Tweezer's page

71 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Fire kinecists with flame Oracle dedication specifically for getting the first cursebound domain spell, which deals persistent fire damage to anyone in a radius that takes fire damage (and offers no save)

Add on the fire kinecists aura that deals like 1 fire damage to anyone in a radius (again no save)

Add on aura shaping to exlude your friends.

Takes a little swtup, but it sure is fun

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Point of clarity, you can't really "spam" the earth wall when it's "sustained up to 1 minute"

You could at most maintain two walls at once, right?

As a GM I do hate wall of stone with a passion, but I would hardly consider that spamming.


I just read through elemental resistance, and the way it's written makes it seem way better than what I think wad intended.

Elemental Resistance reads: "while you have an element gathered, you gain resistance equal to your level to damage from a source that had that trait."

Further it goes on to describe that if you have gathered water, you would gain the resistance to strikes from a water elemental. Because the water elemental has the water trait.

For instance, a magma dragon has the fire trait, a copper dragon has the earth trait, a brine dragon has the earth trait.

As far as I can tell, elemental resistance would apply to anything that a monster with the corresponding trait has.

Ie. A fire kineticist with fire gathered gains resistance equal to their level to anything a magma dragon can do. Not just the breath, but the bite and claws as well.

Now, this might not be such a big deal, if it wasn't for Elemental Immunity which reads "Your elemental resistance becomes full immunity".

Does this mean a fire kintecist at level 17 becomes 100% immune to a magma dragons or even the spawn of rovagug?

Depending on your reading of the feat, you get half of it on Kinecists.

"You also gain a +1 status bonus to any persistent fire damage you deal."

But yes, this should 100% apply.

I've got at least one little pyro in my group toying around with a Goblin Kinecists w Flame Oracle MC, and he'd be thrilled.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This list sort of ignores the Elemental Nature on page 8 of the playtest doc.

Ie. A stone Golem is made primarily of an earthen material, and can be affected ny blasts from extracted material even though it doesn't have yhe earth/atone trait. And depending on the GM the same argument could be made for things like an imp.

There's another issue soecifically golems, though. And that is the fact that extract element had the Primal trait. This makes extract element subject to golem antimagic, meaning you cannot extract from the golem in the first place.

With how restrictive 2E has been in terms of poaching abilities from other classes and making better use of them, I wouldn't be too worried about this.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

The amount of encounters where you can run 120+ feet away and still have line of effect are usually rather minimal.

You could argue that a dedicated earth kineticist would be able to have both at the same time.

But it's kind of disappointing that a dual kineticist doesn't seem able to have a stone shield and sword of fire, for instance.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryuujin-sama wrote:
Elemental Weapon with a Fire Kineticist is still going to deal fire damage. So it isn't really going to be a huge difference against golems, unless the golem isn't immune or resistant to fire already.

I think he meant golem antimagic, which makes golems immune to almost all spells and spell like abilities (including impulses) unless they match a certain trait depending on the golem.

Striking with the elemental weapon isn't an impulse, so it should go through and actually hit.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Even if it does stack, it'll just make up for not having strength as a key stat.

I really disagree with this. For both earth and water (which sre the ones I'm considering building in) I can find 3 feats I would like from first level alone.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pronate11 wrote:
Keraki wrote:

1st- Yes and no. Gols are meant to be thr bane of casters. All pure spellcasters hate them, exspecially whem they fail thier RK to find out the bypass element/spell. A Kineticist can also fight with elemental weapon feat (1st) can fight a golem. It lets you Strike with gathered energy and it isn't an impulse traited feat, so no spell invulnerability

2nd - Not an oversight IMO

so unless you took one specific feat, kineticists should just stand there and do nothing if fighting a golem? Spell casters can still cast buffs or control options that don't directly effect the golem, but kineticists might be able to do that for a round or two before they are useless. A spell caster can also just have different damage types, but direct gate and to a lesser extent dual gate kineticists are just screwed on that front. Imagine if all oozes had an ability that said " this creature is immune to all damage and abilities done by a rouge. That's really punishing, and in general bad game design.

Depending on the Golem in question even Omnigate kineticists would have a rough time without the feat.

For instance

Adamantine Golem is healed by fire, damaged by acid and slowed by electricity.

Not really an easy way for any element to be hugely impactful without soecific feats.

Guntermench wrote:
Unicore wrote:

Yes, this could be a big issue. I guess this is another reason why elemental weapon might be worth having around, since that would just be a weapon attack.

I also think the extent of this issue would be pretty GM dependent on whether they let a kineticist extract Element from the Golem that felt like it fit (earth with clay and stone, etc). Fire kineticists are just going to be in a bad spot regardless though except against Ice elementals.

Wouldn't the Golem be immune to Extract Element? It has the Primal tag to it's magical.

I actually assumed they were immune to that as well.

graystone wrote:
graystone wrote:
Unicore wrote:
I think it is going to work out, but the folks hoping the Kineticist was going to be the all day single target blaster are going to be very disappointed. It seems that the short bow is going to remain the short bow of consistent ranged damage that can be directed against a single target all day.
They are better than casters using a spell attack roll... Legendary +8 vs Master +6 and Handwraps of Mighty Blows (+3 Major Striking). Too bad DC's don't get a bump. :P
I forgot that they start with a max 16 in their attack stat so they are even to spell attack rolls.

I honestly think this might be very intentional and not necessarily something that will change unless something else is removed from the class.

siegfriedliner wrote:
They do need to clarify if and how it interacts with fundamental armor runes.

The sentence "you don't gain any bonuses from other armor you're wearing" seems to cover this.

Sadly this means that there's a oretty good chance you'll lose AC by wearing this as opposed to a runed up armor.

I'm trying to figure out how Kineticist abilities interact with Golem Antimagic. Any help is much appreciated.

My issue is, that impulses are descirbed like this:

"Impulses are magical, but they aren't spells. However abilities that restrict you from casting spells or protect against spells (such as globe of invulnerability or a creatures bonus to saves against spells) also apply to impulses"

And golem antimagic is includes this explanation:

"A golem is immune to spells and magical abilities other than its own, but each type of golem is affected by a few types of magic in special ways."

So as far as I can tell, a Golem will be immune to Kineticist impulses, unless there's a correspondance between the harm/slow/heal entries of the specific golem's antimagic and the trait of the impulse in question.

First question: Am I getting this right? That a class that feels very focused on blasting can be rendered useless against a certain creature type?

And second: do you think this is intentional, or is it an oversigt? (Kineticists are given a way to combat elementals tied to their own element, but not to combat golems?)

Onkonk wrote:
Tweezer wrote:
This is a good thing, cause if they were considered spells, they would have an issue with Golem Anti Magic (immunity to spells, but certain spell traits tigger different weaknesses)
As written it's the reverse, golems are immune to all magical effects so they are completely immune to kineticist unless their element counters them.

Not really reverse, as it being a spell would also have wonky interactions with Golems. But yes, looks like they are immune as is

Isn't this just connecting a string of Earth feats?

Like Earth Shield, Assume Earth's Mantle, and Rebirth into Living Stone?

Or am I missing something?

This is a good thing, cause if they were considered spells, they would have an issue with Golem Anti Magic (immunity to spells, but certain spell traits tigger different weaknesses)

Angel Hunter D wrote:
Yeah, it has its advantages but on some level it seems fundamentally at odds with the system goals, to me at least.

I completely agree with you. I was just pointing out, that I don't think there's a better way to get the current result of timered abilities.

Ir at least, I can't see it.

I don't really think giving it a keyword would lessen the book keeping related to it.

You would still need to remember who had been tagged by the condition/keyword.

The other issue with the keyword+condition approach suggested above, is that it still wouldn't mimic what we can do now.

If abilities with a cooldown left a condition/immunity, it's safe to assume that that condition would make the target immune to any ability with the same tag.

But right now, you can potentially use the healing ability from each element on the same target within the same turn (or almost)

Themetricsystem wrote:

I don't know if this is an issue where they were trying to be sure this isn't made too powerful or if the authors were simply unaware of how applying Prone to a flying creature works via baseline RAW but I think it may be worth bringing up.

I expect this is because applying the hammer crit specialization to a ranged weapon which can potentially target someone 100 feet up in the air, might be a little too good.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
Tweezer wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Fire has a 1d6 damage impulse.. It's literally worse than a cantrip.

1. The choice of using CON as the orimary stat may pose some challenges as is. But that won't be solved by "adding CON to damage"

2. It's not worse than a cantrip. Not by a long shot.

It’s a messy comparison with a cantrip. 1 action to attack instead of 2 to cast is a significant improvement, but the damage invites the comparison; a flat 1d6 fire versus what is almost certainly 1d4+4 fire damage, between a fire blast and Produce Flame.

Still not worse than a cantrip.

1d4+4 = 6,5 average damage for 2 actions.

Assuming you build with a 16 strength

1d6+3 = 6,5 average damage for 1 action.

I think the comparisson that makes more sense is to compare it to weapons, and it does seem rather on par with shortbow/shortsword

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
Fire has a 1d6 damage impulse.. It's literally worse than a cantrip.

1. The choice of using CON as the orimary stat may pose some challenges as is. But that won't be solved by "adding CON to damage"

2. It's not worse than a cantrip. Not by a long shot.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Aside from the fact that I think OP's suggestions (higher DCs and better attack bonuses) doesn't really fit the design philosophy of 2e, I can't help but comment on the wanting "more player options, less lore"

Not because I don't understand where it's coming from.

I get wanting more cool toys for character creation, but I also think it's important to remember that "fluff" (Lore and monsters) is the thing that's going to make games happen.

For my part, I would orefer if the post RoE release was all lore and monsters and provided 0% player options.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Elfteiroh wrote:
Technically, the Crit immunity only prevents the doubling of the rolls. Did you apply the "riding" effects of the crits, like Fatal bumping the dices and adding one die? ...

Do you have a reference to this? The place in the CRB you are refering to doesn't specify this. It says you do not double the damage, but it doesn't mention effects such as fatal/deadly (nor crit specializations). The reference to critical effects is to "other actions that have the attack trait (such as Grapple and Shove)."

We did talk about it during the session, but ended up going with the reading Graystone proposes, which I think is correct, although it does take a toll on the Gunslinger in this case. If Paizo where to clarify/errata that it is only double damage they are immune to, it would have changed the situation in this case. Still wouldn't change the fact that guns are very swingy in relation to crits.

Level 5 Playtest Experience aka. Oozes suck ;)

5 people marked this as a favorite.

This January my group started The Slithering, and the GM allowed me to take the Gunslinger for a spin. We're currently one session in (two combat encounters), and the following is my impression after playing the Gunslinger for a bit.

So, first things first. We're playing with the free archetype variant due to being a man short (we've got a player on paternity leave), but for the purposes of my experience it didn't really factor in on the impression, as I chose "Alchemist" as my free archetype and so far I've used it for diddely squat (the one point where I could have given another player an antiplague to fight off a disease; I forgot... So he rolled his save without the added bonus.)

The Character:
5th level Hobgoblin Gunslinger
10str, 19 dex, 18 con, 14 int, 12 wisdom 10 charisma
1- Firearm Ace
2- Risky Reload
4- Running Reload
Weapon: +1 Striking Dueling Pistol

The Experience:
First off, I really liked the way the gunslinger works, that is, I like how it works with the feats I've chosen. While Firearm Ace is nice and Running Reload lets me do something while I reload, I feel like Risky Reload is necessary to stay on par with a reload weapon, even though I didn't even come close to keeping up with the other characters.

Now, the reason I say that I couldn't keep up, is because of a certain monster type which is very present in the slithering and their immunity to critical hits. On the plus side, the low AC of that gelatinous bastards also means that I never missed a Risky Reload, so I consistently fired twice per turn by starting off with strike/reload/strike as my turn one and then go into risky reload/reload/strike on the following turns.

Even though I was able to pump out shots I felt like I wasn't contributing to the team effort, which was in part due to consistently rolling at least one 1 on my d6's, but I suspect most of it was due to the crit immunity.

Max damage on a normal hit for my guy (with Ace) is 14 damage (2d6+2), but for a crit, max damage is 54 (2d10+2*2+1d10).

My one gripe after the session is that I feel like the gunslinger (or at least the gun) is a bit too reliant on critical hits. I realize I probably couldn't have picked a worse adventure to test the Gunslinger in, and overall I still enjoyed playing the character, but I felt way behind the melees in our group who while they couldn't crit either, rolled bigger dice and had more attacks.

Anyway, that was my 2p.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
I suppose a Sling Ace feat would have to work a little different from Gun or Crossbow Ace feat though, because Titan Slinger already exists and you can't stack dice size increases.

I can't see why it should work differently at all. We've got Crossbow Ace and Deadly Simplicity landing in the same territory, and they don't stack either.

I'm pretty sure not being able to stack die size increases is intentional..

TheWayofPie wrote:
Well the paladin name change I don’t believe was on the table... was it?

As far as I recall it was a reaction to people disliking non-LG paladin options in the playtest, so they switched the names around.

Pretty sure they don't interact. Ie. The die increase happens before fatal, so the fatal dX stays at the same place,but I could be wrong.

Jedi Maester wrote:

I was more trying to find a unique niche that doesn't overlap with other classes. A unique mechanic that this class alone excels at.

Maybe it's just me, but isn't the ability to leverage misfire exactly what makes this Class unique while at the same time affecting playstyle by foring you to do calculated risk on certain abilities.

I agree that there could be more feats which did something with misfire, and maybe the features should be baked into the Class to make it more obvious.

And I know, so far we mainly get "do something cool with a gun, but add misfire chance" such as Risky Reload, Alchemical Shot etc, but I can see so much more happening with misfire than just this.

Anyway, that was just my two cents

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Syri wrote:

Paizo's game design manager said on Discord that giving the finalized gunslinger a Dual-Weapon Reload feat would likely work!

Even then it doesn't work with feats like Risky Reload. Because risky reload spends an action to reload and shoot, and dual weapon reload takes one to reload without a free Hand. You can't even combine them for two actions to risky reload one of your weapons without a free hand for two actions (which would also suck).

Unicore wrote:
I think we could use an items and equipment focused book [...]

Speculations about a "Secrets of Equipment" book has been floated a couple of times in this thread, but am I misremembering, or didn't Eric Mona specifically say that they wouldn't be doing those types of "ultimate books" past Secrets of Magic?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

First off, I love the concept, and am seriously contemplating working it into my home games, one question though.
I can't seem to find any reference on how long the slowed condition from failed influence checks last; an hour, a day, untill the next pass on an influence check?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caralene wrote:

You dont actually know that all of these people have that stance though. For example I'm not interested in paid GMs because I think its against the soul of the artform and collaborative effort of cooperative storytelling. I also have a heavy disdain for people like critical role because they've sold out on their platform and in many ways misrepresent the hobby to thousands of potential players.

If you're making money off of something you WILL approach it differently than if you do it solely for the love of the craft.

You're absolutely right, that I can't know they all share that Stance, but I'm pretty sure most of them do, as we remained friends to some degree after leaving School.

I also get that it is very subjective if you're pro or con. If you don't like it, you don' t like it and nothing I can say will change your mind. Good thing is, if you don't like paid GMing, there is an easy fix - don't hire a GM

I will say, that your argument about it being "against the soul of the artform" is complete BS, though. That same argument applied to any other craft or artform would make no sense. I wouldn't tell my Doctor that him being paid is against the "essence of his craft" and he even took an oath to help the sick, and I don't expect to get into converts for free either.

9 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't get over how people really hate on anyone ordinary trying to turn this hobby into a job, but the same people love GCP and Critical Role..

It's be like saying "it's okay for Bruce Springsteen to make money from his music, but No way I'm playing my wedding singer, he has to do it out of love for the craft..."

I will say, that my first experience with RPG's was with a paid GM. I didn't pay for him, and my buddies didn't either. Our School hired a guy to" come entertain the nerds" and that guy introduced us to GURPS (or his own D100 homebrew variant of it anyway).

He ran a massive Campaign across like 10 different schools. All the groups each had a party tied to the same overarching story.

It was amazing, and he definitely put in his 37 hours a week to keep all of us Kids entertained. He even had extra sessions reaching all of us to GM so we could play in our spare time too.

My point with all of this is, paid games have a time and a place.

As an adult I wouldn't pay for a GM, but I doubt anyone could have given us Kids a better introduction to RPG's than that guy, who came to our School once a week.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I recall that map poster is included in the Lost Omens World Guide, but I might be mistaken...

I GM Age of Ashes, and we just finished book 2, and I completely concur that the AP can be brutal at times.
That said, the big difference between the party I GM for and yours seem to be the Bard, which shouldn't make that big a difference (even if inspire courage is too good to be true).

Adding to that, I love my players, but most of the time, they are tactical nitwits (even though they do get it right from time to time). They don't stack their turns, the martials never wait for the Bard to sing and our dearly departed rogue liked to pretend she was a frontline fighter (which means now she gets to play one ).

Even though we've had two perma deaths (one through epic story the other through damned luck) we haven't experienced anything close to what OP describe, so I am quite curious as to hearing if his party is just really REALLY unlucky, or if they have miscalculated AC like someone above suggested or something similar?

The latter. The wounded condition ends if someone successfully restores Hit Points to you with Treat Wounds, or if you are restored to full Hit Points and rest for 10 minutes.

It seems that AP's assume you get XP from most any way you could engage with an encounter.

Example being a certain goblin dog encounter:

Kill them = you gain XP
Feed them = you gain XP

Would stand to reason that stealthing past them would also grant XP, but returning later to kill them would then Grant you nothing.

I started out doing levels tied to certain points in the story (ie. The book says party should be level x before entering a certain place), but when we started AoA I decided to try the by-the-book style of granting XP per kill/obstacle overcome, I find that the party is always a little underleveled (and My players are adamant completionists + I add homebrew encounters along the way and grant xp for those as well).

It's not way off, but if the books say they should be level 8 before attacking a specific place, they won't be until they kill the final baddie in there...

Sorry if that became anecdotal and off topic. Sufice to say, I Grant XP like Oprah.

Generally speaking for pure power martial+martial is the way to go (assuming your group has healing + utility covered)

Fighter + Barbarian is beastly Due to the insane damage couple with fighter proficiency...

To be fair, I don't think OP was talking about a solo character as much as wanting to know what to build for a party, where they wanted to be the one to brutalize the boss rather than be support or very good at AoE...

I hear Eddie from Tekken is pretty good xD

... in all seriousness, my experience would say Fighter fits your needs for going. Toe to Toe with most enemies.

I do agree that there's an issue with accuracy when it comes to the Magus, but I really don't feel this has anything to do with stat distribution/MAD.

16 dex + 18 int gets you decent accuracy on each individual roll. Heck as an elf you could go for 16 str, 16 dex, 16 int, if you feel you need the + damage or want to use a Non-finesse weapon and still have enough AC.

siegfriedliner wrote:
Asethe wrote:

I agree that appearance informs expectations, and having those expectations tempered by the reality of game design can be disappointing, but the flip side of this is how do you sell a fantasy?

Do you sell it as it will be at first level, or as it will be at twentieth, or somewhere in between?

The angels, demons, dragons, elementals, primal birds and so on will eventually be able to fly, but not immediately. The orochi, sea drakes, and so on will be able to swim as natural movement, but not at creation, the monkey kings and spiders will be able to climb as a natural movement, but not at level 1

At what point in the experiential development should a piece of supporting visual art be based on?

Probably not level 16

Might as well base it on level 16 as level 1 tbh...

I generally only make my players roll to ID items that I myself care enough about to describe the looks of in detail.
When they find a +1 bastard sword, I'll just tell them like it is, but if I've planned for a specific item which I know one of the players is gonna be super excited about, I'll make them roll to increase the suspense.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
It doesn't mean that, fortunately. Your assumption is correct.

That's what I get for just skimming the section xD

Would this also mean, that mounted on a large horse or ridning drake, you can't hit anything if you're wielding a Non-reach weapon?

I would assume you are allowed to measure your attack from the squares of your mount, but I can't find anything about it.

Bast L. wrote:

I think they're a bit too PG, compared to Rise of the Runelords. I haven't finished any of them yet (starting book 5 of AoA soon), but I'm just not impressed with the enemies like I was in RotRL.

** spoiler omitted **

AP authors can make some fun encounters, in either edition, but I wouldn't mind if they turned things up a bit. Not the difficulty, but the horribleness of the enemies. I'm not looking for grimdark, just NPCs that the characters will really loathe.

I dunno, maybe they're going for family friendly APs.

I think the feel of Age of Ashes will fully depends on the GM running it.

That said, I wouldn't put an AP focused around a genocide in the "family friendly APs" section.

1 to 50 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>