Temperans's page

6,393 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,393 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Yes there is such a spell made by the kalistrade:

The 1st level spell Fastidiousness. It automatically cleans you all day and gives a bonus against disease.

Presitidigtation is very versatile but has some very harsh restriction. Ex: can only clean 1-ft cube of items per round.


Yeah Focused weapon is mostly a fix for 1d3 and 1d4 weapons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kasoh wrote:

I like a few things about PF2. The XP system is elegant. But its primary draw to me was power of the monsters matching their level. A level 5 monster is almost always going to be a challenge for a group of level 4 characters.

As a lazy GM, coming off of a level 20/Mythic 10 Wrath of the Righteous this sounded very nice. I was also tempted because the new material for Pathfinder would be written for the new edition and, again, because I'm lazy, its easier to just use the new system than do any kind of conversion.

But then, there's everything else that...annoys me.

The thing that got me irritated at the whole system started in the Playtest.

Prestidigitation takes a minute to clean something.

An absolutely pointless nerf to the most harmless spell in all of creation. Sure, its easy enough to fix at my table, but that is a telling sign from the author. They felt the need to 'balance' prestidigitation. It set the tone for what I expected from the system and it didn't really disappoint me. (This is the part where someone gets out the spell descriptions of prestidigitation in PF1 and PF2 and figures out the bulk to 1 cubic foot conversion to tell me I'm wrong, but whatever.)

I quickly figured out that the magic system and I were going to be at odds. Though, it probably wouldn't be that bad, I told myself. You get a superior play experience in other aspects. (God, then wave casting and I checked out.)

Then there was the Perception capping by class. Annoying, but then they also rolled sense motive into Perception as well. Why can't a cleric be Legendary in Perception? Do I care that with the ability score loadout of a cleric, they'll probably have the same or higher bonus? No. When you throw superlatives out there, they imply something.

This lead me down a rabbit hole of not really caring for how skills are handled. And the multi classing I could take or leave.

The decision to make damage primarily a function of high amounts of dice instead of static modifiers didn't please me...

100% this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
YuriP wrote:
Smaller proficiency bonus. This ideia isn't mine I saw this in a Michael Sayre post here in a topic in the forum. With smaller proficiency bonus (+1,+2,+3,+4) instead os currently one the difference of some classes proficiency would be smaller, the difference between a "martial" caster like warpriest or a MC martial with caster dedication will be way lower than they are currently making such different build more viable. Also this would diminish the critical chance of some classes (fighters and gunslingers) and monsters but they will still be interesting and strong classes.

There are tons of players out there who think that if you don't have an 18 in your attack stat, you're a lost cause just weighing the party down.

Shrinking the range in the proficiency bonus is just going to make every +1 matter more, exacerbate the existing issue, and make those playersright.

I fear that is the path to cookie-cutter characters.

That's why I also propose a flexible key stat. Instead of fixed class key stat it's works like the new free boosts for ancestry, the class key stat would be just a suggestion instead.

Flexible key stat doesn't solve that issue. It solves the issue of "I want to be a smart fighter but can't because Int is a dump stat". And it doesn't really do that well when you are pressured into even tighter math.


Fair point


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean a central problem in PF1 was that it was impossible to make an obstacle that was a challenge for someone who specialized in a thing while not being literally impossible for someone who dabbled, or to make a challenge being accessible to a dabbler but not trivial for a specialist. This is a problem with addressing.

Like I remember book 6 of Hell's Rebels featured a series of negotiations with the Chellish ambasadors where the DCs were something fully half the party could not fail at even if they rolled a 1, and the rest of the party could not succeed at even if they rolled a 20. If nothing else that this could happen organically because people figured out "this is a social AP" and decided to roll up characters who were socially adept makes it the adventure designer's job significantly more difficult.

It's also a good idea to make "the rules for skills, saves, armor class, difficulty class, and combat are all basically different applications of the same rules."

And tightening the numbers so that gap is smaller is great. No complaints about tightening the gap. The issue comes in which gaps are tightened, by how much, and what the final balance point ends up being.

I much prefer it when the untrained has little chance, the expert has a decent chance, and the legendary has a great chance. But in PF2 the untrained have it impossible, the expert have a low chance, and the legendary have a decent chance. PF1 by comparison had 0 ranks = no chance, half ranks = decent chance, full ranks = extremely high chance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:

It is so easy to accidentally make a weak PF1 character even if you know what you're doing. There are so many testimonies on this thread alone about players having a bad time, either because they were new and didn't know there were mandatory feats or they took a bad archetype like Sandman.

I don't think I can maintain my presence in this thread, because I just... gosh, edition warring drains me. I like third edition and its variations, and I respect people who've assembled their own little list of house rules and allowed content and have gotten PF1 to a place they really enjoy, but I see PF2 as a third edition that checked its numbers.

But sandman is not a weak archetype? It literally has the witch's slumber hex as an AoE, can hide spellcasting manifestation (great for stealth), can steal the spell of enemy spell casters which is a huge benefit, not to mention getting sneak attack and bonuses to DC. The only reason to call that archetype bad is because it replaces inspire courage and some of the lore, but so what? Just cast any of the morale spells.

Seriously a bunch of the "X archetype/build is bad" only comes because its either meant to be a niche archetype (Ex: Siege Mage Wizard) or the person has a preference (Ex: All the people who only ever play full casters because anything else is bad). The trully bad options (Ex: Brute Vigilante) are clearly made for the RP than being the most effective.

I tried to maintain edition warring to a minimum with my post, using PF1 more as a point of comparison than anything else. Sorry if I pushed the comparison a bit too hard with my post(s). I know PF2 wont be like PF1 and at least for me that is not what I advocate for, all I want is to improve the game so you can make any character you want and feel good.


S.L.Acker wrote:
Temperans wrote:

There was that one military surveillance AI that was trained to detect movement of humans. So the soldiers testing the system used everything from just jumping to going full Solid Snake to bypass it.

AI are great, but they are not miracle machines.

Machine vision is orders of magnitude harder than language fluency and knowledge of a finite set of ordered rules. There's also AI that has been trained in gait detection that is extremely hard to fool by behavior that wouldn't draw unwanted attention from human security, so...

I was agreeing with you that it all depends on what the AI is trained on.

If you train it with something, then it will be good at that one thing.


The way the outsider type is structure is like this: Outside (home plane subtype).

The native subtype thus lets you know that the outsider is native to the material plane and is treated as a mortal for resurrection, eating, and sleeping. As you correctly guessed, yes that means you can be an extraplanar outsider (native).

Even more complicated is the augmented subtype, which could give you an: Extraplanar Fey (Augmented (Outsider (Native)))


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I like catfolk/kitsune (albeit I prefer the anime style over the furry style).

Yeah their tails don't really do anything, but no one can't tell me no about fluffy fox tails.


There was that one military surveillance AI that was trained to detect movement of humans. So the soldiers testing the system used everything from just jumping to going full Solid Snake to bypass it.

AI are great, but they are not miracle machines.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Regardless, the reason why PF1 math is "broken" is because its designed so anyone can play regardless of system mastery. The whole rocket tag and "broken math" thing is based solely on people hyper optimizing things beyond what the game is balanced around. Yeah the math will be broken if your group decided that the only way to play is that everyone has to play superman.
I think PF1's extremely high skill floor is a way bigger problem than the overpowered diviner builds, but agree to disagree.

You see I agree the diviner is not an issue because most of the time people doing that are playing "Gandalf (tm)". Yeah they are OP but most of the work is done by everyone else.

I don't see PF1 as having a high floor, building a character to do what you want isn't that hard. What it has is an issue of expectation vs reality. If you go in expecting one type of game and end up playing another then yeah your character can up under/overpowered, but that is fixed by just retraining (yes you can retrain in PF1 shocking I know).


I have a soft spot for the cold bloodlines because of how they stack with Winter Witch.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Basic shifter is basic but effective. Where it really gets interesting is the archetypes.

Being able to shift into a flying creature with boosted natural attacks from shifter will wreck most casters. The high will and fort save makes it so they will rarely get affected, and getting evasion is trivial. Everything else is just gravy.

Yes martial flexibility is an amazing ability and brawlers can do some crazy stuff. But they are not the only one that can keep up. Case and point being vigilante which has many tools to deal with various issues.

Not to mention things like Supersitious Barbarian, Monks stunning fist/abundant step/dimensional feats, Shield Fighters being beef, Paladins have the best saves period, etc.


The math doesn't have to be handled by AI.

The basic rule adjudications (how many actions spent, what feat was used, etc) can be done by searching a database and cross matching the various rules. Which should be easy enough to do.

Making descriptions is already proven to be easy.

The issue AI has is remembering what has been stated and responding accordingly, which is what is getting worked on.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The whole "oh casters can just break PF1 thus the game is bad" is an insane argument because its the martials that are usually instant killing enemies. Heck the most broken builds were martials set up to take advantage of how various feats/abilities stacked.

Regardless, the reason why PF1 math is "broken" is because its designed so anyone can play regardless of system mastery. The whole rocket tag and "broken math" thing is based solely on people hyper optimizing things beyond what the game is balanced around. Yeah the math will be broken if your group decided that the only way to play is that everyone has to play superman.

Which is where the complain against PF2 comes from. The issue is not that the game is balanced. The issue is that the game is balanced around making the best character feel challenged, while they actively make everyone else weaker to niche protect. Making it so everyone that isn't actively trying to minmax is hosed.

A PF1 character that's built bad can be fixed by changing the feats and getting some more items. But a PF2 character that's built bad has no recourse in game to fix it. Heck the reason there aren't more character deaths in PF2 is solely because they made hero points the default and added the wounded/dying rules: Without those rules PF2 characters would be dying way more than any character did in PF1.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You see the way I see it, PF2 has some really great ideas.

good ideas:

* They clearly developed the 3 action system to be more concise than their original attempt.
* The idea of making crit success and failures into codified aspects of the rules is great for readability and referencing.
* The idea of tying character ability to proficiency which makes it so everyone uses the same rule greatly simplifies things.
* The idea of codifying exploration as distinct from combat or downtime to speed up play.
* Etc.

But then it has some really bad execution.

bad execution:

* The action system is some how more restrictive than PF1 despite having more actions for anything more than a basic strike. Yeah the actions are no longer type restricted, but there are considerably fewer ways to stack actions.
* Yeah making tier of success helps simplify things and opens up some potential balance options. But in practice for anyone that's 1 stage below martials or a spellcaster failure is the default, success is nice to have, and crit success is mostly for mooks. It does not feel good to be constantly told "you failed but at least you got something" after you spent you whole turn, while the person next to you is constantly getting successess.
* Proficiency was made to be weirdly staggered and somehow more convoluted than just reading the BAB table and adding numbers. This has nothing to do with the increases being +2. No the issue is that the game is balanced around fighter level proficiency, while giving everyone master level proficiency or worse. So instead of you becoming stronger as you level, you actually become worse (You start to fall off the threadmill).
* The way exploration was done ends up making things super restrictive unless your GM decides to play loose with the actual rules.
* Etc.

Bonus:
Personally, my biggest issue is how many things are actively made to prevent what the devs see as "abuse". If it were a one-off event it could be easily excused, but its a consistent pattern. Its one thing to be balanced (balance is great) and give everyone options that are equally good (give or take). Its a completely different thing to make a maximum, then
make everyone worse than said maximum, and then offer abilities that are worse still. That is not balance, it called favoritism.

EX: A barbarian can cast Earthquake every 10 minutes. But how manhy loops for all casters to get an extra spell slot?

And yeah Unicore, they are using the core as the power ceiling. Issue coming from things ending up sub par instead of sideways (cough witch cough).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Its funny because melee Sorcerer was a great build, gimmicky but great. Now it doesn't work because "how dare you try to make attacks". Yet here we are saying that melee sorcerer are not supposed to be a thing.

Oh the poor Oradin unable to do its healing thing because doing so kills then. The poor Dragon Disciple unable to do its flurry of attacks for daring to be a sorcerer. The Eldritch Knight who can't ever dare go full wizard because "how dare they". The blaster casters who can't blast because then they would be "too good".

But sure the Fighter can instant kill at will using a skill feat for 2 years, and even after the nerf its still more viable then spending a 10th level spell slot into power word kill.


...

Class specific archetypes are great because its all about changing how the class function. It was never about letting everyone do everything, but about letting someone choose what they want from the character.

Yes you could be a normal wizard, but you could also sacrifice your school to become a Siege Mage Wizard that is great at using artillery. Or you could be a Shadowcaster Wizard that trades generic spell slots for more shadow spell slots. Or you could be a Spellslinger Wizard that uses a gun to shoot their magic, or spend spell slots to boost their firearm. Or you could be a Chronomancer Wizard manipulating time to remove failure. Or a First World Caller Wizard that is great at specifically summoning Fey. Etc. All of these are "Wizard Archetype" not oracle, not psychic, Wizard.

Generic Archetypes are a replacement for PF1 feat trees, only a few (mostly the magic ones) change some more about the class. They are not a replacement for Class Archetypes just like saying "Play a Fighter/Rogue is not a replacement for playing a Swashbuckler". Tell me why the heck should Winter Witch be a generic archetype? How about Bow Nomad Ranger? Child of Acavna & Amaznen Fighter? Etc.


Yes what I was trying to get across was that you are trying to do to much and first figure out what exactly you want and narrow it down.

Yes, you can get a decent amount of feats with slayer talents, but the maximum amount of feats for any single class build is something like 30 from a Vigilante/Fighter, the cap for everyone else is around 15. You need to think about what you want to be able to do by what level, and curve your expectations accordingly. Feinting would require at least 2 feats (I & G Feint), ranged attacks require at least 2 feats (Point-Blank & Precise Shot), Quick Draw to get the weapons, Weapon Finesse for dex to hit. That's already 8 feats and your feint is only helping your allies.

If what you want is to throw a ranged weapon "feint" then strike in melee, then you might be better off using Opening Volley (+4 on next melee attack this turn after a ranged attack) along with Flinging Charge. Sure its not quite feinting, but it requires significantly less feat investment. But it sounds like that is not what you want.


Wow everyone making good points all in different ways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

I imagine it as dark thoughts coming to mind unbidden. Like walking into a bank and imagining robbing it, even though you'd never do such a thing.

I believe an old coworker once referred to it as the impish impulse. Looking it up just now, I didn't see anything like that, but I did find something called "the imp of the perverse," which perfectly describes the phenomenon.

Haven't heard of that but I have heard of the phrase "intrusive thoughts". Intrusive thoughts are spontaneous but can also be triggered, and they tend to be disturbing.

There is also the concept of the angel/devil siting on your shoulder, and conscience. In both cases "voices" telling you "What is the correct choice".

In any case, it wouldn't be hard to extrapolate different versions for each planar ancestry.

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

* P.S. It could very well be represented by the Id (instinct for what alignment they lean), Ego (what alignment they are), and Super Ego (what alignment society/culture supports). At least if you follow Freudian psychology.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The comparison was about the logic behind the change and not the change itself. If you said "everyone wants more options, so we created a new variant that lets you do that, this variant doesn't stack with the flaw for benefit variant" no one would have complained. But that is not what they did.


If you are trying to make a feint build you are hard stuck getting Improved Feint, Greater Feint, Combat Expertise or Dirty Trick, Skill Focus (bluff), etc.

Given how you have an animal companion it might be worth going for Feint Partner, Improved Feint Partner, Outflank, Improved Outflank, etc. Give your companion Ferocious Feint so that it can set up for you.

Might also want to consider Linnorm Hunter Style and Beastmaster Style. Which can set up some good combos.


You would also need to know these elixirs are a thing, know where they are being made, know how to contact the auction house to get into the bid, out bid all the othwr merchants/politicians, somehow survive any assassination attempts from people who want your elixir (assuming you didn't drink it right away), etc. The cost of the elixir is "cheap" its the cost of the whole process that gets you.

The whole thing is an adventure onto itself.


It wouldn't be hard to say that things catch fire when they reach the broken condition. As that explains why a log can take a while, but a small piece of the same log might ignite immediately.

Basing it on the broken condition means that its indirectly related to the HP/thickness rules. This would also take into account how a thick piece of steel wont ignite normally, but a piece of steel that is fine enough will become a very strong flame.


For tieflings, aasimars, and other "leans towards X alignment" ancestries it is not a curse that's causing it, just the natural way that they process things.

First, there is the whole "altruism gene" (which yes it is a real thing) where an individual is more likely to help someone that shares said gene. So depending on your genes you might be more or less altruistic and as defined by the game (when greatly simplified) "altruist = good" and "selfish = evil". In the case of extra-planar creature there would not only be a gene, but also straight up aligned matter influencing what you might want to do. Afterall, angels behave "gooder" than devils so an angelkin will behave "gooder" than a devilkin.

Second, there is the whole "aggressiveness genes" (again it is a real thing) where a set of genes can increase the chances of a creature being aggressive. This one has been specially shown with selective breeding and domestication of dogs that result in a spectrum of how aggressive a dog might be. Even humans have a bit of it, and it stands to reason that extraplanar creatures might have even more of it.

Third, there is the mental/psychological reasons why some people behave more or less selfishly/violent. Some people are born sociopath/psychopaths, others are born caregivers, etc. being born with extraplanar matter can easily influence this such that a given type of personality trait or mental condition is more likely to appear. For example, hungerseed tieflings are more likely to search and hunger for pleasure by nature of their Oni blood, in other words they are more likely to be hedonistic.

Fourth, just straight up how they grew up and how much they liked it. The very first aasimar in Pathfinder is evil because they were effectivelg abandoned, made fun of, and otherwise abused with the only consolation being visions from an evil god. Tieflings looking like some of the most evil creatures would naturally get bad looks by nature of most people only looking at the surface. This can easily lead to a creature deciding to either prove them wrong (do good) or prove then right (do evil).

Finally, do also note that some tiefling ancestries are related to creatures who on a fundamental most primal level want to destroy everything and whose physical traits are revolting or disturbing. The idea of the hot tiefling is a very narrow one that only really fits some of the ancestries. The motherless more often than not kill their own mother to leave the womb or the shackleborn having scars since before they are born. All of this and the association with evil creatures makes it so people in general outright dislike tieflings, prompting a tiefling to either accept how people treat them and double down (do evil) or refute the whole thing and prove then wrong (do good).


I want to try the stamina variant along with wound threshold. That way after you exhaust your stamina things start to go down fast.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
nothinglord wrote:
Dwarves being slow and elves being fast is something that is an inherent difference between them, and unlike their ability scores is still completely impossible to overcome.

But luckily, move speed isn't linked to psychology and there's no class that is geared toward marathon. So it's no bioessentialism, it's just differences.

On the other hand, -2 in Charisma is strongly linked to psychology and has an impact on what class you should be or not be playing. Removing it is essential if you want to get rid of bioessentialism.

That's not how it works.

Bioessentialism doesn't care if its psychology or physiology, its all about the difference between species (in TTRPG) or races/gender (IRL) is based on biology and its bad because "that's [insert topic]-ist".

Heck they even changed the physical ability scores so you cannot say "its just the mental side of things".


GM_3826 wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Its not the only thing. However it is the safest short of being a level 20 class that grants it.
In 2e? Nah. The Timeless Nature feat druids get doesn't say anything about dying of old age anymore. So 14th level druids can be immortal without having to worry about it. There's also becoming undead.

I said safest, aka "not dying or resorting to the most evil rituals". Also yeah druid get it at level 14, but that is still not very safe considering things in Golarion. Hence my statement of level 20.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would like to point out what you are all talking about so far (outside of the dwarf vs duergar thing) is nationality and at best race. There is no reason dwarfs from different countries would call the ancestry a different word unless they were speaking a different language.

A great example is us. Everyone who speaks english would call out species "human", but a spanish person would say "humano", while a turkish person would say "insan", etc. The difference in word is due to the language not the region/race/nation were the speaker comes from.

Also, there is no reason why dwarf/halfling can't be borrowed from those languages. Specially when considering the naming convention for ancestry language containing the name of the species. Elves speak Elvish, Amurrun speak Amurrun, Orc speak Orcish, etc.

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

By my logic the dwarfs use the common Dwarven language, but might also have ethnic languages named after their ethnicity. Just like humans have common (human/taldane/tien), but also have a number of ethnic languages.

What we say are racial/ancestral languages are in fact the trade language for each ancestry. The type of language you might need to learn for international trade IRL.

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

Ninajed by The Raven Black.


D3stro 2119 wrote:
keftiu wrote:

“Thuvia-as-fantasy UAE” (in terms of coping with being dependent on a single export) is a really, really compelling angle. Between that and the desertification in Rahadoum, I love the potential for some super nonstandard plotlines in the region.

TBH I think the Sun Orchid Elixir as a whole is not really a good plot point for the whole place, considering its a pretty pitiful accomplishment when stacked up against every other person at that level, so to speak. And monopolizing the generic "immortality" thing to a single item in a world of magic feels awkward to me.

I understand from a meta reason it's meant to be a sort of "priceless plot-starting object" but I feel better things can carry that title.

Its not the only thing. However it is the safest short of being a level 20 class that grants it.

The alternate method requires that you drink

Numerian Fluid wrote:
Engine fluid, coolant, hydraulic fluids, and stranger substances have mixed together, the chemicals further transformed by the strange radiations of the ship’s drives.

Upon drinking that there is a 1% chance you get a permanent side effect, of which you have a 10% chance of getting immortality. Otherwise you constantly drink it hoping to get the 1% chance to become younger by 1d6 years for some time. Why is it bad? A 40% chance of getting severely messed up in one way or another.

Yes this is canon, yes its gimmicky, no it is not exclusive to numeria.


So instead of buffing things to meet the max, nerf the max because "it must be wrong"?

The game is already challenging enough as it is and there really isn't anything making a 1d8 finesse more broken than a 1d6 finesse. Besides the issue is that there is this clearly intricate weapon system that is shut down to most of the classes by literal feat taxes. While people support those feat taxes because "it would be broken" yet the devs themselves say it wouldn't be broken.

Rogue and to a lesser extent Monk highlight the issue because they are supposed to be good with some advanced weapons. Or is anyone going to say that Rogues shouldn't use Sawtooth Blades, Butterfly Blades, Spiral Rapiers, Kerambits, etc.?


Chell Raighn wrote:
AwesomenessDog wrote:
Wonderstell wrote:
The idea that the rogue would be balanced around one sneak attack per round is both antiquated and a consequence of 5e's influence.
This is laughably incorrect. Maybe it's antiquated by here Paizo took 1e's design, as evident by my earlier comments about swashbuckler and precise strike, but I further do not think that is in any way a good shift for the game and thus completely disagree with such a change that would further it like making feint a single attack replacement. The "one sneak attack a round" has been a part of the indirect and subtle design of the game since AD&D by the nature of action economy, it was so in 3e, it was at the onset of pathfinder, and even still reasonably is.....
The 1 Sneak Attack per round limitation was a thing in 1e and i believe 2e, but it was NOT an actual limitation in the rules for 3e initially. It only ever became a limitation in 3e after the Sage FAQs declared “precision damage applies only once per round” in response to a question regarding the Manyshot feat. An FAQ so many people on 3e forums LOVE to quote any time someone dares to make a rogue… and also one that many groups throw out because of its implications. I’ve been in many MANY debates about that FAQ back in my 3e days.

1/turn sneak was not a thing in PF1e. It was usually caused because you usually had to move or use a move action to set up sneak.


Its not that hard to set up super turns for Rogues if you just plan accordingly. Feinting is actually one of the hardest way to do it requiring many feats (improved feint, greater feint, skill focus, deceitful, combat expertise, two weapon fighting, two weapon feint).

That's 7 feats to barely get a 50% chance, before even considering the -4/-8 when facing non-humanoids/animals. Even if you go Maneuver Master Monk or Feint Vigilante the odds are not good.

You have an easier time making a trip lock character than a feint character and it has nothing to do with its effectiveness with Sneak Attack.


Stylish Spell (forget exact name) also helps. Just literally change the manifestation of whatever spell to look like anything and start from where ever you want.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"They are balanced that is why you need to spend 3 feats and be a specific ancestry with a specific heritage to get access to them at level 1 or just spend 3 feats and wait till level 7." All just to get an extra trait or damage dice in your weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay then its fine for wizards to get master with a club. A wizard being slightly more accurate with a club would not exactly be some kind of balance breaking game changer.

While we are at it lets also add in the missing +2/+3 item bonus to spells that NPCs get.


My response was based on them saying "that only shamans can access".

Also I agree its best to leave this stuff as vague as possible. Once we find outnhow it works it makes it harder to justify other things being added.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I 10,000% disagree that everyone should have full proficiency with spellcasting unless you also make it so everyone has full proficiency with weapons and armor. It already doesn't make sense that literally anyone can become a master in spells, but somehow a caster can't get fighter/champion feats to become a master in weapons/armor.

And here you are asking that everyone should just get free spellcasting? Pfft no.

General feat that increase weapons/armor can't scale because "it makes sentinel too bad". Yet here is the Champion and Fighter dedication also not scaling. But oh no spell proficiency that already scales should also be free.


SOLDIER-1st wrote:
Are you responding to me or something else? I’m not sure how anything you said has anything to do with what I’m saying. Sorry if I’m not communicating clearly.

Yes I was I didn't click reply cause I thought it was clear.

I am refuting the idea that shaman should get an entirely new dimension just so that they can contact souls when the same could be done by getting information from the astral plane without affecting any of the surrounding cosmology.


Simple weapons clearly have weaker stats than martial weapons. Martial weapons clearly have weaker stats but greater accuracy than advanced weapons. Rare/Unique weapons clearly are stronger than Uncommon/Common weapons.

The issue with the limited weapon option is that PF2 is specifically designed to stop what made that okay. In 3.5/PF a rogue could take 1 feat or 1 level in fighter to gain proficiency with all martial weapons and use sneak attack. But in PF2 you have to find very specific feats and outright avoid taking the fighter proficiency feats. Not to mention that they added the restrictions of needing to use an agile/finesse weapon that didn't exist previously.

This part of the proficiency system is something I always had trouble with because it straight up just kills abilites. Do we seriously need to gate keep advanced weapons so hard that even if you manage to somehow get proficiency by spending who knows how many feats, they still have an accuracy penalty? All while somehow it is easier to learn actual reality bending magic than it is to learn how to use a differently shaped polearm.


And why should shamans have this incredibly powerful ability that is stronger than what even the priests of Pharasma can do? Why can't Dream Wizards and Sandman Bards have access to it?

What about the mediums who are not only contacting spirits but straight up getting possessed by them?

Too many weird points that only pull at the seams of the setting. Great for a personal setting, not so great for Golarion.


Feinting is 100% dependent on what enemies the GM throws at you. I should know I tried a feinting build and it only worked once maybe twice?

Regardless, its really not mind-affecting or a compulsion.


Feinting works because people see the move you are about to make and they parry/deflect/dodge it, but it was all a set up for your next attack.

A mindless creature does not care if you are leading your strikes or not, its just attacking you regardless.

A non-humanoid creature might care, but the difference in biology makes it so you are already worried about how they might move thus noticing a feint.

Also note that changing the rules to make bluff and diplomacy mind-effects only benefits the GM. The reason being that it heavily restricts who the players can lie/negotiate with, while not affecting the GM what so ever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder 1e has always from the very beginning branded itself as a spiritual successor, updated, and backwards compatible with 3.5e. Anyone that says otherwise needs to go read up on some history. There is a reason its called 3.75e.

This is not being insulting nor unappreciative. Its calling things for what they are and even they themselves acknowledge it.


Skinwalker I can maybe see causing some potential confusion when in hybrid form.

But Orcs? Are we looking at the same illustrations cause Orcs don't look like boars.


25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:
wouldn't most soul reincarnate and ancestor magic run on the memory left behind be a more elegant lore about soul

Considering how souls and outsiders are said to be made until recently, yes. Specially when considering how Legend Lore works.


Wrong John Silver wrote:

I feel like the basic theology behind PF and similar systems makes actual heresy very difficult to be possible. It's nearly all turned into apostasy and the embracing of a new patron deity.

(I always considered this an interesting break with the game's roots from people with Christian mindsets; you pretty much need a theological setup like Christianity or Islam for heresy to even be possible, and the genre assumptions of polytheism and possible direct communing with the deity preclude the existence of it.

"Hey, Sarenrae, is assassination in your name okay?"

"Nope. Please stop."

"Welp, that settles that.")

ETA: But here's what I can envision:

"Hey, Sarenrae, is assassination in your name okay?"

"Nope. Please stop."

"But we're doing it for you! Here, have another infidel!"

"I said no!"

"We mean it all to help!"

"You know what? No. Just stop. No more of my light. I can't let you do this."

"Aw! But we really love you! We promise, only the finest sacrifices in your name!"

"I don't want your sacrifices! Please, just stop this nonsense and I'll forgive you."

"Hey, Ahriman/Nurgal here. I see you want Sarenrae's forgiveness. I bet she just doesn't understand just how much you love her, just how many you're willing to kill for her. Keep going. She's sure to see your devotion one day. I'll support your efforts."

I'll be honest I 100% see this happening specially if the initial voice of Nurgal is a hierophant of some kind. The same type of stuff going on in Galt but on a religious level.

And we know its possible because it has already happened to Sarenrae once.


Considering how there is literally a group who in lore used info from Pharasma's destined successor specifically to not lose their memories. Or how samsarans as a race are able to reincarnate. Or how Milani specifically gives their cleric the ability to recall past lives.

I think its not so much as accessing a room in the boneyard but accessing the akashic records or straight up skirting the normal path through the river of souls.

1 to 50 of 6,393 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>