Feiya

The-Magic-Sword's page

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 1,886 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,886 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Dropping this here in this thread for convenience's sake, we haven't playtested yet but here's my first impression as someone who plays an awful lot of tanks in an awful lot of different games (and types of games), expect to see one more post from me in this thread for a post playtest follow up, this is partially based on some number crunching we've been doing, and it's modified as a result from what was said in a different thread the other day:

Quote:
Boss-tier encounters (PL+3) with Moderate Will progression are going to Succeed vs. Taunt on 75% of rolls, which means they'll be hitting even the Guardian's high AC with 50/50 accuracy *on their second attack* - and they'll still be critting the Guardian's allies approximately 40% of the time (which is still a very unhappily high occurance of critical hits.) The accuracy on the second attack gets even better if they have an Agile secondary weapon.

(Thanks to WillDigForFood who posted this on my discord)

Not having a dedicated healer in the context of the above would very much scare me. I think that the tuning on the Guardian's 'hit me presence' and tankiness might be off, it's vital for a tank to have a catch-22 loop where the enemy neither wants to hit the tank because they're the least efficient thing to hit, but also needs to hit the tank because otherwise the tank is too annoying, right now the Guardian looks like it doesn't do either quite well enough-- its hits are ignorable on above level creatures, the penalty from taunt is small, and worse due to being a check, and hits and crits from those creatures will still rock it's world. The core design I think is excellent, but my thoughts is that numbers need to be moved--

Switch Key Stat to Constitution, but give them the same attack proficiency progression as the Barbarian and various other martials. This evens out their to-hit to make it more consistent but they're actually still the worst hitter of the martials since they'd have Inventor to-hit with no overdrive to make up...

I just want to verify that my viewpoint hasn't changed from additional testing, these still feel like the right moves for the class-- everything it does is very fun, I'm just feeling the pain of where the specific of the numbers were actually put in a way that more or less matches what I wrote here. Additional tankiness or stickyness should come from class feats and cost actions.

A big factor I will say is that the class really wants the largest possible HP pool, as well as healing to do its job well-- its worth attacking due to taunt penalty, but the game makes it naturally squishy, but if you take Mitigate Harm to deal with that yourself its likelier to bog down the game, and that means FV feels like both QOL and unviable. Especially due to reducing your own AC with Taunt and not having Mitigate Harm to make up for it.

Intercept works better due to the reduction, but that's a big part of why its worth it to attack the guardian: because you can get more done by working through it's health first unless it has Mitigate Harm, but mitigate harm means you're a nonentity and can only really make it work by following your ally around and intercepting damage because the target is about to ignore you as soon as they realize you have MG.

What's happening here is that because the choice to MG or FV emphasizes different parts of the tank loop, one is better than the other based on the skew of the base loop-- in this case the Guardian is stickier than it is tanky (because Intercept Strike's reduction is so annoying for the monster), so MG is favored, but that also makes them less likely to attack you, which reduces its value and further emphasizes falling back on the intercept, making intercept feel like a safety net for not being able to get the right balance of offensive and defensive pressure-- and you still can't take FV because MG is too important to survival once the boss swats you for intercepting their strike last round.

Healing mitigates this because you can just take big healing spells to restore your HP instead of reducing the damage manually, so the question becomes: how do we feel about requiring a dedicated healer for FV builds vs. playing MG if you don't have one. Shields are an option too, but my lil tests were using a Greatsword Guardian for Dark Knight Vibes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
ElementalofCuteness wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
The Rogue Saving Throw adjustments in the remaster have not been changed, treat it as intentional until further notice I guess.
Isn't it weird they touched Aggressive Block but not the Rogue Saving Throw adjustments? I am starting to believe I am slowly gas lighting myself into believing it is intentional. A couple of people said it was suppose to be errata'd said by the creators/some of the team but when i asked them for any links they couldn't turn up any.

I've never seen anything from the team acknowledging it, so I think they may have manifested that out of the conversation surrounding it rather than the designers having said anything, but at this point, I think we have to take for granted it was deliberate.

But damn, there are some fantastic errata in here, combination weapons are now even better than before and I already liked them. Spellshot and Bullet Dancer both got a glow up, in Spellshot's case the extra damage on energy shot is appreciated, but it's mainly a utility bump, while I think Bullet Dancer is just much more usable.

The action cost on stretching reach is nice, I've actually been ruling that you can be in a stance as an exploration activity the way you can use a shield, so trading an exploration activity for the action cost should be useful for my players without breaking the game.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The Rogue Saving Throw adjustments in the remaster have not been changed, treat it as intentional until further notice I guess.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Sanityfaerie wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
I kind of wish the character optimizers from 1E would flex their skills on building a hyper optimized 2E whole party. The sheer number of combos, and the lack of trivially solvable numerical problems, means building a truly optimal group is a huge challenge, especially if you're not playing with white room garbo.

The problem is that you so rarely have that degree of actual control over anyone else's build. Like, if you're running PFS, and you're not bringing someone to the table with you, you get nothing. If you're in an ongoing campaign, then you can usually at least get your fellow players to tell you things like what class they're playing and maybe their rough general build, but they're not going to let you make any decisions for them. Sometimes you get one other person in the party who's willing to let you guide their character's development for whatever reason. Sometimes you get people who are willing to cooperate a bit. Sometimes.

...so while it might be vaguely interesting as an intellectual exercise to build out a full party, it's not practically something that you're ever going to be able to do in actual play... and building PF2 characters is nontrivial. Like, just for level 1, you've got ancestry, heritage, background, statbumps, ancestry feat, skills, class, generally a classpath, and then usually either a class feat or starter spells. That's a lot of decisions to make, even before you get to your gear.

Then you hit the point where everything is basically capped in all directions, which means that if you want to show off and it's *not* in actual play, then at best your'e talking about how much damage you can do to a standard CharOp block of tofu, because that's the only way to make it actual numbers that mean anything at all. You can't show off silliness in other dimensions because you're not allowed to have any. Like, in 4e, there was the Abductor. Not great at dealing damage, but in a single turn they could dash out from...

In my experience, if you go from the other end, people are more amenable to working with you-- if when you're starting a new campaign, you were to say "Actually I have this thing I wanna try, but we'd need to coordinate the party for it" its possible you could sell the synergy to them, ditto if you're willing to fill any given role in it yourself to accommodate people picking their favorite part, especially if it's a fun concept.

Its not a given, but sometimes it works out partially or completely, take the new Commander for instance, it would not be hard for me to talk someone else into playing a Giant Barbarian to leverage it, or getting the party interested in a full gun lineup for Ready Aim Fire, if I sold it to them as "wait look at this cool thing I could do"

YMMV though, depending on your friends.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
WatersLethe wrote:
HolyFlamingo! wrote:

WELL, DECK MY HALLS AND JINGLE MY BELLS! CHRISTMAS HAS COME EARLY!

While the "hidden until it swallows something" bit with the glass serpent is funny, I have a particular hatred of perma-invisibility, so I'll be eager to see how much of a difference revealing light makes versus brute force.

Self-destruct, though? That's a special treat just for me. I've had so much fun with exploding zombies in the past.

I don't mind decking your halls but I draw the line at jingling your bells.

Professional Bell Jingler Reporting in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Gaulin wrote:
Today's the day hopefully! So excited for blood of the wild.

I wonder how Inventory went in regard to possible delays to shipping.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

I think it just works, by RAW the sequence is:

1. You Taunt them, play continues.

2. They take hostile action that doesn't include you, doesn't matter what turn it is.

3. The bonus is applied, and lasts until of a turn of yours ends, regardless of when the taunt it procced off ends.

The only way it breaks is if someone else gets reactive struck on *your* turn so it ends immediately.

Ok. I get that. Except I don’t follow the last sentence. What does someone else being a target/victim of reactive strike have to do with it? An ally being a target? My reactive strike?

If the enemy somehow targets one of your allies and not you on your turn (pretend you granted them a stride or something, and the monster used its reaction attack, idk) it would trigger furious vengeance, then your turn would end shortly after (possibly with an attack in between, depends on how it happened) I'm just saying its possible to theoretically trigger it during your turn, and it would end at the end of the same turn.

Its not really important, I was clarifying an edge case of having a super short FV to demonstrate that the end of any of your turns is what ends it.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think it just works, by RAW the sequence is:

1. You Taunt them, play continues.

2. They take hostile action that doesn't include you, doesn't matter what turn it is.

3. The bonus is applied, and lasts until of a turn of yours ends, regardless of when the taunt it procced off ends.

The only way it breaks is if someone else gets reactive struck on *your* turn so it ends immediately.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
exequiel759 wrote:
Marshal is far from being a lazylord. The range of your aura pretty much requires you to be in melee and simply you don't have enough options to use all your actions to help others. That's what I expected from the commander and what I assumed most people wanted too since since day 1 people having wanting a full support martial, but it seems people want just a more in-depth fighter with marshal archetype.

I think the Commander itself has those actions though, two action Strike Hard! that grants a reaction and a 1 action something else like Form Up! or Reload! depending on party comp, is absolutely lazylord territory.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'd love forum signatures, I miss those.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Dropping this here in this thread for convenience's sake, we haven't playtested yet but here's my first impression as someone who plays an awful lot of tanks in an awful lot of different games (and types of games), expect to see one more post from me in this thread for a post playtest follow up, this is partially based on some number crunching we've been doing, and it's modified as a result from what was said in a different thread the other day:

Quote:
Boss-tier encounters (PL+3) with Moderate Will progression are going to Succeed vs. Taunt on 75% of rolls, which means they'll be hitting even the Guardian's high AC with 50/50 accuracy *on their second attack* - and they'll still be critting the Guardian's allies approximately 40% of the time (which is still a very unhappily high occurance of critical hits.) The accuracy on the second attack gets even better if they have an Agile secondary weapon.

(Thanks to WillDigForFood who posted this on my discord)

Not having a dedicated healer in the context of the above would very much scare me. I think that the tuning on the Guardian's 'hit me presence' and tankiness might be off, it's vital for a tank to have a catch-22 loop where the enemy neither wants to hit the tank because they're the least efficient thing to hit, but also needs to hit the tank because otherwise the tank is too annoying, right now the Guardian looks like it doesn't do either quite well enough-- its hits are ignorable on above level creatures, the penalty from taunt is small, and worse due to being a check, and hits and crits from those creatures will still rock it's world. The core design I think is excellent, but my thoughts is that numbers need to be moved--

Switch Key Stat to Constitution, but give them the same attack proficiency progression as the Barbarian and various other martials. This evens out their to-hit to make it more consistent but they're actually still the worst hitter of the martials since they'd have Inventor to-hit with no overdrive to make up for it, nerfing their strength slightly via the Key-stat change has a knock on benefit for the possibility of Dex Guardians, if someone really wants to do that. They'd still have a marginally better attack bonus than the Warpriest across the board this way. As another user on this forum suggested, just let them use Constitution to fulfill strength requirements on Armor.

The Above Change would offer +1 Extra HP per level from making Key Stat Constitution and will help their survivability which I can't stress enough, needs to be meaty if they're expected to perform their Intercept Strike against boss types at all and don't have a dedicated healer to bail them out.

Make Success, Failure, and Critical Failure on the Save for Taunt all -2 to hit your allies, and each save result different durations for the Taunt, I'm thinking of One round/Two Rounds/Three Rounds durations. that way you only sometimes need to renew it every turn, you're never stuck with a -1 penalty to hitting your allies (which is too little) though you can just fail entirely, which I think is fine.

Make Furious Vengeance baseline to taunt and dump Mitigate Harm entirely-- instead of having Mitigate Harm at all you should just get rid of the penalty to your own AC via taunt. Even if it technically helps encourage them to hit you, people hate it psychologically. Baseline Furious Vengeance helps the Guardian put their best foot forward in terms of exerting pressure, and between the extra hp and the lack of AC penalty on taunt, they should be defensively coherent. There is a knock on benefit that FV reduces the odds that the combat turns into a slog as a result of a Guardian by just a bit more.

I'll note here that I don't think Guardian needs subclasses. I think a Monk/Fighter model is appropriate, where it comes from your class feat selection-- enabling backline tanking through feats for instance. That said, we probably need showier feats, I'd look for 'specific technique' feats to strengthen the class's favor and give additional opportunities for the player to flex their pressure/tankiness, more moves that compress taunt into different things would be good as well, like a melee hit.

Note that these changes also simplify the class's math load a bit by making you juggle fewer numbers and modifiers overall.

Edit: Oh yeah, I'd like a feat that triggers fear in a target based off Intercept, and how well you take the hit.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Probably to try and provide guardrails, Guardian really depends on it's defenses so making sure people aren't taking the AC hit from light and unarmored and accidentally undermining the class entirely.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
exequiel759 wrote:
I mean, I'd argue the class doesn't allow me to play the lazylord honestly. Most of the tactics don't include the commander, but most of the feats do. I really hope on release the class allows for both playstyles to be possible and effective in combat. I personally want a lazylord becuase if I want to play a commander in melee I'd play a fighter with the marshal archetype or the future commander archetype, but I'm not against them allowing a more involved playstyle as long as I can do lazylord too.

Archetypes make that pretty trivial, so the good news is you could easily invest in dandy, marshal, etc, and be a respectable lazylord.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
exequiel759 wrote:
If they make Con the KAS of the Guardian they need to use it for features. More HP IMO isn't enough. It can be something as simple as use your Con modifier instead of your Strength modifier to meet the Strength Rating of each armor and instead of Dexterity to fill up your armor's AC. This technically could allow for a character that drops all physicals stats but Con and makes an uber tank.

I like that actually, and it makes the dex option work better too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Another thing-

What if I don't want to taunt? Like what if my character concept is stoic and chivalrous and doesn't really want to disrespect their enemies but is in every other way a guardian?

Like why is "you can annoy your enemies" a core thematic element of this class?

Sounds like a different class then (like the Fighter!), but probably because 'demanding that enemies attack you' is sacred to the archetypal tank space-- FFXIV calls it 'Provoke' for point of comparison.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

We were talking about this in our discord, I think that the tuning on the Guardian's 'hit me presence' and tankiness might be off. We haven't tested yet but my first impression is that I would:

- Switch Key Stat to Constitution, but give them the same attack proficiency progression as the Barbarian and various other martials, this evens out their to-hit to make it more consistent but they're actually still the worst hitter of the martials since they'd have Inventor to-hit with no overdrive to make up for it, nerfing their strength slightly has a knock on benefit for the possibility of Dex Guardians, if someone really wants to do that, they'd still have a better attack bonus than the Warpriest across the board.

- +1 Extra HP per level from making Key Stat Constitution will help their survivability, which I can't stress enough, needs to be meaty if they're expected to perform their Intercept Strike against boss types at all and don't have a dedicated healer to bail them out.

- Make Success, Failure, and Critical Failure on the Save for Taunt all -2 to hit your allies, and each save result different durations for the Taunt, that way you only sometimes need to renew it every turn, you're never stuck with a -1 penalty to hitting your allies (which is too little), maybe the penalty to your own AC is ok? Maybe, One round/Two Rounds/Three Rounds.

- Consider making Furious Vengeance baseline to taunt (not sure what to do with Mitigate Harm, maybe make it baseline, but bump Armor Spec to a higher level? You could always just can it.) It's not a lot of damage, especially at high levels, but it would help make Taunt more impactful for the GM to consider whether to attack you or not.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I honestly really like it as is, given that there will be additional tactic options, main thing right now is that I'd like guidelines for what the banner should and shouldn't be vulnerable to.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
Guntermench wrote:
I'm not sure the delayed proficiency for offense is entirely required. I don't think the defense looks that good.

I mean it basically can't be required. It has normal martial proficiency for huge chunks of the game.

Expert comes at 5 for most martials and 7 for the Guardian.

Master comes at 13 for most martials and 17 for the Guardian.

So that's levels 5, 6, 13, 14, 15, and 16 that it's behind. Not even a third of your career if you go the full 20. If you're playing a half campaign like AV, it's only 2 levels.

... So what in the world about the Guardian is specifically overpowered enough that they need Caster weapon proficiency, but only at those six specific levels? What makes the Guardian too strong at exactly level 5 and 6 but balanced again at level 7?

I can't see a logic here.

Checks the Barbarian Weapon Specialization comes on for Martials at 7, whereas Guardians don't get their own until 11, so it keeps you a step behind, when Barbarian gets Master at 13, you'll have just gotten weapon spec at 11, and Greater Armor Spec on the same level.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

It also has an accelerated armor progression, and features like taunt are currently power budgeted as class features rather than as feats, so I think they'd have to be weaker to do that, as well as necessitating a much higher level since you'd have to buy each part as a feat.

In terms of flavor, I ended up digging it's soldierly vibe, even though I was personally worried it would be too much "Generic MMO Tank" it ended up being really active and cool seeming, like, it has as much flavor as the fighter in that sense.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

One note is that for the most part, you are tougher than a normal character, you get your AC increases two levels sooner (which incidentally, means you have taunting AC equal to what the Champion has at the same level) and some other weird tricks like Mitigate Harm.

But the backline tank idea is pretty fun.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Calliope5431 wrote:
Veltharis wrote:


I believe Alaznist also temporarily achieved mythic status as a result of actions taken during Return of the Runelords, but wasn't mythic during the time of Thassilon itself.

She was mythic at the time of Thassilon, actually! She got an extra 6 mythic tiers from the Scepter of Ages, but pretty sure she was mythic beforehand. Some references here and here .

PossibleCabbage wrote:

So I specifically don't want to do the Owlcat thing where you're more like something from an outer plane as you become more Mythic, I'd rather my Mythicness be related specifically to what I do in the world where people live.

What bugs me about things like the old "Hierophant" and "Trickster" mythic paths is that they don't really advance the story at all. The narrative impact of taking them is pretty limited on the whole and is pretty easily replicated via slapping on an extra 5 character levels and calling yourself "mythic". The main impact is mechanics.

There's not a lot of qualitative difference between a 20th level rogue and a 15th level rogue with a few tiers in the trickster mythic path. Likewise, only someone with a death wish would tell Runelord Karzoug to his face that he wasn't an archmage because he didn't have the archmage mythic path. He did epic things, he's an archmage in all ways that count. That mythic path is mostly just an "extra cool" label in a lot of ways.

Meanwhile many characters in fiction we'd actually label mythic changed themselves in some way to earn it, rather than just being "an extra cool fighter." Hercules ascended to divinity. Voldemort ripped his soul apart and became an archlich. Sauron did something similar.

Basically, if you want to play an extra cool fighter, it feels like you could easily model that by just playing a higher...

One thing you're making me think about: when you have 'Mythic' what does that simulate? Is it an abstraction, or is it like Dragon Ball's 'God Ki' where its an actual categorical separation of the power you wield. Because that's an important component of this, whether that Runelord counts as an Archmage depends more on whether the definition of Archmage is fluid or not.

If it's just 'really skilled mage' or like a political rank then that's one thing, but if its about actually breaking through a kind of threshold, he might not actually be an Archmage. In fact even some Mythic mages might not be Archmages if their Mythic is keyed into a different source rather than from their mastery of mage's magic.

I tend to think of things like this as being simulative of something in the fiction of the game world myself.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Unicore wrote:


There was "raise the dead and use them as pawns" which I think is covered better by the school of the boundary than it was by the PF2 necromancer. It probably isn't enough for folks who wanted the "army of undead minions: but that was never going to be a wizard class in PF2. It is an NPC class that requires rituals, narrative manipulation, and massive level imbalances to be a functional game element. Like you actually can do it as a PC, but you will only ever be a threat to enemies much lower level than you with your armies of undead...which actually works really well for all the big NPC necromancers in setting.

Honestly, I think School of the Boundary is actually a great platform to hang that off of-- Spiral of Horrors is a phenomenally consistent to-hit increase for your pets that the rest of your party benefits from and it stacks with Fortify Summoning, getting them to +2, or more efficiently depending on your Archetype Progression, Reanimator. It also stacks well with Undead Master and Mature Companion (for action econ efficiency) and eventually, and you aren't restricted to just summoning the undead (undead eidolon Summoners are better at undead minionmancy imo, using the other undead to support your eidolon.)

It's not an army as such, but I think getting a couple of things on the field and supporting them and the rest of your party well is a good version of that, that isn't very "pie in the sky" but you can kinda get that too if your GM breaks the troop trait rule, and lets you summon Troops and Weak Troops as they become appropriate.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Saedar wrote:
Why can't OMJ be an Eternal Legend focused on magic? Like. Just because we used to have an incredibly generic Archmage doesn't mean we need the same thing now to represent the character.

You could definitely do Jatembe a lot of different ways, for sure. But one thing we know is that none of the mythic people we know on Golarion have don't have a Mythic destiny related to an outsider (Aeon, Azata, Angel, Demon, etc.) and don't have a Mythic destiny related to some non-human thing (Tar-Baphon was a lich before he was a mythic lich.)

So I specifically don't want to do the Owlcat thing where you're more like something from an outer plane as you become more Mythic, I'd rather my Mythicness be related specifically to what I do in the world where people live.

It doesn't need to be maximally generic, I just dislike the Owlcat approach, and would prefer we do things that are simultaneously evocative and broad in the style of "Eternal Legend" and "Apocalypse" rider instead of really specific things like "lich" and "angel." Like you could do a mythic path about being as quick as a shadow and just as hard to pin down and make that Protean or Velstrac themed, but it's better to not do that so it covers a greater range of characters (the version without planar theming covers a swordsman who can't get touched, a thief who can't get caught, and a mage who can think their way around any problem.) It's better to do one that's a "Guardian of the Gateway [between life and death]" than one that's specifically undead, since the former also covers healers and undead hunters (you're trying to keep everybody on the side of the gateway they're on).

I agree with that, these destinies should essentially be a class that describes the set of powers that let you transcend mortal limits, its odd that Owlcat chose to go with Mythic power being "Become an Angel" or what have you, because well...

This thing is an angel and it's only Level 6.

So just being an "outsider" strikes me as unrelated to power. Meanwhile, things that describe what you do that's so powerful, or what you are in a grander cosmic sense (say, if it's indeed about becoming one of a given group of demigods) that makes you more powerful is much more appropriate.

It could also just be a mix, "this one makes you one of the Empyreal Lords, that one makes you an Archmage"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm hoping for Archmage as an option too, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was about joining the ranks of different groups of demigods.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I usually play Tanks in MMORPGs and stuff, and while Guardian is on the positive side of my "oh this'll be cool" meter, the Commander is what I'm really stoked for, I WANT TO WIELD A GIANT BARBARIAN ONE-HANDED.

(Man, these guides take me back, they were my constant companion in navigating that system, and I loved all the little witticisms and such.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
keftiu wrote:
WWHsmackdown wrote:
keftiu wrote:
ornathopter wrote:
keftiu wrote:

EDIT: Hello, "Avenger" Rogue. I very nearly missed you there.

Is this one renamed? What was the original?
Given that this is a big book of Divine goodies, it's safe to assume a Divine Rogue of some sort might look, say, Inquisitor-shaped.
What might the avenger give up/gain in a class archetype?
I'm not much of a d20 designer, but at a gut check... maybe worsen a Save in exchange for Sanctified Sneak Attacks with bonus Spirit Damage?

Yo spirit damage sneak attack would be so pro.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Phntm888 wrote:
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
- Rovagug: Same as Lamashtu, but 10 years of worrying about him getting out, him dying would feel like an appropriately built up event. likely to generate the most fuss, and could lead to interesting stories, thogh i think theres supposed to be an existing deity taking over the place of the god, so that's why this isnt my #1 pick. high chance

An important meta point for this one, Arazni is going to be the new member of the Core 20, but she is not taking the portfolio of the dead deity. So, if they kill Rovagug, Arazni would be the new member of the Core 20, but she would not take over any of Rovagug's portfolio or domains. It's not a 1 to 1 replacement.

"TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
- Abadar: My personal pick. Killing the god of cities and wealth and whatnot i think is the biggest shake up to the setting. If all the major cities suddenly are no more, and all the wealth gets out of whack, it would make for very interesting setting implications, and someone...

Abadar does have one very big meta reason for not being the one to be killed: If killing Abadar would completely disrupt wealth and currency systems across Golarion, then Paizo would need to publish rules for how to adjust prices of all equipment based on region, settlement size, surrounding country's natural resources, and all the other real-world factors that go into pricing of goods and services. No more "a longsword is 15 sp, no matter if you buy it in Cheliax or Osirion." I don't think adding an economics mini-game to the shopping mini-game would make for an improvement in overall gameplay.

Also, arguably the most major city, Absalom, is the headquarters of the in-world organization that is Paizo's Organized Play Campagin, the Pathfinder Society. I don't think they'd wreck that, which gives Abadar additional meta protection.

Clearly, Abadar has been secretly dead the whole time, but this fact is being covered up by Golarion's Banks. But actually its the reason the economic values in this TTRPG don't make sense from a real world economics perspective, as economic principles stopped functioning and the economy now works entirely off of vibes /nod /nod


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:

OK, theory time-not from a lore perspective, but from a meta one. So far, they seem to be keeping around gods that the setting would be vastly different without. So if they're going to kill one, it would need to have enough of an impact to make a difference, but also not so big of an impact that the entire setting changes. Also, i suspect they're less likely to kill off more unique deities, or risk their setting becoming bland. So, ruling them out...

- I don't think its Gozreh. Too unique of a concept of a god to get rid of in my book. low Chance
- Calistria: too small of an impact by getting rid of her, also the only lven deity. low chance
- Torag: See Calistria, but dwarf 5% chance
- Sarenrae: their most well-known deity and a setting where the sun is out? I suspect not. low chance
- Sheylyn: I've seen people mention she's become representative of queer players, would be a mistake to get rid of her low

- Gorum: too low profile? also we've never seen their face. but, if they're replacing them with a more unique deity, i could see it. medium chance.
- Iomadae: Unlikely since she took over for Aroden. That would just be doing the same things twice. medium chance
- Lamashtu: a new source of strife would be interesting, but i dont think its guaranteed. medium chance
- Norgorber: secrets about the world are revealed with his death, leading to more interesting stories. Medium chance

- Rovagug: Same as Lamashtu, but 10 years of worrying about him getting out, him dying would feel like an appropriately built up event. likely to generate the most fuss, and could lead to interesting stories, thogh i think theres supposed to be an existing deity taking over the place of the god, so that's why this isnt my #1 pick. high chance
- Abadar: My personal pick. Killing the god of cities and wealth and whatnot i think is the biggest shake up to the setting. If all the major cities suddenly are no more, and all the wealth gets out of whack, it would make for very interesting setting implications, and someone...

Its important to remember that there are multiple gods of the Sun, the sun isn't straight up gone just because Sarenrae is, because Shizuru is also a sun goddess. What a Sarenrae-less Golarion WOULD look like though, I'm not sure.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Finoan wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

The Stormwind Fallacy (named for a user on the old WOTC optimization boards that proposed it) is a cornerstone of character optimization communities, the fallacy is that people think that character optimization and roleplaying are inversely proportional.

One thing that I think isn't Stormwind Fallacy, but is often confused to be: Mechanics that give non-combat abilities should cost something. Building a character to be a powerhouse in non-combat challenges shouldn't come for free. Especially if only some classes are able to do it.

My best example in PF2 is Investigator. A lot of non-combat power built right into the class. But it does seem to cost some of the combat ability.

The counterexample being Rogue. It has non-combat power available that is pretty much the equivalent of Investigator, but it doesn't seem to cost any combat ability to have that.

But in both cases, and whichever side of this debate you happen to fall on, the arguments are not Stormwind Fallacy. Here I am talking about game mechanics balance - not role-play vs optimization.

Its sort of interesting, because it depends a lot on the culture of the game-- sometimes this can actually lead to a meta enforcement where the expectation becomes combat optimization, because there's a tacit understanding that if the lack of noncombat capability leads to a more frustrating game, the GM will start dropping and smoothing the problems those options are meant to solve-- whereas if players happen to have them semi-frequently, there isn't a default expectation that it needs to be smoothed over.

Language stuff frequently falls into this trap, I've noticed, a lot of 4e character optimization guides treated them as traps because "If the inscription is important, the GM will give you another way to get that information"


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:

Yes, absolutely.

You may find this guide helpful:

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43y1z?Sanctificaton-and-You-A-Guide-by-Captain -Morgan

Oooh I hadn't seen this one, it'll probably help one of our co-GM whose feeling a bit overwhelmed with some remaster changes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Our Watches Begin (for real, since today is the day shipping is intended to start.)


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

To expand for those that don't know, without commenting on the conversation at hand:

The Stormwind Fallacy (named for a user on the old WOTC optimization boards that proposed it) is a cornerstone of character optimization communities, the fallacy is that people think that character optimization and roleplaying are inversely proportional.

In reality you could play the strongest build in pretty much any game with deep motivations, a comprehensive backstory, and a well realized voice; or you could conversely play the weakest build in any game without roleplaying much at all.

This reality sometimes manifests very obviously as the people with the highest system mastery also being the people most invested in the game's narrative, but not always. There's also a perpetual subset of the TTRPG community that tries to measure roleplaying by the lack of optimization, in a very hipsterish, gatekeeping kind of way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm really eager to see Ripple in the Deep, my existing Witch is a little in flux with the remaster last time I got to play her, so even though I'm planning for her to stick with the occult list I might be interested in something else if the new ones are sufficiently cool-- and the campaign is pirate themed so a sea witch is actually kinda tempting.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I wouldn't stress too much about Reaction Attacks, they happen but they aren't that common, and at least some of the time either someone else will trigger them first or you'll trigger it in a way that'll help out someone else by taking them out of the line of fire so to speak.

Once you have exploit set up, Strike into Fling Magic is good damage, combining a martial's best strike with a basic save in a way that dodges MAP. With that in mind it's also not a bad candidate for the other hand when you're wielding a Triggerbrand or a Piercing Wind-- you can exploit into fling magic, and then on the next round if they haven't entered melee you fire the gun, or you switch to melee mode if they have and you can just critical fusion if you crit (and have crit spec) which makes this very tempting for a Weapon + Wand Thaum.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I really hope the "something different" field test is ship stuff, I'm chomping at the bit for good spaceship rules-- the only game I have for space combat is Lancer Battlegroup and that's for fleet level operations, rather than a Millenium Falcon Style Teamwork Vessel, or an X-Wing Style Squadron.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Double Slice Fighter with Dual Light Picks and the Assassin archetype is nasty as all get out-- especially in any encounter where you can Mark for Death prior to hostilities being engaged.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Tian Xia incoming, hopefully as close to the 8th as possible, much excite.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
Unicore wrote:

It is probably better for tables to decide for themselves what spells to include in their games than try to crowd source interpretations of developer intention.

I think so GMs will say “core only spells” and mean player core, GM core and Monster Core. Others will be a lot more permissive. As long as you talk over your concerns with your fellow players before making assumptions, you can make changes before committing to a character concept your table won’t support.

PFS has been abundantly clear that legacy stuff is viable unless something else with the same name gets published. Assuming they are going to pull that blanket out from under players at some arbitrary moment in the future is unnecessarily skeptical.

How then will you, in the future, errata something that was in the CRB and has not been kept in the Core books ?

They already did that with Produce Flame and Ray of Frost and co. That was post remaster errata to the original core.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Trip.H wrote:

_____________

The entire point of purchasing ttrpg books is to have the complete resources of said system.

I'd challenge that premise. The biggest reason to purchase TTRPG books is so that the sales keep the publisher in business pumping out new books. And that cycle means you can't own a "complete" system until the end of a game's lifespan. Books are actually a pretty bad way to reference all the material in a game, compared to, say, looking at all of the occult spells once on Archive of Nethys.

Besides revenue, books are also better for learning the rules to a system from scratch than Nethys is. But that remains the case regardless of whether every item is included in a single book. Having every possible option actually cmmakes the book bloated and harder to learn.

Anyway, on the topic of Synesthesia... I couldn't care less until player core 2 releases. Until then this is a player manufactured problem. (And probably still will be afterwards TBH.)

Yeah, there's a fair bit of the playerbase that works directly off of Nethys and Pathbuilder, even if they buy the books. A greater percentage of the PF2e playerbase, by definition, has access to them than has access to the core book.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm excited to be getting this one soon, it'll be fun to read all the entries for places, and I'm excited for the 20-or-so pages of monsters, I'm hoping that there's another Oni or two in there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

That's why we have different games, some are going to require different roles in a group, and some aren't. Personally, I much prefer games that require support characters, and it's a major perk of the system for me-- at least partially because they tend to be optimized out of games where they aren't required for the hardest content.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:

I cannot help but imagine all the newborn kobolds hatching near the PCs' homebase with faces strangely reminiscent of the PCs themselves.

Like miniature draconic clones.

Or near powerful unicorn to create Kobolds with Horse faces and celestial powers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Ectar wrote:

With Kobolds losing their assumed draconic heritage, we no longer have a distinctly draconic ancestry.

We have 4 (I believe) non-draconic reptile playable ancestries: Kobolds, Lizardfolk, Nagaji, and Vishkanya. So two snakes and two lizards, but no dragons.

Wyvarans haven't been ported over yet. They'd fit the role quite well.

To my understanding, kobolds are still draconic. It's just that they aren't quite as dialed in. They like to obey powerful magical creatures, and they take on the casting tradition of whatever it was they were following... but being pick-a-list is kind of a draconic thing, now.

I mean... am I wrong? have we actually had anyone come out and say that kobolds aren't draconic anymore? Did I miss that?

Ectar wrote:
"Don't do that. Don't give me hope."
Might I suggest pastoral counseling at the Church of Groetius?

No you're accurate-- Kobold eggs essentially intake magical power from nearby magical creatures, Kobold society sees Kobolds who are influenced in this way as having advantages over Kobolds who aren't, so Kobold communities seek out powerful creatures as sources of magical incubation to create these magical Kobolds.

The text then asserts that Dragons are usually very willing, and that its the most common arrangement Kobolds make for this purpose, but then shows us a Kobold Cavern Mage, which is essentially created via this process wutilizing an earth elemental (the Kobold essentially being a sorcerer as a result, and having bits of crystal growing on them, so they're probably also an Oread.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I certainly think that we should have melee support in a bunch of the classes, though it probably doesn't need to be every single one-- it should probably be comparable to the state of melee in pf2e, where plenty of the martial classes have ranged support, and a couple are even ranged centric, but the focus is squarely on melee.

That's why I'd prefer for the ranged combat to be emphasized by the accessibility of particular conditions, rather than imposing hard limits-- this is still the kind of game you play if you want to be a jedi type with a laser sword.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
HolyFlamingo! wrote:

Reply to BigNorseWolf: SF1's not-so-secret melee supremacy is a known issue, and one that Thurston has called out in interviews. I think having Get 'Em NOT double down on 2e's already strong melee meta is therefore a boon; those DPR-obsessed hooligans can go blow their own actions while ranged characters (and casters, hopefully!) enjoy an increased variety of bespoke buffs.

What I meant by "free" is that Get 'Em requires no rolls or resource consumption beyond the single action it costs to "cast." That alone is really good; most other AC-lowering activities require a check, slot, or actively putting yourself in danger.

Now, if anyone shoot-shoot-shoots on their turn, then they suck at the game (or they're a flurry ranger and I hate them). The envoy gets tons of skills and flexible feats, so their "third action" pool is massive. This is in addition to whatever envoy-specific stuff they get, like additional directives and feats.

In regards to the Stabby example, I'm factoring in smart play, such as delaying from the players and multiple enemies from the GM (keep in mind most combats aren't against one guy, and envoys will often get a bonus to initiative thanks to Saw It Coming). The situation you are anticipating here--multiple melee-heavy characters in the same party who perpetually standing adjacent to the only valid target, with literally nothing else to do--sounds like trying to force every adventure to play like Abomination Vaults. Which sucks. I mean, sheesh, Get 'Em still works if you have an ODD number of melee allies, since flanking is a two-player activity.

Finally, bards. The problem with bards is that the "optimal" way to play is to become a Courageous Anthem bot. This is often considered to be really disastisfying as it's both a hands-off buff and something your teammates will expect to be always up. I don't like flurry rangers for similar reasons: it's not fun when the most boring way to play your character is also the "best." Hence, situationality on Get 'Em is good, as there...

I agree with this in the sense that it's probably better in general for the Starfinder meta to use the class actions buffs and conditions themselves to incentivize the ranged weaponry so that their meta revolves around it-- I think that's actually the healthiest route because it would heavily suggest a balance point where what's optimal in a combined game depends on which classes you're packing having a Bard and/or melee classes could incentivize a melee playstyle, whereas having an Envoy/Suppression etc, incentivizes a ranged character.

Admittedly, I feel like off-guard already works that way in Pathfinder, its so much easier to get off-guard in melee for melee strikes that it gently encourages melee combat (without invalidating bows and guns and spells) so a similar "Ranged Focus" where melee builds are valid, but don't get buffed as easily Ranged builds do, would be entirely appropriate for Starfinder.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

At this point, I'm mainly craving ancestry feats for existing ancestries-- though that's me admittedly looking ahead to the ancestry count in a post Howl of the Wild and Tian Xia Character Guide World, never mind Starfinder, I won't really want for anything, just more support for different ancestries to make give them unique applications for more different kinds of characters.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Lmao

"What about the other two traditions implied by how essences work?"

"THEY WOULD LITERALLY UNMAKE MAGIC"

This one might be my favorite so far honestly, as it links into the fundamental science of the magic system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
dirkdragonslayer wrote:

Seeing the remaster beginner's box remove 5 monsters (drow, owlbear, mimic, web lurker, and doppelganger) and then fill the space with already known monsters is making me SO CURIOUS. Because Monster Core is going to have more entries than Bestiary 1. With 2 less dragon varieties and a lot of OGL monsters gone, *something* has to be filling all those entries.

Will we get new troop variations of common Bestiary 1 enemies like goblins and orcs?

Will we see adventure path specific monsters like tanglebones and redcap cavalry be added in?

Will new monsters be added to fill open niches left by leaving monsters? Crabs living in chest to be mimics, shape-shifting fey mud men to replace dopplegangers, some other large semi-magical predator to replace Owlbears?

Actually, some basic Troops would be kinda nice, I wonder if any made it in.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

That's respectable, I'm considering it from the perspective of if the ludo narrative already has a stance on it.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Finoan wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
Sure, but if tomorrow Paizo debuted an Operative focus spell that does whatever, in what way would it matter?

The matter is that this hypothetical Operative Focus spell would have to be a spell in a mechanical sense.

It would have to use the Cast a Spell activity in order to use - so it would do things like provoke reactions or invoke taboos against magic or spells. It would be inherently magical in a mechanical context.

In short - while it might be flavored and described as non-magical, it would still interact with things that interact with magic.

Much like the existing hack/workaround of the Monk Focus spell Wild Winds Stance which can't be used inside an area of Antimagic Field. Because entering the stance is a magical effect, but firing off Wild Winds Crash is a non-magical Unarmed Strike.

Sounds good to me, it's presumably magical anyway, like how the ocular processing units in Androids cast the True Strike Spell and have the arcane trait, it seems consistent with how advanced tech is already presented.

1 to 50 of 1,886 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>