Temperans's page

5,951 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,951 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Derklord wrote:
Note that despite saying "base", it's with all bonuses, like from Haste or Barbarian's Fast Movement.

Technically its only the modifiers that affect your "base speed" before encumberance. Haste and Monk Fast movement don't apply since they modify your speed after encumberance.

EDIT: I deleted the previous version of this post because it didn't fit what I wanted to say. Also, half asleep and forgot I could just edit it.


To follow up on what the others have said about needing explicit immunity.

The only way something may have an implicit immunity is if its something that the game does not take into account normally. This type of stuff usually happens with regular items where you can assume they have their IRL properties or with incredibly niche situations (like trying to use a fire in a vacuum).

In this case wolf style in itself is not a trip even if it may give you a free trip attempt. It also doesn't say that things immune to trip are also immune to this speed reduction. If you need a way to visualize it think more of it like breaking bones and muscle or using pressure poits. The important part of the feat is that it has two parts: Part 1, you slow down the enemy; Part 2, you can try to trip an enemy whose effective base speed became 0 or less.


For PF1 you can look in roll20, reddit, various discords (up to you which one you join), asking your friends (I asked in various discords even those that didn't weren't focused on that).

Paizo has a play by post area of the forums, I am not sure if they also have a looking for group section.

For local game store, although the game might be niche you might be able to find a group who plays it. Just like you can find people who play some of the asian TTRPGs in the west. It doesn't hurt to ask.

**************

Regarding focusing on PF1e or PF2e. There really is no reason why you can't enjoy both, specially when it comes to converting adventure paths to and from each version. You certainly don't need a group to create characters or do a solo game (treat the adventure path as an open world literature RPG).

Also, keep in mind that PF1e while not active still has plenty of 3rd party content available for it and still being made. Sure its not as much as PF2e, but with how much was created for those 10 years you could literally play for decades.


You don't have to multiclass and as others have stated multiclassing will delay your progression with some gunslinger deeds.

But if you have/want to multiclass I recommend 2 levels in Zen Archer Monk. The reason is simple, if you do you get 4 free feat: Weapon Focus (bows, not crossbows), I. Unarmed Strike, Point-Blank Shot, and Rapid Shot. This would give you a way to threaten in melee, access to a backup ranger weapon, and free up some higher level feat space.

On the note of Zen Archer. Ask your GM if they are fine converting that archetype into a crossbow archetype. Similarly, ask your GM if they are fine converting at least some of the gunslinger deed feats to work with crossbows.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
Temperans wrote:

Constraints are good since it means you have to think more about how to implement something. Its own of the corner stones of keeping things grounded in a story: Characters following the rules of the setting, and knowing when its best to break those rules.

Saying you should leave a table because the GM, the lore, or the rules placed a constraint to how you can build a character, specially when the constraint is as simple as "certain ancestries have specific looks", seems rather excessive.

It's simple. If the table refuses to treat you or your character respectfully, why would you want to stay. This isn't the same kind of constraint as a limit forcing you to focus your creativity into an interesting place, this is a limit keeping you from exploring an interesting place because someone's stereotype about the ways elves should look is more important to them than either realism or inclusivity.

If somebody told me that, for example, dwarves couldn't be trans because of their traditionalist society, or that goblins couldn't be good, it would be clear to me that their table is not willing to accept things outside their stereotype of what a fantasy setting "should" look like, neither for realism nor inclusion, and that I'm probably not going to enjoy my time at this table.

I was not talking about treating a person or their character disrespectfully or not being inclusive. Nor was I talking about what gender a character could be, nor what how much value should be placed on fantasy vs reality vs whatever. You said, "This isn't the same kind of constraint as a limit forcing you to focus your creativity into an interesting place" but I never said what kind of contraint given I was talking about the general case.

My post was about the basic idea of constraints folstering creativity and you shouldn't just quit over the slightest inconvenience. How did that become controversial?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Constraints are good since it means you have to think more about how to implement something. Its own of the corner stones of keeping things grounded in a story: Characters following the rules of the setting, and knowing when its best to break those rules.

Saying you should leave a table because the GM, the lore, or the rules placed a constraint to how you can build a character, specially when the constraint is as simple as "certain ancestries have specific looks", seems rather excessive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SOLDIER-1st wrote:
Travelling Sasha wrote:
The Measure not being defined itself gives writers room to pull whatever from whenever — which is both good and bad, I guess. Maybe there's a hidden line somewhere about excessive cruelty or whatever.

I'm not so much worried about what the Measure actually says, as I am how it's prioritized. Like when Queen Domina invited the Hellknights to Korvosa, it seems like they don't actually uphold Korvosan law, but instead hold up the Measure and Chain. Which I don't mind at all, and actually like, but it leads into several problems that to the best of my knowledge haven't been addressed in text before.

How are criminals prosecuted? Is it possible to be charged for the same crime by both the state and the Hellknights? Can you appeal to the state/Hellknights if you've done something that breaks the law for one but not the other? How does sentencing work if the different laws/judges have the same crimes but not the same punishments?

This seems like it'd be a significant issue specifically in Cheliax. While I recognize that the Measure is based on a combination of Chelish, Taldan, and Hellish law, that still leaves a LOT of chances for significant differences to come up. How are those differences resolved?

I'm just very curious how having an extra-governmental agency that polices an entirely different law set works in practice, and how that differs between orders and countries.

This is what makes them interesting and why Paizo keeps releasing content for them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:

The Hellknights got a slot alongside the Pathfinder Society, Firebrands, Knights of Lastwall, and Magaambya in LOCG, so I assume they’re meant to be a headlining faction eventually… but unless there’s some kind of reconciliation with what the Hellknights have been (tools of Thrune, agents of colonial violence and genocide), it’s awfully difficult to see them as Good or even Neutral.

I would hope for a proper schism to have occurred by the time PC Hellknights get the spotlight. As their lore currently stands, they’re magical Gestapo who either serve Cheliax or are stateless vigilantes - something any sane Goodly folk should bar from their borders.

Considering that their whole thing is law above all else and that they value results more than morality or methods. Yeah the organization is very much LN to its very core. Because they are all about law, and that they are originally from cheliax, its really no surprised that there would be plenty of questionable hellknights. They really have no chill.

The reason you bring in hellknights is the order that they promise. If you welcomed a Hellknight to a country were the law was "every friday is a party" they would 100% police it so that everyone is partying. Similarly, if you welcome a Hellknigbt to a country where the law is "cut the hands of all thieves" they would 100% police that so that all caught thieves are handless. That's why its hard to see them as good or neutral. Most of the areas that they police are evil or neutral, and their methods are usually not conductive to freedom which is often seen as evil: Even though its an expression of extreme lawfulness to try and reduce chaos (freedom) at all cost.

As for schisms there already have been schisms, but those are very violent and bloody.

****************

They are a headlining faction. But they are not headlining because they are good, its because of their extreme and wide reach against anything that might be even remotely chaotic.


With this type of stuff it heavily depends on who your players are and how much trust you all have with each other.

I know for a fact that a new player can optimize as well as a veteran, or that a veteran can play as unoptimized as a new player.

Honestly you should talk about it with the group and see how exactly the summoner player wants to go about it. If they play it as a "hulk" type thing where they only go full power when needed then it might not be so problematic. But that requires a really good player.


1) You physically cannot use disable device with ranged weapons unless you have a specific feat. With that feat being very limited and only working on the most basic triggers.

2) All hazards (and traps are a kind of hazard) can by bypass with creativity. Traps having a specific trigger just means that a player can disable it if they have access to the trigger.

3) When I said you don't have the right tools I quite literally mean having the right feats and abilities to use the skill at range. There is more than enough proof that you cannot disable at range without those abilities or GM rule of cool kicking in.

4) A player doesn't have to describe how they do anything in game, but that does not make it so you can ignore how things work. Maybe your GM might allow you to do that, but that is not how the game works.

5) Visual and Sound triggers are literally the same as Proximity triggers but with special rules. Visual triggers have a longer range than proximity, but are easier to bypass (assuming it doesn't have true sight/darkvision/see invisibility). Sound triggers activate with any sounds. So your very examples of "stealth around a camera" and "use a tuning fork to disable" straight up don't work.

6) You always have to be adjacent to the trigger unless you have someway to do it from range, it doesn't matter what the trigger is. Proximity, Visual, and Sound triggers all make it so you need range to reach the trigger in the first place.

7) The game has many worse ways to make it so that a player cannot disable the trap besides needing range. Decoy triggers, covered triggers, inivisibility on items, multiple traps, using constructs to activate hidden traps, construct traps, camouflaged traps, etc.

8) We are in a thread where people are saying trapfinding isn't good, the book makes it pretty clear that traps are a pain to deal with if you don't have a rogue or someone that can deal with them. But here people are saying that traps should be even more trivial than people already think they are.

9) Magical proximity traps are the easiest to explain away as the "trigger" is a clearly defined area unlike Visual or Sound traps. Specially given you can count the entire trigger area as the trigger itself due to how the alarm spell works.

10) The hardest trigger to disable is also the easiest to bypass, that being the mechanical proximity trap. The reason being that they are motion sensors and so even throwing a pebble would set it off.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Quentin Coldwater wrote:

According to Wikipedia, obesity is "sometimes considered a disease." That would imply that a Remove Disease could remove it, by the very literal reading of the text.

Its listed as a disease because of how things get tracked and get more attention. Also some disease can cause that type of problem (Ex: Tyroids). A great example is addiction which is often treated as a disease, but mostly a mental health issue.

I am not sure we should use socio-political definitions of "disease" for what can be removed with that spell. Doing otherwise is a recipe for disaster with certain people taking it way beyond what this conversation is about.

(I hope I don't have to explain what the issue is further).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

According to 1st Edition Pathfinder, the upper limits generally found among elves was about 148 pounds for a male and 126 pounds for a female.

For dwarven males, the limit was about 206 pounds. For dwarven females, about 176 pounds.

You know I always saw this as a guideline for what is the average "normal" weight. Specially because it lists for human as being 125-220 for male and 90-185 for female.

Just like how the rollable height doesn't take into account specially short (below 4'7" for human) and specially tall (above 6'6" for human).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Btw I would like to point out that if we are going to judge based on alien physiology things get a lot worse.

For a human being 300+ Lbs is considered morbidly obese by practically all standards. For an elf that tend to be lighter than human by default reaching a similar weight would be worse than morbidly obese. Not only that, but we are talking about them being so in a setting where physical exercise is the norm and and were food while decent is no way near as calorie dense as modern junk food.

Regarding the opposite end with a thin dwarf. Being below a certain weight would be considered malnourished and that can have severe health effects. For humans that point would leave us looking "bony" for dwarfs who are naturally thicker looking "like a human" would be pretty close to that point. How close is debatable, but it would clearly be underweight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arutema wrote:
Temperans wrote:
A surface drow society sounds like trying to change drow into something they are not. Their entire physiology is built for being underground as is the case with most things that have light sensitivity by default.

Light sensitivity automatically equates to living underground? It could simply be the mark of a nocturnal species that prefers to sleep during daylight hours. Earth has plenty of those.

Vampires are utterly destroyed by sunlight, does that automatically make them cave-dwellers?

Vampires are not cave dwellers because they tend to be humans who feed on humans. Vampires would love it if humans were to decided to go live underground.

As for light sensitivity I meant it in the context of Pathfinder were light blindness is usually (to not say always) given to creatures that live in the darklands or deep oceans (Caligni): There are like 1 or two exceptions at least right now. While it is true that IRL nocturnal creatures would have something like that, it is not the case in Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because drow already has a lot of that variety in their 10 houses, that just needs to be expanded upon instead of just making a new group that Drow that no one ever knew about until just now. It's the same reason that asking for native Dwarf in a new region doesn't make sense when the lore already says dwarf are from a specific area.

Regarding Jinin, I always get the spelling of that confused, don't know why I just do. I said they went wide, because they physically cannot go through the core of the planet. Not only is going through the center of the planet physically impossible without some extreme magic/tech, that journey would have made them into drow by the very nature of Rovagug being at the core. Thus, the only possible path they have is moving through the crust long way around, thus "wide".

Because Earthfall was 10,000 years ago is that we have a set up veritable drow empire in the darklands. It just doesn't make sense to try and say that there is now another different society of drows that are good when the very lore explicitly says,

Drow AONPRD 2e wrote:
The drow are infamous throughout the world, but until recently most assumed stories of demon-worshipping, underground-dwelling elves were spooky legends crafted to share around a campfire. Today, the existence of drow is an understood truth, and while their presence in the dark caverns deep below is unsettling, they seem content to leave the surface world alone for now.

nWe are talking about a group that will at best banish the ones that dare to think different and at worse will transform them via fleshwarping.

Also note I am not saying that there aren't good drow, or that they can't be part of other societies. But by the very nature of their biology just like with Skeletons, they trend towards evil and anything that is not evil is the exception not the rule.

**************************

Having said all of that, Arcadia is a unique continent, and it would much better if Paizo focused on their unique inhabitants than trying to shoehorn a way to have dwarfs, drow, etc. when they have no business being there.

Like you know, Syrinxes that somehow have less lore than Strixes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bloodrager is actually easy to disect.

* Bloodrage: Barbarian like rage the scales slower and allows you to case bloodrager spells while raging.

* Arcane Strike as part of raging. Arcane strike should return eventually, and bloodrager should be able to skip its activation cost with rage.

* Access to certain barbarian feats (to reduce how many new feats are needed and for primalist bloodrager).

* Bloodrager having low level spells, along with adding spells that are specifically made for Bloodragers.

* Unique bloodline mechanics independent of sorcerer. Bloodrager should still count as a bloodline ability for things like Dragon Disciple.

* Cool interesting magical rage abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Btw Jinning are indeed not drow. The Jinning went wide to find the mithral tree, but the drow went deep and got warped by the darklands as a whole. This is the same as dwarfs who went for the surface and tended to live near the top of the darklands, compared to druegar who were deeper.

Its always the same thing: The deeper into the darklands the more evil creatures tend to be. There might be some exceptions, but that's what they are exceptions.

*********************

And before anyone starts any BS because people love to do that, no it has nothing to do with skin color. Druegar (evil dwarfs) are ashen gray and Morlocks (inbred darkland humans) are pale white.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A surface drow society sounds like trying to change drow into something they are not. Their entire physiology is built for being underground as is the case with most things that have light sensitivity by default.

Also there is 0 reasons to use drow and drow lore that are not from Pathfinder and the Golarion setting, so why did that get brought up? Its like saying that halflings should behave different because that is not how Tolkien wrote them, or that orcs should be pigs because that is how Japanese orc are portrayed, or that elves should stop being space alien with alien faces because 90% of elfs in other settings look like humans with long ears.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

People are talking as if Tar Barphon would be an enemy of Cheliax. But there is no reason for that to be the case. Cheliax being lawful evil and Tar Barphon being neutral evil makes it so that they are far more likely to be allies than enemies.

Yes, they differ on the whole "being alive" thing. But that's no different to Geb as a whole, and I am pretty sure they have a good relationship with Cheliax.

I say a much more pressing matter is reinforcing their armies as best as possible to ward against any invasion. Specially after the worldwound got closed and Iomedae doesn't have an active crusade to keep track of anymore.


*Khan* wrote:
Combat Patrol has Dodge and Mobility as feat tax (in my opinion).

Combat patrol's movement provokes as normal, Mobility and Dodge decreases the chance of getting hit for that movement.

**********************

Glad you found a build you like Ripcord


1) Proximity triggers cannot be bigger than the area the trap effects. So a 10ftx10-ft wide magic trap with alarm as trigger will have the proximity trigger be in those 10ftx10ft.

2) We are talking about traps not just random magic. Traps are defacto magic items and involve some way to attach the magic to the area permanently (see all the "rune/sigil of" spells). You will not

3) The alarm spell works pretty much like a trap and I would personally rule it as a trap when ever relevant. That means that players approaching an alarm spell would get a check to spot ot before they trigger it and if they have a way to disarm it they can try.

4) Nothing says that the alarm spell is invisible. In fact the closest thing it says is that its "subtle", which means it could be noticed.

5) The perception check to notice a trap first tells you "hey this is weird its clearly a trap". Beating the DC by 5 or more then tells you "oh this holes clearly mean the trap does something like X". Going back to point 1, unless you are actively searching you only notice a trap before you trigger it, not when you enter the affected area.

6) The trap rules are more specific than the general rule for those spells.

7) Just telling players "well you just suffer" with no reason is one of the best way to make them angry at you. Making a trap it shows that if they had the skills they could had dealt with it, and incentivizes them to diversify. Also not all traps are triggered by summoned creatures.

8) Just because you can detect a trap does not mean you have the tools to disable it. The entire point of proximity, sound, and vision traps is that they are harder to disarm if you don't have the right tools. Making it so you can just disarm them from were ever quite literally trivializes those traps.

9) A shown by things like appraise and UMD, you do not need detect magic to determine something is magical. So your "if I am going to let a rogue without detect magic" doesn't make any sense because they never needed detect magic because they have Trapfinding.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wether to roll or not was never in question. It was all about where you can roll it.

Without a special ability that lets you do it at range you have to do it with your melee reach.


Wonderstell wrote:
Temperans wrote:

Let me respond to these two points really quick.

In Harm's Way doesn't have negative synergy its meant to reinforce the idea of a bodyguard by doubling up on protection. You use bodyguard to grant AC, IF the attack is still successful and you think that whoever you are protecting wont survive if they get hit you can then use in Harm's Way to protect them.

Huh, for some reason I've never noticed the "successful" part of the feat's text. Complaint withdrawn.

Temperans wrote:
You are underselling Combat Patrol for a large creature with a reach weapon. Combat patrol gives a bonus of 5ft + 5ft/5Bab, at level 5 its 10ft, at level 10 its 15ft so a large creature with reach at level 10 would create a 30ft zone. Also the purpose of combat patrol is that you can move out of turn and literally body block the enemy.

The feat increases "your threatened area by 5 feet for every 5 points of your base attack bonus". So it starts at 5ft at level 5.

(And if it was 15ft at level 10 then a large (tall) creature with reach would create a 35ft zone.)

The move out of turn part is good, but will only stop an enemy if they were charging. If it's a move action they can just alter their course. The feat is a "round 1" kind of play that falls off hard after enemies have closed in (if they choose to do that in the first place). So unless you often win initiative and begin combat with advantageous positioning its a "maybe" feat.

I guess we both misread something .

As for when is combat patrol useful I agree that it depends on the encounter. But I don't that having more tools is ever a bad situation.

You can use combat patrol vs flying/swiming melee enemies to respond to their 3d movement. You can use it when acting as a lookout for the party, since it gives a sort of "pseudo initiative": You still have not acted, but you can still move and respond to things. As you mentioned it can block charging, but when large it also forces enemies to move around you which can cause problem if there is difficult or Slippery terrain around. You can combine it with walls to suddenly block a seemingly open path. Etc.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Cheliax unceremoniously ending slavery with zero conflict would not only the most anti-climactic way to end the whole thing, but it would also go entirely against everything they stand for.

Cheliax's whole thing is that the strong rule the weak and everything should be done according to contracts and law. Do you really think they would willingly lose power like that when they are already on a losing streak? Narratively wise, it would make one of the most evil countries in Golarion less evil for the sake of being less evil. Which just undermines the entire point of having an evil country in the first place.

It's the narrative equivalent of saying Darkseid should stop enslaving people because you don't see a point in it. I am exaggerating a bit but the point stands, let the bad guys be bad guys.


If extradimensional spaces can cut you off still, then Rope Trick should work to stop it (at least while you sleep).

If you worship Desna you could port over the Swallowtail Bracers from Wrath of Righteous. That item not only gives you immunity from nightmare, but it also bounces the spell back to the caster.

Anything that gives protection against illusions and mental effects would also work.

Could port the Dream Shield spell.
*****************

Sending has very few ways to be stopped and it mostly involve general anti-magic stuff or being in a place where it won't reach. The good thing is that it requires you are familiar with the target, so you can only get annoyed by friends and family.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Sasha Laranoa Harving wrote:

Classes that are designed for individual campaigns that have unique mechanics seem like a good mechanical starting place for rare classes to me, especially if you give the framing that they're really only possible in that environment or a very similar one.

Some examples...

1. Ringmaster, which interacts with the circus mechanic from Extinction Curse.
2. Academician, which interacts with the academia mechanic from Strength of Thousands.
3. Royal, which interacts with the kingdom mechanic from Kingmaker.

While they could be used in other campaigns that use versions of those mechanics, they would likely require some amount of adjustment.

Making a whole class for a single campaign seems indulgent, doesn't it? A full class with feats is like 20+ pages. I really can't see those being squeezed into an AP or player's guide. It also might feel like you're being punished by not selecting the unique class if that's the only class that fully interacts with the campaign mechanics, and that's limiting.

True but in some specific campaigns it might work. If they are for specific campaigns they wouldn't need as many feats as the important part of a class vs archetype is the stat block, which could be greately simplified. I can see it for example in a dual class campaign where you are also offered some campaign specific rare classes.

But otherwise yeah, I agree it would be extremely indulgent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Belafon wrote:
Temperans wrote:
The area affected by the trap is not necessarily part of said trap as it depends on what trap you are talking about. For example the area on top of a pit trap is not a trap, but the area the pit trap occupies is a trap.

That's a really weird distinction to try to make. You can't notice that you are standing on top of an area designed to fall away (unless the trigger happens to be nearby as well)? Or are you saying that you can notice it, but you can't do anything about it?

Quote:
As for how a magical trap gets disarmed not getting details. Are we really going to question how magic gets disarmed? You can literally describe that however you want it really doesn't matter: You destroy the trigger thus removing the magic, you damage the runes, you trick the magic, you touch it like you touch a wand with UMD, etc.

It's not a question of the method by which it gets disarmed, but rather where it gets disarmed. See below.

Quote:
Finally as to how a fireball trap gets disarmed. The location depends entirely on where the trigger. If you have a trap room the origin point is likely in the middle of the room while the trigger is in the door, this ensures anyone that comes it gets hit by the fireball. If you have trap hallway the origin point and trigger are likely to be very close to make sure whoever is walking gets hit by it. The reach you need to disable a trigger depends entire on the type: A touch trigger can be disarmed without reach, but a proximity trigger requires that your reach be longer than the detection range.
Let's take the Fireball Trap in the Core Rulebook. It affects a 20'r area, and has a proximity (alarm) trigger that covers that same 20'r area. But there's literally nothing there. Not in any of those squares. No runes, no guiding mechanism, no focus, nothing. But a rogue can disable it. Again, the method isn't important. What's important is asking "Should the...

Well using the pit example, the trigger for the pit is usually "there is some weight on the cover" meaning location. The air above the pit is not part of the trap nor is the area around it, but the door/cover that acts as a trigger is (Notice covered pits have special rules to detect them).

As for the "where it gets disarmed" I stand by the statement that when you are disarming a trap you need to have access to the trigger, otherwise there would be no way to set off the trap when you fail. Also it stands to reason that unless the trigger is visual you would have to be within the trap effect area.

As for the trap entry in the books. I personally always assumed that they only gave the bare minimum to run the trap to save space and the specific of any specific trap is upto the GM and scenario writter. One GM may have it so that the trap is a line of runes circling the entirety of the area in which case yeah a Rogue could disable it without being inside. Another might make it half the radius to make sure as many people as possible are inside. In any case the trap would go off if you get too close and you would get a check to notice before it goes off.

******************

Btw remember that magical proximity traps are based on the Alarm spells. So the "trigger" would be crossing the threshold without speaking the password. Disarming the trap would thus be making the Alarm spell stop functioning, or alternately if a Rogue's Disable Device beats the DC by 10 or more they just learn the password.

Mechanical proximity traps are scary given how sensity they are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derklord wrote:
Kurald Galain wrote:
Yes, that. The catch is that full-BAB classes tend to use Power Attack a lot. A 10th-level full BAB class with PA gets +7 to hit and +9 to damage; whereas a 10th-level partial BAB rogue gets +7 to hit and +5d6 sneak attack. Neither has an accuracy problem.

Which class are you talking about? A Fighter doesn't have +7, because it has Weapon Training (and possibly Greater Weapon Training, and, nowadays, Warrior Spirit). A Barbarian doesn't have +7, because it has Rage (and a +2 from pounce). Paladin (& Antipaladin) has Smite, Ranger has Favored Enemy, Slayer has Studied Target, Swashbuckler has SWT, Bloodrager has Bloodrage, Cavalier has Cavalier’s Charge and Banner (and possibly a bonus form an order), even Shifter has a +1 from Wild Shape's strength bonus. Gunslinger hits touch AC and thus has a much higher accuracy. UnMonk and Brawler (and Shifter) have a higher chance of hitting by virtue of having more attacks.

Of course, that "+9" also doesn't hold true, due to Weapon Training + Weapon Specialization, Rage, Smite, Favored Enemy, Studied Target, SWT + Precise Strike, Gun Training, Challenge, and strength bonus being multiplied by 1.5 for two-handed weapons.

So what you said is only true if you compare the Rogue to the Warrior NPC class. There's that term I used in my first post again...

Temperans wrote:
There is this weird idea that unless the class deals the most damage possible its immediately useless.

There is this weird idea that all criticism comes from obsessed theorycrafting min-maxers who only care about DPS.

You're claiming a dichotomy where there is none. For good classes, being good at damage (or otherwise at impacting combat) does not come with "not being able to do anything out of combat", or with other glaring weaknesses.

It's not about DPS. It's about being taken out by every fortitude or will save requiring spell because you're plaged with...

You are ignoring all the rogue talents that are in fact worth at least a feat, some are worth more. Rogue has access to quite a lot of "you get X feat without meeting pre-reqs" talents. Sniping is a much strong vital strike that stacks with vital strike, and they have plenty of ways to increase the range to well beyond what's needed for most encounters. They are a teamwork class because when they are one of the best at taking advantage of teamwork feats. Yeah others can also get those feats but Rogue gets the most benefit from them.

You imply that rogues are bad because they rely on other players, but I see that as a good thing because it means that everyone is involved and cooperating.

Similarly, you claim that there is no dichotomy while you immediately respond with "a good class must be good at everything and have no 'glaring' weakeness". Which is straight up not the case. Fighter have the best combat and the most combat feat, and the worst skills. Paladins have great combat and healing, and the worst skills. Ranger is close to the Rogue, but instead of going for more dice they went for flat bonuses. Chained Monk a 3/4 BAB is often called flurry of misses as people tend to go Flurry (built in TWF) + Power Attack for some reason. Etc.

The matter of saves is nonsensical given how most classes only have 1 good save with nearly all martial classes having a poor Reflex and Will save. So you cannot possibly blame Rogues who are tied with Monks for the best Reflex saves. So by your standard of "having bad will saves is bad" all martials are bad classes? Fort save is a whole different issue because the biggest problems there are poisons and diseases, where having a high save doesn't do much more than delay the issue (unless you are a Monk or Paladin).

So yeah people focus too much on the "oh they are a 3/4 class with no attack roll booster, while ignoring they are the best abusers of simple things like Greater Invisibility (which you can buy a wand of).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kasoh wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Finally as to how a fireball trap gets disarmed. The location depends entirely on where the trigger. If you have a trap room the origin point is likely in the middle of the room while the trigger is in the door, this ensures anyone that comes it gets hit by the fireball. If you have trap hallway the origin point and trigger are likely to be very close to make sure whoever is walking gets hit by it. The reach you need to disable a trigger depends entire on the type: A touch trigger can be disarmed without reach, but a proximity trigger requires that your reach be longer than the detection range.

I'm more dubious. Nothing in description of Disable Device indicates that it needs to be next to the trigger to be disabled. While you don't want players to disable traps through rooms or on different floors, if every magical trap could be immune to disabling with a proximity sensor, then A) Ranged Legerdemain would be more popular, and B) every single trap ever would be designed that way.

If there's special rules for disabling the trap, they'll be in the write up for the trap, otherwise its more likely that if you can spot the trap, you'll be in a position to disable it.

That's that point though of proximity triggers to be really hard to disarm. A great example is the very simple and basic proximity mine, which is the mechanical equivalent of a proximity fireball.

As for "it doesn't say you have to be next to the trigger". The entire point of the skill is that you have to careful disarm something without it activating; It's why if you fail by 5 or more you activate the trap. How the heck are you going to disarm a trap not only without lockpick tools, but also without using your hands? Ranged Disarm requires being 9th level and can only be done against simple uncovered traps with a -4 to your check and applying ranged penalties, while ranged legerdemain is for a specific PrC, are you really going to argue that "oh you can just disable device from anywhere you can see a trap?"

As for "if it works that way all traps would be proximity based", there are other types of ranged triggers not just proximity and in fact. There is a lot more to a trap than where it is, things like: What are you trying to protect? Where is the trap located? What is the shape of the room? What is your budget/skill level? What is your goal with the trap? Etc. If you look in fact most traps use Proximity (anyone that gets near the trigger), Sight (anyone that matches a description as seen by the trigger), and Touch (anyone that touches the trigger). Also note that adding Proximity/Visual triggers increases the CR by 1 and the craft DC by 5.

Finally, why do you hate rogues so much if you plan to make it so that anyone can disable any trap if they can just look at it? That's very much the equivalent of saying anyone can talk animals invalidating the point of Wild Empathy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Belafon wrote:
Derklord wrote:

The description for the proximity trigger says "This trigger activates the trap when a creature approaches within a certain distance of it." Unless you can Disable Device from range (e.g. via the Mage Hand magic Trick), this "certain distance" to the trap is (usually) greater than the range at which you can use the DD skill.

Am I missing something?

It's debatable, particularly with magical traps. The question is whether the "trap" is the origination point of the effect or the entire area that is affected when triggered. And there's really no in-depth description of *how* you disable a magical trap. Can a rogue disable a fireball trap from the edge of the effect or does she need to go to the center?

This is simple really. The "trap" is a combination of: the trigger (what activates the trap), the origin area (houses the mechanism), and the area where the trigger activates (how far from the trigger you have to be before it activates).

The area affected by the trap is not necessarily part of said trap as it depends on what trap you are talking about. For example the area on top of a pit trap is not a trap, but the area the pit trap occupies is a trap.

As for how a magical trap gets disarmed not getting details. Are we really going to question how magic gets disarmed? You can literally describe that however you want it really doesn't matter: You destroy the trigger thus removing the magic, you damage the runes, you trick the magic, you touch it like you touch a wand with UMD, etc.

Finally as to how a fireball trap gets disarmed. The location depends entirely on where the trigger. If you have a trap room the origin point is likely in the middle of the room while the trigger is in the door, this ensures anyone that comes it gets hit by the fireball. If you have trap hallway the origin point and trigger are likely to be very close to make sure whoever is walking gets hit by it. The reach you need to disable a trigger depends entire on the type: A touch trigger can be disarmed without reach, but a proximity trigger requires that your reach be longer than the detection range.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is also the comvenient fact that a lot of people seem to forget that the game is actually a lot more forgiving then they give it credit.

There is this weird idea that unless the class deals the most damage possible its immediately useless. When in fact people who play those character constantly complain about not being able to do anything out of combat.

Here rogues are being able to do things out of combat, while still having decent in combat power, and people are complaining that its bad because "a teamwork class doesn't have an attack bonus". All while ignoring the access to flanking, feints, dirty fighting, grappling (great with sneak attack), coup de grace (great for sneak attacking), invisibility, poisons, sniping, etc.


Wonderstell wrote:

In Harm's Way is a deceptively bad feat. It has negative synergy with the AC bonus from Bodyguard and the attack also completely ignores your own AC. Most Bodyguard builds would by level 8 grant a +6 bonus to AC (a trait and Benevolent armor) so you're effectively turning a likely miss into a certain hit.

Combat Patrol is... fine. But if you'll often be enlarged and wielding a reach weapon then you'll threaten 20 ft out. The extra +5 reach from Combat Patrol is not worth forgoing the full-round action at level 5-9, and probably not at lv 10+ either.

Let me respond to these two points really quick.

In Harm's Way doesn't have negative synergy its meant to reinforce the idea of a bodyguard by doubling up on protection. You use bodyguard to grant AC, IF the attack is still successful and you think that whoever you are protecting wont survive if they get hit you can then use in Harm's Way to protect them.

You are underselling Combat Patrol for a large creature with a reach weapon. Combat patrol gives a bonus of 5ft + 5ft/5Bab, at level 5 its 10ft, at level 10 its 15ft so a large creature with reach at level 10 would create a 30ft zone. Also the purpose of combat patrol is that you can move out of turn and literally body block the enemy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Following that logic, rare classes could also revolve around alterante rules when just an archetype wouldn't be enough. For example a "Wordcaster" class would make a lot more sense as a class than just an archetype.

On that note, rare classes could also be used for "Collab" classes like Vampire Hunter and Omdura. Classes that could in theory exist in Golarion, but were actually created for a different setting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
What if the Starstone is nothing more than a piece of a ship that crashed into Golarion?

The Starstone was launched by the Aboleths at the Azlanti.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Trapfinding much like Wild Empathy, cantrips, etc. is more of a ribbon ability that fits with the theme of the class. It also gives the class an ability that they can trade for archetypes without touching the actual important stuff. So, while in most cases it is indeed not useful, when you do need it then it becomes a life saver.

Do also note that having trapfinding gives access to the Disable Dweomer feat, which is an awesome feat in a campaign with lots of magic traps and weird magic items. While using dispel magic is general fine for spells, it only has a limited effect on magic items. Meanwhile, Disable Dweomer is able to suppress magic items with just a few rounds spent on it: The fact that you can increase Disable Device much faster than caster level also means you can deal with much higher-level magic items.


The solution is simple.

All ancestry lores are only for determining physiology and maybe some psychological stuff (basic tendencies and stuff).

So elven/human lore will let you know the biology and psychology of an elf/human.


If you want to use Bodyguard, In Harm's Way and Combat Patrol I recommend going the full Vanguard Style feat chain. I know its a lot of feats, but that style makes it so that you can use Bodyguard regardless of where your ally is. If you go with this I recommend using Shield Brace instead of Combat Defense Maneuver.

If you go this route you can do something like this:

1st - Shield Focus, Shield Brace, Combat Reflexes. (This will increase AC and let you use shield with a 2-h polearm)
2nd - Bodyguard
3rd - In Harm's Way
4th - Defended Movement
5th - Combat Patrol
Multiclass into Golden Legionaire
7th - Vanguard Style, Stand Still
9th - Vanguard Ward, Saving Shield
11th - Vanguard Hustle, Combat Expertise
13th - Swift Aid, Improved Trip

The reason for going Golden Legionare is that it grants a large number of benefit for exactly what you want to do. At 8th level Golden Legionare you can: Grant 4 allies a +2 to hit as a swift action, you get +4 vs a host of dangerous abilities, you get +4 to land Stand Still, give yourself +2 morale bonus if an enemy attacks an ally, increase Bodyguard bonus by +2, and an upgraded Pin Down (1/day/opponent)

You effectively become a battlefield commander aiding your allies and stopping enemies in their track. The cost is that the trip and overrun feats would get pushed way back.

******************

Regardless of my previous suggestion. I didn't see you list Advanced Armor/Weapon Training are you using an archetype? If you are not I recommend using those options since they are extremely useful.

Remember to grab a Fortuitous weapon enchantment so that 1/round you may make 2 AoO vs a single trigger.

As for Combat Expertise vs Dirty Fighting both are very useful. I think that people severely understimate Combat Expertise, yes it gives a penalty to hit but what they fail to consider is that it greatly increases your AC. There are very few ways to get that much AC from a single feat that stacks with everything. Not to mention that it opens up the way for Stalwart and I Stalwart to actually do work (taking -5 to hit for DR 10/- that stacks seems extremely fair).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aristophanes wrote:
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
while about one in twenty is actively practising magic as full spellcaster (so stuff like wizards and sorcerer who put effort to master their abilities)

I cannot believe how close my random mouthfeel guessing came to an official answer! Most pleased to have this estimate to use.

(for what it's worth, my nonsense methodology: I guessed back in 1e that maybe 1 in 10 people had character class levels (vs. NPC levels) and roughly half the classes published were spellcasters, arriving at roughly 1/20 casters, 1/20 class-level martials, and the remaining 9/10 NPC commoners, warriors, and aristocrats)

I wonder what percentage of those capable of spellcasting move beyond first level, and how many are non-adventurer types. We know that skills can be increased just by doing (Legendary Chefs, Master Craftsmen). Can proficiency in spellcasting be improved in a similar way, without "adventuring"?

Considering that stereotypical wizard and in fact many NPCs are supposed to be stuck in a tower/dungeon/building studying magic or the fact that there used to be an Oracle curse that made you site bound and still expected you to level up. Yeah, you can level up magic without fighting, fighting is just a whole lot more efficient than just doing it the safe way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Considering that spells as we know then in theory comes from Azlant/Thassion. Specially the research conducted on the various schools of magic and magic item creation. (This is why Wizards having the school focus and opposition schools made sense)

So yeah magic as far as the arcane casters are concerned has always been sort of a science with making spells better as the focus. Although now its debatable given what Wizards have become.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As the saying goes. Sufficiently advance magic is indistinguishable from science. Case and point Technomancy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is a very different statement, I still say that the odds are in favor of anything rare tagged will be stronger than baseline.


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

Stronger than baseline is not linked to rarity.

It will not happen, period.

People keep saying that, but as has already been stated the evidence shows otherwise. Want more evidence?

Spoiler:

* Demolishing rune: vs constructs 1d6 persistent force on a hit, 1d12 persistent force on a crit.
* Speed rune: Constant quickened for bonus strike.
* Vorpal rune: roll a nat 20, foe must have a head (most enemies), they must make a DC37 check or instantly die.
* Ancestral Echoing: Straight up +2 to hit with advance weapons, which are usually capped 1 step behind martial.
* Reforging shield: Recovers damage every turn and is close in stats to Sturdy Shields.
* Redpitch Bomb: 1 fire, 1d4 persistent fire, 1 fire splash, on a crit target is clumsy 1. Alchemist fire is 1d8 fire, 1 persistent fire, 1 fire splash, no crit effect.
* Ambrosia of Undying Hope: The next time you would die from a non-death effect you don't.
* Sun Orchid Elixir: Aka elixir of youth.
* Reveal True Name: OP roleplay wise given that can give you total control over a creature.
* Blasting Beams: This is close to what a Kinetic Blast should be, also you can quite literally play as a Dragonball character. Notice that it's also better than most cantrips.
* Deviation abilities: They are all better than regular cantrips, with the only downside I saw being that they have limited uses a day.
* Chronoskimmer: Whole bunch of time manipulation (modifying initiative alone is very strong).
* All the undead archetypes by nature are stronger.
* All the aftermath feats are relatively strong.
* Some of the backgrounds give powerful abilities, like the Energy Scarred background straight up giving you resistance to an energy type including Force.
* Etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
The summoner also winds up with lower damage to compensate, though, and high damage seems to be the most important requirement for a lot of people here. A wave caster with utility spells who converts them to damage would feel more like a 5e paladin than a PF1 Inquisitor, and likely wouldn't have any budget left over for skills and such.

Agreed consuming spells for smite feels wrong, and it seems overly restrictive for a class that want the utility more than the damage.

Castilliano wrote:
I disagree with that premise. ...

1) Inquisitors were never high-level casters and they never had access to high level Cleric spells. There is no reason why they should now have access to those spells.

2) Inquisitors are a hybrid class that focuses on martial power with spells mostly for support. Their main combat power came from Judgement (stance giving passive bonuses), Bane (free weapon rune for some number of rounds), and being able to use Teamwork feats with anyone even untrained peasant. Even by PF1e standards they were not really offensive casters and had a very limited selection of very niche offensive spells.

3) Inquisitor is not about "Divine Vengeance", its why I dislike the Avenger name some suggest. Sure, an Inquisitor of Calistria might go for that, but those are very specific not the norm.

4) What the heck are you talking about the previous summoner not being a buffer? Have you forgotten their spell list? Most of those spells were buff, summoning, and crowd control. The "powerful spell early" you mention were mostly only for Chained Summoner, and those spells were support and summon related not damage.

5) Wave casting is literally the opposite of having a multitude of support spells that you can use as needed. It's especially bad at emulating getting access to high level spells early because not only do you not get early access, but you also lose total access to low level spell slots. Which is the exact opposite of what you want for utility and support spells.

Utility and support tend to not have heightened section; Even when they do have heightening, they tend to not need high-level spells slot (7-10th). So, for support/utility getting more spell slots period is more valuable than getting higher level spells. Even more so when the class is a martial who really doesn't need the damage from high level spell slots.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, all sky citadels were made after -4987 AR. There was a total of 10 built and only 6 survive to the modern age.

Tar Taargadth was founded in -5133 AR and collapsed in 1551 AR.

The first Sky citadel to be established was Koldukar, now known as Urgir.

The second Sky citadel was Dongun Hold.

Kraggodan was established in -4901 AR.

Spiro Spero is probably a proto Sky Citadel, or a case of mistaken identity. Given how much in fighting there was during those 300 years, it's not unthinkable that a small group split and pushed forward regardless. Taargick's breakthrough is guaranteed to the first for Tar Taargadth as a nation: This is similar to how Vikings were the first Europeans to visit the Americas, but Columbus is credited with discovering it 400 years later.

The wiki states that -318 AR was when Highhelm was established, so LO:WG is right about that. But it states right there that in what you posted that it "grew during the age of anguish" which dates from -4294 AR to -3471 AR. so even if you add an extra 0 the date of -318 AR doesn't line up. Even if you said that "Koldukar was just the first to be purposely designed" it wouldn't make sense given how Taargick's wiki entry states Koldukar was the first to be built.

So as yeah, it's probably a continuity error given the original source for the event and date is Guide to Darkmoon Vale (2008).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Qaianna wrote:

Honestly, I think eidolons can use at least mundane gear. Note how 'magic' is specified in the rule.

Archives of Nethys wrote:


Your eidolon can't wear or use magic items, except for items with the eidolon trait.

So it couldn't use a magic ring (unless it was an eidolon ring), but it could use mundane items. It could use a disguise kit to touch up your rogue's makeup, a writing kit to be your loyal scribe, or a greatsword to be terrible at combat since it's not proficient in martial weapons.

Now, while it can use all that stuff, it has to get them from somewhere. What's the normal rule on eidolons holding Things when they demanifest? I'm assuming 'it all crashes to the ground' to avoid any possible issues of, say, using your eighteen-strength eidolon to carry off valuables by manifesting, grabbing nine bulk of goodies, and demanifesting while the summoner walks out whistling innocently.

The issue is that there are 3 different places where the rule shows up.

In the Summoner entry it says, "cannot use magic item, except those with eidolon trait". In the Eidolon trait it says, "can't use items that don't have this trait." Finally, in the "Eidolon full rules" on AONPRD it has a copy of the summoner entry.

There is also the general rule of "it's too good to be true" and the previous track records of Familiars and Companions.


I still say that there is no need for them to be wave casters as you only really need high level spells for offensive damage spells. Just let them get a normal amount of low-mid level spells.

(I never liked PF2e "Summoner" having wave casting since summoners were supposed to be buffers not whatever PF2e "Summoner" is)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Godling is 100% an ancestry/mythic/background thing. Also 100% would be rare at the very least.

As for what would be a rare class, let's see:

* Any Starfinder class.
* Any "Unchained" class that might get released in the future.
* Any class that is stronger than baseline.
* Any class that requires a specific ancestry/background.
* Any class that is exclusive to a specific planet, (such that you cannot access it by just traveling normally).
* Any class that relies on a rare weapon, as otherwise the class would be kind of unusable.
* Etc.

***********************

If kineticist needs to be rare to get the amount of power it should have, then fine. By lore the way to get that class is usually tied to some traumatic experience.


Shadows are generally not from the shadow plane and are often found in uninhabited ruins. Even Greater Shadows don't need to be from the shadow plane as they could get the energy from killing a lot of creatures or contact with a lot of negative energy.

So, no Shadows are not "extradimensional" by default. Just like a Gnome may be deeply connected to fey but are not fey in of themselves.

**************************

* P.S. If you are going to use Extraplanar you should read what it says:

Quote:
This subtype is applied to any creature when it is on a plane other than its native plane. A creature that travels the planes can gain or lose this subtype as it goes from plane to plane. Monster entries assume that encounters with creatures take place on the Material Plane, and every creature whose native plane is not the Material Plane has the extraplanar subtype (but would not have it when on its home plane). Every extraplanar creature in this book has a home plane mentioned in its description. Creatures not labeled as extraplanar are natives of the Material Plane, and they gain the extraplanar subtype if they leave the Material Plane. No creature has the extraplanar subtype when it is on a Transitive Plane (the Astral Plane, the Ethereal Plane, or the Plane of Shadow).


HumbleGamer wrote:
Temperans wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
Temperans wrote:


As far as proficiency. No class should get Master in kinetic blasts outside of Kineticist. Even if kineticist becomes legendary in blasts, archetyping into it shouldn't give you master in blasts.

If you can not become a master in weapons by getting Fighter archetype or a master in armor by getting Champion archetype, you shouldn't become master in blasts by getting Kineticist archetype. That just wouldn't be fair on a conceptual level.

It doesn't seem not quite right.

It's like saying "now that they introduced firearms, nobody but the gunslinger should hit legendary or even master in blast".

A fighter getting better hit unarmed proficiency ( and because so blast proficiency ) is no different from the same fighter getting a better hit chance than a druid, while using wildshape, or stances compared to a monk, or finesse weapons compared to rogues and swashbucklers, etc...

The player has to just choose what do they want for their character, whether it's a real kineticist or a fighter using blasts.

Did you intend the double negative that agrees with me? (Doesn't seem not quite right == it does seem quite right).

No, I just got it wrong :D

Anyway, it doesn't seem so much different than using the wild wind stance ( which is available to anybody ).

Plus, what would then be the point of the archetype?

Same could be said for the Fighter archetype which doesn't give much.

But in the case of Kineticist you would gain access to the utility blasts/feats, access to the AoE blasts, access to a free weapon you can use in case you are disarmed (via elemental weapon), etc.

I say that's already a lot more than what Fighter gives.


HumbleGamer wrote:
Temperans wrote:


As far as proficiency. No class should get Master in kinetic blasts outside of Kineticist. Even if kineticist becomes legendary in blasts, archetyping into it shouldn't give you master in blasts.

If you can not become a master in weapons by getting Fighter archetype or a master in armor by getting Champion archetype, you shouldn't become master in blasts by getting Kineticist archetype. That just wouldn't be fair on a conceptual level.

It doesn't seem not quite right.

It's like saying "now that they introduced firearms, nobody but the gunslinger should hit legendary or even master in blast".

A fighter getting better hit unarmed proficiency ( and because so blast proficiency ) is no different from the same fighter getting a better hit chance than a druid, while using wildshape, or stances compared to a monk, or finesse weapons compared to rogues and swashbucklers, etc...

The player has to just choose what do they want for their character, whether it's a real kineticist or a fighter using blasts.

Did you intend the double negative that agrees with me? (Doesn't seem not quite right == it does seem quite right).

As for the "fighter's can get it with firearm" firearms are a weapon so sure the fighter will be able to use them. But kinetic blasts are not really weapons, the only reason they would be using weapon like proficiency is because of the way Paizo has written the rules that thing are either "a weapon" or "a spell" or "an unarmed attack". Preferably kineticist would become a fourth option independent of the others, hence why you would need Elemental Weapon and why you would use Diadems to enhance them.

Fighter should not be able to poach Kineticist if Kineticist cannot poach Fighter.

1 to 50 of 5,951 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>