Tweezer's page

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



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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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..


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).


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...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll note that I didn't play 1E, as I have My rpg background from non D20 based games, so I don't know how a 1E Magus played.

What the OP says, and what I keep seeing, is calls for more power to the classes. At least, that's how I understand it, when people want striking spell to be a Two action skill which combines a spell and a strike and only needs one roll to hit, or that they want the summoner's eidolon to have separate HP pool, while at the same time giving the Summoner more spells.

I can't see how either would be balanced against the current core classes.

I agree that Magi seem to have accuracy issues with spell striking unless they utilize a shifting staff of divination to true strike their striking spells, but I don't think the proper fix is to just turn the entire thing into a two action activity with a single roll (and what would happen to the spell if the roll missed?)

From my perspective I think Magus suffer from the same issue as the Warpriest. Their spell proficiency raises at a rate that is a little too Slow, and their martial proficiency doesn't seem to completely offset this.

For Summoner I don't really understand the complaints, as I really like how the class looks now aside from the delayed spell proficiency progression...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not really sure which part of the ending you guys didn't like.

Sounds like your players were dissatisfied with not being heroic, which I get, but going for optimal efficiency isn't really heroic.

It's cool if you just needed to vent - I'm just trying to figure out Why.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
YogoZuno wrote:
For treasure, you're probably best off discarding most of the stuff in the AP, and rebuilding it from the ground up with 2e guidelines.

When I converted Harrowstone, I spread out items and wealth according to the treasure charts/level in the book +10% (to account for not all items being found), and that seemed to work perfectly. The beauty of those charts are that you can adjust loot as you go, so if your party misses everything (because for some reason you’ve got a group that aren’t murder hobos) you can add in a little more later.

Not sure if it’s the best way to do it, but it worked great for me.