Huh, never thought about having unique solar armors.
Seriously. I had to go look up to see if that was actually a thing in the rules.
It's very strange when they're layered on top of light armor.
Search Posts
Let me respond to your questions while wearing my GM hat. When I design encounters, I follow guidelines for creature stats that are based around the assumption that characters are at approximately the WBL guidelines. If any character is significantly over or under those guidelines, it can mean they are hit too easily, or can't hit my bosses, or don't have as many capabilities as their peers, and in general won't have as much fun. It behooves me to make sure everyone is roughly on par with one another and with the WBL chart, for their enjoyment and for my encounter design sanity. How that's done isn't typically giving them a blank check to recoup their losses, it's done by extending a level for a session to give them the opportunity to earn some more dosh. Or adding an extra secret room they might stumble upon. Or straight up telling the party that they're strapped for cash and should probably do a profitable mission or side quest. I have even offered a loan (albeit in Pathfinder) where the party got put up to the correct WBL, then the loan was forgiven when they defeated a big bad with their extra capabilities. Society play has some weird rules, that I don't have any truck with.
You would not be able to gain any benefit from two-handing your longsword, as that would incorporate an extra virtual hand of effort.
Don't forget that natural attacks don't work the same way as manufactured attacks. You can always combine natural attacks with manufactured attacks (with the appropriate penalties) if the limb with the natural attack is free. "Hands of Effort" or "Virtual Hands" only really apply to manufactured attacks and iteratives. The tengu could already equip a boulder helmet and boot blades and make two manufactured attacks in addition to the claw attacks without the Vestigial Arms.
Also, consumable items would literally never be used if it meant each one sets you further and further back from your expected WBL. Same goes for recouping lost items/limbs. GM: "Oohh, I'm sorry, since you spent too much on consumables you're now permanently behind in wealth. All the math surrounding encounter design is going to go out the window from here on out, good luck and make sure you roll up a more miserly character just in case."
It's all about scope, really. If you don't want anything more than the PF1 cavalier offers tactically, a tactician archetype fits the bill neatly. If you want something with enough depth to fill out a niche comfortably, then a full base class with a multiclass archetype gives you everything that just the archetype alone would grant plus a full chassis for those who want to be dedicated leaders to build on. I'm probably biased against it because of the 4E incarnation of the Marshall, the Warlord, was so narrow in scope, that it felt super restrictive. Most of the exploits boiled down to you trading some of your action economy to put people in more advantageous positions, or give them more actions, which are things I'd love to see a Bard or Fighter be able to do. I'm always leary of filling a niche too neatly because then niche protection kicks in, and anyone that wants to build a more interesting tactician character gets blamed for stepping on the purpose-built classes' toes.
Honestly, I agree. A fighter who doesn't dump intelligence or charisma should realistically be able to do this stuff if they put their character resources into it. A "Marshall" class could easily be an archetype any class could take that turns you into a "tactician" type character, if not everything can be covered by skill uses.
So, one thing I really love about this concept is that it's a martial class with "mystical" ability (like the monk) to perform astounding feats of acrobatics, even at early-ish levels, while also wearing armor. It's distinct. I would probably model it after the monk mechanically. I probably wouldn't call it Dragoon because that never made any sense, and should be used by a mounted character.
There are a lot of ways the healing offered by Phoenix Bloodline's arcana can be used to great effect. Wall of Fire, for example, can be held as long as you concentrate on it, resulting in essentially limitless healing. There's also changing ray of frost to fire damage and getting limitless healing that way. So, there's nothing stopping a phoenix sorcerer from doing what you suggest, even without a familiar. It's more a question of whether the group would find it fun, and whether the GM will be forced to step in.
It's pretty egregious when games arbitrarily decide what weapons work with which abilities with no good reasons. Sneak attack is about being able to catch someone unaware or off-guard. You should be able to perform such an attack with any weapon you have available. The flavor of sneak attacking, greatsword-wielding, shadowdancers is cool. It takes a specific build to make it effective, but flat out saying "you can only sneak attack with the weapons I imagine" is super distasteful. What *is* fair is making sneak attack less effective with certain weapons, just like how Power Attack is more beneficial when using a two-handed weapon, sneak attack can be better when wielding a smaller weapon. I still maintain that Starfinder's trick attack should have allowed you to do *something* with bigger weapons, even if at a smaller value. For example, only adding the debuff, or adding a fraction of the trick attack damage.
It'd be pretty awesome if they explored a Shapeshifting class that could basically wild shape like a druid and gets some monk-like abilities to beef up their combat. It could be called the Shifter and set a benchmark for spell-less shapeshifting classes!
When I close my eyes and think of a specific, stand-alone Magus class for 2E I think of a similar chassis as the bard, but instead of performances you get non-spell abilities that are magical in nature that you deliver with your weapon. It would also cast from the Arcane list, but perhaps with a prohibited school?
I've always felt that it's a bit of a shame in PF1 that the notion of a wizard hitting someone with a staff past level 3 is absolutely absurd. I would love it if, regardless of class, spending an action to try to hit someone wasn't a guaranteed waste. In fact, if a wizard could do the same damage as their cantrips with their staff with only minimal investment, I'd be pretty happy. In my opinion, casters only ever casting spells is too far in the realm of action RPG/mmorpg. It's needlessly reductive. I also agree that Bards and Druids simply must have the option of being useful with weapons. If not, they're seriously letting down their prior incarnations.
I think "requiring two hands" refers to two-handed weapons. He should get both claw attacks just as a rogue could get two dagger attacks. It's supposed to represent being unable to hit someone with a giant two handed sword when they're hugging you, but being able to claw or shank them with a one handed weapon just fine.
Doesn't work. You have two hands worth of attacks, and a two handed weapon takes up both of them.
I've had the severe wound fusion for 4 levels now and it has yet to do more than 2d6 points of bleed damage. It cost an enemy an eye a round before they died, twice, though so there is that.
I would personally rule that it works. I think that your interpretation is RAW correct. The power of this feat would be similar to Favored Prestige Class, and wouldn't stack with Favored Prestige Class, which is required for the all-powerful Prestigious Spellcaster. So, it's not like there isn't precedent for gaining favored bonuses from Prestige classes, and it shouldn't harm anything whatsoever.
Regarding locks, if you spend any time on youtube watching lockpickers, you'll know it's entirely plausible that any random person who makes the attempt to pick a low-level lock, with the appropriate tools, will succeed. Locks historically just kept honest people honest.
RAW, Mauler doesn't stack with Improved Familiar. However, I have had success pleading the case to a sympathetic GM that would allow Mauler on an Improved Familiar provided that familiar loses a language like an Ice Elemental losing Aquan.
Gah, I just listened to a bunch of Pathfinder Friday streams and they specifically discussed Irrisen and the Stolen Lands. I know QuidEst is correct, they said the stolen lands will be treated like a nebulous, undefined upstart kingdom but not discussed much outside of that. With Irrisen I can't remember what they said exactly, only that it's not going to be as actively evil, but still wintery.
Since "most bonuses of the same type don't stack" is foundational to the game, it shouldn't be hard for people to accept that multiple sources of "having a tough hide" don't stack either. It's not that Draconic Bloodline makes you tougher than normal members of your race, it's that it makes you more draconic, and if you were already pretty draconic to start with, how is that going to make a difference? It's turning your skin dragon-y, not adding a layer of dragon-y skin over the top of your current skin. The low level bonus to AC is still useful early on, and useful forever on many other classes. Not all options synergize well. I mean, if you follow your thought to its conclusion, you should also have a (bigger) problem with the claws granted by the Draconic bloodline having no interaction with the Lizardfolk's natural claws. Sometimes bonuses don't mesh well.
I'm playing as essentially a direct conversion of Ryoko Hakubi, and her summoned energy weapon is just *so* perfect for the class that I had to think it was intentional. If only the thrown fusion worked with the Solarian weapon, I could mimic her shooty blasts too.
That's what I'd like an answer to. By Mako's logic, putting on a suit of armor is an untyped bonus and would stack with Mage Armor and Bracers of Armor.
Mako Senako, I don't believe you are correct. The word "bonus" is added to a lot of things that don't stack. Notice the chart for light/medium/heavy armor says "Armor Bonus". The rules for Armor refer to "Armor Bonus" and "Shield Bonus". Surely you don't suggest these stack with any other armor? Furthermore, I don't think I've ever seen something say "This grants you natural armor". It's always something like "+1 natural armor bonus". If you can provide an example of a place where a rule grants you a value for natural armor without using the word bonus, that would be greatly appreciated. More Examples of "natural armor bonus": Lizardfolk: Natural Armor: Lizardfolk have tough scaly skin, granting them a +1 natural armor bonus. Ironhide: You gain a +1 natural armor bonus due to your unusually tough hide. Iron Monk: In addition, the monk gains a +1 natural armor bonus. Kobold: Kobolds naturally scaly skin grants them a +1 natural armor bonus. None of these would stack, and "Natural Armor Bonus" is a typed bonus, just like "Armor Bonus" is. The following would stack: Amulet of Natural Armor: ...toughens the wearer’s body and flesh, giving him an enhancement bonus to his natural armor from +1 to +5 Improved Natural Armor (Monster Feat): The creature’s natural armor bonus increases by +1.
Do tell, I'm genuinely quite curious how you managed a PF2 character with a key ability mod of +1. I tried that in my group and it turned out quite poorly unfortunately...So no, you can't have a "negligible main stat" and still be a "completely viable character" because the under-the-hood math says no.My 12 Wis, buff-focused Warpriest Cleric would like a word. As someone else has mentioned, a buff focused caster doesn't need high Class DCs. Having a high Wis doesn't grant more spells anymore, either. So what does a head bashing cleric need to pump Wisdom for? I made a low Wis archer cleric in the Playtest, and I plan on making plenty of buff focused casters as gishes in the final system, unless they arbitrarily add some new mechanic that requires a high primary stat. If they do add such a mechanic, however, I'll probably consider dropping the system, mind you. I love being able to make a character of a class without a guarantee of having a certain attribute maxed.
Also, there is just not a lot going on tactically in 5e. I felt really restrained I'm the 5e game coming from PF.From PF1 maybe, 2 is ...meh PF2 has more tactical complexity than PF1, with more types of reactions, more round-to-round options, less incentive to plant your feet and full attack, tighter math encouraging getting into (and out of) flanking positions, adjustable-on-the-fly action costs for certain spells, fluctuating cost-benefits of additional attacks based on feat choices and combat conditions, and higher flexibility in types of attacks thanks to a lower reliance on static bonuses to one weapon type. It honestly seems like you have a bee in your bonnet about PF2, and your credibility in discussion about it is plummeting with every post. Calling out people for being Paizo puppets because they think PF2 is good isn't productive either. That all being said, we all have our opinions about PF2 vs PF1, but this thread isn't really for that.
I have a vested interest in the final agreed-upon value being as high as possible, so I'm reluctant to chime in. However... Dragon Disciple:
As his skin thickens, a dragon disciple takes on more and more of his progenitor’s physical aspect. At 1st, 4th, and 7th level, a dragon disciple gains an increase to the character’s existing natural armor (if any), as indicated on Table: Dragon Disciple. These armor bonuses stack. Sorcerer:
Form of the Dragon:
The bolded is all the information we have to go on. Dragon Disciple's bonus says it stacks with any existing natural armor, explicitly, and the class was also built to have Form of the Dragon as part of its kit, which leads me to think they should stack. The sorcerer's bonus is not untyped. It's a "natural armor bonus". It's analogous to the "Armor bonus" from wearing a chain shirt. The Form of the Dragon is also a straight "natural armor bonus", and as such would not stack with the Sorcerer's. This is independent of the rules around losing abilities related to your form under the polymorph rules. If I were making the ruling I would say the character gets a +7 total natural armor bonus when in Form of the Dragon.
So no, you can't have a "negligible main stat" and still be a "completely viable character" because the under-the-hood math says no. My 12 Wis, buff-focused Warpriest Cleric would like a word.
For the record, I think the ability score requirement for multiclass dedications is absolute hogwash and will be never see the light of day at my table.
Well, giving out more feats is a win-win. I'm eyeballing doubling the number of feats in my games right out of the gate. It always seemed to me that going feat based multiclassing but limiting it to second level is a huge waste of one of the major benefits of the system. Like making a car that goes too fast so you leave the parking brake on.
Looks to me like you have a great start. I might pick up Weapon Focus to shore up your to hit a bit, but you don't necessarily need to go for more melee feats. I absolutely love the Extra Hex feat, and it can support additional utility as well as certain combat options. I do think you'll want to get some casting feats, if only metamagic to extend the duration and power of your self and party buffs.
I forgot Verces existed for a bit there, but definitely that.
Ultimate Kobolds
Absalom Station has a big janky underbelly and loads of various, powerful interests coming and going. Add in Shadow Absalom, and the Armada and you've got quite some room to play around in.
!
I want both an Aasimar/Tiefling template for every race, and a stand-alone Aasimar/Tiefling. I've frequently wanted to play a heaven or hell touched version of many different races, and I've also wanted to play characters that really lean into the planar ancestry. Seems to me there should be no reason why they can't have both. In the case of the template it's like flavoring for the base race, for the stand alone ancestry the base race is an after-thought.
Jason's a good GM and fun to listen to. The way he's excited about telling everyone the next dramatic plot development really shines through, and it reminds me of my older brother GMing for us when I was a little kid. Sort of excited to tell the story, but also enjoying teaching us how to play too.
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r7kg&page=26?Ask-Mark-Seifter-All-Your-Qu estions-Here#1258 Ranged touch attacks can be modified by Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot. It's generally understood that ranged casters will want to get precise shot if they're lowish on dex, or they regularly fight high touch AC enemies.
The recommendation of starting class still holds for either race. I was just sharing my build.
Here I am to stir the pot again! Get ready for this because people will argue, but there has yet been no RAW counterpoint: Shaman qualifies for Scaled Disciple, since the Shaman class feature "Spirit Magic" grants the class full spontaneous spell slots and casting. As such, I've been working on a cheesy but fun build for the past couple years that uses this fact to full advantage. Race: Angel-blooded aasimar with the kobold base (see: Small Aasimar)
Starting at level 1, thanks to the Angel-blooded aasimar I can transform into a Lizardfolk once per day to gain a +2 strength and claw attacks. I also take the Shapeshifter Hex to gain the ability to shift into a lizardfok more often. I take Shaman to 6 to get Wandering Hex, so that I get Arcane Enlightenment, and pick out wizard spells every day. At level seven I take Dragon Disciple all the way, with Favored Prestige Class and Prestigious Spellcaster x3. The result is a highly flexible character that has the medium armor, bab, armored and prepared casting, and hp of the Shaman, with the ability to cherry pick key wizard spells on a daily basis. The hexes also provide all-day utility, and are flexible depending on how the party is composed. I use every boost from Dragon Disciple, including intelligence, to great effect. We'll see how it plays at higher levels, as I've only taken it to level 3 so far.
I've let my wizard put the mauler archetype on an improved familiar, and it didn't really affect anything since they didn't build around abusing it. I don't think your ruling will break the game at all, but I would make sure no one else in the party is trying to build an animal companion focused character. They'll constantly be comparing their AC and class kit against what this Magus's familiar and class kit can do.
Isn’t there a Druid archetype that is kind built around Shillelaghs? I know Nature Fang can really juice up your melee abilities at the cost of Wild Shape, and works great with Shillelagh at low levels. It's a pretty nice archetype for a full caster who doesn't want to muck about with shape changing rules. If you use the slayer talents to pick up Two Weapon Fighting feats through ranger combat styles, you could do some double weapon staff stuff.
There are most certainly times when a player can and should halt play to argue a point. For example, if a GM made my druid destroy all their gear while transforming into a bear, I would have a big problem with that and it would either get resolved then and there or I would just leave. A magus being unable to get free attacks with spellstrike is pretty darn close to that point.
I agree with Fuzzy-Wuzzy. Each thing you buy you roll for, otherwise the village might have the nation's net worth in cloaks if you find one and try to buy a bazillion. As for the question: "If they have to roll each time, why can't they just roll again if the first was a failure". That question makes no sense. If you look through a deck of cards for an ace and don't find one, you're out of luck. If you do find one and stop looking, there could still be other aces in that deck. Also, all of this is 100% within the purview of the GM's discretion, so it's not even a house rule for the GM to rule that there are more or less of whatever you're looking for.
There are many cases in Starfinder where the rules are insufficiently clear and one should ask the GM for an ad hoc ruling. Since going purely by the "target" block, the spell can't target constructs at all since constructs are not objects, rather they are creatures, there is no interpretation of the spell that is wholly internally consistent. I agree that this should fall under "GM Discretion" but I wouldn't go so far as to call it house ruling. I do wonder what Starfinder Society rules state. I would also like to point out that the casting time of the spell is 10 minutes, so it's even further into the realm of "Not a big deal."
To be fair, now that trained now gets you from +0 to +lvl, skill training feat now is a lot more attractive. I personally plan on taking it quite a bit, especially given many of the skill feats I saw in the playtest I'm house ruling to roll up into a base use of the skill. This could change if skill feats are significantly improved though.
I also didn't hear about any skills getting added or removed. I felt the playtest struck a good balance, particularly making perception automatic. Having skill feats that let you tweak your skillset is a boon, too, and gives back some of the customization aspects of a high resolution skill list.
There is still some unclear language in Mending. The target of the spell is an object, but the description of the spell lists constructs which are creatures. I would argue that 1d4 HP once per day isn't going to break anything, so it should work on constructs, like Androids, as described in the text.
I love theorycrafting character concepts, and I've helped build 9 characters that saw play as well as dozens of concepts for fun. I've not selected an archetype for any of them, except for NPCs.
I do hope casters are a bit more potent in actual play. It's why I love the 4 degrees of success, the best use of a spell I've done was a Gust of Wind Spell that not only extinguished the fire on an ally, but it blew a fire elemental into a pond. But I only got that from a nat 1 on the save and cant rely too much on that. I think unreliability is my biggest worry with spells-I personally as a spellcaster in PF1 try to pick spells that dont have saves and rely only on my ability to hit. Would be nice to see some other spells come into play hat work, so big fan of spells that still do damage on sucessful saves, needing a crit success to dodge completely. Excuse me, this is a hero point thread, can you take this discussion to- oh, wait. Nevermind. I agree, I'm a bit nervous about too much being stuck behind a crit fail. I *hope* that buffs to spells that they hinted at included making sure a regular success matters. If they hit the balance just right, they can really go far with the 4 degrees of success. Potentially the whole "Oh, they saved? Guess my turn and spell slot was a complete waste, see you guys tomorrow." feeling can be significantly reduced.
|