Vampire Seducer

Tridus's page

Organized Play Member. 722 posts. 3 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 9 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 722 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

What a lovely story, and I'm glad for an explanation of why the name is changing. That'll take some getting used to. Our Kingmaker group's Monarch is actually a Cleric of the Prismatic Ray and our Kingdom is a theocracy, so this trio is a pretty big deal in our land.

Glad they're sticking around!


FWIW - Foundry's PF2 system counts something as a "different instance" if its adding damage of a seperate type. So for a Cold Iron Flaming Corrosive slashing weapon attacking something with:
- Weak 5 Slashing
- Weak 10 Cold Iron
- Weak 5 Fire
- Immune to Acid

It will apply the weakness to cold iron to the base weapon damage (since that's bigger than the slashing, which is part of the same damage instance), apply the weak 5 to the damage from the flaming rune, and then removes the acid damage entirely. On a crit, the flaming damage doubles and the physical damage doubles. It also adds persistent fire from Flaming, which is not doubled.

I don't know if that's "correct" given some of the edge case issues, but it's clear to follow how its coming up with that, which at least makes it so I can follow and understand what is going on. Seems to work well enough most of the time.


QuidEst wrote:
- Alchemists get the ingredients to make waffles and explosives every morning. Casters used to have material spell components that never ran out. Whatever excuses mean you didn't make a thread for those classes, just apply them here.

Or my favorite one: the Gunslinger feat that basically lets them just have Cold Iron/Adamantine bullets every morning with no material cost.


I'm kind of expecting Champion to get something for raising shields in PC2. They have it now at level 20, which is just too late for most campaigns to matter (especially now that Paizo is doing fewer long APs most of the published material doesn't get to 20 anymore).

Aside from that they use shields really well in terms of defending others. Shield of Reckoning does real work in any case where you can use it, which is still a fair bit even at higher level. Use your second reaction for another Champions reaction and if you dip into Bastion for Quick Shield Block, you still have one to defend yourself.

It's a decent package.

Liberating Stride also gives Liberators some help against larger monsters since it will let people move farther away and for anyone with 30' of movement (which at that level isn't uncommon), they can move 15' away which is out of the reach of most things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Much like how we never worry about a Fighter's weapon becoming dull, or used to worry about Wizards running out of random spell components, this is something that is generally assumed that the PC is taking care of replenishing during quiet time.

It only really comes up if it's specifically taken away from you for some reason. Otherwise you can just assume the PC is taking care of it. What that means is deliberately vague so as to not bog down the rules with details that for the purpose of the rules don't actually matter.

Narratively maybe they're visiting travelling merchants or occult shops. Maybe they harvest things from downed enemies, like bits of paper and charms that have no value but can be used for this purpose.


Powers128 wrote:
I'm hoping they'll make the revelation spells automatic. Never liked needing to take class feats to justify a subclass.

Seems unlikely since that's how other casters work like Cleric and Sorcerer. But it would definitely be nice if it did work that way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Disruptive Stance really needs to be on any "best of Fighter feats" list IMO, since it's pretty much "if you have this and close on a Caster, they have already lost." Bonus points if someone in the party can trip, or you have a reach weapon so even Step doesn't solve it and they're eating at least one Reactive Strike.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is what I found in a Paizocon wrap up.

A lot of changes for the Oracle, its a cool concept, it made it hard to get power into your hands when you need it. They’ve done a lot to make them simpler, but if you want more disruptive curse effects, you can take them later to opt in. Cursebound condition, 1 2 3 or 4, you get access to higher levels of it later, whenever you use something with the trait it advances– but its not focus spells anymore, those are still here, but they don’t advance your curse. Every mystery gets one, for instance reach/widen as a free action in exchange for cursebound. You might be clumsy based on your cursebound, or vuln to magic, it sounds like it’s different per mystery. Quality of life, some mysteries had trouble getting spells they wanted, the give twice as many domains now, and come with a granted spell list like a deity does. They put more oracle flavor into the feats, james favorite epiphany of the crossroads, you have to be dying, but you can receive a vision, and get a big heal from it. Thousand visions for example, available to any mystery reduces your vision of far away things, but increases your vision for close things.


The Raven Black wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
There's no ostracizing going on. It's just the way things are. People speak different languages.
And how is that fun for the players ?

For a player that knows what they're getting into and wants the narrative believability? Its quite fun. They have challenges to overcome and need help to do it.

Some players won't want to deal with those problems, but others find it silly that they came from another continent, have never heard the language before, but somehow speak it perfectly well because its "common".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Javcen wrote:
But now look at a level 13 fighter... Your perception is now behind the good perception classes like ranger and rogue, not a big deal, but...it was on par before and I can certainly justify the veteran fighter having high perception (??)

Fighters get Master Perception at level 7 AND +2 to Initiative on top of that, baseline. The only classes better at Perception are the ones that go to Legendary, and those are still not better at Initiative without taking a feat.

In terms of Perception, Fighter is in the top half of classes. In terms of Initiative, it's in what, the top 4?

I feel like this is more a case of Fighter having it really good early on and just not having it quite as good later. My Oracle needs two feats and to be level 17 to match a level 7 Fighter baseline.

Quote:
your saves are generally worse than the average martial

I'm not sure "two saves at master and two success becomes a crit success" saves is actually worse than the average martial, but that doesn't factor in Bravery making you resistant to a pretty common class of effects in Fear.

[quoote]Bulwark does not, in fact scale so now is falling behind dedicated Dexterity characters

Of course it does. Bulwark's point is that you don't have to invest in DEX at all. It's ALWAYS behind dedicated DEX characters. You're still getting the upside of not having to invest in DEX at all. If your Reflex save really matters to you and you want to make it bigger, you can invest in DEX.

Quote:
your will saves are an increasingly relevant weakness

Most classes have at least one save at Expert because there should be something for foes to target (same as how creatures tend to have a bad save).

Quote:
more and more monsters fly or have otherwise strong counters to the classic run up and swing melee option

At the level where this really becomes a problem, there are items to get yourself flight as well as things the Casters in the party can do to help. Or grab an Extending Rune and just swing from the ground. My son did this and it was really amusing when things thought they were safe.

Quote:
I'm not saying that high level fighter is weak, I think that +2 to accuracy carries them well and i'm pretty sure they get a spike in damage at 13 due to it. They're still one of the game's best damage dealers. It's just that I can't help but feel (and it's been voiced to me by a player who was playing a fighter), that the fighter character feels like he is inversely getting relatively weaker as he levels compared to not just other pcs but the competition. Rather than feeling like a more and more skilled warrior.

It's possible Fighter is too front loaded and too strong early on, so it as it actually comes somewhere vaguely back in line it feels weaker when it's really not. But it's always strong. I've GM'd multiple Fighters all the way to 20 and they were ludicrous at high level, with one of them doing dual pick Agile Grace and dealing insane damage, while the other was 2h Power Attack critting for 14d12 while also using Scare to Death to remove enemies from the fight (if not just killing them outright).

Quote:
It doesn't help that taking a look at high level fighter feats, they're not exactly stinkers but...they seem so boring, no presses or flourishes (if rarely) for many builds, limited options (overwhelming blow seems like a trap, savage critical seems almost useless, because what the heck are you not critting with a 19 anyway???, this is strictly a go fish with your MAP attack feat). Other martials have high level feats that while not necessarily stronger feel so much more interesting to play with and speak to that class's identity, the fighter feels like he peaks in fighting technique at level 10 where feats like improved slam down, agile grace, etc exist.

This is probably fair in that it gets less interesting as you level, though Disruptive Stance + Combat Reflexes basically ends any fight against a Caster that you can close in on. But if none of the feats here interest you, it might be a good time to archetype.

Quote:


Ranger also seems to fall behind his lower level self, admittedly I think it's worse for ranger but this has already been said (but this is digressing from the point, but it has a lot of different reasons others have covered). I guess I just really want to figure out why it's ok for classes like the fighter and champion to have their +2 to ac or attack and their other very competitive attributes to other martials for 1/2 of the game but then pay for it in many other parts of their chassis in the later half of the level progression, what has changed? Why is it ok at 1-7? but taxed at the other parts? I'm starting to build a personal theory that part of the reason fighter is seen as so OP is that most folk play at the early levels like in most TTRPGS. The rogue in particular gets better, and better, and better, as the game goes, with awesome almost anime level feats at every level past 10, the skill feat disparity getting wider, getting some of the game's best legendary skill feats (legendary sneak is crazy good vs something a STR based character would get like Cloud Jump), amazing class features (debilitations, master strike).

Cloud Jump is great. Scare to Death is available to anyone and is arguably the strongest legendary feat in the game unless you need to be hidden all the time (in which case Legendary Sneak will come out on top).

I just don't think this is true from experience. Fighters don't really drop off. They're still extremely strong. We had one in a Night of the Grey Death game and they were the MVP.

Quote:


As the higher levels approach, the future looks rather bleak for my fighter player (who has nothing to be excited about and I can't exactly give him something looking at the facts) and my ranger player laments not playing a rogue invested into survival (and I...really can't give him very strong reasons why his ranger choice had advantages other than...a d10 hit die). The fighter level 19 feature is almost a joke due to runes, and even in abp it's of dubious use due to most of your feats being heavily invested into a single weapon type anyway, it's literal bragging rights. I offered it to a player as a level 6 feat, and they still didn't take it. They say comparison is the thief of joy, but it really does feel like other martials at least get more fun toys at the higher levels and you're stuck paying for your (admittedly incredible) level 1-10 crimes. Well, in rangers case they just feel mid all game long and never broken in anything (like Fighter, Champion, or Rogue) (unless they go into companions) all game long and then seemingly get worse...but yeah.

Ranger is much more of a mid tier class, so if you're talking about Ranger I can see this more. Fighter is great and is always great. And again, if you don't find the high level feats interesting, archetype to pick up something else. You can even get more skills to Master (and more skill feats) via Rogue/Investigator dedications, go pick up the Champion Reaction and some healing, or get something else fun to play with.

That also addresses any idea that Fighters aren't good out of combat, which is wrong in the first place since they get the same skill options as nearly every other class. My son's fighter was also a face and had tons to do in skill challenge situations.

Fighter is one of the best classes in the game. If you find the high level play of it dull, that's totally fair. But the idea that it's weak or falling behind as it levels is just not borne out by how it plays. It destroys things at every level of play.


SuperBidi wrote:

I find Healer's Gloves to be the most overrated item in the game. I've seen so many characters with it but I'm still waiting to see it used...

Nothing gets close to Heal when you absolutely need healing. There are a few alternate abilities, but Healer's Gloves are none of them. No (or close to no) healing is definitely not the best amount of healing.

I have activated them a few times, usually in a situation where I just used Battle Medicine on someone so I'm already next to them to give them a bit more oomph.

But lets be honest: the real advantage of Healer's Gloves is that they give +1 to Medicine all the time as opposed to the expanded toolkit's limited options.


eatabagofdice wrote:
DM was also thinking a bard would help the most. My only reluctance with a bard is I've personally never really played a more support-focused class so it's a bit intimidating. I'll do some research into bards and probably go with that for my backup.

Bard is one of my favorite classes, but it's very much a different mindset in how you play it. I think you'd like it if you got into it though. :)

Quote:
Thanks for the info on the fighter as well. I am not building this backup with the hope my fighter dies, in fact I'd love to use him for the entire campaign, so knowing some options to try and keep him going is great as well.

No problem. :) Fighter is a great class and there's no reason this party can't do the entire adventure. Stay near the Paladin for some protection and have your Cleric use Bless for extra attack bonus.


Ascalaphus wrote:

So the thing is, it's not against the rules or anything, but are you enjoying it?

The GM can basically spend the encounter budget "high" or "wide".

If the GM spends it high, you get a few enemies with high stats. They're hard to hit, they hit you hard. But because there's a lot of you and together you have more actions than the enemies do, you eventually get through. It's "fair" and "balanced", but maybe not a lot of fun, because everyone is missing a lot of rolls.

If the GM spends it wider, you get more enemies but the individual enemies aren't as strong. You don't have as much of a difference in how many actions the party has vs the enemies, but it's easier to hit enemies. This one is also fair and balanced, but it might be more enjoyable for you as players.

The choice between high and wide tends to affect people who do "one really important roll" characters more than characters who do many rolls. If you have one big spell to spend and enemies critically succeed, then it feels really bad. If you're a monk making lots of attacks and half of them fail, it's not great but you didn't really lose your big thing of the day.

So this is why the advice given to the GM in the books is that if the party's XP budget is big because it's a big party, it's better to spend it wide than high.

So my advice: don't say "that's just how we roll". Discuss it with your group: is this actually making the game fun or would a bit of a change be nicer?

All of this. If every encounter is against higher level enemies, you need to talk to the GM.

I had to learn this the hard way as a GM for a group of 5. Adding the Elite template is *really easy*. It makes the math work, it's simple to do, and it keeps things going.

It also makes enemies feel stronger and the party thus feel weaker. If you're constantly struggling against every enemy you encounter, how heroic do you feel?

"One/Two really strong foes" has its place in encounter design, but combat in general is more fun for players if they feel like they're accomplishing something on their turn. Fighting more enemies does that, because you'll be hitting reliably, critting sometimes, enemies will fail saves, and you'll take things down more often.


Bard tends to do well in any weapon heavy party because Inspire Courage/Courageous Anthem makes a BIG difference to folks using weapons. More hits and more crits is always a winner and although +1 may sound like a lot coming from D&D, because its boosting your hit and crit chance, it does more than you might think.

The Occult spell list isn't the best in AV, but it's got enough stuff that works reliably to do the job. It would let you bring some backup healing, some buffs, some debuffs, and some damage.

Alternately you can try to help your group with your Fighter. You can get a shield to reduce incoming damage. You could use a 2h Reach Trip weapon (like a Guisarme, which is still d10 damage) and trip enemies (this uses Athletics, which its easy for a Fighter to be good at).

That either forces them to spend an action standing up (and will provoke your AoO/Reactive Strike), or they stay down and are taking a -2 on all their attacks while the Rogue is now getting sneak attack with that bow.

Likewise if you have Intimidate and are fighting something that isn't immune to Fear, Demoralize for one action is a good way to make things easier to hit for everyone, including you.

I don't think Druid or Sorc are "poor" choices, but I also don't think you'll find either of them makes the party any stronger as compared to your Fighter.


How's your defenses? At the end of the day, doing significant amounts of healing is action intensive, which reduces your offense and makes fights longer. You want some healing so you can keep people standing and get their actions doing things to help you win, but too much time spent healing indicates another problem.

This is what makes high AC, shields, and things like Champion Reactions so useful: they're comparatively low action cost things that prevent damage. Prevented damage doesn't need to be healed, freeing up folks for offense.

This is the main problem my Kingmaker group has: we're relatively lacking in defensive options and heavy armor users in general. Combine that with what feels like a lot of severe encounters, and we run into people being blasted down and needing healing a LOT. Like, someone earlier said that Cleric divine font alone is too much healing, but its not uncommon for us to need to use 3 of these in one fight and run out entirely pretty frequently.

Meanwhile I'm also in a Shadows at Sundown game with a Paladin and a Thaumaturge with Redeemer Archetype, and combined with that adventure having more encounters a day (and thus what feels like fewer severe ones), we can get through things with significantly less healing in the party. (We also have a trip specialist and if we can land a trip on an enemy, it's just doing less offense as it either has to spend an action standing up or it's taking -2.)

Generally speaking if one person is built as a "healer" (who can hopefully also do other stuff) with healing spells/battle medicine/continual recovery, you generally only need enough healing elsewhere to get that person up if they get targeted. But how much you need will vary significantly based on how good our AC is and how good you are at preventing damage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You're probably going to get a bunch of different answers on this, but from a lot of experience as a player and GM: damage spells feel lousy at low level. Its two actions with crummy odds of getting full effect, as your spell attacks have a lower chance to hit than an equivalent martial (and this will get worse before it gets better), and low level has a LOT of foes with good Reflex saves in my experience, so it's pretty easy to do almost nothing with a lot of spells & cantrips. When "half damage" means 2 damage... yeah. It doesn't feel good. When you start having a run of bad luck, only getting one attempt a turn makes it REALLY drag out as opposed to a martial who will can pretty regularly get two attacks so they just get more chances for a better roll. (And why the Remaster effectively nerfed damage on a lot of Cantrips I will never understand, because its hardly like low level caster damage was too strong.)

It's a good idea to try to have cantrips targeting at least two saves, so that when you encounter things with good reflex, you can switch to something else (Frostbite can be good for this). If you need space, drop Electric Arc to get it, then get a Jolt Coil Spellheart to get Electric Arc back.

Buffs and debuffs are somewhat limited at this level, but they tend to be more reliable. I use a lot of Fear, because any miss I turn into a hit or hit I turn into a crit with that debuff from another character hitting it is BIG damage and its because of me.

Cleanse Affliction gets better at rank 3 (so level 5) when it can attempt to counteract the disease entirely. That might fail, but when it works it ends it outright. That said, the Medicine Skill is usually the best answer for diseases.

Blood Magic effects are generally pretty minor. They're a bonus for doing something else, rather than a main thing. A bit of temp HP can help keep someone else in the fight, and if you're getting it from using your focus spell, that will be on top of the healing you did. You ideally also want to get an enemy in that so you can heal and do damage and provide Temp HP.

If everything is always making reflex saves, your only real options are to either use something that targets another save or try to get some help from elsewhere in the party. Like if someone elses Demoralizes a target, that lowers its reflex save and helps you. Likewise for Needle Darts, if someone can trip or grab a target, they become Off Guard which lowers their AC for you.

It also gets better later. When you start getting stronger spells you can make a real impact and swing battles... but I'll be honest: if your goal is damage, a low level spellcaster is the wrong thing to play. Anything with a weapon will do it better (and that includes Magus).

One other thing - if you don't enjoy the shield you're getting from Psychic, see if your GM will let you retrain to get Guidance instead. Amp Guidance is one of the best reactions in the entire game as if its usable, you know it'll swing failure to success (or crit failure to failure). Causing an ally to hit an attack that they would have otherwise missed is pretty significant, and making someone pass a skill check or succeed on a save they would otherwise fail is huge. It always feels impactful and the other players will love you for it.


I assume it's in the PDF, but the resolution on those usually doesn't blow up very well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
There is no price for the foundry module without the adventure, because the foundry module automates the adventure, you can get the adventure being automated without the automation and then pay for the automation separately later, but you can't get the automation for the adventure without the adventure because that fundamentally doesn't make sense, that would be getting the adventure without paying for it, and only paying for the automation of it. The pdf is equivalent to the journal entries, art entries, and statblocks available in the files of the module.

Yeah, and? You didn't disagree with anything I said. All that is true.

It's also true that its not a free PDF. You're very clearly paying for it, and you just explained why. If people stop trying to insist a thing you're paying for is actually "free", then there's no issue.


Dancing Wind wrote:
Tridus wrote:


The difference in price between the Foundry module where you already own the PDF and the Foundry model that includes a "free PDF" is literally the cost of the PDF.

Since there is a price if you have the PDF and a price where there isn't, and the price difference is the value of the PDF, it's impossible to claim in any way with a straight face that this is a "free PDF".

[snip]
So you can probably see how claiming its "free" when in fact people paid for it twice is not going to fly.

AS you so eloquently explain in the first part of your post, you are not paying for anything twice.

There are two separate products on sale by Paizo.
1) A physical printed book
2) A digital file

You can buy the physical book from Paizo or from a store (online or brick and mortar).
You can buy the digital file from Paizo or from a game platform (online).

You can by either product without also buying the other one. You can run the module without also buying the other one. They are entirely separate.

So you're not 'paying twice' when you buy two separate products.
And, as you pointed out, you're not 'paying twice' when you buy the game from Foundary.

Your complaint assumes that a digital product and a physical product are one and the same, and that if you buy one of them, you are automatically entitled to the other product without any further payment.

That assumption does not align with reality.

You just snipped out the entire part where I finished talking about how they don't make you pay for the PDF twice by discounting the module if you already own the PDF and switch topics to talking about how the physical version is left out (which is what OP is talking about), and then created something new to reply to that.

That's disingenuous at best. I know very well that the PDF and physical book aren't the same thing. Its two different situations, and the post very clearly addresses them separately.

It doesn't change that if you have the physical book and the foundry module you did buy the content twice, and it doesn't change that the PDF is not "Free" as some people want to falsely insist.


Finoan wrote:
Hitlinemoss wrote:
The First Rule is a generic rule that basically just means "you don't need to follow the rules written in the rulebooks if you think changing them would make the game more fun". Which is a good rule to follow, but at the same time it's also nice to have more specific cases that explicitly say "it's okay for you to change how this thing works" (e.g swapping out wizard curriculum spells, changing how spellcasting incantations work for nonverbal characters) because that specifically indicates that changing that rule won't have a negative effect on gameplay balance

That's not how GM Fiat works. The game devs don't get to say that "It's okay for you to change how this thing works". That is up to the GM to decide. In all of those GM Fiat statements. No matter how general or specific they are.

Even something as simple as how many languages you get to pick can be a balance thing. If the game devs want to say that picking languages is of no balance concern, then they would have written that every character gets 2 + INT languages of choice with a recommendation that the character picks the language of their ancestry for character consistency reasons. That would be a change that would affect RAW. That is what you really want. Because at that point you could build your Kobold character with whatever languages you want them to have and no GM, not even a PFS GM, could tell you that you built your character wrong and will have to fix it.

But it isn't what you are asking for. And on analysis, that is where my confusion comes from - the disconnect between what you really want (a change to the RAW) and what you are asking for (a GM Fiat note).

Except that is how it works, and the rules ALREADY do it in multiple places. The Secret Check rules go into a description on how they work, and then at the end say "but the GM can choose not to use secret checks if they would rather some or all rolls be public".

The First Rule already lets a GM do that, but the rules call it out specifically anyway in this case. Since the rulebook already does this, any protest that the rulebook can't do this doesn't really fly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I also figure the opportunity cost is low here. At level 1, the PCs are not important or value. If we fail, it costs Lady Jamadi basically nothing. If we succeed, there's hopefully a stable kingdom in that area that remembers their friends & backers in Restov and can be made an ally of.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

It isn't necessarily true that bundled items are economically separable in this way-- my understanding is that Paizo gives you a free pdf with the foundry module because the journals and maps in the module contain the complete contents of the pdf in digital form, from their perspective you're already buying the text and images, so getting the PDF along with it is Quality-Of-Life, meaning the pdf likely isn't factored into the price because it's effectively already included in the Foundry module. You can I believe, just export the journal entries and maps out of the module to have the full contents of the pdf.

The reverse, where you get a discount on the module by owning the pdf, but have to still pay for the Foundry portions is because the automation is additional work vs. the contents of the pdf, so Paizo is effectively saying "we already got our cut of this, you can just pay for the foundry portion."

But there's no way to do the reverse of that, because there's no way to remove paizo's work from the foundry module, while still having a foundry module.

The difference in price between the Foundry module where you already own the PDF and the Foundry model that includes a "free PDF" is literally the cost of the PDF.

Since there is a price if you have the PDF and a price where there isn't, and the price difference is the value of the PDF, it's impossible to claim in any way with a straight face that this is a "free PDF".

It is accurate to say "you must own the PDF as part of using the Foundry module, and we won't make you pay for the PDF a second time."

It also doesn't seem like its actually mandatory to do it this way since Roll20 recently stopped offering Paizo PDFs or discounts related to Paizo PDFs.

I don't have any problem with how Foundry is doing this and if they want to effectively pay Paizo's cut by saying "you need to own the PDF so that's how Paizo gets paid", that's totally fine. But don't call it free when people are paying for it.

Physical books are of course left out of this entirely, which for people buying physical but also using Foundry is extremely frustrating. I know, I'm one of them. PDFs are functionally useless to me but I get to buy them anyway in order to use what's in a book I already paid for. That situation is really not great and as book prices keep going up is probably going to reduce what I can buy in the future.

So you can probably see how claiming its "free" when in fact people paid for it twice is not going to fly.


Cori Marie wrote:
You're not purchasing the PDF. You're purchasing the Foundry module, which in turn gives you a free PDF. The reason for this is that all of the text and art of the PDF are also included in the module itself. If you already own the PDF, Paizo is nice enough to offer a discount when purchasing the module, since you already own that digital good.

It's not a "free PDF". You're paying for the PDF, as evidenced by the fact that if you already own the PDF you get a discount that strips that part off.

Claiming its a "free PDF" is marketing spin, to put it kindly. It'd be better to just be honest and say "you need to own the PDF to have the adventure content in Foundry, and this is how they handle that."

guise709 wrote:

Okay everyone. Thank you for all your responses and I appreciate the discussion around it. It does looks like I'm getting the short end of the stick here having to purchase the same product twice if I want a physical copy while running a module through Foundry.

Just out of curiosity, and a shot into the dark, I'm going to email Paizo support and see what the official response is. I do not expect anything to come out of it, but perhaps it might bring attention to the gap between owning physical products and digital one's that one of the posters mentioned earlier.

Once again thank you for all your responses.

I feel you, as I'm in the same boat: physical books from the local game store don't count for any of this. The subscription isn't really better because while it does come with PDFs, the shipping cost to Canada is so high that it's the same price (if not outright more) than buying the book at the LGS and also buying the PDF separately (and doesn't support the LGS carrying Pathfinder products).

Do keep an eye out for Humble Bundles though: Paizo does those once or twice a year and there's been some since the Foundry partnership was announced that included Foundry versions of adventures in the bundle. These are an incredible value and also raise money for charity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm glad to hear the six part APs aren't gone for good because I really enjoy that length and being able to tell such a sweeping story, but it definitely requires a story that actually fits that length and sometimes that just isn't appropriate.

Shorter stories are nice to start and end things more often, but we play every week and can do a 6 part AP in under a year and a half, so that makes the 3 part ones feel relatively short and like you're just getting to know a character before its gone. Especially with how many of them are low level, and dear god after 30 years in the hobby am I sick of always starting at level 1.

Ruby Phoenix was such a breath of fresh air because of the "sure, bring whatever crazy backstory you want" nature of it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If you give people a flaw and an extra boost, people will tend to put the flaw into a dump stat and then build around never using it. That's just how it is. Ancestries do this because they're in specific ability scores so you can't just always put it in your dump stat (though you can use it when your dump stat happens to align with what the ancestry wants to do).

If you don't care about that, this is fine. If you do care about that, I think the original voluntary flaw rule was better: you take *two* flaws to get one boost. This still lets someone do it but means its not just a simple CharOp thing that should be done all the time (because flaws in two stats is a lot more expensive).


Chrono180 wrote:

The first-"Deepest Wellspring" states " If you have spent at least 3 Focus Points since the last time you Refocused, you recover 3 Focus Points when you Refocus, even if you spent your Focus Points on spells other than psychic abilities." However the psychic has no way RAW to get 3 focus points. I presume this feat was intended to grant a third but it does not.

As mentioned, you can already get 3 focus points (you could also do so via an archetype). This feat does something: you get all the focus points back in 10 minutes vs it taking longer. This less useful than it used to be since the remaster since back then it used to be "you can get back 3 points vs not being able to do that", but it's doing more than nothing.

Maybe not worth taking in a lot of cases, but other classes still have similar feats to allow them to get focus points back faster.

(Oracle is actually in a worse place on this since the way the curse work prevents them from using those focus points on Oracle focus spells despite being able to get them back, but I assume PC2 will fix that.)

Psychic Dedication is another odd case in this since the dedication itself gives you a focus point, but the remaster says your focus pool is equal to the number of focus spells you know. So the language here is either obsolete (you get a focus point by getting a focus spell and what the dedication says is irrelevant) or wrong (you get a focus point from the dedication and a second one from the focus spell the dedication gives).

Just another one of those cases where the Remaster compatibility errata isn't really complete.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

To be honest, I'd be much more likely to just give all the PCs extra languages because they're going to need it for the campaign than to let people trade out their ancestral language for something else.

Like it's hard for me to understand why someone would want to make an Elf that absolutely cannot speak a word of Elfish. Generally "I can speak that language" is exclusively a positive thing since this is not "Radical Translation the Tabletop Game" so "you can't understand what they're saying" generally isn't fun or interesting.

Like if your backstory requires you to know more languages than your intelligence score allows for, I will just give everybody the Multilingual Feat.

If you take Adopted Ancestry it may often make more sense for you to speak the adopted language rather than the base ancestry one. Why would a Goblin raised exclusively by Gnomes know Goblin and not Gnomish? It makes no sense, but thats what the rules say should happen (and if you don't have an INT bonus you can't just also take Gnomish).

This is a thing a GM can (and should) change, but a callout in the book to that effect would be a nice addition.

It also can be fun or interesting sometimes. I've got a Leshy PC in my Strength of Thousands game that isn't from the expanse and couldn't speak Mwangi at the start of the game. He had to get help from others to get started and then roleplayed slowly learning the language over the entire first in-character year, until he got to the point where he gained another language and could fully learn it. This was actually quite a lot of fun for everyone as there was things they had to work around, miscommunication, and one case where they went to talk to the Leshy on campus and suddenly he was the one taking the lead (because Leshy speak Fey).

For something like PFS its more often a pain in the butt than not if you don't speak the language (hence the bonus one PFS gives), but there's definitely cases where its perfectly fine.


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

Why do I feel people always forget that most spells actually have some effect even when the opponent successfully saves ?

I took Expansive Spellstrike for my pre-Remaster Starlit Span Magus MC Cleric simply because it let her reliably inflict vitality damage on undead through Vitality Lash.

Only on a crit success will she deal no Vitality damage. Max INT is...

Because spending what is effectively 3 actions and a spell slot to do very little feels bad. It's *something* if you can exploit a weakness, but it's extremely underwhelming. And if you don't max the casting stat for the spell, it's going to happen a LOT. Its not like Magus has enough spell slots to have that happening all the time.


keftiu wrote:
Tridus wrote:
Wow. The fact that Extinction Curse is barely above Second Darkness makes me sad. We had a ton of fun with Extinction Curse, while Second Darkness remains the only AP my gaming group decided to abandon without finishing.

There's an awful lot of popular sentiment against it for how the circus half and the epic fantasy adventure half don't really meld - though I do think the volume set in the Darklands looked like great fun.

I also remember some controversy around not just trying to right Aroden's old wrong on these forums.

Book 5 is the Darklands one, yeah. It is a lot of fun (the adventure down there is good), but it also feels pretty "we needed another book here" in that the entire reason to go down there is based on a very flimsy excuse for the NPCs that want you to do it not helping you with a much simpler solution because "reasons".

That was the one point in the AP where what my players wanted to do it and what the AP expected them to want to do differed. I did tell them I'd make up something new if they wanted to follow their other idea, but they decided to go along with the book and ended up enjoying it.

The circus theme fades away more than I'd care for as well, though I did some work in book 5 and 6 to make it still relevant when I could. Still, the overall AP flows fairly well and by time you get to the later books you'd have a lot of introduction to why you're doing this and why its important.

But it's not even in the same league as SD in terms of any of these problems.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

Like Finoan pointed out, indirectly this is already "RAW" via the First Rule. What you want is directly mentioning it instead.

That might work for a home game where the GM is particularly strict.

It also works as guidance for GMs that aren't particuarly strict but also don't know that this is a thing that is "safe" to change. The book saying "These are typical starting languages but can be changed with GM permission" throws up a green flag that tells everyone "this is safe to alter as you see fit."

That kind of guidance is important, which is why other parts of the book do it. The biggest example being Secret Checks, which flat out say "the GM can just ignore this whenever they want." The book doesn't have to say that since the First Rule would let them do it anyway, but it does to serve as a callout to flag this as a case where you're likely to want to do that and its okay.

Quote:


But for PFS it wouldn't work, because this is a "character build time" GM decision, and those are tricky in PFS because every session there could be a different GM.[/quoote]

PFS already has its own rules around what you can take in character creation, so its not very onerous for PFS to say "you must take the base language options". It already gives you a bonus regional language so it could even be in the same sentence.

Quote:

PFS actually solved a closely related issue a year or two ago when the Mwangi book came out. There it became clear that in the Mwangi Expanse the common language was Mwangi, not Taldane. But because PCs go across the world in PFS, they need to know the "global Common" Taldane too. A human could learn both, using their bonus language. However, there are also various tribes in the Mwangi with their own languages. And there are non-human ancestries like dwarves and elves, that should speak both their own language, Mwangi, and Taldane then. But they don't get that many bonus languages.

So PFS did a "GM permission" global ruling in the campaign to handle this: everyone regardless of ancestry gets an extra language, which must be regional. So a dwarf from the Expanse would know Dwarven, Taldane and could choose Mwangi or another regional language.

More generally: PFS also has a problem where an adventure takes place in a region where Taldane isn't the common language and the characters that show up don't speak the regional language. They either have to give key NPCs Taldane anyway (even when it doesn't fit) or make sure PCs can deal with it some other way, because otherwise you get an unworkable scenario where no one has a good time.

I ran into that sometimes in PF1, once where I had a scenario where I couldn't communicate with anyone, once where I was the only one that could, and once where I had to use all my highest level spell slots on Voluminous Vocabulary for the entire scenario just so that the players could actually do anything.

Giving everyone a regional language from level 1 ups the odds significantly that at least someone will be able to communicate, especially as "just get a scroll or wand to solve the problem" isn't as viable as it was in PF1.

I don't think that has anything to do with the book flagging to a GM that they should let players pick a more sensible starting language set when the default ones don't make any sense.

It's not like they don't do it anywhere else, after all: Strength of Thousands changes Common to Mwangi across the board, which didn't make much sense for a couple of players as one is from Varisia and another is from Avistan, where they'd almost certainly grow up learning Taldane rather than Mwangi.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
I think many Ancestries would fit better in LO regional books.

They could, except those books are probably never getting updated and ancestries are very much a "players really like lots of variety here" option.

It's actually really frustrating that Paizo puts some ancestries (and classes for that matter) in core books that get lots of support/new options/etc, while other ones are in books that just don't get that same level of support and are basically "done" as soon as they're released.

IMO Shoony is the worst example: putting in an AP book was a mistake because people that know about it really like it (dogs are really popular and the art sells it), but its discoverability is relatively poor and it's never going to get updated/added to.

Taking all that kind of content and putting it in a PC3 is a big "here's tons of stuff you can use in your game without needing to find it in 17 different books, all updated and ready to go... oh and now AP authors can create extra stuff for it if they want instead of that just being limited to the 'core' stuff."

Ancestry options in general are a thing that get a lot of attention because its an area where players love variety. That stuff would sell.


Wow. The fact that Extinction Curse is barely above Second Darkness makes me sad. We had a ton of fun with Extinction Curse, while Second Darkness remains the only AP my gaming group decided to abandon without finishing.


KoolKobold wrote:
is underwater combat really that crappy?

Short answer? Yes.

Long answer: Underwater combat is basically only decent with builds specifically designed for underwater combat. That rules out a LOT of things that just don't work and really limits what kinds of characters you can make if you want to actually function properly.

In another AP with one underwater fight, you can kind of muddle through on a build that isn't totally shut down by being underwater with some preparation, but it's not very optimal. When a lot of the campaign is underwater, you're just forced too play something that isn't hindered by it. As the average player doesn't interact with underwater rules that often and probably doesn't have a ton of expertise on how to do that, that results in a lot of looking up guides.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Curse of the Crimson Throne is awesome. You won't be disappointed there.

I ran Extinction Curse and my players enjoyed it quite a lot. It's not the best PF2 AP, but its entirely enjoyable and is fairly straightforward to run. (I always cringe when people recommend Kingmaker as a first AP, because it's huge, complicated, and has a lot of extra rules to track and learn that are AP specific and often don't work that well. PF2 Kingmaker's Kingdom Rules require house rules to be playable.)


Sounds pretty cool :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
I am creating a pretty in-depth conversion of an old PF1 AP to PF2 remastered and planning on running it all with as much of remastered content as possible for the sake of consistency with future APs we run. These players are not fans of alignment in the first place and it is generally fun to see how easily stuff converts, but this circle of protection threw me for a loop. I’ll probably do the “protection from devils” route, and I am trying to make as much of the wizardry the Runelords have done in the past be at least imaginable as something that wizards now could figure out. Consecrate feels a little too unwizardy, and anyways, demons need to have been able to ass this room, much to some devils’ chagrin

Take the Fey Abeyance ritual and make a version that works on Devils instead? Could even make it more generic where they pick a type/subtype and it works on that.


Sanityfaerie wrote:

"Water/wood kineticist with a heavy healing focus" is an entirely reasonable build that most folks would be happy to see at the table, and technically their heal-per-day is unlimited.

They're really not "the best healer", though. They just don't have the spike healing to compete.

On the other hand, the meta seems two be "two fairly solid healers, plus some other heals scattered around the party". For *that*, the healer-kineticist does just fine.

That Kineticist will also probably have Timber Sentinel, which can prevent absolutely absurd amounts of damage and keep people in fights. Especially against unintelligent creatures that can't realize whats happening, or in tight dungeons where it can be positioned in a way to cover a lot of people easily.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Medic is the best healing archetype because it boosts something someone is already doing (Medicine) and gives a lot of bang for buck. It gives:
1. More healing on Treat Wounds & Battle Medicine
2. An extra battle medicine a day (or an extra one an hour at Master)
3. Better action economy (Doctors Visitation is Stride & Battle Medicine in 1 action). This is huge when can do other things that are useful in a turn (like cast a spell).
4. Ability to treat more conditions if you take the skill feats for it

For 2 class feats and a skill feat or two, that is a great package. Rogues actually make amazing Medics because they get so many skill feats and Medicine is skill intensive (and if you take Assurance you can get by without a high Wisdom as with Medic it's auto-succeeding at level 2 and auto-succeeding at Expert DC at level 6).

Look: Divine Font is a lot of healing. Medic supplements it nicely and Medicine with Continual Recovery & Ward Medic is downtime healing galore. If you also have Soothe, this is more than enough healing for any party that isn't being reckless.

You can go overboard on healing as putting too many resources into that takes them away from somewhere else, and the best healing is stopping damage from happening at all. Like, Champion Dedication is great because the reaction flat out stops damage and can be used every turn (and also does something else). Tripping enemies or hitting them with Fear weakens their attacks and makes it easier to hit them so they die faster (ditto with Inspire Courage/Courageous Anthem).

If you want to juice it up a bit more, folks in the party that don't have a patron deity can take Godless Healing, which gives Battle Medicine more HP and lets it be used on them every hour. This is not an option for the Cleric, of course.

The main problem with something like Herbalist or Alchemist for healing is that potions are very action intensive. That's not what you want to be doing since you have other things that help your party win the fight with those actions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe the question should be "is a playtest warranted if they've already changed this class multiple times and still not gotten it right?"

Because that's kind of the thing: Alchemist is the most revised class in the system and it's not close, even before PC2 comes out. It was changed significantly multiple times over CRB printings.

Now maybe they knew what was wrong all along and just couldn't fix it in errata, so everything is great. Or maybe they just want it to work a certain way and a lot of players won't like that vision.

Or maybe they don't actually really get how to fix it and keep trying things. In this case, a playtest would be valuable because its a chance to try stuff before its locked in.

Like, I don't think any of us really think that Barbarian needs a playtest for PC2. It generally does what it advertises, it works reasonably well, and it only needs tweaking. That's true of a lot of the classes. The ones that are worse off in a lot of cases have specific reasons for that which can be adjusted (looking at you, Oracle).

But Alchemist has always kind of been a mess despite numerous attempts to fix it, and at that point maybe a "hey this is what we are thinking, try it out and let us know how it feels" period can make a huge difference in outcomes.

Paizo is good at making classes, but they're not infallable. Hell, just look at the current playtest: we got one class in pretty good shape (Commander) and one class that is kind of a mess (Guardian).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
moosher12 wrote:

TLDR: For veteran GM's, we can run it fine. As I said, I run it, but even I have to deal with various complications. For newer GM's, it's not a trivial endeavor. Running a Legacy exclusive game is easy. And to include legacy content, if you are a new GM, you'll have to go through a learning curve to properly convert things. If you are an old GM, you still have to make sure your players go through the learning curve to convert. Put yourself in the shoes of a new GM that started with the Player Core, and is simply trying to get started. Assume you didn't have the privilege of intimately knowing Pathfinder's Legacy state going in, but are about to very quickly learn that it exists when a player brings up an entry they found that does things not covered in your Player or GM Core book. Don't forget the fact that as the years go on, more content will be added to the Remaster, and the Legacy content that is unconverted will become increasingly archaic, and the conversion rules will become less important as it will apply to an increasingly smaller percentage of the game.

Great perspective. As it's mostly experienced folks in this discussion, they tend to forget how this feels to someone whose first book is Player Core. That number is going to go up over time, and as the remaster encompasses more content, you'll see "remaster only" tables increase.

Quote:


Side note: I wonder if similar conversations were made when Pathfinder 1E was made in relation to D&D3.5E. Those are supposed to be mostly compatible, with some minor conversions strategies, but math ultimately being similar enough. I didn't start PF1E until the late 2010s, but I've never personally been in a table that used 3.5E content.

Early on, compatibility with 3.5 was a huge selling feature of PF1. People called it "3.75". The target market was primarily 3.5 tables that didn't want 4e. I have no statistics, but it seems like it was pretty common that 3.5 stuff was included to one degree or another.

That changed over time as PF1 grew its own identity and the amount of content increased. Over time 3.5 stuff didn't fit quite as well and you started to see more people playing that didn't have years of experience with 3.5 before switching. At that point the amount of tables still using 3.5 stuff went down over time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
Tridus wrote:


"Professional Monster Hunter/Paranormal Investigator who uses a variety of tools and talismans to do that" is not at all eclectic. It's Dean
Winchester among a myriad of others. It's pretty mainstream.

I'm probably showing my age and personal biases but I have no clue who Dean Winchester is. And can't think of a single "Professional Monster Hunter/Paranormal Investigator who uses a variety of tools and talismans to do that". But I'm pretty sure you know who Aragorn is.

Lord of the Rings has been a primary source for D&D since chainmail. Rangers are VERY firmly embedded in its DNA (came in the first supplement after the White Box IIRC).

One of the main characters of Supernatural. It was on for like 15 seasons (though that was at least 5 too many).

And yes, everyone knows who Aragorn is. If that's the bar, very few classes are going to meet it. But the archetype character the Thaumaturge is focused on is not some super obscure thing either.


ekibus wrote:
@Tridus I think that is my biggest concern, how to get just enough without going too deep. So I'm looking at retraining so at level 2 Go blessed one and then at 4 take champion dedication So no longer having that delay (probably cant use plate until level 5 anyways) Then at 6 I would get the champion ability and switch amulet to something else. I am leaning taking the scroll of heal so that way I have the heal if needed (maybe purchase one or two for backup) Medicine is the tough thing though..how much should I invest in it..should I get continual recovery, medic ward and reliable and keep bumping medicine or if I can stop after a point or not even go that route (but then not sure what skill feats to take

Medicine is going to be a case of "how good do you want to be at it?" It can be very good but requires a LOT of investment, and it may not be worth it.

- At level 3, Lay on Hands will heal 12HP. DC 15 Treat Wounds will heal 2d8, which averages out to 9, in the same amount of time, assuming you use Assurance and thus never fail/crit succeed.

- Lay on Hands can be spammed on the same target if you have time, which Medicine requires Continual Recovery to do.

- If you get Medicine to Expert and get Ward Medic, you can now treat two people at the same time, which increases the healing per 10 minutes ahead of Lay on Hands.

- DC 20 (Expert) also boosts the healing and keeps up with Lay on Hands, but Assurance can't auto-succeed at it until level 6.

I guess this is my take: if you have Lay on Hands, you can do downtime healing without investing anything in Medicine at all, because you just refocus and then cast Lay on Hands again. These take the same amount of time. Medicine can heal more and can also treat more things (like poison), but it requires a LOT of investment too do that, whereas Lay on hands just scales up on its own.

It seems like a lot of investment relative to the value to me, since you generally won't have an easy time using Battle Medicine. But it'll definitely work if its the path you want to take.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluemagetim wrote:
Thaumaturge is much more eclectic a class concept than ranger. It might be popular on these threads but ranger is much more popular a class concept in the general gaming environment.

"Thaumaturge" is a more eclectic class name than "Ranger".

"Professional Monster Hunter/Paranormal Investigator who uses a variety of tools and talismans to do that" is not at all eclectic. It's Dean Winchester among a myriad of others. It's pretty mainstream.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Familiars are animals that get some extra stuff, at the end of the day. The rules even say "most familiars were originally animals."

So there's no reason in terms of Golarian lore why this doesn't work. Familiar Animals don't lose the animal trait so there's no reason why they can't be Awakened.

Your GM is misinterpreting the part of the rules where Familiars don't have ability scores (because mechanically they would serve no purpose in this edition) with "they don't have intelligence." By that logic they also don't have Strength/Dexterity/Constitution/Wisdom/Charisma, but I'm pretty sure they can still move, breathe, and percieve.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
Survivability would be perfectly fine if they could actually use their AC instead of dropping it in the garbage for Intercept Strike and Taunt.

This. Let me use my good AC for Intercept Strike instead of eating a crit from someone with lousy AC and the problem gets a lot better real fast.

"You have the best AC progression in the game but your signature class abilities either bypass that or weaken it" is a very strange design direction and just doesn't feel good as a player.


ekibus wrote:
I'm not aiming to be a main healer, just in a pinch mostly.

Be wary of overspending resources on it, then. You need to be able to do other stuff too. :)

Amulet is pretty solid damage mitigation, and any damage mitigated is damage you don't have to heal at all. You can get that at level 1. Do note that it applies to the target of your Exploit, so you need to make sure to always have Exploit up. (Diverse Lore is also your friend here as you get extra info from Exploit, so its extra action economy.)

Blessed One will give you Lay on Hands at level 2, which you can use both in combat and in downtime, and it doesn't require an empty hand (ie: you can do it while holding a weapon and an implement).

Champion doesn't give you anything until level 4 unless you really want heavy armor, so this is a lot of your career without really getting the healing you're looking for. Amulet & Blessed One gets you a similar feeling thing several levels faster.

Medicine skill is great downtime healing, especially with Assurance since at level 3 you don't need to roll. Battle Medicine is nice, but hard for a Thaumaturge because it requires an empty hand and you just won't have one most of the time (Amulet in one hand and a weapon in the other). If it's only giving you downtime healing, you may not need both it and Blessed One with a lot of investment, since they take the same 10 minutes.

Everyone also gets a potion at the start of the scenario in PFS, so there's that as well.

IMO for what you said you are looking for, that's more than enough. If you invest all your feats into healing, you're just going to really limit yourself when it comes to other types of challenges (and at that point playing something like a Cleric that comes with boatlods of healing out of the box starts to make more sense).

1 to 50 of 722 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>