Kobold Master Trapper

VanCucci's page

19 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS


shroudb wrote:
VanCucci wrote:
shroudb wrote:
being able to give anyone +1 attack that stacks with almost everything as a reaction every round...

*every 10 minutes

Combat Clue dosen't change the frequency of Clue In, just its trigger and bonus.
As it is right now, is not that good of a Feat, IMO (Which is unfortunate, it's the kind of thing an archetypical investigator would do in combat more than once per fight).

level 19 feature allows to clue in every round.

that exactly was my point.

Ah sorry, i didn't read properly, my bad.

Still, i think that waiting to level 19 to make viable a Feat you take at level 2 is still meh...


shroudb wrote:
being able to give anyone +1 attack that stacks with almost everything as a reaction every round...

*every 10 minutes

Combat Clue dosen't change the frequency of Clue In, just its trigger and bonus.
As it is right now, is not that good of a Feat, IMO (Which is unfortunate, it's the kind of thing an archetypical investigator would do in combat more than once per fight).


Considering how magic weapon damage scales in PF2, adding Sneak Attack to a greatsword hit MAY be a bit to much, not sure. Still, if Finesse Striker doesn't make it trought playtest, for wathever reason, high Str one handed or Twf Rogues would still be pretty viable, but the weapon restriction would stay, at least being limited to d8 weapons maximum.

I read somehere in the forum about a Rogue using maces to Sneak Attack in a stream o podcast or something.
.
.
.
i don't remember... :/


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like (and probably i'm wrong) that DEX to Damage shouldn't be an option, not for realism or balance, but because that would lead to the standarditation of PCs:

So, let's start from the widest diffusion of Dex to Damage: every light or finesse one handed weapon hit and damage is governed by Dex, like 5e did. This would push (under an optimitation point of view) every agile combattant to never raise their Str over 10.

Ok, let's try with "Feat gives Dex to damage". Well the result wouldn't be much different. Having a cost would make SOME people go with a decent Str and stick with that. But, because beign SAD is almost always optimal, many people would cry out "feat tax!"...and in my opinion they wouldn't be so wrong.

And, with the current option of Finesse Striker, we would have the same issue: people dipping like crazy Rogue 1 for their Monk, Rangers and Fighters. And those not dipping would complain about the cost needed to pay to achieve an optimal version of the character envisioned.

Dex to damage is like drugs man, increasing its cost doesn't decrease its demand: its an optimal choice to be as SAD as possible, and people will go to any lenght to obtain it...doing things like PUTING SKILL RANKS IN PERFOMANCE(DANCE), the horror...

Agile and swift warriors should receive benefits from their playstyle in a way that dosen't make a decent Str score useless. Yes there are multiple istances and examples of heroes and characters relying on their agilty more than on their strenght, but it never shows them having an 8 or 10 in their hypotetical character sheet.

I've seen many suggesting to implement the same mechanic used by one of the Vigilante's feats: adding a fixed bonus damage when attacking using Dex. IMO That would be a good start.


Mark Seifter wrote:
The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Barathos wrote:
The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge wrote:
I find it a bit odd that a sling requires an action to reload but a crossbow doesn’t.
Nice catch. It also seems odd that the crossbow is just called "crossbow", possibly meaning there is only one type of crossbow.
I suspect it's the Light Crossbow equivalent, with Heavy Crossbow remaining a separate option that has reload, but we'll see.
I still think that even for a light crossbow, loading a quarrel and drawing back the string should take at least as much time as dropping a bullet in a sling. And beyond verisimilitude, if loading a crossbow doesn’t take an action then there’s no reason for anyone without very high Strength to use a sling.
You are correct that crossbows take an action to load. They're simple, so that's how they get away with such high damage for a simple ranged weapon. In the new action economy, a single reload is lot less of a problem (you don't lose much from the third attack and you get two attacks every other round starting with the first), especially with the fun ranger and rogue feat involving crossbow reload while moving around.

OK this seems fair: decent damage, long range, simple weapon -> slow to use. But this means there's a typo in the wizard pregen sheet?


Gregg Reece wrote:
VanCucci wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


It's eventually a lot more than 2 damage. It's 2 per die, and very possibly more than that in some ways (like if you use Power Attack). So it's +6 damage by 3rd or 4th level when Power Attacking.

By 20th level, it's +12 damage. +16 if Power Attacking. Possibly more if there are other enhancements.

Wait, is Power Attack even in PF2?
Yes, just not in the format you're used to. You spend two actions to make a single attack at double the damage dice.

Aaaaw, right, i remember now, thank you, it was in one of the first blog posts i read.

Yep, 2H fighters still dealing big damage, that's fair.

EDIT:

Xenocrat wrote:
You don't double, you add one die, which scales up at unknown levels to a second and then third bonus die. So it's additive but not multiplicative with magic weapon bonuses.

Ok maybe not SO MUCH more damage, but still...


Deadmanwalking wrote:


It's eventually a lot more than 2 damage. It's 2 per die, and very possibly more than that in some ways (like if you use Power Attack). So it's +6 damage by 3rd or 4th level when Power Attacking.

By 20th level, it's +12 damage. +16 if Power Attacking. Possibly more if there are other enhancements.

Wait, is Power Attack even in PF2?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:

It is really hard to cram every weapon onto a scale of d2 to d12 and still wind up with distinctive weapons, more so if you also ignore the imaginary dice (d2, d3, and d5). Even more so when at 1st level your Ability Score can contribute more to your average damage than most of the weapons available to you.

That's why they added more specific weapon traits: to make weapons feel more distinct.

I mean, look at the scimitar, it's not just a d6 damage weapon, is also a weapon really good when swung around a lot, to multiple enemies. The same for the rapier, if you have a really high accuracy or you are facing a low AC enemy, this thing is DEADLY. We have to see what two handed weapons have to offer; they might have cleave-like traits, trip or stuff like that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Using a shield requires an action every turn, so, action economy wise, a Two handed fighter that used one of his hands to do something else and wants to regrip his greatsword is still on par with a SaB fighter that wants to get his defenses up:

2H: [F]Take one hand off [A]Do thing [A]Hand back on weapon [A]Attack

SB: [A]Attack [A]Attack [A]Shield up

Seems pretty balanced if the action taken with one and is on par with a second attack.

Sincererly, if you want to fight with the highest damage weapon (considering also how magic weapons damage scales), i think is fair to give up a little bit of versatility in the process, last edition it was hard to make a SaB or 1H fighter viable, 2H dominated everything.

Talking about crossbows tho, i'm a bit disappointed that they are so...bland. I would've prefered them to have the reload trait to make up for another trait that made shooting once a turn enough (something like deadly, but more reliable).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rogue's Dex to damage isn't the only Class Feature that ends up being useless in some builds:
Fighters focusing mainly on archery on ranged combat in general will have their Attack of Opportunity unused 90% of the time.

I think an elegant way to address this is to have a Class Feat (or more, one for each option) avaible at lv1 that allows to swap out the first Class feature + giving some benefit tied to the "non standard" playstyle; this way you make the first Class Feature relevant to how you want to play, and get the benefit of having taken a normal Class Feat at 1st level like a "standard" Melee Fighter or Dex Rogue.

In my opinion tho, i think is more important to nail down the archetypical type of characters (like say Bard playing instruments, archery Ranger, Tanky Paladin etc...), and then think about more atipical builds, which is SUPER EASY to do with the modularity offered from this system.
.
.
.
or not, this is just my opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey! We are supposed to be hating on new classes here! Stop discussing rules and start talking about how the core book had the most balanced classes ever.


Nerdrage Ooze wrote:
TENTAKLE HENTAIIIIIIZZZ

Is already in the game...


Do you know how the rest of the PCs are built? That would be useful to understand what the party needs.
Also, which class did the Assassin started with before the PrC?


11 people marked this as a favorite.

The Inquisitor is such a bad class: It isn't spanish and it was preannounced.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unluckyblackjack wrote:
The high casters can be used; they just need to be role-played well.

I'm used to "Rogues are fine, you have to play them cleverly", but this is a new one...

"Casters are fine, you have to play them stupidly"

Because having an arch-enemy, that you could kill by just looking at them, alive for more than 2 encounters...well it makes you pretty incompetent.

And nope! If you think killing world-threating criminals is immoral and you have the power to do so, you're responsible for everything they do, thus making your choice immoral at the same level they are (which is pretty bad).

Saying that to play full casters you need to pull your punches, by whatever means, just shows how much broken they are even more.


Wikipedia wrote:
Nostalgia is triggered by something reminding an individual of an event or item from their past. The resulting emotion can vary from happiness to sorrow. The term of "feeling nostalgic" is more commonly used to describe pleasurable emotions associated with and/or a longing to go back to a particular period of time, although the former may also be true.

Well this should settle the definition issue.

Jaçinto wrote:
While small, I like their description and their abilities, yes I hate that so many just ignore the descriptions. It does not feel good when descriptions are ignorable.

Oh, and you're right here. But what makes "not ignorable" a description is kinda subjective. I'm fine with a generalized paragraph or two, so i can fill the details of character myself, while, instead, i find a wall of text could try to pidgeonhole a concept too much.

Like i just said, fluff can come from everywere with no problem, the only things you are "forced" to keep the same are numbers, which you didn't complain about right?


Jaçinto wrote:
I don't think it is just nostalgia because I could crack open my PHB and The Complete Paladin's Handbook and they just feel good when I read them.

well...that's exactly what nostalgia is: missing the good ol' times n' stuff.

Anyway, i don't seem to understand what's the issue if is the class' description being off: stick to the one you prefer and use the stats of whatever system you are playing.


vorArchivist wrote:

I think that the rogue was a flawed concept to begin with. They were the ones that disabled traps and as a niche that was pretty terrible. It made DMs feel like they had to shoehorn in traps to justify the presence of the rogue. It was like there was a core class called the exorcist and then every dungeon had to be a haunted house so they could use their exorcise class feature.

Well, the game in its first times consisted in a majority of dungeon crawls, so traps were like 30% of the problems encountered and a guy able to handle an infinite number of them was handy.

Thieves were also able to achieve other kind of tasks like climbing, hiding in the shadows ecc.
The problem stands all in SYSTEM INCOMPATIBILITY. In older editions, the Rogue/Thief niche was protected by a system where magic was less reliable and skills weren't available to everyone.
Then in 3.5 the class kind stood his ground thanks to the great number of skill points and class skill (which in 3.5 meant a whole lot more) that allowed access to a lot of good prestige classes, the bread and butter of 3.5's character building, fast and without burning all the skill points, this made the class a good one to build around the character.
What happened with PF is more complicated.
We can list some of the reasons that "made the Rogue bad":

-an overall increase of health of monsters to counter the increase of damage of martial classes + sneak attack remained the same.

-loss of all the good PrC that were rogue-oriented.

-having a skill as a class skill means having just a +3 + various skill consolidated into one

There are many more reasons than these, but the point is that there's "rogue" (a guy whom solves problems trought cunning, expertise and usually finesse) and "Rogue" (the class we all know), The former is a concept if well executed can help a party like any other member, the latter needs help from the party to stay relevant, at least in this system...

...and then there's the rouge if you want look sexy.


Well, like you just said, there're other classes (and MANY other archetypes) that are better at being rogues whilst keeping a middle-low magic flavor.

The point is, this kind of threads are a bit pointless: Why fix something that has been replaced in any aspect (both fluff AND crunch)?
I mean, c'mon, look at the Slayer and the Investigator, all the examples you made can be achieved by playing these classes (moreso with the Slayer, but still) while maintaining good efficency and simplicity.

Also, somehow, these threads allways end up becoming Fighter vs. Wizard battlegrounds.

(btw sorry for any grammatical error, not a native english speaker here).