Ancient Solar Dragon

Vlorax's page

412 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 412 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

"Applying an archetype requires you to select archetype feats instead of class feats. "

No has to be class feats


I don't see why not, you don't get 2 focus pools though so sorc/sorc kinda loses out if you wanted to focus on bloodline focus spells.

I can't see Sorc/Sorc being all that different than Wiz/Sorc other than having a slight advantage of a single casting stat although you could do a similar thing with Cleric/Druid and should be just fine.

Ranger/Ranger for 2 different Hunter's Edge would be pretty strong though.


I guess it kinda helps against adamantine weapons since the armor would have possibly higher hardness so the weapons wouldn't ignore it? Unless they're the same quality then it doesn't matter again.


It's not bad for a wand or scroll but probably not great as part of your repertoire.


Zapp wrote:

My thoughts in random order:

* The section on NPCs should definitely have been published in the Bestiary, even if in a reduced capacity with perhaps only a dozen entries
* there still is no discussion on random generation of ability scores. I'm getting the feeling the CRB option was put there only to appease hardcore "randomists" and then entirely dropped. I'm getting the feeling Paizo thinks their game incompatible with the idea of getting an unexpectedly high or low value in your ability scores? (Where is the discussion on the impact of this?)
* there are STILL no variants allowing you to choose your fundamental (attack, AC, saves) proficiencies yourself. You can use points to build your skills, but you're still stuck to your 1st level decision (your choice of class) when it comes to advancing your fundamentals, even ten or twenty levels later. (Please don't point to the Dual-classed PC variant. I'm talking about rules that allow 3e/PF levels of fundamenta customization without any significant power upgrades)

Please don't shunt this post into the existing product discussion thread on the GMG. I don't think discussion is served by having all discussions of such a core book into a single thread, while you can have a hundred threads discussing a CRB issue. (Whether this fits into Rules or Advice is another matter. I simply do not know, so I posted here in General. :-)

1- disagree, the npcs in the GMG are fine, haven't had a need for them and have been playing since release.

2- Ok and? Random ability scores aren't how the game is designed it doesn't matter at all to me that an optional rule is not there.

3- I never expected there to be variants about selecting prof bonuses, not sure why you did, and I don't think they're needed at all. (I don't care about 3e/pf, i'm playing 2e, this is nonsense)


Demonknight wrote:
Tender Tendrils wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
When our party's goblin uses this feat, he represents it in game by taking off his underwear and parachuting with it.
At least your party's goblin wears underwear!

In the party where i am the GM, one of the PCS (Goblin Rogue) wears a kind of Kilt, and when he does demoralize actions he lifts the Kilt.....

By the way that PC is going for the Bouncy thing, so yes he would drop and bounce up up and away!

Does he yell "I'm old Greg!" while doing it? and also ask about drinking baileys out of a shoe?


Kyrone wrote:

The group that I GM have a aberrant sorcerer, it's lvl 9 now, here how he did.

** spoiler omitted **

Did I miss it or are you saying they only have 1 signature spell? It's 1 per spell level, not just 1 signature spell.


Roswynn wrote:

So, when all's said and done, why are they called that? Ailouros is cat in Greek. Guy doesn't really look like a cat imvho.

Maybe Argyrans would've worked better? Argyros is silver.

why would Greek have anything to do with the name?

As Magi210 said the first result when searching Aliurus is a red panda, which they look like.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why would you not want ki strike? It's awesome.

But no you can't retrain out of it and keep the other ki feats as it's the one granting the pool and ki ability access


Martialmasters wrote:
Do the ASI bumps work the same?

Yea it mentions some items will have to change to apply to the new skills and certain prerequisites would need to be adjusted but everything else would continue as normal.


Martialmasters wrote:
Vlorax wrote:
citricking wrote:
Vlorax wrote:

Just wanted to mention here that the GMG has a Variant Rule that changes the ability scores to be more equally balanced.

It removes con and rolls it into strength.

Splits dex into two scores(dex, agility) with agility being the ac/save stat, dex becomes the ranged/unarmed atk and finesse dmg stat.

charisma goes to will saves, wis/int otherwise unchanged.

Thanks for sharing!

That seems really harsh on ranged/finesse fighters compared to the current set up.

You mention finesse damage, is that for everyone or just thief rogues?

In that variant everyone gets Dex to dmg if it's greatee than str

Very interesting. I think current ability scores are better than they used to be clearly. Not perfect.

I'd be curious to trying out those variant rules.

Any of you use it? What was your thoughts?

Haven't had a chance to use it yet, would be interesting. I could see melee wep Barbarians liking it a lot as they can pump str for both damage and health, then take cha for intimidation feats and will save. They'd essentially only care about Str/Cha/Agi


citricking wrote:
Vlorax wrote:

Just wanted to mention here that the GMG has a Variant Rule that changes the ability scores to be more equally balanced.

It removes con and rolls it into strength.

Splits dex into two scores(dex, agility) with agility being the ac/save stat, dex becomes the ranged/unarmed atk and finesse dmg stat.

charisma goes to will saves, wis/int otherwise unchanged.

Thanks for sharing!

That seems really harsh on ranged/finesse fighters compared to the current set up.

You mention finesse damage, is that for everyone or just thief rogues?

In that variant everyone gets Dex to dmg if it's greater than str


Just wanted to mention here that the GMG has a Variant Rule that changes the ability scores to be more equally balanced.

It removes con and rolls it into strength.

Splits dex into two scores(dex, agility) with agility being the ac/save stat, dex becomes the ranged/unarmed atk and finesse dmg stat.

charisma goes to will saves, wis/int otherwise unchanged.


Would a wizard with Metamagical Experimentation be able to pick silent spell without first knowing conceal spell? The thesis doesn't mention needing prerequisites for the metamagic you can pick for free, just 1/2 lvl.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Second Fort Save has the incapacitation trait, but not the initial spell cast.

Basically the boss can't insta-die if they fail the Fort Save, only crit fail


Gortle wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Remember the monster design rules are top down. The great cyclops deals 3d10+13 damage because the monster creation rules say a 12th level creature that is primarily a combat threat which does not use finesse uses the high damage option which means it should deal about an average of 30 damage on a strike, further pointing out about half of this should be from a flat modifier.

If you decide to calculate damage for a creature using manufactured weapons like a PC, you're instructed to give the creature (greater) weapon specialization (or sneak attack, or other relevant damage adding abilities) to make the numbers work out right.

So what do you do when the huge barbarian picks up the greater cyclops weapon, and starts wielding it? Then puts a striking rune on it.

I'm sure a GM can cope. But telling the player it does 1d10 is going to create a very pissed off player.

Good luck.

The bottom line is these are issues a GM will have to address. Players are creative, and that how you want them to be.

It's a non issue because I game with adults and they know the rules already. There's nothing to address as the rules are clear.


Squiggit wrote:
Rysky wrote:
... were familiars immune to AoEs in P1?

No, but they got improved evasion at level 1

Familiars probably have more HP in PF2 than PF1 though.

PF2 familiar is 5 HP/level, PF1 is half the master's HP.

Isn't that the same as just picking Damage Avoidance(Reflex) in PF2?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aratorin wrote:

I mean they give you their level, their ability modifiers, and their Perception/Skill modifiers. It's not that hard to determine that a Level 8 Axiomite with +5 Wisdom and +19 Perception is Master in Perception.

19-5-8=6

+6 = Master

except that's not how monster stats are built or derived.

Level 8 creatures have stat modifiers that range from +3 to +7 and Perception ranges from +11 to +21 it's not just a matter of subtracting numbers as they won't necessarily add up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
thaX wrote:
Is there a damage upgrade for a larger weapon (going from Medium size to Large)?
"it gains a +2 status bonus to melee damage". A small, medium, large and huge dagger ALL do 1d4 base damage: the large/huge size gets you a damage bonus, reach and some free clumsy 1.

This is wrong, large weapons do not increase in damage due to being large. The enlarge spell increases melee damage but that has nothing to do with the weapon.

Quote:
Bolstered by magical power, the target grows to size Large. Its equipment grows with it but returns to natural size if removed. The creature is clumsy 1. Its reach increases by 5 feet (or by 10 feet if it started out Tiny), and it gains a +2 status bonus to melee damage.

The enlarged person would do the extra damage with a small weapon, has nothing to do with weapon size.


graystone wrote:
Why would a ranger not Hunted Shot/Twin Takedown? Why wouldn't the other martials take ranger dedication [only needs 14 dex] for those those feats so you can use weapons without an extra feat.

Rangers have to hunt Target first and twin takedown is only vs hunted Target. Monk had neither of those issues.


The Rot Grub wrote:
theelcorspectre wrote:


I have looked around other places, but I will admit this is the first forum ‘I’ have made on the subject. I mainly chose Paizo’s forums, because it seemed like the safest place to get a lot of comments soon. I also wanted to create forum detailing their actual experiences. Most statements I found, it was hard to determine if they were “I read this and I think it’s good/bad” or “I actually played this and it was good/bad”. I don’t want anyone to think that I’m trying to shut myself off from any negative posts about the game, I just wanted to hear some people’s actual experiences. Trust me, I already decided that I would at least try out this game long before I made this forum.
Here is a thread I've been following on EN World, of people's actual play experiences. Might want to check it out, too.

There seems to be a missing link


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Relic123 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

Part of the issue is simply you being new to the system and having a thematic idea that didn't get supported mechanically. I agree with the other poster about a fighter dedication.

Maybe ask your GM to let you redesign your character to fit your thematic concept

I feel this in my soul. I never thought a blaster Storm Druid playstyle wouldn't be mechanically supported, but each combat is just half damage electric arcs/rays of frost and me deciding if its better to raise my shield or move 25 feet away from a monster and risk an AoO. It's incredibly dull. Sometimes I get to give my animal companion an extra action but most of the time he's just playing catch up anyways.

Why do you not use actual spells and why do you have an animal companion as a Storm Druid? Why are you spending "each combat" only casting cantrips?


Ubertron_X wrote:

Did any of you check the appendix? :P

CRB page 630 wrote:
creature An active participant in the story and world. This includes monsters and nonplayer characters (played by the Game Master) and player characters (played by the other players).

Ha I actually had not, so other PC's would trigger snares then.


Aratorin wrote:
Vlorax wrote:
vhok wrote:
doesn't persistant damage happen at the end of the round? they have 3 actions to do something

Yep.

Actual sequence of events would be

Take 1 damage-> drop to 0, roll to remove persistent damage

next round

Start turn -> Heal 1
3 actions to drink a potion or treat wounds or use extra actions to try and remove/lower persistent damage
end turn ->take 1 damage, roll to remove persistent damage.

Also isn't the only player option to gain fast healing the lvl 20 Monk feat that gives them Fast Healing 20?

There's Malignant Sustenance but that only works on Undead.

Regenerate doesn't grant Fast Healing.

So I'm not really sure where the Fast Healing could even be coming from for this to occur.

The Witch healing Hex grants Fast Healing.

The Cleric Feat Resurrectionist grants Fast Healing.

The Crimson Shroud Feat grants Fast Healing.

I'm sure there are others.

Withes are still in development so I don't consider them, I just did a search for fast healing and not much came up on AoN

Resurrectionist gives Fast healing 5 and ends if they fall unconscious so this situation could not occur since the Fast Healing would end when they dropped to dying.

Crimson Shroud could get them back up from dying though, and they'd then have actions to spend.


vhok wrote:
doesn't persistant damage happen at the end of the round? they have 3 actions to do something

Yep.

Actual sequence of events would be

Take 1 damage-> drop to 0, roll to remove persistent damage

next round

Start turn -> Heal 1
3 actions to drink a potion or treat wounds or use extra actions to try and remove/lower persistent damage
end turn ->take 1 damage, roll to remove persistent damage.

Also isn't the only player option to gain fast healing the lvl 20 Monk feat that gives them Fast Healing 20?

There's Malignant Sustenance but that only works on Undead.

Regenerate doesn't grant Fast Healing.

So I'm not really sure where the Fast Healing could even be coming from for this to occur.


Ok, so doing this (True Strike->Bespell Wep->Ki Strike->Strike) again with a Kama and the correct damage for Ki Strike, a Monk avgs 93dmg vs 32 AC

With a Temple Sword it avgs to 94dmg vs 32 AC.

Familiar Focus->True Strike->BeSpell->Ki Strike with a kama avgs 83dmg.

For a total of 269 in 3 rounds... so a rounding error from killing the Purple Worm in 3 rounds.

Familiar Focus-> True Strike-> Bespell-> Ki Strike with a Temple Sword avgs 86

for a total of 274 total damage, killing the Purple Worm in 3 Rounds.

These numbers are including elemental damage runes on the weapon, mostly because I'm not sure how to do the math on things like Keen or Grievous with a Temple Sword giving flatfooted on the later attacks etc.


MongrelHorde wrote:
Vlorax wrote:
corwyn42 wrote:

I like the "always in range" argument, so the comparison is only about damage and not wasting actions on closing the distance for melee focused gish characters.

Yeah, I wasn't sure how many rounds to go. Perhaps we should compare how many rounds does it take your character to kill the Purple Worm.

Is the Worm doing anything in this scenario? Just using True Strike + Bespell + Ki Strike and a Monk/Wiz kills it on the third turn.
RAVIOLI RAVIOLI SHOW ME THOSE NUMBEROLIES!!!!

So I know it has been awhile but I've had time to actually put the numbers down now.

A lvl 13 Monk using a Temple Sword with Elemental damage runes (shock, flaming etc) hits AC 32 for an avg of 96.975 (97) 90.25 damage a round using

True Strike->Bespell Wep->Ki Strike->Strike

Assuming I'm using this tool correctly. dps chart image

To calculate Ki Strike I did the attacks at +1/-3 with 12 bonus damage to account for the 4d6 ki strike damage.

EDIT- oh no! it should be +1/-4 because Temple Sword is a non-agile Wep! readjusted numbers, damnit ki strike should be 14 not 12.

Purple Worm has 270 HP.

Using this build gish monk Note it for some reason doesn't show the Wizard Archetype feats, which other than basic casting are Familiar (Familiar Focus, Darkvision) and Bespell wep.

The first 2 rounds of True Strike->BeSpell->Ki Strike->Strike

drop the worm to 76HP90HP

3rd round, Familiar Focus, True Strike-> Bespell->Ki Strike is ~81 damage, Purple Worm dead in 3 4 rounds. Maybe possible in 3 have to correct ki damage still.

I don't think I messed anything up but could be wrong. I messed up

Now I'm thinking a 1d6 agile wep might be a better idea to take greater advantage of making sure both ki strikes land, going to have to check.


Castilliano wrote:


Also, what would stop a Snare Ranger from selling their trap services?
If snares don't decay then the Ranger should be able to set up traps to make income. And NPC Rangers, especially Kobolds, could line their burrows with traps that don't add to CR/XP. They're only a part of the Ranger's powers, right? Better not take too long getting to the lair.
And if you think you'd have to rein any of that in, maybe it's because there's a foundational flaw.

Nothing stops them from selling trap services, Earn some Income with traps sounds fine to me.

Kobolds don't have any snare crafting ability?

If you gave them snare crafting abilities and then have them set up traps and don't adjust the XP budget that's a failure as the GM since snares should be pretty obviously hazards and should be part of the encounter budget.

I don't think I'd have to rein any of that in, most likely the ally kobolds all die to the snares the fictional Ranger Kobold created and it's 1 single Kobold left in a lair of corpses since everything else died to all the snares they set up.

PC's having to advance slowly through a trapped lair sounds pretty standard adventure to me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Staffan Johansson wrote:
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
... if my character concept was a mighty wizard, then going with a character whose spells are from some entity and he curses targets with hexes is going away from he's a wizard. The same way a fighter in a green outfit and a bow isn't just stepping on the toes of a ranger even if they share the fighting styles such as archery or dual wielding.

A fighter and ranger have different feats, proficiencies, anf class features that differentiate the two. This isn't as true for witches and wizards since those two will cast mostly the same spells. The witch's hexes are very similar to the arcane school focus spells.

Witches aquire spells differently than wizards, but that's flavor only. Needs crunch.

That's one of the problems of the four magical traditions as the only game in town when it comes to spell lists. It means you can't custom-make a spell list for a different class.

They already did this for the Red Mantis Assassin Archetype.

Quote:
All the spells in your Red Mantis assassin spellbook, from this and later feats, must be either transmutation or illusion spells from the arcane spell list or a spell from the following list: clairaudience, clairvoyance, darkness, dimension door, modify memory, obscuring mist, paralyze, see invisibility, true strike. Regardless of their usual magical tradition, your Red Mantis assassin spells are divine spells, as are any Red Mantis focus spells you gain.

So it is still possible to do custom lists, just will probably not come at the class level.


Aratorin wrote:

Your own snares pose no risk to you.

CRB 589 wrote:

You can automatically disarm a snare that you

personally Crafted without triggering it by spending an
Interact action while adjacent to the snare.
You would just automatically disarm it before walking into it, and then re-enable it afterwards.

Yes but none of your allies get that benefit, unless you're escorting them around constantly and never split up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Castilliano wrote:

Snares are strong, but not out of line for their levels and drawbacks.

Snares you can mass produce between adventures and stash in a Bag of Holding would be ridiculous. Yet since snares don't decay, the rules could be interpreted like that. It'd be like getting free scrolls every day that don't go away. Which would be broken.

Which is why I'd cite that sidebar (not handy to give page number) which says if a rule seems ridiculous, it's probably not meant to work that way.
A straightforward interpretation is the Ranger gets that many traps per day and that's it. So snares would have to decay (or at least take up a use the next day). Otherwise game balance goes out the door.

Not really seeing how game balance "goes out the window" by having lots of snares, it's an incredibly niche situation for them to impact the game.


Is there a way to correct guides? Because the Monk guide has a bunch of things wrong, notably how focus points work.

Quote:

Ki Rush: Very situational. Notably, this feat does not expand your Focus Pool if you already have one, so I don't recommend taking this if you already have a Focus Pool.

Ki Strike: At low levels, being able to use Ki Strike for a 1-turn boost to damage looks really tempting, but it's not as useful as a permanent benefit you could get from other 1st-level feats like a Stance feat. You might consider this later if you're going for a build which emphasizes Focus Spells (a "Ki Monk"). Notably, this feat does not expand your Focus Pool if you already have one, so I don't recommend taking this if you already have a Focus Pool.

This is incorrect.

From the CRB

Quote:
If you have multiple abilities that give you a focus pool, each one adds 1 Focus Point to your pool.

Both Ki Strike and Ki Rush give a focus pool.

I also mentions Shield Proficiency, which doesn't exist..

And not knowing how Assurance works

Quote:
Wind Jump: By this level you can easily by Master in Acrobatics (level+6), granting you a total bonus of +15 before consider your Dexterity modifier. With the Assurance skill feat that's a guaranteed result of 25 before your Dexterity modifier.

You don't add your stat to assurance rolls it's just 10+prof.

And then there's the subjective stuff like ranking Monastic Weapons above Ki Strike but that's not an incorrect rule.


HammerJack wrote:

PCs are definitely creatures. Otherwise there would be a huge range of spells and effects that they were mysteriously immune to.

And why wouldn't booby trapping all over you home be dangerous, if you forget where not to step?

I agree it should be dangerous was mostly thinking that it's a bad idea and that the snares not expiring isn't that big a deal.


Megistone wrote:
I'd say that PCs are creatures too.

That's what I was thinking as well but wasn't sure if it was specified anywhere.

Mostly was thinking about in light of this post

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42xvq?Lightning-snare-snare-specialist-free-sn ares

because if PC's are creatures as well it seems like an extraordinarily bad idea to set up tons of traps in your home base unless you want to be rolling to not die every time you enter a square.


Is there a definition of what qualifies as a "creature"?

Is it just any non-PC animate object/organism?


Raw they don't "decay" not really a big deal though they're just snares


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Though each god wields great power over many aspects
of the universe, their focus tends toward specific areas
of concern, known as domains."

If nothing is listed looks like their domains are their areas of concern.


Henro wrote:
Dumping WIS is not a good idea for any character, perception and will makes it very desirable.

Meh only one person needs high perception really, will saves are important but you can cover a lot of that with items/path to perfection.


Successful grapple makes somebody grabbed, one is an action one is a condition.

No the person grabbing is not flat footed, just the one with the Grabbed condition.

Yes the Monk would get to roll a save for the fireball, nothing states that they wouldn't.

No you cannot move with a grabbed creature unless you have an ability that says you can.

No it could not throw the monk unless it has an ability that says it can.

Flat footed would not apply to shove as it only causes a -2 penalty to AC.

The Monk is flat-footed vs all attacks while grabbed because it has the flat-footed condition.

The ghoul would be undetected to the wizard on the first round making the wizard flat footed to the ghoul until it acted, but otherwise rounds handled normally.

One thing to keep in mind is that abilities and feats do exactly what they say they do and nothing more/less.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No you'd get +2 instead of the normal +1.

Both the Parry trait and Dueling Parry give circumstance bonus, you don't combine bonuses of the same type, just use the higher so just +2.


Kyrone wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:


Haste is a circumstancial spell. Casting it on the Flurry Ranger is no "good tactic" at all, it's quite bad on average. You'll get more juice from a Fireball, Searing Light, Fear or whatever in classical circumstances.

You are surrounded by a large group foes at a distance, all with ranged weapons and behind small rocky formations creating a Greater dififcult terrain to climb the slate hillsides to get to them. No one of them is more than 15 foot next to another. .

Fireball or fear the right tool for this job vs the flurry ranger who is getting off 5 attacks a round?.

Haste will ALWAYS have a beneficial effect, the other spells... who knows.

My point is whiterooms tend to ignore environmental issues because there are too many variables to consider, haste doesn't require specific variables to be a benefit. It doesn't need the enemy to not have resistances/immunities, it doesn't need the enemy to fail a saving throw, it doesn't need to worry about targeting allies/friendlies.

Does it make it the best spell for all scenarios, heck no. But it is hardly a niche spell or not worth casting.

I dunno, maybe your games are different but I frequently throw 6-10 round combats at my players. And haste shines when it can stretch its legs.

And then you see that in your scenario the Ranger have to Hunt the Target a lot of times to have the bonus of Flurry and that the hasted bow attack will be at -6 and the enemies will have cover.

2d8 +4 at -6 MAP each turn.

Are you saying -6 is all that bad? Because that's slightly worse than the 2nd attack of every martial character, as their final attack, that's pretty good.

The Extra attack is easily worth it. It also neglects the scenario where the Ranger would like to reposition or command their companion.

Can do Hunt->Command->Hunted Shot->Stride all in one turn.

And Rangers having to Hunt Target when moving to a new target is a prime example of why Haste is great for them, they essentially can Hunt for free and still have 3 actions so long as they planned on Striding or Striking during the round.


Wheldrake wrote:

But... can your familiar actually carry two potions? What's its carrying capacity? It's based on STR, so what's its STR score?

We don't know. Familiars have no statistics yet. Anything you have your familiar carry is by DM fiat. There are no rules to support them being able to carry stuff.

Turns out I'm the GM and I don't need official rulings to run common sense things in game, imagine that.

I've ruled that Manual Dexterity which lets them

"use up to two of its limbs as if they were hands to use manipulate actions."

Also lets those hands hold things, it might break the game though we'll have to see.


SuperBidi wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

That margin shifts with circumstance. Like when fighting a pack of dinosaurs (perfectly fine mid to mid high fight) you first round of actions probably arent good for much, afterall it's better to let the enemy come to you.

How important actions are is utterly circumstantial. If I have to stride three times to get to the enemy wizard to shut them down, that fourth action is vital.

Haste does get better the longer the fight goes on, efficiency wise, but it also enables tactics that otherwise couldn't exist.

Haste also becomes better as you level up. What else you can achieve with a 3rd level slot begins to get worse and worse in comparison to what a martial can achieve with an extra action.

I didnt resort to hyperbole at all.

I don't say that you have to ignore circumstances. If you have a round to prebuff, then Haste is obviously a good idea. If you have a Whirlwind Barbarian who needs Haste for a combo, it's good, too.

I was speaking purely of action benefit in general situations. In a completely average fight, casting Haste is losing actions. If there are multiple enemies, you'll get better output by killing them, making the action difference by reducing their number. Even against a single opponent, Haste will even out around round 3-4, which means that the fight has to last at least 5 rounds for Haste to just be beneficial (I don't even mean good). And people tend to forget that a hastened character is also a good primary target for intelligent enemies. Being hasted while down is useless. And when I see how PF2 is swingy, I would avoid to put all my eggs in the same basket with a big red ribbon on it for everyone to know it's a big basket.

Haste is a circumstancial spell. Casting it on the Flurry Ranger is no "good tactic" at all, it's quite bad on average. You'll get more juice from a Fireball, Searing Light, Fear or whatever in classical circumstances.

Again, have you actually played with somebody using haste and noticed the issues you claim or are you just theorizing?


Siro wrote:

It is a bit buried, but on page 562, you can only feed a potion to a creature in reach and is willing, or is so helpless they can’t resist (an interact action on the potion givers part.). So, as long as the ally is willing, the Alchemist should be good.

This makes the Familiar a bit more useful to the Alchemist as the can spend one action to command the familiar to draw a potion (Familiar’s 1st action) and feed it to him (Familiar’s 2nd action), instead of having to spend 2 actions himself. Just remember, ‘Interact’ as the ‘Manipulate’ trait, meaning the Familiar needs to have suitable appendages in order to use that action (ie. make sure it has the ‘Manual Dexterity’ Familiar ability. )

This is what the Churgeon in my game does as well. After his prep he gives the familiar 2 potions to hold in each hand, then in combat he'll just use an action to have it run over to somebody and heal them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Vlorax wrote:
Unless the fight ends the round you cast haste it was likely a net gain for the party.

Round 1 actions are far more important than subsequent round actions. Very quickly downing a foe is the best way to win a fight. Round 3 actions are nearly useless as, by the time you get to round 3, the combat outcome is in general clear.

Also, Haste action is a 4th action, and as such is far less important than the actions you used the round you cast it, that were in general your caster's first and second actions.
So, unless you can forecast a very long and tense fight, casting Haste at round 1 for the "action" gain is a bad idea.

PS: Flurry Rangers are overrated.

You make a lot if assumptions about how fights play out that I disagree with. Your first round actions are not inherently better than later rounds.

Not sure what you mean by haste being a 4th action? Or how that devalues it somehow.

And Flurry rangers are great.

Have you played with somebody using haste and found it isn't good or is this more white room theorizing?


Kyrone wrote:

Yeah Flurry Ranger would benefit of that, but to get that benefit someone had to use their 3rd lvl spell slot and two actions to cast that haste.

I am not saying that the Quickened condition is bad, I am saying that casting haste lvl 3 is, because of effect it have on field and what it cost is not worth it, especially when we have slow and fear lvl 3 that basically affect the entire party. Haste lvl 7 is amazing though because of the huge action economy boost that gives.

So the caster trades 2 actions to give somebody else 1 each round.

After the 2nd round it's a net positive amount of actions added to combat and only grows from there.

If the single action enabled the other character to do something they otherwise couldn't it's even more value. Say for instance it gives the Barb another action to move into place for whirlwind, or it enables another caster to move before they cast a needed wall spell so they're on the correct side.

Unless the fight ends the round you cast haste it was likely a net gain for the party.


Salamileg wrote:
Kyrone wrote:
I dont like it, the impact that it causes in the field is not big enough, offensively an extra attack most likely under MAP is poor, while the extra stride is good defensively we have slow in the same spell level that gives a benefit to the entire party even if the monster makes the save.
Tell that to any flurry ranger, whose third attacks and beyond are only a -4 or -6.

And then at 17 they drop to -4(-2) it's gets pretty crazy in the high levels.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Only a couple stances actually do that. Tiger doesn't care what attacks you make.

They do if the reason your in it was for that 'advanced weapon' level attack: you can't use that attack without the stance.

Squiggit wrote:
In terms of traits, there isn't really all that much to write home about regarding Monk weapons. Shuriken and Bo Staff stand out for obvious reasons, but those are specific choices (and you aren't going to get much out of your shifting rune with those two). Damage versatility is good, but I'm not sure it's prevalent enough to be worth the trade off.

Take for instance Nunchaku or sai: with finesse and disarm, you could use dex for the roll. Bo staff has reach trip. It's a feat that just gets better the more weapons get added to the game. Add in critical specialization for more variety [knife/dart, club, sword] past Brawling.

Squiggit wrote:
So, like I said. It can work for specific builds, like if you're multiclassing for weapon-related options and shurikens stand out as a nice option, but beyond that there's not a lot going on.

I like it BECAUSE it lets you avoid stances and keep up without keeping everything in one basket. Multi-class support is icing on the cake. Having the option for reach, parry, dex disarm, reach trip and reload 0 ranged in one feat works for me. If I'm tiger stance focused, it feels like lost resources if I'm not using tiger claw attacks all the time.

Squiggit wrote:
That's why I think it should be better, because someone should be able to just say 'I want to use that sword' and be a monk with a temple sword and feel good about it. Right now that's not really the case and they need to jump around multiclassing for options to enable it and probably should ditch the temple sword for a better choice and I just don't think that's a good place for a feat that enables an entire archetype of character to be in.
I've use a monk with Nunchaku, Sai, Bo Staff, Shuriken and temple sword and haven't felt any particular...

Some weapons also work very well with Monk class feats, the Bo Staff particularly is great with Tangled Forest Stance, letting you deny movement in a huge range.

You can Flurry with a Bo Staff and Trip at range, you can also combine weapons + stances.

Temple Sword + Ironblood stance lets you have 1d8S, 1d8B, parry, sweep trip and Resistance to all damage all at the same time. To do that with stances you need multiple feats (Stances + Fuse Stance at 20), Monastic weps does it in 1 + Stance.

A fun one is Monastic Wep + Wild Winds Stance, use weapon strikes in melee while being able to toss out ranged attacks while never switching weapons.

Having a weapons also lets you avoid having to spend an action entering a stance at the start of combat or spending class feats on Stance switching options.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Monastic weapons also have the benefit of working with feats that require a weapon if you're going to take a dedication.

You can cast True Strike, Bespell Weapon, Flurry/Ki Strike with a Monk weapon for serious damage. Since Unarmed Strikes are not weapons you can't Bespell them.

And if you follow up with Brawling Focus you get access to multiple Crit Effects earlier than I think any other class(lvl 2).

A Temple Sword with a Shifting rune offers great versatility.


graystone wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
So yes to point blank shot or any other weapon stance, but it's only ever going to benefit from melee weapon abilities when making melee strikes and ranged abilities when making ranged strikes

What makes things weird, IMO, is stances that require ranged weapons and reload. Reload 0 means that drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action while “—” must be drawn to be thrown, which usually takes an Interact action just like drawing any other weapon. Taking that into account with thrown weapons [both of the melee and ranged type], this means that if only wielding a single thrown weapon, you are automatically knocked out of the stance after an attack with it as you're without a weapon wielded at the start of your next action... Returning fixes it, but you shouldn't need a magic item to make a ranged weapon [or have to hold a sling or some other ranged weapon in your other hand but not use it], like a Javelins or Darts, in a ranged stance IMO. For myself, it fits the description of "clunky".

Squiggit wrote:
Demanding the rules bend to your will so that one specific build you're trying to make works is pure entitlement.
Um... I find it hard to see how expecting a weapon that is ALWAYS a ranged weapon to actually work in a ranged stance as entitled: It more sounds like expecting keywords to work fairly and equally no matter what they are attached to and not have them work differently just because you picked the incorrect one. It shouldn't come as a surprise when you pick a weapon from the required type on the list that it then doesn't work well with the stance you just took.

Just FYI your second quote is attributed to squggit but was actually said by FlashRebel.

1 to 50 of 412 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>