. If that's your approach, you're totally in the wrong mindset when it comes to a class built around encouraging a specific play pattern like the Swashbuckler.

It's about someone who wants to play a character concept using the mechanics that best support that concept, but isn't allowed to because they happen to use a Trident instead of a Rapier.

This right here has been my lament on the Rogue since 3.5/P1E. Deciding to play "the skillsy guy" should not auto-equate to "wants to use finesse/agile/light weapons". And in 3.5 and P1E, it didn't (the Rogue started out with more specific weapon proficiencies, but anything else was a feat or a multiclass away). But 4E decided to make them be contingent on each other. And 5E just had to follow suit, Starfinder had to do the same thing to the Operative, and P2E is now doing the same thing to the Rogue and later the Investigator.


Deriven Firelion wrote:
Just makes me wish they had gone with the 5E casting paradigm for PF2. Makes everything so much easier.

We're halfway there with prep casters and flex casting, just no such love for spontaneous casters (yet; unless we're already there too, in which case, it'd be damned nice to KNOW).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
I don't think there is any need for clarification. The Core Rulebook does not specify that you can do this, so you can't. The fact that it was possible in an older edition of the game has no bearing on the issue.

Not just an older edition of the game, but almost all of them in recent memory (3rd, 3.5, P1E, Starfinder, and 5E), but that's beside the point. It's allowed or not allowed based on hyper-specific parsings of such phrases as "a slot of AN appropriate level" (rather than "of THE appropriate level"). Also, some spells gain no benefit from being heightened other than being more difficult to counteract and so forth. BUT, a spell is heightened based on the spell slot used to fuel it, rather than what level you know it at. So either there needs to be such language as "you can lower a higher spell slot for a lower level slot, which you can then use for your lower level spell", or it becomes possible to circumvent your cap on signature spells known (but this only becomes apparent via a roundabout reading of the rules). And a clear rule wouldn't need this much interpretation to figure out how it's supposed to go, in either direction.

So I disagree that this didn't need clarification; especially since I and others were asking about this since Day One.

Also we have this, which might (but, granted, due to not being specific enough, might not) be asking the same question that Jason Bulmahn is answering in the affirmative (with a very short answer that doesn't ensure that his response to that question is applicable to this one, even though it might be). Hence why I asked about an UNambiguous clarification.

But thanks everyone for letting me know. I asked because of this thread, where it was suggested that Dark Archives might be an opportunity to refine/clarify Recall Knowledge. I was initially going to lament that Paizo had such an opportunity with SoM and passed on it, but I knew I didn't know for sure whether SoM had clarified if you could spend a higher level slot on a non-signature lower level spell. And now I do, even though I remain disappointed that this hasn't been addressed yet, years later (unambiguously anyway, wish though I do that we could just go with Jason's reddit post).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've skimmed Secrets of Magic, but I haven't had the chance to read through it in-depth. Did this book include a clear, unambiguous answer as to whether you can use a higher-level spell slot for a lower-level spell when you're casting spontaneously? And I don't mean heightening spells or signature spells; I'm talking about being in the situation where you need to use a low-level spell (say, 1st-level Feather Fall) that you DON'T know as a signature spell and you are (for whatever reason) out of 1st-level slots and you still have plenty of higher level slots.


lemeres wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
lemeres wrote:
In fact, there was a highly effective dip you could do with the archaeologist that got rid of music entirely for a less narratively significant 'luck'. I could stretch that for every fight in a day from level 1, giving enough melee bonuses to make up for being 3/4 while having a fantastic saves. I could then easily switch into any martial class without any kinks in his 'career path'.
Almost. All Bards (and unfortunately, the Archaeologist too, since the archetype doesn't specify otherwise) have to have verbal components for their spells and cannot use Silent Spell. And while that technically doesn't HAVE to be music or singing, it's still an unfortunate hanger-on to what was otherwise the perfect fix to the Bard.

1. Archaeologist does not get any kind of performance, and luck effectively replaces that. The rest of the ability is just trying to bring it back to the performance framework for the sake of feats and a few restrictions.

2. Blade dances are an option for all bards, and it just means "you have a really fancy fighting style". That might lean you into the charming fighter narratives a bit more, but it isn't so far that you couldn't pretend to be a swashbuckler or rogue.

I'm confused. Are you agreeing with what I said? Disagreeing? Expanding upon? I'm not following the flow of this conversation.


lemeres wrote:
In fact, there was a highly effective dip you could do with the archaeologist that got rid of music entirely for a less narratively significant 'luck'. I could stretch that for every fight in a day from level 1, giving enough melee bonuses to make up for being 3/4 while having a fantastic saves. I could then easily switch into any martial class without any kinks in his 'career path'.

Almost. All Bards (and unfortunately, the Archaeologist too, since the archetype doesn't specify otherwise) have to have verbal components for their spells and cannot use Silent Spell. And while that technically doesn't HAVE to be music or singing, it's still an unfortunate hanger-on to what was otherwise the perfect fix to the Bard.


Thomas Seitz wrote:
Tector, not sure I want that fight back...

It's more to lampshade how much it appeared in the advertising compared to how it basically didn't even happen in the movie.

Kinda like I wouldn't mind the other two ribbing Maguire-Peter for his ... ahem... "smooth" dancing.


One thing I'd honestly like to see is, when Andrew Garfield shows up, it's both him and the Rhino, finishing the fight we never got to see in Amazing Spidey 2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeathQuaker wrote:

I think I am more pumped for this than anything else in Phase 4.

Now all we need is a What The--?! series. ;)

Drax: "I've got a better suggestion: a "Why The--?!" series!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lucy_Valentine wrote:
Verdyn wrote:
Rules balance aside, shouldn't the stronger, more dexterous, smarter, ect. person always just be better than the equally skilled person when using that skill? How do you logically square the circle and suspend your disbelief when something like this comes up?
Well, it doesn't make sense. But does that matter? The question was "is assurance bad" (and by extension "what uses are there for it") not "does assurance make sense".

It matters if it not making sense is the reason why it's considered bad.


Ruzza wrote:
By all means, homebrew it however you want. Whatever works at your table. Assurance works very well for exactly what it is at my tables. It's popular, but not overshadowing other skill feats.

Oh, I realize this is all hypothetical anyway. I'm perfectly content to never touch Assurance with a 10-foot pole and just roll everything (with all the ability mod I've spent resources on and all the penalties that were fairly applied to me that I under no circumstances believe I should just be able to blanket-ignore off of one feat).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:

Not to mention balancing a one-action activity around a fixed number that you can scale is just insane and completely against the design philosophy.

Like... Okay, you can use your ability modifier with Assurance. Now it's a must have ability and it's getting used for everything.

Or, perhaps as Tectorman suggested, you lower the "base" to something like 6. Well now Assurance is only for people who fully invest in the ability score and at higher levels it returns to being so good that it's a must-take feat again.

This isn't Taking 10 or Taking 20 from PF1, as they were for activities that took a long amount of time and represented attempting everything. Assurance is doing the activity the same way as always, in a practiced, rote manner.

Firstly, Taking 20 is what you meant; it's the mechanic that represents making attempt after attempt until you succeed. Taking 10 is not the same thing, it's one attempt just like a rolled check is, except you take the average of what would be your luck component (the rolled d20). You trade not being able to uber-succeed for the benefit of not failing abysmally.

Second, your criticism in the third paragraph is, in fact, fair, and something we can talk about. Maybe make it "Take 10" for characters without an ability mod and "Take some lesser number" for other characters, BUT ALSO adding in some other benefit. Arrange it to NOT break the math but still acknowledge that one character has more invested into the skill (whether he pumped up his ability mod exclusively for the skill or not is irrelevant; he did pump up his ability modifier and this skill is one of the things it applies to). Off the top of my head: "A number of times per day equal to the ability mod in question, you may apply a +1 to your Assurance result with this skill."

Just some damned thing so no one gets screwed over.


Ruzza wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
dirtypool wrote:
Tectorman wrote:


No, one player got the benefit "I didn't have to roll" while another player got the benefits "I didn't have to roll" and "I didn't have to bother sinking ability score increases into whichever ability score we're talking about." Same price, different benefits.

Same price: one feat. Same benefit: no roll.

No. Same benefit: no roll. Different prices: one paid a feat and the other paid a feat and ability score increases (to no effect).

Did the player...

1) Increase that ability score for the purposes of Assurance? It's not a "price" if they didn't. It just happens to be coincidence.

2) Not read how the feat functions and assumes that they would get their ability modifier? Because then that's really on the player.

I'm not sure what point you're making.

1) If his ability score applies to that skill, then it should apply to that skill regardless of circumstance. I mean, what in-universe is happening when two characters with the same level and training decide to, say, arm-wrestle and they both go with Assurance? Neither one is better trained than the other and one has biceps as thick as the other guy's waist, yet they're dead even?

2) Ah, so we're back to same mindset behind the 3.5 Toughness feat. Hey, if they don't realize that a feat is not worth a piddly 3 hp, then that's on the player, too.


dirtypool wrote:
Tectorman wrote:


No, one player got the benefit "I didn't have to roll" while another player got the benefits "I didn't have to roll" and "I didn't have to bother sinking ability score increases into whichever ability score we're talking about." Same price, different benefits.

Same price: one feat. Same benefit: no roll.

No. Same benefit: no roll. Different prices: one paid a feat and the other paid a feat and ability score increases (to no effect).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let me put it this way:

Say a longsword costs 10 sp.

That is 10% of the total wealth of a player character with 100 sp, and it's 0.5% of the total wealth of a player character with 2000 sp.

And regardless of which player is buying it, it better cost 10 sp, never mind whether it's a larger or smaller chunk out of the buying player character's budget (or someone is getting screwed in this deal).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dirtypool wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Thank God the developers DIDN'T write Toughness the way they did Assurance.

What is the point of comparing something that provides bonuses to something that negates having to roll? They don't do the same thing.

A player with an ability modifier and a player without an ability modifier are both conveyed the same exact benefit of not having to make the check. It's not "dishonest," it's not the player with the modifier "getting fleeced."

No, one player got the benefit "I didn't have to roll" while another player got the benefits "I didn't have to roll" and "I didn't have to bother sinking ability score increases into whichever ability score we're talking about." Same price, different benefits.

Contrastly,

Cyouni wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
And yes, the mechanics are clear. The mechanics for drown-healing in 3.5 were clear, too, and it was still cheesy.
Little absurd to conflate an edge-case rules issue in 3.5 with a normal feat functioning normally in PF2.

Fine, then I'll make a more appropriate comparison.

Toughness in 3.5 gave you 3 hp. Period, the end. Nothing unclear about it. Just a normal feat functioning normally. You spend a feat and get 3 hp for your troubles. So, no one should have complained about it then, right? The whole "this is really an NPC feat for Elf Wizard combatants, not something you as a player should actually invest in" that was intended but not made explicit, totally on the players for not managing their expectations. Caveat emptor, right?

Or hey, let's hypothesize Toughness for P2E if it had been written like Assurance.

"You gain one hit point for every level in place of your Con mod per level."

So, totally a benefit if you have a +0 Con mod. The fact that it provides no benefit if you have a +1 Con mod (as well as how it's literally a detriment if you have a higher Con mod) is totally irrelevant. After all, it's clear how the feat operates and you can always just not take it.

Right?

Thank God the developers DIDN'T write Toughness the way they did Assurance.

Toughness provides a lower relative benefit the higher your class HP and Con is. If you're a level 15 Barbarian with 20 Con, it provides a 5% HP increase, whereas a Wizard with 10 Con gets a 13% HP increase.

So by this line of logic, Toughness is a trap for anyone with higher base HP. That Barbarian isn't getting equal value to the Wizard, and is "getting fleeced".

Toughness gives you your level in hp. It does this if you have no Con mod whatsoever, it does this if you have some Con mod, and it does this if you sank an ability score increase into Con at every opportunity.

The Wizard gets his level in hp, regardless of class-granted hp or Con mod. The Barbarian definitely has more of the former and probably more of that latter, and yet, he still gets his level in hp. THAT is "not getting fleeced".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
And yes, the mechanics are clear. The mechanics for drown-healing in 3.5 were clear, too, and it was still cheesy.
Little absurd to conflate an edge-case rules issue in 3.5 with a normal feat functioning normally in PF2.

Fine, then I'll make a more appropriate comparison.

Toughness in 3.5 gave you 3 hp. Period, the end. Nothing unclear about it. Just a normal feat functioning normally. You spend a feat and get 3 hp for your troubles. So, no one should have complained about it then, right? The whole "this is really an NPC feat for Elf Wizard combatants, not something you as a player should actually invest in" that was intended but not made explicit, totally on the players for not managing their expectations. Caveat emptor, right?

Or hey, let's hypothesize Toughness for P2E if it had been written like Assurance.

"You gain one hit point for every level in place of your Con mod per level."

So, totally a benefit if you have a +0 Con mod. The fact that it provides no benefit if you have a +1 Con mod (as well as how it's literally a detriment if you have a higher Con mod) is totally irrelevant. After all, it's clear how the feat operates and you can always just not take it.

Right?

Thank God the developers DIDN'T write Toughness the way they did Assurance.


Arcaian wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Yeah, see, I'm not actually married to the whole "10" part of it. It could have been "replace the d20 with an 8, leaving ALL mods and penalties", or even 6. I'm not fussed about the number, but about the dishonest "both of you pay the same thing and one of you reaps more rewards than the other".
You keep saying dishonest. I don't see how that word really makes sense in the context of this feat though.

I don't know how to explain it any better than I already have. A character with no ability mod gets the full "Take 10" benefit of the feat he paid for. A character with an ability mod gets less "Take 10" benefit while still having paid the same price.

If I pay X and get Y, you should also be able to get Y for having paid X. What would you call that in any other context and what makes this context different?

Dishonest implies that it's in some way manipulating or misleading - it says what it does on very clearly, and has a good reason for doing so. Being able to take 10 with a fully buffed modifier is almost certainly going to guarantee success on level-appropriate tasks, which isn't the goal of the feat. It's clearly stated to be for more basic tasks, and it'd frankly be fairly unbalancing to have the full modifier - being able to ignore penalties on skill checks with MAP applied is already very useful, nevermind if you had an excellent bonus doing so. Class abilities (like a Marshal's aura) that rely on a standard-difficulty DC for your level would become auto-successes. It'd end up a must-have on a wide variety of builds, and is just a bad idea in general. It being written the way it has been written is about as dishonest as something like Courtly Graces is, because you could theoretically pick it when your Society is worse than your Diplomacy and Deception, and so it'd have very little effect. The mechanics are clear, there's good reason for them, and if you want assurance on that character, pick it on a...

Again, it doesn't have to be "Take 10". I could live with it being "Take 8" or "Take 6" or whatever number it needs to be to make the feat not be "too good not to take", just as long as the Barbarian with a positive Str mod doesn't have his strength inexplicably disappear into the ether just because he's using the feat to negate the luck component of his attempt to do this or that.

And yes, the mechanics are clear. The mechanics for drown-healing in 3.5 were clear, too, and it was still cheesy.


Squiggit wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Yeah, see, I'm not actually married to the whole "10" part of it. It could have been "replace the d20 with an 8, leaving ALL mods and penalties", or even 6. I'm not fussed about the number, but about the dishonest "both of you pay the same thing and one of you reaps more rewards than the other".
You keep saying dishonest. I don't see how that word really makes sense in the context of this feat though.

I don't know how to explain it any better than I already have. A character with no ability mod gets the full "Take 10" benefit of the feat he paid for. A character with an ability mod gets less "Take 10" benefit while still having paid the same price.

If I pay X and get Y, you should also be able to get Y for having paid X. What would you call that in any other context and what makes this context different?


HammerJack wrote:
Tectorman wrote:

Definitely gotta agree with Darksol here. Assurance is definitely one of the more "feels bad" things in the game. You spend a feat for what was "Take 10" previously, except no ability modifier. So a +4 Str mod Barbarian with Expert in Athletics and a +0 Str mod Rogue with Expert in Athletics get the same outcome with Assurance. I.e., the Rogue spends a whole feat on "Take 10", while the Barbarian, spending the same amount (one feat), only gets "Take 6". What is that, besides the Barbarian getting fleeced?

And even the whole "but you also get to ignore penalties" doesn't make it any better. If you have a modifer to a skill you have Assurance for, then you ALWAYS pay the price of not getting that modifier. You will not, however, always be facing a penalty you then get to ignore. And frankly, it feels dishonest that you could, even on a theoretical basis, get slapped with every single penalty in the game and ignore it on what feels like a technicality. Like drown-healing from 3.5; yes, Assurance doing all of that is in the rules, and may even be intentional (unlike drown-healing), but it still feels cheesy as heck.

I'd have much rather they left all the mods and all the penalties in there, and just had Assurance switch a rolled d20 for a static 10.

Assurance that switched a d20 roll for a static 10, without including limitation on when you could use it, would be grossly overpowered. Guaranteeing success against tasks and enemies that are supposed to be challenging for your level isn't actually a reasonable expectation for the low cost of a skill feat.

Yeah, see, I'm not actually married to the whole "10" part of it. It could have been "replace the d20 with an 8, leaving ALL mods and penalties", or even 6. I'm not fussed about the number, but about the dishonest "both of you pay the same thing and one of you reaps more rewards than the other".


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Definitely gotta agree with Darksol here. Assurance is definitely one of the more "feels bad" things in the game. You spend a feat for what was "Take 10" previously, except no ability modifier. So a +4 Str mod Barbarian with Expert in Athletics and a +0 Str mod Rogue with Expert in Athletics get the same outcome with Assurance. I.e., the Rogue spends a whole feat on "Take 10", while the Barbarian, spending the same amount (one feat), only gets "Take 6". What is that, besides the Barbarian getting fleeced?

And even the whole "but you also get to ignore penalties" doesn't make it any better. If you have a modifer to a skill you have Assurance for, then you ALWAYS pay the price of not getting that modifier. You will not, however, always be facing a penalty you then get to ignore. And frankly, it feels dishonest that you could, even on a theoretical basis, get slapped with every single penalty in the game and ignore it on what feels like a technicality. Like drown-healing from 3.5; yes, Assurance doing all of that is in the rules, and may even be intentional (unlike drown-healing), but it still feels cheesy as heck.

I'd have much rather they left all the mods and all the penalties in there, and just had Assurance switch a rolled d20 for a static 10.


Among other things, I hope this book spells out (and explicitly) whether a spontaneous caster can use a higher level slot for a lower level spell (and not a signature spell, either), not for all the higher level benefits, just to fuel it.

I.e., if I have multiple levels of spell slots and I'm out of 1st level slots (for whatever reason), and I know Feather Fall as a 1st level (not-signature) spell, and I'm plummeting to my doom, do I die or not?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:

OCD appears to not be one of the attributes Paizo is respectful of.

Yet.

Now that it's mentioned, I imagine this sort of silliness will cease. I should've mentioned it a decade ago, when Rise of the Runelords ended and AP 7 was released, with a black spine instead of white.

I've been known to give away various books and import foreign printings to get matching artwork styles. I grudgingly accept when change happens, but I can't stand "the UK printing still has the old style and the North American printing has a newer cover style that matches bloody nothing."

I doubt they'll do anything. Do you remember the novel line? They started out in mass market paperback, but switched to trade paperback about two-thirds of the way through. Making my bookshelf look awful.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Unicore wrote:
What I do want to get better at myself, is making it more clear to the players that if they do hoard it and sell it off eventually, they are not going to end up with more wealth than if they used the consumable in play.
For myself, that wouldn't be a game I'd enjoy: if a person that thoughtfully manages their resources ends up with the exact same wealth as someone that always blows through their money by making it rain consumables, it seems quite unfair to keep tossing free money to one and not the other.

This is where I'm at, too. If I blow all of my Focus points, I don't expect to run across a MacGuffin item or weird environmental effect that just fills me all the way to full; I expect to have to use my class's "recharge more than one Focus point" feats, or make do with not having taken said feats. And I would not look favorably on being responsible and frugal with my Focus point expenditures while a fellow player splurges all of his Focus points and gets them back (unless of course, he used a feat on being able to do that).

Ditto spells, but even more so.

So why would I expect wealth to fall out of the sky when it otherwise wouldn't have, just because I went out of my way to spend more, when that's not how it works with spells or Focus points?

To be clear, this is also why I look unfavorably on the automatic fire mechanic for weapons in Starfinder (expend ALL of your weapon's remaining ammo, no matter how much it is) and the mechanic for spending ALL your hero points to avoid death in P2E. I.e., avoiding death costs only 1 hero point just like a reroll IF you've connived to have spent all but 1 of your hero points beforehand.

Definitely a "feels bad" mechanic that I don't want to be engaging in or validating. One that doesn't apply to other resources in the game (Focus, spells), and that I'd hate to see implemented with wealth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Or Sturdy Shield is the magic item for those who want to use shield block and the other magic shields are for all the other shield users.

Considering that every shield in the playtest could be competently used to block whether Sturdy or not, I'd have to call that an accidental artifact of the final draft of the rules over anything intentional.


Cyouni wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
Removing the ability for shields to ever be permanently destroyed in normal use, rather being rendered temporarily unusable but fixable, solves all of these problems.
I recall Dents technically accomplished that function, but people basically revolted survey-wise against that - they wanted it to be possible for their shield to be destroyed in a single hit. If I'm correct, it was cited that no matter how big a hit your shield took, it was unrealistic that it couldn't be destroyed.

People didn't like how it wasn't even possible for the Tarrasque to destroy even a mundane wooden shield held by a 1st-level Fighter in one hit (The Fighter himself? Sure. The shield over multiple hits? Yes. But not in one hit.). And with the whole spectrum between "it takes Saitama multiple Serious Punches to break a shield" and "an on-level opponent breaks an on-level shield by using harsh language", we ended up where we are, which is too close to the latter, IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
I think the monk, rogue, Swashbuckler, and Investigator could use a feat that lets them use their abilities with more weapons. I think something like this would be a bit more useful than having a new weapon trait.

Yes and no. I think it would be nice to have more options, but they generally shouldn't be able to use their abilities with weapons dealing a lot of damage. For example, the rogue is balanced around sneak attack adding 1d6 at low levels, and increasing by 1d6 at levels 5, 11, and 17 (which is generally around the same time as Striking weapons come online, give or take a level or two). So the fighter gets to deal d8, d10 or d12 damage with heavy weapons, while the rogue gets 2d6 or d4+d6. Letting the rogue go up to d8+d6, d10+d6 or d12+d6 would be out of line.

But letting the rogue get added proficiency to use agile/finesse martial weapons with full proficiency? Yeah, I can get behind that. Possibly add a qualifier about one-handed weapons as well, to prevent them from using elven curve blades and spiked chains.

Alternatively, let Rogues use class feats and features with everything and qualify the extra damage of Sneak Attack based on the weapon used. +1d6 (or more at higher levels) with all the currently allowed weapons, and +1 (going up to eventually +4) with everything using a higher base damage die. Or something in between (call it a d2).

Too much damage is a valid concern, but "no coloring outside the lines" is not how to address that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kasoh wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
I miss the good old days of 3.5/P1E, where you were at most one proficiency feat away from being able to use any weapon you thought looked cool for a Rogue. Then 4E made it only Light or Ranged weapons, and 5E, SF, and P2E had to follow that same unfortunate trend,
The weapon proficiency feat really should make your training with the weapon scale with your class based progression.

While I completely agree, I was more getting at the whole "sure, you're... allowed... to use a feat to become proficient with, say, a glaive or a greatsword, but you're still not allowed to sneak attack with it (or use various other class feats or features). Maybe that'll teach you not to color outside the lines".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I miss the good old days of 3.5/P1E, where you were at most one proficiency feat away from being able to use any weapon you thought looked cool for a Rogue. Then 4E made it only Light or Ranged weapons, and 5E, SF, and P2E had to follow that same unfortunate trend,


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Is is really so difficult to imagine that 1 form 5 is less complex than 10 from 89, or 6 from 18 being less than 145 from 240, even when the figures are in front of you? Or that doing those same calculations on the fly 4 or 5 times a round is different than having to even remember what the rules and capacities are for the rare moments when you do need to use them?

No. But it IS really so difficult to imagine how 29 lbs added to 138 lbs is more complex than 29 hp added to 138 hp. Would it be better if I said "pretend the pounds are hit points first"? Is that extra step sufficient for a person to go from "How do I even do this?" to "167, easy!"?

And yes! One calculation towards the beginning of play IS different than doing multiple such calculations on the fly 4 of 5 times a round. By being done far less often (so, easier), not being done on the fly (so, easier), or multiple times in quick succession (so, easier).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Graystone, you have demonstrated an unwillingness to listen or, frankly, believe anything you're being told. You may as well stop asking me anything.
Believe it or not I would have asked the same question but he was faster. Where is the difference subtracting the hit for 29 damage from your 121 HP or taking your 10lb rope out of your 89lb backpack?

That, nothing. Like I said, the problems of additional and subtraction don't start arriving until you start adding and subtracting triple digits, like when you're dragging something or figuring out how much capacity your new strength score gives you, and how that alters other statistics.

1 bulk from 5 is still easier than 10 from 89 though, even if both are well within people's capabiltiies.

How often are you adding or subtracting triple digits with weight, though? When you have to drag or carry someone? Which is how often?

And even if it's above some subjective value of "often enough", that's still not some onerous calculation or even a calculation at all (at least, not one that has to be done in the moment).

When you're figuring out your weight encumbrance (waaayyy back at character creation of the beginning of the adventure), figure out your max, what you're carrying, and what you have left over. I.e., I can carry 240 total, I'm currently carrying 95, so I have 145 left.

Now it's the middle of combat and I have to carry someone. They're 138 total.

138. 145. Which one is bigger?

That's not a calculation; it's just a comparison. You do more calculating with your hit points on a vastly far more regular basis. Even at 1st level.

Where did the 145 come from though? Are you able to glance at your sheet and get that? Because most people can't.

I got it at the beginning (at character creation/start of the adventure). I took my total carry value, figured out how much I'm carrying so far, subtracted one from the other, and got 145. Then I wrote all three on my sheet.

So now that it's an encounter and I'm in the rare circumstance where I care about triple-digit values, I literally can glance at my sheet and get that (actually, I probably could either way, so it's more accurate to say that literally anyone else could, too).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Graystone, you have demonstrated an unwillingness to listen or, frankly, believe anything you're being told. You may as well stop asking me anything.
Believe it or not I would have asked the same question but he was faster. Where is the difference subtracting the hit for 29 damage from your 121 HP or taking your 10lb rope out of your 89lb backpack?

That, nothing. Like I said, the problems of additional and subtraction don't start arriving until you start adding and subtracting triple digits, like when you're dragging something or figuring out how much capacity your new strength score gives you, and how that alters other statistics.

1 bulk from 5 is still easier than 10 from 89 though, even if both are well within people's capabiltiies.

How often are you adding or subtracting triple digits with weight, though? When you have to drag or carry someone? Which is how often?

And even if it's above some subjective value of "often enough", that's still not some onerous calculation or even a calculation at all (at least, not one that has to be done in the moment).

When you're figuring out your weight encumbrance (waaayyy back at character creation of the beginning of the adventure), figure out your max, what you're carrying, and what you have left over. I.e., I can carry 240 total, I'm currently carrying 95, so I have 145 left.

Now it's the middle of combat and I have to carry someone. They're 138 total.

138. 145. Which one is bigger?

That's not a calculation; it's just a comparison. You do more calculating with your hit points on a vastly far more regular basis. Even at 1st level.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

What's the difference between the simple addition and subtraction that goes into tracking hit point totals (something that occurs often and regularly in an encounter) and the same addition and subtraction behind tracking weight (which is much less dynamic)? Why didn't the game go to damage expressed as "2 wounds, 1 wound, 1 light wound (10 of which become a wound, but with absolutely no gradiation between a light wound and wound (i.e., swords can deal 1 wound, 2 wounds, 3 wounds and so on, but a dagger can either deal a light wound or a wound, no in-between)), and negligible wounds"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas5251212 wrote:
To clarify my point above, this is an issue about whether the thought on play is mostly during character generation and advancement or in play. D&D3 (and presumably PF1e) leaned into the first; PF2e leans into the second.

You can see the same dynamic in card games. A game like Yugioh is all about the pre-game, where you collect cards, build various decks, work out strategies to achieve win conditions or interfere with your various opponents, all before sitting down to play. Conversely, a game like Ascension starts every player with the exact same 10 cards, and as the players react to the various monsters, heroes, and constructs that pop up in the center row, their decks get built as the game progresses.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Ruzza wrote:
Tectorman wrote:

Cleaning up the Wizard's proficiencies smacks of being allowed to color outside the lines in terms of what characters you can create. I think if Paizo were at all inclined towards something like that, they never would have passed down an edict making certain ancestries more difficult to play (by listing them as Uncommon), nor would they now be listing the Gunslinger and Inventor as Uncommon classes (all but saying "Hey, see this neat new class, see what it can do, does it capture your fancy? do you want to play as one? oh well...").

Since they did that, Paizo will likely also keep Wizard proficiencies as they are because you coloring outside the lines is a badwrong thing you need to be cured of.

I think you're misunderstanding the rarity tag, which allows GMs to have a little more control over their setting. Maybe GMs don't want to have gunslingers and inventors in their game worlds. Maybe having a leshy or lizardfolk running around in Agents of Edgewatch rubs them the wrong way. It's nothing to do with badwrongfun.
They already have that control over their setting. What this does is A) encourage them to come to a decision about "Are gunslingers/inventors/leshies/lizardfolk in my world? Y/N" and B) encourage them to answer in the defaultly negative (might be different if it was an open question to be asked for everything (i.e., players wanting a Human character or a Wizard character have no more expectation of being able to play one than a Lizardfolk character or an Inventor character), but right now you have correct ancestries and classes and incorrect ones).
I mean, the playtest isn't the place for this. But I'm not giving my opinion on what the rarity tag is, I'm explaining how it is being applied and used in the system. If you have an issue with that, I'd probably get a separate thread for that (which could be G&G playtest related if you like).

Of course it is. We're supposed to playtest everything as presented. One of the things being presented is the rarity tag newly being applied to classes where it previously wasn't. If we assume that all cases of "I'd like to play a gunslinger" result in "okay, go ahead and play a gunslinger", then that's ignoring the alternative result of "No, you can't, they're uncommon". That's tailoring and cherry-picking the data, and it's dishonest.

Therefore, playtest feedback of "couldn't do any playtesting whatsoever of either the gunslinger or the inventor due to the rarity tag getting in the way; maybe next time, don't have a rarity tag on a class" is not just valid, it's necessary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
Tectorman wrote:

Cleaning up the Wizard's proficiencies smacks of being allowed to color outside the lines in terms of what characters you can create. I think if Paizo were at all inclined towards something like that, they never would have passed down an edict making certain ancestries more difficult to play (by listing them as Uncommon), nor would they now be listing the Gunslinger and Inventor as Uncommon classes (all but saying "Hey, see this neat new class, see what it can do, does it capture your fancy? do you want to play as one? oh well...").

Since they did that, Paizo will likely also keep Wizard proficiencies as they are because you coloring outside the lines is a badwrong thing you need to be cured of.

I think you're misunderstanding the rarity tag, which allows GMs to have a little more control over their setting. Maybe GMs don't want to have gunslingers and inventors in their game worlds. Maybe having a leshy or lizardfolk running around in Agents of Edgewatch rubs them the wrong way. It's nothing to do with badwrongfun.

They already have that control over their setting. What this does is A) encourage them to come to a decision about "Are gunslingers/inventors/leshies/lizardfolk in my world? Y/N" and B) encourage them to answer in the defaultly negative (might be different if it was an open question to be asked for everything (i.e., players wanting a Human character or a Wizard character have no more expectation of being able to play one than a Lizardfolk character or an Inventor character), but right now you have correct ancestries and classes and incorrect ones).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Cleaning up the Wizard's proficiencies smacks of being allowed to color outside the lines in terms of what characters you can create. I think if Paizo were at all inclined towards something like that, they never would have passed down an edict making certain ancestries more difficult to play (by listing them as Uncommon), nor would they now be listing the Gunslinger and Inventor as Uncommon classes (all but saying "Hey, see this neat new class, see what it can do, does it capture your fancy? do you want to play as one? oh well...").

Since they did that, Paizo will likely also keep Wizard proficiencies as they are because you coloring outside the lines is a badwrong thing you need to be cured of.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
Tectorman wrote:

I just want to know why they went so far as to have Chris Pint in the movie, and visiting the Smithsonian, and the Air and Space Museum...

...and didn't have Captain Kirk checking out the model of the U.S.S. Enterprise. Come on, movie! This was handed to you on a silver platter!

Depends on the relationship between Paramount & Warner.

Still wouldn't be an issue.

"Oh, hey, what's that?"
"That? Oh, it's a spaceship from a science fiction show that was really influential a couple of decades ago. No one's built it for real."
"Huh? Shame, I could see myself in charge ov something like that."

Legal deniability established, and we would all know what they're alluding to.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I just want to know why they went so far as to have Chris Pint in the movie, and visiting the Smithsonian, and the Air and Space Museum...

...and didn't have Captain Kirk checking out the model of the U.S.S. Enterprise. Come on, movie! This was handed to you on a silver platter!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's also the question of whether the teleport wards lead to the same false dungeon each time or to one out of a rotating set.

Also, I'm wondering (though it's probably unlikely) if every single entrance in the side of the cliff leads to the same true dungeon (i.e., Roy & Co. go deeper, look back after a while, and see dozens of tunnels join up with their's).


CorvusMask wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Cool Tiefling wrote:
Set wrote:
Gaulin wrote:
Part of the reason I love tieflings so much is because of how much freedom a player has in designing what they look like. My gnome teifling earth elemental sorcerer looks like a gargoyle, having earth constantly growing out of his skin, small tusks, wings, a tail, hooves and claws.

Yes, exactly the fun, getting to play around with the appearance so much more than if you were playing a human or dwarf.

And gosh, that Tiefling appearance quirks thread (and the Aasimar appearance quirks one) was fun. :)

The varied appearance of Tieflings together with their tendencies to come with a huge variety of background stories is what makes this "race" so appealing to me. I don't like how Tieflings suddenly only looked like a boiled lobster with ram's horns and cloven feat in most visual art because of DnD 4e. The 1000 different looks in PF and earlier DnD versions always were more my kind of thing.

The Tiefling Quirks post were indeed rather fun to read.

I'm the opposite. Dwarves are all uniformly short and stocky. Elves all uniformly have pointed ears. They're not "human, but with this one difference" or "human, but with this second difference but not the first" or "human with a third difference and not the first two". It gives them a coherence as a race that tieflings prior to 4E didn't have. Sure, I could (and did) go out of my way to have every tiefling character I made share the same traits (horns, tail, hooves, reddish skin), but knowing that the tiefling race at large in the game world didn't made my efforts all feel hollow. So when 4E standardized the tiefling appearance (and 5E continued that practice), I was very pleased.

I will say that I can see how it was a crossroads. Prior to P2E, tieflings were all statted up as their own race, all while being described as a unique example of "this other race, but

...

I might agree with you if my first exposure had been mechanically represented similar to how P2E does it (i.e., you pick your race first (human, dwarf, gnome, lizardfolk, whichever), then use your 1st-level character feat on "Tiefling", which gives you some mutation that isn't necessarily the same as the mutation that someone else with "Tiefling" might have).

But it wasn't. I saw them as their own independent race, not cool mutations of other races, because they were presented as the former, not the latter. Having a uniform design gets rid of the only thing holding them back.


Cool Tiefling wrote:
Set wrote:
Gaulin wrote:
Part of the reason I love tieflings so much is because of how much freedom a player has in designing what they look like. My gnome teifling earth elemental sorcerer looks like a gargoyle, having earth constantly growing out of his skin, small tusks, wings, a tail, hooves and claws.

Yes, exactly the fun, getting to play around with the appearance so much more than if you were playing a human or dwarf.

And gosh, that Tiefling appearance quirks thread (and the Aasimar appearance quirks one) was fun. :)

The varied appearance of Tieflings together with their tendencies to come with a huge variety of background stories is what makes this "race" so appealing to me. I don't like how Tieflings suddenly only looked like a boiled lobster with ram's horns and cloven feat in most visual art because of DnD 4e. The 1000 different looks in PF and earlier DnD versions always were more my kind of thing.

The Tiefling Quirks post were indeed rather fun to read.

I'm the opposite. Dwarves are all uniformly short and stocky. Elves all uniformly have pointed ears. They're not "human, but with this one difference" or "human, but with this second difference but not the first" or "human with a third difference and not the first two". It gives them a coherence as a race that tieflings prior to 4E didn't have. Sure, I could (and did) go out of my way to have every tiefling character I made share the same traits (horns, tail, hooves, reddish skin), but knowing that the tiefling race at large in the game world didn't made my efforts all feel hollow. So when 4E standardized the tiefling appearance (and 5E continued that practice), I was very pleased.

I will say that I can see how it was a crossroads. Prior to P2E, tieflings were all statted up as their own race, all while being described as a unique example of "this other race, but with some fiendish heritage showing through". So when 4E and 5E standardized the race, I saw that as just making the description match the stats. Conversely, P2E made "tiefling" a thing to be applied to other ancestries and thereby made the stats match the description. Not the direction I would go, but at least there being 1001 traits is finally justified.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
SandersonTavares wrote:


If Spontaneous casters can use a higher level spell slot to cast a lower level spell, that is NOT a signature spell and that they DO NOT know at the higher level, but without gaining any heightening benefits.

From the Sorcerer class :

"You can cast any spell in your spell repertoire by using a spell slot of an appropriate spell level."

So, no you cannot use 2nd-level spell slots to cast 1st-level spells.

I know we've had other "DEV SAID THIS" comments, but I want to point out two things:

- Appropriate does not mean "the same", appropriate simply means "allowed" so the above text doesn't disqualify below level spells so I dont think the quoted text disqualifies it as simply as you make it out

- Jason actually commented on a Reddit thread that Downcasting was legal (and I'd wager most GM's, myself included, would allow Downcasting).

The argument against downcasting is silly anyways, since it's an arbitrary restriction for Spontaneous casters that non-Spontaneous casters don't even have to deal with.

** spoiler omitted **

"An appropriate" CAN be read in a way that allows downcasting, but since it also CAN be read in a way that disallows it, it's not definitive and needs an unambiguous determination. Also, I've read Jason's comment on the reddit thread and (besides the fact that it's not on this website or in an errata or FAQ here) IMO, it doesn't qualify as unambiguous, simply due to how abbreviated it is. We can make assumptions (read: engage in wishful thinking) about how Jason interpreted what the question was asking (and that he was giving the okay on downcasting), but as long as it's at all possible that he interpreted it differently, then it's not good enough.

We need a clear and unambiguous answer to this and we've needed it since this edition launched.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
OrochiFuror wrote:
The 80's would like to say hello. A land before time, Dragon slayer, Indiana Jones and the temple of doom, The never ending story, Poltergeist, etc. We used to have very dark stories involving children and teens as main characters or sidekicks.

The 90's also wants to chime in with Goosebumps, Ghostwriter (yes, seriously, those kids had more than a few "adult fear" situations), and topping them all, the Animorphs.

1 to 50 of 1,416 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>