WizardsBlade's page

Organized Play Member. 64 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

The Once and Future Kai wrote:
I'd rather that they give the squishes access to interesting reactions of their own. Like reactive teleport, magic shield, etc.

I believe it is the job of a tank to try to keep focus on them, but I like the idea of giving Squishies reactions to get away for when someone does slip by or pops up from behind.

I would like to think there could be a nice athletics feat that progress with skill. Something like:
T: you can make an AoO grapple with a -2 penalty.
E: remove the -2 penalty.
M: you can grapple with weapons, you no longer need a free hand to grapple (limit players that can be grappled simultaneously.)
L:you get a free reaction every round to make an AoO grapple.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

My one thing is to please make player made items useful (poisons, snares, ECT.) My suggestion would be giving these items scaling DCs would make them more practical and give players a larger selection as they level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the difficult terrain idea. I might would also suggest a feat that allows grappling as a reaction.


its in the fighter section on a side bar.


LordVanya wrote:

I mapped that out on a per level basis and what I found is:

* Untrained and Trained stay static at all levels so your characters never improve as they level up.

* At level 1 there is no difference between an expert, a master, and a legendary; even if it is unlikely.

* At level 2 there is still no difference between an expert and a master.

* The bonus gaps between expert, master and legendary increase with level but the ratios between them and their differences are strangely staggered from level to level.

While I don't particularly like this idea for prof. I feel the need to point out some problems with your analysis. The analysis is looking at things that are not real. ie a character can't be expert, master, or legendary at level one. When doing an analysis you need to consider only the things that can be true at that level.


Hmm I guess they could try something like backstab x (to increase damage) or let deadly have multiple die like deadly 2d8. Also backstab should increase at expert, master and legendary or be based on die count.


Yeah I was surprised that allot of the low damage dice weapons don't have more stats like backstab.


After a few fixes (I'm looking at you bag of holding) that where done to resonnance, I also found that I was liking it, even with an alchemist (although I think the alchemist needed be something like Cha + int + level for resonnance. Other things like treat wounds also helped to offset the original perceived problems with the system.


I think they already have to tools they need, if they just make daggers deadly d10 or d12. This would make them very effective against low ac targets, but less effective (compared to other weapons) against high ac targets.
This would give daggers a reason to exist, even if only situational.


Seems to me that twice takedown is designed to be a third attack, as opposed to double slice that is designed to be a first attack and as such it seems perfectly fine to me. It's definitely not as good as double slice though if that's the complaint.


Ok, I see what your saying and I mostly agree with you. The 0.8 x 3 makes your 3 a 2.4 and the 0.8 is a little high but close enough.
I was thinking about some of the differences between these though and there are some.
To use a potion it usually takes 2 actions (maybe more if your using both hands in combat) so the action economy is on par at best. Also it means that your front line/damage dealers have to spend thier actions to self heal instead of doing what they are good at. A third small disadvantage is that since the elixirs are handed out before a battle, you lose the ability to put all your heals where and when they are needed, like a cleric can.
I think there are probably enough down sides there to say that the cleric would still be the better healer.

**Edit**
I'm not trying to say this wouldn't make a great healer, because I think it would. Just that it wouldn't be over powered.


You lost me, are you saying that a heal focused cleric would be out healed by a heal focused alchemist?


How many of the problems would changing the feats that ate quick alchemy only to be quick alchemy and daily prep only?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They need to say pick 2 poisons of x level or lower. Picking poisons like sleep, with the increased DC would be great. Would also like to see more inhaled poisons at lower level to go with it.


Actually I looked over alchemist again and there is a level 8 feat (powerful alchemy) that will allow your poison DC to be your class DC. So maybe poisoner may be viable and poisons have some really nice debuffs.


I'm not sure your giving bombs enough damage credit. An acid flask may do less upfront damage, but the target must spend actions or roll well otherwise they will continue to take damage every turn. I'm pretty sure that beats out cantrips.
Other points about the none bomber paths seem pretty spot on though. Until they fix things like scaling DCs of lower poisons, those options will never be viable.


Any word on if they have plans to to allow for DCs of snares, poisons, and other crafted items to increase based on *insert skill* or anything like a way to heighten them?


Thanks, I just read up on it. I find it wierd though that the fighter section says if you have a d12 add a +2 circumstances but the cleric feat says if your weapon is a d12 you gain no benefit.


Can one stack
1 be a paladin of Irori to get fist of d6.
2 multiclass into monk making the fist a d8.
3 multiclass into cleric and take the Deadly Simplicity feat for a d10 fist.

I don't see a reason not, but I miss allot of things.


I agree with ZmanO. I read, "For purposes of resistances and weaknesses, this is considered a single Strike", to account for the condition drop too (although it doesn't explicitly say it.)
A question I would have is, if double slice doesn't count as a single strike for conditions then would you have to pick which strike happens first? Because even a missed strike drops the flat footed condition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Quick doesn't stack like that. Quick gives you 1 extra action to do something a that a quick effect allows you to do.


Does anyone know how much closer TWF would be if agile was a -2 instead of a -1?


I agree C seems to be the correct way. You do still end up take the 1d6 twice that way right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the way healing works currently seems pretty good, but I will admit I think treat wounds should have a limit per day as does seem op. There are feats like toughness to increase rest healing if you want a boost to rest healing.
From my experience my group always rest when we run out of spell resources, not because we are low on health.


First off I'm not sure why anyene would want to stow a bow in the 'loaded' position. The rules already say that drawing an arrow can be done in the same action as firing the bow. Quick strick allows you to draw a weapon and strike with it. So you can use quick action on a melee or ranged weapon.
Second point, it is my belief that loading a bolt is no harder than notching an arrow. The time consuming part of reloading a crossbow is pulling the string and since you can pull a crossbow's string back and stow it. I see no reason why a character with quick draw can't pull out a pre-notched crossbow and load the bolt and fire as 1 action. After the first shot with that crossbow it would have to loaded as normal.
It is also highly probable that they will be including the rapid reload feat in pf2


I also believe that draw and reload are 2 separate things, but would like to add I have seen a rogue in 2e use quick draw because they couldn't have weapons drawn while searching for traps and sneaking.


Rogue tent to die because they are fairly low hp, light armor, they have to move into (usually bad) positions to do any serious damage and when they do good damage they become targets of monsters designed to attack tanks with lots oh how and heavy armor.
I love playing rogues, but in combat you either feel useless or your about to die.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Agreed all. 60% success rate just doesn't feel heroic it feels like a -D. And that's for characters that are trying to succeed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The difference between athletics (strength based skills) and acrobatics (dexterity based skills) seem pretty decent to me. The athletics skills are more strength based skills and the acrobatics skills are more finesse or dexterity based skills. Most everything people do requires some strength and some dexterity. Even walking, requires muscles to move and balance to stay up right.


There are nice acrobatic feats that give you great options. Like kip up and cat fall.


oholoko wrote:
Agile makes your to hit close the gap, and some abilities like backstab, deadly and etc close the gap even more. This time there several good reasons to double wield...

This point about the 1 handed weapons traits making the weapons better doesn't seem to add up. It appears to me that 2 handed weapons default to the damage of a d12 (weapons below a d12 get more traits to boost them to damage closed to a d12) while 1 handed weapons default to the damage of a d8 (only weapons with less than a d8 have any of the traits you mentioned).

I'll grant you that there are class specific abilities that can make 2 weapon fighting a little closer to 2 handed fighting, but its only for rangers and while it gives 4 attacks in 1 round MAP is still increased after every action for the number of attacks. Other class are still at the 27% disadvantage when using 2 weapons instead of 2 handing a weapon. It's like offering 2 spells that are identical except one does 8d12 and one does 10d12 and then wondering why people don't use the 8d12 spell.


What feat gives rangers 2 strikes for 1 action?


We all know that 2 handed weapons greatly out damage 1 handed weapons at higher levels. So I was wondering how this small change would affect the balance.
Attack penalty adds when you use the same hand more than once in combat. As an example a 2 handed swords is used to attack with the first action. Any additional attacks would have a -5 penalty (as both hands where used). The second and third attack would be at -5 and -10 as usual. But when 2 1 handed weapons are used the first attack with weapon 1 has no penalty. A second attack with weapon 2 has no penalty, but a third attack with either hand would be at a -5.
This could also allow for shields to stay raised from turn to turn without the need to lower them, because the sword and board player would have a natural penalty to offset the shields advantage. As they would make all 3 attacks with the same hand.
While this won't make +5 1 handed weapons hit harder than +5 2 handers, it will increase thier overall damage per round making the 1 handers closer to the damage of 2 handers.


At first we thought it was any hit higher than your level, but with a closer look only a reaction or free action to someone using the concentrate action can break it. Is that right? What gets a reaction to concentrate?


As a GM I would make it 2 rolls, one for deception, to see if the like is believed. Then if it passed, one for diplomacy, to see if it creates an impression.


While I agree you don't get alot from the archetype feat, they seem fair to each other.
As far as the casters getting level 15 spells while others only get feats of half thier level, feats seem to scale better with level. A level 10 feat is still very useful at 20 but a level 10 spell just isn't strong enough to justify the feat.


Perhaps:
Untrained: weapon with no +ability to hit or damage. (Just level)
Trained: regular weapons as they are now
Expert: +1 weapons
Master: +2
Legendary:+3
Then make magical weapons that would add additional dice of +1, +2, etc. Perhaps this way they could make heavy weapons max out at +2 and light weapons max out at something like a +4 to help with the current imbalance of +5 2 handed weapons vs +5 1 handed weapons. I haven't done any math but it seems as though you could relate the DC/level of a magic weapon to it's die size (eg. A d4 weapon can be upgraded 1 magic level every 4 levels and a d10 every 10 levels).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the idea of variable action cantrips, but there just needs to be a few and if you want it you can take it.
I also like the idea of changing the casting rules to allow casting across turns. Such as spending 1 action this turn for the first action of a spell and then finishing the casting on the next turn. Normal casting and concentration mechanics would still have to apply. Such as if your hit between turns you must maintain concentration and you must use your action to finish the spell or the spell would be lost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:

Say I am massively multiclassed, have multiple innate spells, have multiple items that allow me to cast shield, or some combination of the above. How may times can I have the shield spell knocked down?

Let's say I have a wizard with the shield cantrip, who is an elf that took shield as part of his otherworldly magic ancestry feat. On round 1 he casts shield off the wizard list (highest caster level). Later in the round he uses his reaction to block a magic missile attack, so he cannot use that cantrip again for 10 minutes. On round 2 he wants to cast his innate shield spell. What happens?

shield spell says "After you use Shield Block, the spell is dismissed and you can’t cast it again for 10 minutes." So it appears you can't recast it in round 2. Maybe if there was a way to get shield without casting it, like from an item.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I also like this idea, maybe not the specifics, but definitely the general idea for this kind of skill feats. The one suggestion I would add is that the feats should increase with proficiency (like cats fall).


The more I think about this the more I like both ideas. Skill feats should become better as you become better (like cats fall) and increasing an average roll for a skill one is more proficient in makes since (adding more d20s and taking the higher). I'm not sure I would go so harsh on untrained though, maybe -4 or lower of 2d20. As lower of 2d20 really affects crits and crit fails.


Draco18s wrote:


Master is more like an average of Level+15.8 and Legendary is Level+18.4. Untrained would be Level+5.1

T-Roll

Use:
max(2d20)+2
max(3d20)+3

Thanks, my head math was a little off. Great resource though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pad300 wrote:

My suggestion is as follows:

Untrained: Level -2 and roll 2D20, take the lowest

Trained: Level and normal D20 roll

Expert: Level +1 and normal D20 roll, or can take 10 for typical/no stress tasks.

Master: Level +2 and roll 2D20, take highest, or can take 10 for typical/no stress tasks.

Legendary: Level +3 and roll 3D20, take highest, or can take 10, even in stressful situations.

This maintains the math spacing, while still giving significant value for higher proficiencies. Structurally, you could extend it beyond skills to just about all D20 rolls (attacks, saves, etc), although it would make monster stat blocks slightly more complex (although I don't think they would get bigger - there is mostly lots of whitespace to add a letter : U /E/M/L where needed.

When you look at the numbers you are suggesting there is a huge difference in an average untrained and legendary. Because of the way roll 2d20 take lower works an average roll would be level +5 -2 or level +3, with double the normal chance of rolling a critical fail. Trained get an average roll of 10 so that works out ok. Expert is just 11 so not a big change. Master becomes an average roll of 17. And legendary becomes something close to 21 average roll. That is a very large spread. It's hard to mix +modifiers with a +mod system and keep the numbers close.


sadie wrote:

The issue I see with this is that the players aren't generally supposed to know the exact stats of their enemies. Sure, over the course of a fight people will work out the opponent's AC etc, but it's not supposed to be upfront. People are supposed to play to what their character would do, and it undermines that roleplay if the mechanics don't line up with that.

And it isn't enough to say that the GM keeps it secret as they should. In order to adjudicate this rule, you'll need to compare the PCs' proficiency against their opponent's every time they try something. GMs aren't going to just know all their players' stats by heart, so they're going to ask. And in asking they'll reveal something about the enemy.

Yes and no. The GM would have to ask for the players proficiency, but only when the player was making a roll. So the simple solution would be when a player makes a roll they announce thier proficiency. The biggest problem is when the GM needs to make a secret check for a NPC or mob, but I don't see a difference between that and the secret rolls GMs already make for traps and the such.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I like the way this sounds the porblems come out in combat. For example an master in athletics grapples an untrained in athletics and acrobatics wizard. The wizard can never escape.
Now I actually don't really see a huge problem with this as it make sense, but it does show where things could go wrong later down the line.


breithauptclan wrote:

OK. I'm at least interested.

So now show us an example of a hazard that uses a skill check to defeat. Make the hazard appropriate for 8th level characters. And make it somewhat challenging to characters that have expert proficiency, while still being possible but rather difficult for characters that are only trained, and be potentially feasible for characters who are untrained. All with just the one hazard.

Also, in this system, are you able to use a skill roll in place of a saving throw? (for example a spell that allows either a reflex save or an acrobatics check for reduced effect) Or would that cause one or the other option to completely outshine the other?

I agree this sounds interesting, but you probably already know the math given won't work, especially at higher levels with a 15 point difference between trained and legendary. But the increase rate could be reduced to allow the math to work out. Using Snowblind's modified method:

Untrained: same as yours
Trained: +Level x 1/8 rounded up
Expert: +Level x 1/4 rounded up
Master: +Level x 3/8 rounded up
Legendary: +Level x 1/2 rounded up

For a level 8 that is -1/1/2/3/4 and at 20 it's -1/3/5/8/10.


I guess the reason I still like the dice roll over the "take a 10' is because, as a player, I never know if taking a 10 will pass the DC. If skill assurance let the GM auto pass you on a check if the DC was below the assurance number or told you to roll if the DC wasn't, I think I would be much more satisfied with it. But I cant stand the idea of a character needing to cross a plank and taking assurance and falling to there doom, when they at least had a 50/50 change to roll a 10+.


masda_gib wrote:

What about letting Assurance give you the result of the DC of your level. With:

Trained = Trivial DC
Expert = Easy DC
Master = Hard DC
Legendary = the next higher DC class, can't remember the name.

Powerfull, yes but only if you are Master or Legendary. Now Assurance lets you really autosucceed on some stuff with investment.

I like where you are going with this. A quick glance at the DC table and combining your idea and the idea of 'roll a d20 if you roll X or lower, treat roll as X', you end up something like:

Trained: x = 3
Expert : x = 6
Master: x = 9
Legendary: x = 12

This only assures up to master at legendary (assuming you have invested in the stats/items to increase your mod) but it prevents most critical failures and will help to assure that easy DCs are passed.


I wish it just did something simple like when you roll for that skill you treat any roll less than a 10 as a 10. This allows it to scale and makes it all round better without making it too overpowered.


sherlock1701 wrote:
Relying on the d20 for success is unsafe and unsatisfying. I prefer to let the modifiers so the work for me. Failing checks more than 5-15% of the time feels crappy.

I agree that a d20 does cause issuses with consistant successes, without high modifiers. The problem with letting the modifiers do the work is that it makes some task impossible for people that haven't specialized in it and that makes them feel crappy. The is the main reason the modifier spread can't be too large and the reason I like the idea of giving legendary a 'roll 2d20 take the higher' even if you add a +1 or +2 too the roll. Doing so greatly adds to success rate without spreading the DCs out too much.

1 to 50 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>