Verzen's page

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 2,521 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 37 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,521 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Gives an ally a temporary spell would be sweet utility.

For example, at level 3, I can use a 1/day ability to give an ally a spell slot that's 1 level lower than the spells they can normally cast. So a level 3 cleric can cast a level 1 heal spell using the commanders ability.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I would like to see ways to reduce MAP for an ally, as well. Something like, "Until your next turn, when an ally makes multiple attacks, reduce that penalty by 2."

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

They need stances, imo.

One stance costs 1 action to maintain, but grants one person an additional action so instead of 3 actions, they get 4 actions. At level 1, the additional action can only be used to move or strike, but at level 10 the additional action loses that restriction.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Any chance for this to become reality??

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:

Due to the lack of a dislike, downvote, or other mechanism to silently disagree with a topic I'm going to opt for the good old-fashioned:

-2

I respect your opinion, I just think it's wrong and also more than a bit silly.

We have poppets, androids, and automatons.

How is this sillier than them?

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
How do intelligent weapons reproduce?

They are forged by other intelligent weapons.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Finoan wrote:
And it needs to be official because... You want to play it in PFS?

You're picking up what im throwing down. =)

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

After reading roll for combats intelligent weapon ancestry, it makes me convinced we need one as an official ancestry.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Please add it in

Sczarni

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Captain America

'Nough said

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Several myths and legends surround heroes or gods who are a bit more macabre.

I think some abilities should Deal with fire, brimstone, the Undead, void energy etc.

One concept I think would be AMAZING is to go down the path of being a great old one godling where I get a "divine spark" from the tapestry... or the tapestry greatly influenced my divine spark.

There are traditionally darker gods (like rovagug or urgathoa) we should have options in the form of epithets that can reflect that darker path.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Sy Kerraduess wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

I feel like Rare has to be more than something than just being rare in the mundane sense. Our two uncommon classes are uncommon because they engage in setting material that is designed not to be widespread through Golarion and may clash with certain campaign aesthetics.

So a Rare class should be one that has some quality that makes a GM go "no wait I don't want to have to deal with that in my story" above and beyond the sorts of issues people have with Gunslingers.

Well, now that we know Exemplar is a larger than life hero that can punch the sun, that is certainly something that could clash with certain campaign aesthetics and make some DMs turn up their nose.

Wait - can he seriously punch the sun?

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Where is the stream at?

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Where's the stream at?

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ly'ualdre wrote:
Verzen wrote:

The big bulky guy is known as an Ascendant. These are not demigods. What they are, are people who have obtained a fragment of a gods power. They are similar to clerics in that way. Each ascendant uses a fraction of the gods power rather than becoming a god themselves.

They will not have spells.

Gives me Favored Soul vibes, which I'm down for. Fueled mostly by nostalgia.

I wouldn't be surprised if the "dead god" is what gave Ascendants their power. Ascendants obtained part of this dead gods essence giving them their power hence their rarity.

Sczarni

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The big bulky guy is known as an Ascendant. These are not demigods. What they are, are people who have obtained a fragment of a gods power. They are similar to clerics in that way. Each ascendant uses a fraction of the gods power rather than becoming a god themselves.

They will not have spells.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

What are all the hints again?

3 vowels, 3 syllables, and what are the word hints he used??

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Azarketi are the best imo.
They can get char, con, and str at level 1. They don't need wis.

Cha helps with oracle ded.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Candlejake wrote:
JiCi wrote:


Access to damage types like Mental, Divine and Sonic would be useful too ^^;

Rumor has it about a Void kineticist coming later on, which would be very cool.

Where did you hear this?

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Fire/Earth with the oracle incendiary aura makes for a very nice aoe beater.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I do not want a shaman class. What I would like is a new class.

I actually suspect this book is going to be a divine book... and the new class is going to be similar, but different from inquisitur. Much like how thaum is to occultist.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Farien wrote:
Verzen wrote:
I'm not looking for problems. I have a fantasy character I want to fulfill and yall are like, "can you just use a different fantasy character that is entirely different than what you envisioned?"

That's what that means. Several people have suggested ways of building the character that you claim that you want, but then you shut down the build for some reason because it isn't exactly what you are hoping for - which as best as I can tell is to have all of the benefits of Fighter's accuracy and all of the benefits of Kineticist elemental damage to use to target weaknesses with.

It's not broken to want a fighter with a sword made of ice.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Verzen wrote:
I was unaware mindsmith allowed me to create a weapon that deals energy damage.
I mean, if you keep on lookin' for problems, problems is what ya' gonna' get.

I'm not looking for problems. I have a fantasy character I want to fulfill and yall are like, "can you just use a different fantasy character that is entirely different than what you envisioned?"

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Gaulin wrote:

I'm staying the obvious but the reason weapon infusion replaced elemental weapon is because it works much better with base kineticist while delivering on a lot of the flavour. If we kept elemental weapon as it was in the playtest it would likely widely be considered suboptimal and bad, similar to a lot of casters with splashes of melee feats (eldritch nails, dragon claws, etc. I realize these are different in their own ways but just for the sake of a quick comparison).

As far as not being able to get elemental weapon on other classes, paizo likely saw that there are other similar options like others in this thread have pointed out. The best course of action, in my opinion, is to accept that it's a very niche desire and flavour other existing options as you see fit. For paizo to use page space to make another archetype that is so close to mind Smith but with a different flavor is probably not in the cards.

I was unaware mindsmith allowed me to create a weapon that deals energy damage.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The whole, "You're poaching abilities.from other classes by getting that dedication into that class" is at best dishonest and at worst, a childish take.

The entire point of getting the dedication should be to obtain some of the flavor of that class.

And it should remain viable for actual usage otherwise what's the point?

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Farien wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Verzen is right about unviable options. Might as well not even exist as they are waste a feats or build resources.
Indeed. You don't have to buy Rage of Elements if it doesn't let you poach Kineticist abilities as completely equivalent to a weapon.

Putting into a dedication, "Elemental Weapon- your weapon is formed and deals the damage type of your chosen element" isn't poaching anything and is completely balanced.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Verzen is right about unviable options. Might as well not even exist as they are waste a feats or build resources.

Don't forget paper. If an option isn't viable, it's just wasting space in a book.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
shroudb wrote:

if all you want is to play a martial character like fighter/barbarian that can manifest an "elemental weapon", isn't it just better to pick up Soulforger Dedication?

Even the appearance of the weapon itself yuo can customize it as much as you want to fit in with your soul.

Quote:
An existing armament is deconstructed and then recreated with the substance of your soul binding it together, which changes the appearance to match the state of your soul. It might have a perfect surface and gleam in the faintest light if you have a noble soul or have a twisting, chaotic shape if your soul is wracked with turmoil.
No reason why the appearence of the greatsword of a fiery barbarian to not be "a greatsword made out of fire" or for the cold-hearted fighter's pick to not be made out of ice.

I love soulforger, but it also only is usable 1 per day.

Sczarni

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Eoran wrote:
Verzen wrote:
I really wanted to be a fighter or Barbarian wielding a fire sword or ice sword, but now I can't.
Verzen wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Doesn't Weapon Infusion cover this trope?

You're only two feats away from realizing your dream (Kineticist Dedication and Through the Gate: Weapon Infusion). Though you will need to sink as many as three more (Improved Elemental Blast) into it for it to remain competitive.

No. Not even close.

It uses your impulse attack rather than your normal attack, (and you only get up to expert, so it's basically useless for fighter) it doesn't create any type of weapon so I can't create picks or other new weapons that might be released. I can't create cold scatter guns for example.

It's probably my biggest complaint right now.

So in the first post you are arguing for narrative description.

Then when someone shows you how that narrative description does in fact work, the argument changes to be that you can't poach the ability to use with a Fighter, or to create specific weapons, which is something that would be done with description and flavor rather than mechanics.

Mostly at this point I am confused at what your actual objection is. You seem to be trying to evade stating distinctly what your concern actually is.

Oh ffs I don't have it in me today to argue against this dumb argument.

It's literally not the same. It "seems" similar to YOU, but it's not. It doesn't work with power attack, or other abilities like it, it can't create a scatter gun, the attack is sub par only going up to expert. As an example of the difference.. let's say I have 22 con (highest con you can. Get without a con class.) That's +6 attack. Expert is +4 attack. +2 for item. So that's +12 vs fighter who's at +7 attack(for stats), +8 attack(for legendary) and +3 item = +18 to attack.

I don't know of you have ever played pathfinder 2E, but in a game where a +1 Bard song makes a noticeable difference, a 6 attack difference between kineticist dedication impulse usage and using an actual weapon is absolutely absurdly huge.

So no. It's not the same. At all. In any shape or form.

And no amount of "flavor" will make it viable.

Unviable options might as well not exist as options, seeing as they are next to useless.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Anyone know why - or can anyone ask why - the devs removed elemental weapon from kineticist? I really wanted to be a fighter or Barbarian wielding a fire sword or ice sword, but now I can't.

There was an extremely vocal section of the playtest audience that were very upset about blasts scaling with handwraps and wanted all martial-ness excised from the class.

Which is why the final version uses cantrip-like mechanics for blasts and why all weapon-based support was removed.

In other words, shutting down your cool kinetic weapon ideas is a feature, not a bug.

They could have provided elemental weapon as part of the dedication feat imo.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

Doesn't Weapon Infusion cover this trope?

You're only two feats away from realizing your dream (Kineticist Dedication and Through the Gate: Weapon Infusion). Though you will need to sink as many as three more (Improved Elemental Blast) into it for it to remain competitive.

No. Not even close.

It uses your impulse attack rather than your normal attack, (and you only get up to expert, so it's basically useless for fighter) it doesn't create any type of weapon so I can't create picks or other new weapons that might be released. I can't create cold scatter guns for example.

It's probably my biggest complaint right now.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Anyone know why - or can anyone ask why - the devs removed elemental weapon from kineticist? I really wanted to be a fighter or Barbarian wielding a fire sword or ice sword, but now I can't.

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
AestheticDialectic wrote:
Verzen wrote:

If anyone doesn't think a "necromancer" class could work.

Look at this from 3.5...

https://dndtools.net/classes/dread-necromancer/

Always felt this was one of the lamest classes in 3.5

Uh what? Dread necromancers were awesome!

Sczarni

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

If anyone doesn't think a "necromancer" class could work.

Look at this from 3.5...

https://dndtools.net/classes/dread-necromancer/

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Personally a necromancer style class imo is entirely feasible. It would be a mix of medium, spiritualist, with other necromantic abilities.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

It would be interesting playing a Summoner in a free archetype game who has an undead eidolon and spends all their archetype feats on "Undead Master". That's as close to the minionmancer concept as you can get in PF2.

At level 16 you can have two companions and an eidolon, and give them each two actions (leading to none for yourself.) I'm not sure if "Stand there and point- the class" is going to move the needle much.

And before kineticist, spells are only allowed to be limited. Can't have any unlimited spells..

And before summoner, all summoned minions must be substantially weaker than the character.

And before magus, the three action economy is sacred. No messing with it.

And before summoner and kineticist, it is absolutely overpowered for a character to "strike" with elemental damage. (I heard this once when I was proposing Elemental Heart to Mark Seifter during summoner playtest)

And before...

And before...

And before...

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Verzen wrote:

Okay - So bear with me here.

Let's say we have an all day every day necromancer... but they cast spells utilizing their companions life pool. They get access to multiple companions (3). They can use their actions to move or attack with their companions. Whenever they use one of their abilities, their companion strikes as a free action. Their abilities drain HP from their companions per usage of the spell. They get a focus spell that brings back all their companions to full life.

That last one feels way too strong. Might work better if they could reassemble and repair their companions over the course of a ten-minute rest?

Really, I think this is trying to solve two different problems, and they kind of lead in different directions. The first problem is that we don't yet have a satisfying minion necro. I still say that that's something that could work off of the summoner chassis, if we could just get a "and now your eidolon is a troop" feat and/or feat chain. I mean, it's true that the actual level of undeadness of the undead eidolon is a bit disappointing, but this is PF2. Undead PC options are a bit disappointing in that way. That's just how it is.

Regardless, the summoner is the chassis we currently have for "my built-in permanent allies are a big chunk of my build budget", and I don't see enough space between what they already have and the acceptable parts of the desired minion necro to thing that we're going to fit something all-new in there.

The second problem is that Golarion is a world with a lot of fiction in it, including some powerful necromancers that really aren't well-described by the currently available player options. Both Tar-Baphon and Geb were able to make enormous areas where the dead just naturally rise as undead without direct effort on anyone's part. They were able to raise undead armies, and direct them in battle. They were able to perform incredible, terrible, world-shaping feats.

Honestly, that sounds kind of like "Mythic...

I honestly just want a proper minion class. Summoner is "okay" but their minion is half a character and your summoner is half a character.

All summoning of undead minions are also fairly weak and almost worthless.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Reza la Canaille wrote:

I liked golem antimagic in 1e honestly. Now it just makes me angry.

Swalow whole also makes me angry because the big turtle with a big shell that gives it resistance also apparently has a shell around its stomach too.
But I am getting off topic.
I'll be glad ifgolem antimagic is gone, or modified, or replaced by something more specific.

In PF1e, that's because magic is OVERPOWERED. In PF2E its very underpowered.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Okay - So bear with me here.

Let's say we have an all day every day necromancer... but they cast spells utilizing their companions life pool. They get access to multiple companions (3). They can use their actions to move or attack with their companions. Whenever they use one of their abilities, their companion strikes as a free action. Their abilities drain HP from their companions per usage of the spell. They get a focus spell that brings back all their companions to full life.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Pieces-Kai wrote:
Feel the problem with class archetype like most archetype is that it will end up feeling rather bare bones and would rather Wizard subclasses get more meaty subclasses to try and make the Necromancer fantasy play out a lot better

I see what you did there.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Nimbus is pretty sweet and allows for a great dps build.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Pieces-Kai wrote:
I'm curious how they'd make Chronomancer feel deep enough for a full class because it feels a lot more fitting for a subclass type deal/archetype

I'd make a lot of abilities play with the sacred action economy.

Force creatures to lose actions, give actions to players, reverse a creatures actions, etc etc.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
YuriP wrote:

There's a trap in the armor impulses.

The text says:

Armor in Earth wrote:
... The stone armor is medium armor but uses your highest armor proficiency...
Hardwood Armor wrote:
... This hardwood armor is medium armor but uses your highest armor proficiency...
Metal Carapace wrote:
... The carapace armor is medium armor but uses your highest armor proficiency...
If you pay attention it doesn't mention unarmored proficiency so they don't applies to monks and unarmored spellcasters.

"Whenever you gain a class feature that grants you expert or greater proficiency in any type of armor (but not unarmored defense), you also gain that proficiency in the armor types granted to you by this feat."

It specifies not unarmored defense. The wording is entirely different.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
CynDuck wrote:

I don't have the knowledge to unravel what this means, but Michael Sayre just made a tweet hinting at some PF2e future product. In case anyone doesn't want to go to Twitter to read it, it says:

Quote:

Man, I haven't posted about #Pathfinder2e in awhile. Been busy... How about this? I'm going to post 4 random words from the *secret project* I'm working on. Each one might be from running text, or a header, or a sidebar. I won't tell.

1) seneschal
2) destiny
3) weaver
4) broken

I 'want' to say a chronomancer class...

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

You can further compare this to just 25% chance of getting 5 damage..

So
4- = 6.25%
5 = 25% vs 9.37%
6 = 25% vs 15.62%
7 = 25% vs 18.75%
8 = 25% vs 18.75%
9+ = 31.25%

For more accurate numbers.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote:

To be up front. I enjoy casters in pf2e. I think they are powerful, versatile, and a lot of fun.

But early levels are rough. Especially levels 1-2.

My hope was the early level caster experience would either largely stay the same. Or get buffed.

2 spells isn't much, 3 if your a wizard or sorcerer.

Cantrips are not just supplemental options but your bread and butter until you find that moment in the fight try use a slot.

They cost 2 actions, often have less reach than a short bow. But you at least got your ability mod to damage.

Me rolling a 1 meant I did 5 damage.

Now rolling 1s mean 2-3 damage

I could understand it if you could spend one action to do 1d4 and 2 to do 2d4. It would give casters more early game flexibility and let them interact with the action economy more meaningfully.

But as it stands right now? Until/unless something is shown that we are not aware of in the sneak peak conversion pdf. You just made casters early level experience even worse.

I'm not so concerned with spell changes, looks like even more versatility Wich I favor.

But we need to discuss how your going to make early level caster play better.

It doesn't have to be ability mod to damage. But it needs something imo.

I don't know if level 1 spells need to become at will abilities that never run out or actually use slots

Ability mod to damage

More dice

All starting with 2 focus spells and making focus spells good across the board

Or something else.

As it stands right now, every single caster before this remaster,I invested in a weapon, because it's 1 action Wich pairs insanely well with casters 2 action routine. And expert isn't too bad to hit with when you have item bonus to hit and no map penalties.

But after remaster? I'm definitely prioritizing ranged weapons over fun little spell items.

A staff? Maybe when I'm really high level, and probably just for ooc utility.

Taking 3d4 as an example of a basic cantrip vs 1d4+4

With 1d4+4, there is a 25% chance of getting 5, 6, 7, or 8 damage.

Meanwhile with 3d4, lets do the math.
3 = 1.56% chance
4 = 4.68%
5 = 9.37%
6 = 15.62%
7 = 18.75%
8 = 18.75%
9 = 15.62%
10 = 9.37%
11 = 4.68%
12 = 1.56%

There is a 93% chance that the result is 'at least' 5.

And there is a 50% chance that the result is 'at least' 8.

So half the time, the 3d4 damage cantrip (from RoE), Needle darts, will deal equal to or more top end damage than a 1d4+4 attack spell can normally deal.

And a 15.63% chance for needle darts to deal equal to or more damage output than what a 1d6+4 damage cantrip can deal.

So you have a 7% chance of dealing less than the minimum, but 50% chance of dealing more than the maximum for most cantrips.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Does overflow go away before an ability or after? Do I get my aura bonus on overflow impulses I mean?
If you don't have your aura [hence getting the aura bonus], you couldn't use the ability because all impulses require an active aura.

That's not what I asked.

I repeat. When I use an overflow ability, is the aura expended PRIOR to damage dealt or AFTER damage dealt.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Does overflow go away before an ability or after? Do I get my aura bonus on overflow impulses I mean?

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well, you will have to choose what you want from a blaster:

- Staying power
- Damage potential

The Kineticist is was designed, way back in 1st edition as the "all-day blaster". That has always been its nature. In your 30th combat of the day, the kineticist can keep pace with all the martials who don't have resources to track, while the Wizard and cleric ran out of spells 20 fights ago.

What the kineticist cannot do is "reach into the toolbox and grab anything off-theme"(if you're a pure geokineticist and a problem can't be solved with rocks, it can't be solved by you) and it probably can't hit the same peaks for damage as a slot casting blaster in the 2-3 fights where the slot casting blaster decides to go all out.

This is a reasonable way to differentiate these classes and was, in fact, the same way they were distinguished in PF1. Back in PF1 the Blood Arcanist with Spell Perfection on Delayed Blast Fireball did more damage than the Kineticist did, but it could only cast Empowered Intensified Maximized Fireball with 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spell slots and you only got so many of those.

It's not a bad idea to have two classes have different strengths and weaknesses when it comes to doing the same thing. Like a fighter with a greataxe and a barbarian with a greataxe play differently. A monk with a bow and a ranger with a bow play differently. This is, in fact, a good thing.

What the kineticist shows is if you're going to get a themed specialist then the difference between "that thing" and "a wizard" is that the wizard is a toolbox character which has options that the themed specialist doesn't have. This is by design and not wanting to use those options is like a fighter not wanting to use the best weapons.

Martials have both staying power AND damage potential.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

If magus and Summoner are 75% martial, 25% caster...

Kineticist is 75% caster, 25% martial.

1 to 50 of 2,521 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>