UtaUta99's page

Why not make wands part of using the wand implement?

You say it'd make a pretty straightforward action and it's true, but it'd be too likely to work. It's too good of a use of your 3rd action.

In irl fights, you rarely see someone attempt a grab right after exchanging a few blows, to "combo into the grab" so to speak.
It can happen, but usually you setup for it.

actually in MMA that's exactly the most effective way to grab somebody. Look at a GSP or Daniel Cormier highlight reel.

In the "Upcoming Projects" panel at GenCon.

shoot, i missed it. anyone got a link? i dont see it on youtube

Thaumaturgist having no Focus Spells whatsoever is a surprise. But, glad to see my musings on its abilities being multiple Traditions isn't insane.

Also, I'm very curious to see how the Way of the Drifter functions with the Combination Weapon's Critical Fusion trait. Like, would it technically be possibly to critically hit with your reloading strike, reload the gun if empty, and THEN resolve the firearm attack?

where did they say the thaumaturge wouldn't have focus spells?

I feel, thematically, that since the premise of "you are taught magic by a mysterious patron" having "Basic Lesson" something you need to spend a feat on is weird.

Like if your patron didn't teach you the basic lesson, what precisely are they doing in their part of the relationship?

Totally agree. it's a fundamental part of not only a Witch's battle power, but also of their flavour and lore..

This is a weird pull maybe and I basically don't expect it, but would people feel about a Necromancer class?

"Now hang on, aren't necromancer wizards and gluttony runelord wizards already a thing?"

They are, but for whatever reason, 'necromancy' in fantasy RPGs (both on the tabletop and in the video game space) seems to be wholly unique from other magic classifications - even games that feature a wizard class often have a standalone necromancer (13th Age, DnD 3.5 with its Dread Necromancer, plenty of JRPGs I'm sure...). And the necromancy school itself is plenty versatile, with all sorts of buffs, debuffs, damage, healing, summoning and utility spells, faring better than most schools do by themselves.
(Besides, one is somewhat light and not as much of a specialization as some would want to, and the other is rare and comes with other baggage that not everyone might be on board with.)

Hell, a whole region of Pathfinder's setting is dedicated to a feud between a high-level wizard and necromancer, and another is on the rise too, and this seems to be the theme for the upcoming year.

I'm not certain that there would be a big point. Animate dead is already a necromancy spell so that necromancy wizards can have summons alongside their other necromancy spells. I love necromancers but I wouldn't want something to basically invalidate necromancy wizards

Would "Warden" be too far removed?

Perhaps "Adjudicator"? They are passing judgement after all.

Warden could be a really good class name, even if not as a replacement for inquisitor.

I've yet to see daze taken or cast without regret.

Daze is underrated IMO. Divine Lance is only 30 feet and it's alignment damage. If you're a divine caster pre-SoM I'm not sure what else you're using for longer range as a cantrip

There's really no point in arguing this. If you're mad that the eidolon doesn't have the summon trait, then be mad about it I guess. Everyone else who actually gets to play and enjoy the summoner will continue to do so, and you aren't going to accomplish anything by whining about it

Ganigumo wrote:

Castilliano wrote:

A lot of the competition here has a long RPG legacy, so it may be a little unfair to compare. Let's take Cleric or Fighter as a pair of the OG class names.

Somebody imagining a Cleric would likely dream up their local clergyman, perhaps shifted to a medieval setting dressed in a robe, perhaps at a monastery or chapel. Oh, but an adventuring Cleric...so he's on a pilgramage? Maybe it's a pagan orator? Or maybe it's like a mythical prophet? Yet what the class offered was the second best attack chart, hit dice, and armor. That's not in the name at all.
Nearly fifty years later, PF2 calls that a Cleric-Warpriest, the latter a meaningless word in the real world. (Father Mulcahy?)

And Fighter, that's a boxer. Why wasn't/isn't it called Warrior?

I'd say "Summoner" has a leg up on at least those two class names. And as noted, the trope is strong even if the name hasn't established itself yet.
And to represent that trope, what other name would suit better? Give it time and it will develop that innate RPG imagery the others have, much like "Gish", "Dragon Disciple", and other new terms have accumulated weight while Cleric, Fighter, et al have altered their original sense.

(Yes, old uses of Fighter involved weaponry, but in modern parlance it had shifted to unarmed combatants by the time Gygax reclaimed the word.)

Summoner is unlikely to get the kind of cultural recognition because of its name I think, at least the pathfinder version of the summoner.

If the summoner were a class that did focus on summoning things (like a conjuration wizard) it might, but since it isn't and "Summoner" is used with some frequency in other games (final fantasy and fire emblem come to mind) to represent that role it will be tough for the pathfinder summoner to establish itself culturally.

Fighter has a bit of a name issue as well I think, although its still called that because of the d&d legacy.

Were I to rename summoner I would go with something like

...

Toss in personas and demons from the shin megami tensei series as well!

UtaUta99 wrote:

Dargath wrote:

I always thought the bard was like the Final Fantasy Red mage with a little bit of fighting, a little bit of magic and a little bit of skills sort of like a Fighter/Wizard/Rogue but without going all the way, so not the most powerful fighting and not the best and biggest spells and not as skilled. Now it’s just some weird musical class caster that for god knows what reason has been stereotyped into being super horny all the time.

Why don't you think of it like the final fantasy bard? lol

Well to be honest I have only exposure to the FFXIV version in addition the previous versions of TTRPGs it seemed to be like the red mage. It used to be good at sword fighting in older versions, it’s always been sort of magical but at some point they made it a full caster and the weapon skills seem to have fallen off as of late. Not sure why.

Also FWIW the bard in FFXIV is for sure a full martial with almost no casting so even then…

In every fubal fantasy other than 14 its a full on support

I always thought the bard was like the Final Fantasy Red mage with a little bit of fighting, a little bit of magic and a little bit of skills sort of like a Fighter/Wizard/Rogue but without going all the way, so not the most powerful fighting and not the best and biggest spells and not as skilled. Now it’s just some weird musical class caster that for god knows what reason has been stereotyped into being super horny all the time.

Why don't you think of it like the final fantasy bard? lol

Perpdepog wrote:

So, wait. Does that mean the monk is making the champion less special then, or is the champion impinging on the monk's turf? They both get legendary in their defenses. Sure monks don't have armor, but you can fix that with Sentinel, and nothing's stopping champions fighting in their pajamas.

It technically does.

But the Monk does have Flexible Save progressions, which is pretty damn unique and worth it compared to what a Champion gets in comparison. Plus, Monks can't reasonably wear armor without invalidating a large amount of feat choices, and they can't wear Heavy Armor, which is +1 higher than what a Monk would have if compared to a Champion.

I just can't imagine viewing the game this way. Monk has crazy martial arts and ki moves that enable it to do special spells that come through meditation and inner cultivation. A champion is a martial character that focuses on defense and their God allows them to channel some divine spells. Viewing them as saves or proficiencies just feels like missing the fun of an rpg. Do you play in Microsoft excel?

This smells like a troll thread

Squiggit wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Considering that Variable Traditions was supposed to be the big selling point of a Sorcerer class, and two other classes (Summoner and Witch) have already poached from that big selling point, I find that it diminishes all of the class' value as a whole, and I am not very appreciable of it.

I don't really see how the Summoner and Witch existing really impacts the Sorcerer at all.

It's the currency paradigm. Things are valuable due to both their practical uses in the real world as well as their rarity of existence. The Sorcerer being the only class that could have a "flexible" spell tradition was a big driving point made in both the playtest and when the Core Rulebook was dropped for a Sorcerer being its own unique class separate from being some Spontaneous Arcane equivalent from the Wizard back in PF1.

The Witch and Summoner now having this identical "flexible" spell tradition reduces the impact of that unique facet significantly, which I personally don't care for.

Yes, there are slight differences (Witch being Prepared, Summoner being Wave-casting with a permanent "pet"), but the primary point ("flexible" spell tradition) is shared across all of them, and it makes the Sorcerer's only driving point being Bloodlines, compared to a Witch's Patron (not the Hexes, which is what players really wanted), and a Summoner's Eidolon type (no "summon font" option), all of which are what determines their "flexible" spell tradition.

In short, they are 3 carbon copies of an identical formula (specific mechanic that dictates their spellcasting type, calling it "flexible," and), demonstrating to be relatively lazy considering that there are only minor differences between the classes otherwise. The entirety of the Eidolon could have been a Class Archetype of Sorcerer, same with Witch with their Patrons.

I find it hilarious and puzzling that you think the differences are minor to be honest

Squiggit wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Considering that Variable Traditions was supposed to be the big selling point of a Sorcerer class, and two other classes (Summoner and Witch) have already poached from that big selling point, I find that it diminishes all of the class' value as a whole, and I am not very appreciable of it.

I don't really see how the Summoner and Witch existing really impacts the Sorcerer at all.

It's like buying a house without a garage because its the only one in town with a full master bath, but a few months after moving in they build 2 new houses with a master bath and a garage, and they're selling them for the same amount you paid. Feels bad man, kinda like you got ripped off in the deal.

do we have everyone abandoning sorcerer for witch? i dont think so LOL

I've seen threads from years ago and even somewhat recently on the subreddit, but I'm not finding a specific, clear answer. Did paizo ever comment on this?

This is going to probably get some hate but I genuinely feel if they just made champions follow their gods edicts and dismissed most of the actual alignment system the game would be far better off.

Arguing about what being neutral should be, is in my opinion, the biggest waste of time ever. Alignment is already so hefty and far away from real world philosophy that it's on the verge of feeling entirely pointless as a legitimate system

I don't think it's worthwhile comparing Witch to Bard, pretty much everything Bard does it's insanely good at.

What I find funny is that Phase Familiar would had been pretty useful if your Familiar didn't return for free at the start of every day.

But people really wanted to get their familiars back right away.

When familiars didn't come back for free it was awful. Make a single mistake and you're just screwed.

UtaUta99 wrote:

Gortle wrote:

Most classes pay with feats for similar things, like bloodlines etc.

But yes witches need more things in the base class.

I get it, I just don't think something so clearly important to a classes identity should be an "optional" feat, because we all know 99% of the time a witch or sorcerer is taking their lesson/bloodline when they get the chance, so it's barely an "option"

Not necessarily true. A lot of sorc focus spells are pretty bad and not worth the feat. It's a different story for the witch because you can choose your lessons but even then, most are really bad. Though witch doesn't really have anything better to take at those levels in the first place.

I don't think the lessons are bad at all, at least not the basic ones. Life boost, blood ward, elemental betrayal and needle of vengeance are all pretty good depending on your party's comp.

Most classes pay with feats for similar things, like bloodlines etc.

But yes witches need more things in the base class.

I get it, I just don't think something so clearly important to a classes identity should be an "optional" feat, because we all know 99% of the time a witch or sorcerer is taking their lesson/bloodline when they get the chance, so it's barely an "option"

I just don't understand why lessons are feats. They should be just a class featurr

exoicho123 wrote:

My question (which I have never gotten a real response to yet) to people who want all of a race to be evil is what does it add to your game?

Simplicity.

It short cuts moral discussions people would rather not have. RPGs are a beer and pretzels game for a lot of people. Clear labels can be very liberating and simplifying.

Not every game session should have a moral lesson at heart. Actually it quite nauseating the extent some authors go to. Not just adventure writers, but all kinds of artistic production these days.

exoicho123 wrote:

Like, it clearly reduces the depth of any narrative you could possibly be telling. It clearly reinforces a mentality that's lead to God knows how many actual IRL people being killed, enslaved etc. I've never had somebody tell me what's actually good about it.

No one is defending the morality of any particular character. But dealing with "Evil" entities is part of the game. Its a part of real life too, though hopefully not to that extent.

exoicho123 wrote:

I saw one person say that races should be different and not like humans. Okay, but why in terms of alignments? Orcs can see in the dark, have tusks, and developed specific cultures. That is different than a human. How does adding on "also they're barbaric and tribal and literally all evil" add anything of value to anyone other than people who want to dogwhistle their problematic beliefs?

Why are you insisting everyone and every society has to be like humans? With self awareness and not just a human sense of morality but a post modern human sense of morality?

Adding more elements can make it more complex not less. Its up to you to build the tapestry and the story you want. Most people are going to be happy with the very simple us and them which has dominated human history. A simple morality helps with that. They can then focus on other parts of the story, or just enjoy the game. But if you see it as a deeper and richer experience then go for it.

If you need a simple reason to be able to kill things, I'm not sure making an entire race evil is necessary. You could just make their society or organization evil. It accomplishes the same thing and this has been said multiple times.

Also, if races are capable of any level of thought and intelligence, of course they will be capable of self reflection and morality, what kind of answer is that? And how is that the only thing that makes them different than humans?

It seems that the obvious answer is to make these differences physiological and cultural, which Paizo has been doing.

But considering your point is that art shouldn't have a message about morality so often (what? Lmao) and somehow thinking this is postmodern thinking, I have a pretty good feeling about where you're coming from