Temperans's page

1,240 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,240 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Regarding Floating Disk.

If I understood the new version correctly, it's impossible to use the Magic Trick (Floating Disk) feat (as originally written or simple conversion). Because Floating Disk now ends if: You ride it, lift/force it above 3ft, or if it goes over 5 bulk (before was 100 lbs/lv). You can't even use it to hold liquid as there is a clause about "needing to balance".

Now maybe the feat will alter that, but Magic Trick was already a huge feat. Which would mean splitting, which then makes it a huge feat tax.


It's because take 10 is more of an "oh right I could do that" thing. It's used so little that most people forget it even exists. But yes that is a great rule that perfectly expresses the "I'm okay at this, not need to risk it by experimenting."

So solution, take 10 doesn't count for increasing skill level. Which can explain why lots of people have low skill, they just keep doing the minimal effort and not improving.


The spellcasting dedication is a matter that's closely linked to the discussion of whether Wizards (or casters) were nerf and/or if this is the martial edition. Remember that a martial with spellcasting dedication gets 8th lv spell and half (or 2/3) the spell slots if fully invested at master level. The spellcaster with martial dedication can only reach expert and doesnt really get much from the dedication (there might be some useful feats, maybe).


That wasnt even close to the point of that response. He never said "every remote village has a legendary blacksmiths" or that they should be easy to hire. Just that in literature (irl or fiction) they were more often away from cities.

And just think about it, why would a person so dedicated to crafting stay in a city where there is noise, bandits, stupid nobles thinking they can just barge in, etc. There is also the fact that adversity fosters innovation, it is vastly more likely that the city blacksmith becomes more complacent and just makes whatever makes him easy money. That's not to say there are good crafters in cities, as the government would probably make sure that the soldiers are well fitted and that any metal work is properly maintained/crafted.

**********
Now dwarfs are a totally different than most crafters. They probably make entire cities dedicated to crafting whether its metal, stone, or ale. I mean their head god is the god of crafting.


So that probably should be 21 * 1.2 (not big deal just saying).

But, I'm curious where are you getting the extra +2 damage for barbarian, is it a rage power or something? Regular rage is only +2.

On that note if the barbarian is getting access to rage and other abilities, shouldn't the fighter get the use of at least 1 feat? But then again the equivalent to rage would be AoO and/or Shield Block.


Isnt the tier meant to represent the difference in time training? At least I was sure that was the intent. A person isnt born an Expert or Master they have to train to get that good. So the Expert Electrician could had spent 5-15 years in the trade (depending on talent); unlike the untrained person having spent a few days.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wizards cant bend people's mind at will, not even close unless the target is a weak mook, but then you still have only so many spells. But then the Fighter just wrecks it and its friends, and all without spending a single resource (except maybe HP if they get lucky).

Idk about the linearity since everything is "linear" now.


mrspaghetti wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Everyone saying the rules are for PCs does know that crafting is a matter of skill and efficiency right? Aka the process to make a sword is the same no matter who makes it: You heat metal, shape it, sharpen it, heat treat it, and apply finishing touches. The process wont add an extra step or use up more material unless the crafter is purposely doing things poorly or differently.
There's a reason a Master Electrician can unbox, assemble and install 3 ceiling fans in an hour while it takes a typical handy homeowner at least triple that time. It's the difference between someone who has been doing that work all day, every day for 20 years & has all the tools and experience, vs someone who just "knows how to do it".

I see that as an example of Trained/Expert (aka professional) vs Untrained (newbie or trying not to pay). Not PC vs NPC, which is what I was commenting on.


Another potential way to do it is split it such that some of the XP is gained from levels and other is gained from usage.

Say 50% of skill ranks can be placed on level up as potential and stuff you some how get or whatever fluff. The remainder can be placed placed at the end of a session if you used the skill enough.

Ex: A Rogue gets 6 ranks. At level up he may use 3 ranks. And at the end of each session he can place a rank (up to 3) on a skill used 3 times during the session.

Not sure how good this would be but I think its simple.


Everyone saying the rules are for PCs does know that crafting is a matter of skill and efficiency right? Aka the process to make a sword is the same no matter who makes it: You heat metal, shape it, sharpen it, heat treat it, and apply finishing touches. The process wont add an extra step or use up more material unless the crafter is purposely doing things poorly or differently.

Which means there are 3 options: Everyone is doing crafting wrong; NPCs have a special rule to craft efficiently; or NPCs have a special feat or "NPC class" to craft efficiently.

#1 clearly doesnt work because it just breaks everything. #2 works but just sounds like a cop out to me. So at least for me, the best option is #3.
The added perk of it being that you can have PCs who dont spend all their focus on adventuring; or get characters that use tropes like: Ambiguously Trained, Hidden Badass, or just the whole "arrow to the knee" bit.


I'm sure there are some Desna followers in the region, there are always some Desna followers somewhere everywhere.

The wiki says Liberators are welcomed by Cayden and Cayden is worshiped in the shackles so I can see at least a small group there to at least deal with some of the slave trade.

The Gray Corsairs are all about stopping naval slave traffic so I can see a large portion of them in the Shackles.

Steel Falcons work around the region (specially outside Andoran) freeing slaves and causing revolutions. So a small group along with some Twilight Talons could very well infiltrate some pirates to free slaves and cause mutinies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah it takes a crit roll and a save but it can be done forever. As opposed to 1/day/slot using a 6th lv uncommon spell only available to 2 lists and doesnt work vs targets lv 12 or higher, unless you heighten it, which means you cant use the better 7th+ lv spell(s).

If martials didnt need a save there would be even less reason to play a caster. I mean a martial gets those at ~lv 5 with almost no conditions besides the weapon type, while the caster waits for ~lv 12 with a ton of conditions.


Why does there need to be a spotlight when you are not watching things through a screen? For which I'm trying to say, looking "samey" would only happen for characters of the same class and only if they pick the same paths.

Lets take the single class fighter for example. You can do: archery, 2-handed, 1-handed, sword & board, reach, thrown or unarmed. That's 7 combat styles, even if some dont have much support if any support; For a total of 21 combinations if the choice was "yes or no". Which means you still have how much you are going into each path, and whether you are even taking the same feats.

***************
Lastly, this is a question for you, were/are characters doing "trained in the same team" and/or "uses a lot of teamwork [feats]" lesser and therefore shouldn't be played? (If the players decide to do take the same exact feats). I mean those team work teams are quite samey (but were/are usually the most powerful).


Stun 1 and slow 1 prevents the use of true strike on 2 action spells; which many see as a reason casters are "fine". It also prevents the use of 3 action spells and if you happen to be concentrating it limits you to 1 action spells.


Too much power creep is bad since it makes early options useless and/or traps.

Too little power creep is bad since since it makes the game stale and/or boring.

Finding that middle ground may proof to be very difficult later on given how little wiggle room there is. But it's hard for me to judge how problematic it is: for all I know it could take 15 years before they start having problem, or it could be just 2, on my time will tell.


For multi-quote just copy paste manually and use the code they have at the bottom (where it says "show").

At least that's how I understood it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's funny I keep hearing, "used pfsrd" "used pfsrd" "used pfsrd".

And you know what, you are right using a reference site without any of the setting lore will make it hard to fit the default setting. But that's not a fault of the players failing to account for setting, that's a fault of the source not having it in the first place.
Which can be fixed by guess what? Telling the players not to use that site for the game.

I dont see what is so bad about using different books. But if that's such a problem why not just say, "you may only use one rule book other than core"? Congrats now the character will not be "a mess of abilities from different areas".


.....

I said what I wanted to say. If you don't like it fine by me bye.


A GM doesnt need to look at every option, just those the players pick. But my comment wasnt about players, it was about everything else. If the GM says the sky instantly combusted, the sky instantly combusted. If the GM says there are a thousand 30 ft giants playing frisbee in a giant frisbee tournament, that's a thing that is happening. He can remove gods, make new ones or alter the very rules of the game if he wants.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

His argument is that requiring a specific option is sometimes the only way to make something work. In response to a comment saying that requiring one item to be effective is not effective.
Which the thrown weapon example fits perfectly in response.

But it's certainly possible that there will come a time where the only way to make a build/character work is with an uncommon+ option. Ex: Every Living Monolith.

**************
Just to make sure.

Everyone does remember that GMs have absolute power and near absolute knowledge over their games right? They can do whatever they want even change the rules.

A player only has what's in the books and what the GM decides to give or allow them to have.

But the solution remains the same. A player who isnt having fun with a GM/group has to leave the table. Since rarity is a default deny, a player who wants to play the weird uncommon builds and has little access to tables has to stop playing the game.


That's a matter of 1st level being higher power in PF2. PF1 lv1 is brutal remember the whole "a cat can kill you" thing?

Also I believe part of the reason why they increased lv1 cantrip damage was because of the bonus HP characters get now; Which normalizes the damage. If they didnt increase the power casters would feel even worse. The alternative is that they increased early HP because they decided to increase cantrip damage (and the fact everyone can land at least 2 attacks easily).

* P.S. can you imagine if everyone can make 2 attacks for 1d8, but cantrips are stuck at 1d3 for 2 action? That sounds like a non option, might as well not exist nerf.


Squiggit wrote:
Temperans wrote:


Also while looking apparently eschew materials is a Wizard exclusive, when it originally was a Sorcerer default.
Sorcerers get a better version of Eschew baked into their casting feature, so it's still their default.

I was pointing it out as more of a, "oh another thing for the 'what's different from pf1?'" thread.


Those metamagic are not Wizard exclusive

Wizards have 3 exclusive feats with the metamagic tag: Conceal, Silent, and Bonded.

Also while looking apparently eschew materials is a Wizard exclusive, when it originally was a Sorcerer default.

* P.S. Clerics have 6 exclusive, Druids have 3, Sorceres have 2, and Bards have 3


PF1 Witches were arcane casters with the witch spell list. So witches learned their spells like all other arcane casters, but had their own unique list of things they were taught/learned.

Which is one of the sad parts of the new spell list system. Every arcane class has the same list, every divine class has the same list, etc. Yes I know it's to help devs, but it's the little thing you know?


I'm not sure I understood, do you mean to give witches access to 1 spell list and then another based on the patron?

Because if it's only about spell slots all casters were highly nerfed (~30%+ reduction in spell slots).

As for the "tiers" argument. Isnt the main selling point by PF2 supporters that everything is "balanced" now? So I dont see them having a problem with granted spells. I mean Clerics work the same way (kind of). Anyway tiers will remain regardless of whether it's the full spell list or just a select few, even more now that every slot matters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Patron options weren't "flavorless" but they weren't flavorful either. They were basically lesser domains (only got 1 and only the spells).

So like others have said its great that they are getting more info, but it's still a question of how much focus will Paizo put on them.

I definitely dont want Witches to be the Pathfinder Warlock equivalent. At least not by default, its fine if they just port over the havoker archetype when they release the PF2e Kineticist.


As far as I can tell in a quick search, crafting requires the craft skill. Using a lore skill would be a house rule.

It's not a bad solution and its quick, but I'm not sure how it would work given that lore is balanced differently to crafting. Requiring both just seems to punishing for the current state of crafting.


Arcanist also kind of work as prepared any, they already effectively had the choice between Wizard, witch, partial druid. Also the Blood Arcanist archetype, which makes it directly related to sorcerer spontaneous any.

And yes I agree this thread is about the witch let's talk about it not just prepared any.


On the lesser effect on a success, in play it can definitely feel to some like they aren't good enough, if the rest keep getting larger values. Not sure, but it definitely could feel like a consolation prize, Ex: "at least that wasnt totally useless" vs "man that monster resisted".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh I'm not saying they cant be more general, but that the wizard class features make a big point on them being specialists of 1 field; The lore, at least until opposition schools were removed, was that Wizards dedicated so much time to 1 field they had difficulties casting from others.

Thassilonian Wizards dedicated so much more time and effort into 1 school they they were physically unable to cast spells of other schools.

Also this quote from the archetype (should be valid until they change the lore):

Thassilonian Specialist wrote:
Only wizards can truly follow the ancient philosophies created by Thassilon’s runelords, for only wizards have the capability to specialize in a school of magic.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

* Huge side note, and this is not a point for anyone, just a simple truth:
.

Everything is designed to sell even if it's just to 1 person. Any information on "how to make a better [insert product]" will include methods to make people like/buy the product. The only thing a corporation does differently, is that they dont just use techniques for one type of product, they use every tool available to try and out sell everyone else.

A book on game design while stating how to make a game more interesting. Is simultaneously saying how to make a game sell more. Which a corporation can use to make their games more successful.

The microtransaction thing, is a result of companies using game design and finding out you can put gambling in mobile games (and now computer games) while calling it something else and they will make huge amounts of money with minimal effort.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

...Wizards are defined by being specialists in a field (or choosing not to focus in case of universalist). That's literally the entire purpose of Arcane schools and now also Arcane thesis...


All those demon and contract based witch archetypes have nothing to do with divinity. The only connection being the very weird Sorcerer thing (which I just dont get in the first place).

And no I wouldn't think that just because a new demon theme spell was added that witches should get it. Because let's be honest, patrons (at least as they were done before) were based on concepts and domain very much like Oracle mysteries. They were not related to a creature type or spell list.

*********
Ed it's hard to do that because the system already had a foundation which got obviously changed.

But at least in PF1 the biggest difference between Arcane and Divine was is it "because of your effort" or "because something gave it to you". All divine casters worship or get their spell because something gave it whether it was a concept or an actual entity: But Arcane require you to learn (Int), practice (Wis), or intuit (Cha) how to pull things off even while thing might give you some spells.


Well I wasn't comparing damage more an observation that most comparisons (including those from the charts) have been with melee martials.

Also yeah, bow ranger does less damage than the barbarian, but they are more consistent largely because of lower MAP. Still again I was commenting on how the math is (mostly) done vs melee martials not ranged martials.


I wonder why everyone is comparing the melee fighter/barbarian, when a ranged fighter/ranger does about the same damage and has equal or better range, although yeah it maybe doesn't have the feats.

Just something I noticed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can see at least some of the hexes being rituals with some having smaller than 1 day cast time.
For example: I can see Witch's Hut as a 1 day ritual to animate a house/tent for a week (or some value).
Or a short ritual to get the benefit of augury (divination at a higher level).

I agree the Witch doesn't fit a "pick your spell list" class and patrons giving spell is exactly what it did before. Where I can see patrons improving is taking a cue from Sorcerer, Oracle, and Shaman and getting patron themed hexes.

The best example being Winter Witch, having Baba Yaga as a patron and getting lots of the ice/cold theme hexes of the archetype/prestige class or maybe even new hexes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I dont remember anyone saying they refuse to work with the system (maybe 1 person).

I agree you cannot make a new edition if you just port everything with no changes. But part of the discussion is also that some people dont like retcons specially the one suggested of "it's always been this way, you just remember it wrong".

It's like telling someone to forget 10 plus years playing in the setting as if it never happened. Is that's what happened? Was the last 10 years a dreams and all character woke up from a coma (old pokemon Ash is in a coma theory).

Aka for people who's issue is continuity what the specific rule is doesn't matter, at long as there is an explanation or the change doesn't affect how it plays.


Like I said I dont think it's bad to add new things or some power creep, in fact I like that they can release cool new things. My post wasnt meant as being negative, but a "well that's interesting, when you think about it" sort of thing.

In the context of new editions, the power creep and available option reset of new editions isnt really a problem in my opinion. It's simply an artifact of how publishing games/books and stable working conditions works. There is only so much you can work on before you start losing your funds or sanity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Btw I always found it weird that:
The solution to the problem people come up with is almost always make more feats/spells; and by the nature of PF2 being having nerfed magic and some other things getting those abilities would be power creep.

Which people would then complain about because "why are you ruining my games with your splatbooks".
But in the end it's still a fix to Paizo's choices.

I still remember the huge "swashbuckler are just fighters we dont need a new class or archetype" discussion. Which would cut out an entire class nd all its lore from the setting


Not saying it's bad, just kind of weird human behavior.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Btw I think the Starfinder solution to edition change is great. They acknowledge that something happen to Golarion, and that it's been a long time since the event happened (potentially millions of years for some areas).

So they can/could change mechanics freely and not be bound by "This is how things work on Golarion"; while still being able to use the setting and lore freely.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That's kind of the problem their explanation is that it's always been this way. Its effectively a decade long retcon of how everything in Golarion worked.

I see people keep repeating "your character doesn't remember it", "your character didn't see it that way", and the worst one: "just because the literal laws of physics & magic changed doesn't mean they dont behave the same".

The first 2 can at least be explained with "the gods brainwashed everyone" and it would make sense. But that last one is effectively telling me that before boiling water used 100 °C and now it takes 200 °C, but they are the same. Its physically impossible for them to be the same.

You cant have your cake and eat it too.


yeah there are a lot of things that got no explanations if you look:

For casters things that used to last one amount now last either considerably shorter or take considerably longer to cast.

Rangers must have noticed how their companions became weaker.

A huge number of Clerics and Paladins lost their powers because of the alignment and deity restriction changing.

Bards mysteriously expanded their spellcasting from 6th to full casting.

And their is the entire question of what happens to characters that had rule options that are now uncommon or rarer. Given how its "default deny" I can see many characters trying to get their tools or spells or used an obscure feat and suddenly finding it gone or unusable.

Order of the Stick is great. I liked how candid they were with the edition change, but it was 3 to 3.5 so it wasn't much difference.


Well if you happen to be part of a consensual cult of Zon-Kuthon because you are either a huge sadist or a "demented" masochist you would ping as evil without having killed anyone.

Does that fit the example better?

How about a merchant follower of Amodeus who makes unfair deals to gain free slave labor to use in his deific obedience (draining some blood from an unwilling servant)?

Both are definitely evil and the second one should probably get punished, but do they deserve to be instantly killed, without even asking if they are willing to stop?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:


Temperans wrote:
But I take serious issues with Champions suddenly not being able to Detect Evil or Smite Evil early on.

Smite Evil was never a named in-world ability. 1st level Champions can do Good damage, which is really a pretty similar thing in-universe.

The Detect Evil thing is a bit trickier to reconcile, but frankly not a lot. There are precious few canonical Paladins of less than 5th or 6th level in PF1 books. They exist, but not in any great numbers.

How is Smite Evil different from Bardic Performance, Rage, or Wildshape?

I mean I wouldn't have a problem if the only change was changing the damage type, values, or duration a bit (like they did with Rage). But as it stands Smite Evil is completely different and opt-in ability instead of a default thing for Lawful Good Champions with no way to get it at lv 1.

Let's continue the discussion in PMs. (Wanted to post this here for continuity).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it depends on how it's done and what is changed.

For example: PF2 had no world changing event, but I have no problem with the 3 action economy or crit rule; and I have no problem with skills being stronger.

But I take serious issues with Champions suddenly not being able to Detect Evil or Smite Evil early on.

In the case of a world changing events changing mechanics, I have no problems as long as it makes sense. A zombie apocalypse will mean more zombies appear; or a global floading meaning people will need to live on boats.
But it would not make sense if a volcanic ice age means fire spells are suddenly stronger; or that the destruction of a random (or minor) country suddenly makes creatures mutants.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like the whole "Rangers cant be archers because Fighters" that was going on in the playtest. But then Wizards got everything but Illusion and Enchanment taken, not just that 1 thing. Even if the Wizard is supposed to be the "versatile guy" who can "focus on one spell type"; not just the Illusion and Enchament guy.

Also wasn't Sorcerer the better enchanter before? Although it was mostly thanks to the bloodlines that let you bypass immunity.

Wizards were indeed the best Illusionist mostly thx to the ability to have 2 concentration based illusions. The problem was the rules made it so illusions were either useless or overpowered.


Fail to strike down evil sounds more like you were fighting a demon and let it get away. But that's a literal interpretation.


Our lady Pharasma is a fair judge.


I think people might be focusing too much on the animal aspect and not so much on the "X becomes Y" concept that transmutation wizard used to pool off.

Aka it's not so much about self transmutation, but overall transmutation.

But then again I'm not very versed in transmutation wizards.


Well yes they are proud, emotional and lack discipline (as we humans know it); but then if the tribe is run by a Half-Orc it also becomes a lot more tactical.

Their culture is more battle heavy so they would be trained from early on to fight, unlike humans who are usually taught combat after a certain age (usually >15).

Also just to make sure someone mentioned other might see it as cowardice. There is a big difference between skirmishing and cowardice, for one a coward wouldn't go back into the fight. Secondly, and this goes to the scar point, treating scars as badges doesn't mean you will go and stand around while the enemy kills you.

I mean if you die how will you get more scars to show off? Also also the culture also states the when family members die the position of the rest falls, so yeah I dont see them just standing while they get killed.

1 to 50 of 1,240 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>