Serpentfolk Spy

Yigg's page

70 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Actually found it, I guess I assumed it didnt exist cus we didnt have any examples. Whelp, okay then. Thanks for pointing this out.

Lightdroplet wrote:
Yigg wrote:
Since archetypes dont exist the same way as 1st edition
If I remember correctly, the CRB has rules for 1e style Class Archetypes, with feature replacements and the like, we just haven't seen any of them printed yet.

I dont recall seeing that at all. Do you know the general section or what it is called?

Seems odd that this option isnt setup similar to a racket or style. Perhaps its just not in the playtest? Since archetypes dont exist the same way as 1st edition how would we get this option in the future? I could see maybe a lvl 1 feat that turns them spontaneous but that seems awkward potentially with retraining and the fact tomes/books are heavily themed in their class feats.

Curious is anyone else is concerned with this and how you think it should be implimented if it is.

After reading it a couple times im pretty sure Syncretism was intended to give the effects of Domain Initiate instead of Expanded Domain Initiate. Otherwise the wording is all awkward.

The wording of Syncretism is kind of odd though. It says choose one of their domains but then Expanded Domain Initiate says one of their alternate domains. So can u choose any of their domains including alternate domains or just their alternate domains as per Expanded Domain Initiate.

Also, PFS says to ignore the last part about if you are not those types of Clerics but that would apply if u took the feat as a deadication because you dont choose a doctrine. Seems odd to remove that text for those instances.

Perhaps if they didn't consider it a valid option for Dedication clerics part of the prereqs should have been having a doctrine.

Ginasteri wrote:
Does anyone know what the two extra abilities listed for the soulbound ruin do? They aren't listed in the stat block in the back.

Yea, that is odd. Im thinking of just making it do fire damage for edifice attacks near the flames and its aoe 3 action attack instead and maybe make dying checks harder or simply having anyone who would die here have their soul bound until its destroyed. Seems this section has more errors and omitted data than other sections. But this is looking like it will be a really interesting section for sure.

Seems Droskari Disciple doesn't include a skill training other than lore. Sure they get the Skill Training feat but other backgrounds get this as well as another preset training. Curious if there are any opinions on what they should get. It may be intentional for them to choose their own vocation but it seems odd that its a simply weaker background in terms of how many benefits they gain. Craft could be a good choice but it seems not all are crafters in the faith.

HammerJack wrote:
Yigg wrote:
So here is something to throw this debate on it's head. The Staff trait isnt a weapon trait, its an equipment trait. There is no Sword trait, or mace trait. Staff in this situation is just a property. Id argue a Spell Casting Staff and the weapon named Staff are entirely different things and therefore you cant even put runes on a magic staff. They are unique magical items.
Since the CRB explicitly states that you can put runes on a magic staff, you would argue wrongly.

Would you mind directing me to the page number this is on? Using the Archives of Nethys I can't seem to find that text.

So here is something to throw this debate on it's head. The Staff trait isnt a weapon trait, its an equipment trait. There is no Sword trait, or mace trait. Staff in this situation is just a property. Id argue a Spell Casting Staff and the weapon named Staff are entirely different things and therefore you cant even put runes on a magic staff. They are unique magical items.

We removed them entirely and we lost a good number of characters some for legitament reasons and others because some creatures from AoA can be quite brutal. My groups biggest issue with meta currency is it turns everything into a retconnfest because everytime someone is in a bad situation a discussion arises of a thing they did an hour ago that we all forgot would have totally been fitting to award a hero point. So then we give it to them and they are saved but it cheapens the tension. My players accepted this made the game grittier but after seeing too many interesting characters die i made a very limited by i felt functional system that makes them a clear resource with no wiggle room. At the beginning of character creation and at the beginning of a new character level I give them hero points based on their level. If they have some remaining when they level up they lose them and their pool is refreshed.
1-4 = 1
4-9 = 2
10-14 = 3
15-19 = 4
20 = 5
If a character dies mid level this gives their new character a fresh pool to play with and lets them do more cool things to promote their party integration.

It seems the most optimal way to use them is to use all but 1 point for rerolls and save the last point for an important moment at the climax of a level to save your character or get that needed hit in.

So far, it seems to be working. Saving yourself from death still drains all your points so lvl 1-4 likely means you use your 1 during a critical moment per level but otherwise save it in order to cheat death.

Maybe this method would work for other groups as well.

Ah, how one word can alter so much. Thanks for clarifying that. My brain read energy as damage. I do see now that the Negative trait says it covers 3 different effects so if it doesnt detail it in the effect of the spell itself then it does not have undead healing properties. That works. I appreciate the response.

Grankless wrote:
They've established that the Negative Healing trait from bestiary 2 is the wording intended for all instances of Negative Healing.

Where did they establish that? Them simply making it part of bestiary 2 or them saying it?

Wonder if they will errata how the Undead trait handles being healed by negative damage or if its intended that they can be healed by things such as Vamperic touch.

One thing i realized in that preview, and maybe this can be cleared up is what form of negative healing does dhampir get. Because negative healing is listed in two places. Negative healing gets its own writeup in bestiary 2 but assuming the player doesnt have that they would look at the undead tag and simply take it from there.

Taking it from the undead trait as it is worded would mean they take damage from positive healing, are healed by negative damage, and technically can still be healed by normal healing such as sooth or healing potions. Which is likely the intended result given ancestries dont tend to really get negative traits anymore. But it also means they can heal themselves by targeting themselves with vampiric touch which is quite odd.

If you make it that they simply get the new negative healing trait from bestiary 2 it clarifies that they take no damage from negative damage which eliminates the whole target themselves with vampiric touch aspect but still allows them to be healed by sooth and healing potions and such.

I actually hope it is intended that they can be healed by sooth and potions and such since healing potions in 2e are no longer spells in bottles and healers are not all positive healing. It just depends on hownyou read the trait. I think some players may rule that like the undead trait they dont heal by normal healing effects which would be a huge nerf.

Basically, im just curious if you are supposed to use the proper Negative Healing creature trait from bestiary 2 or if you are supposed to derive the effects from the undead trait. Likely is cleaner to use the bestiary 2 trait, but someone without that book may be confused as to where to find the "Negative Healing Ability". Unless of course its also detailed in the APG. Or maybe its entirely self contained in the description... you simply take damage from positive healing and heal from negative effects that specifically mention undead... which would reduce the list a bit but also not allow the odd vamperic touch self healing. It seems the dhampir negative healing would benefit from a more clarified description that is entirely self contained.

Iv been wondering if the new ancestries are going to be uncommon or not. Does anyone have any insight into that? It would make sense that they are.

So one thing me and a buddy of mine was looking over the other day was the bestiary. We thought it would be interesting to compare the images of how things looked in PF1 compared to PF2 but ultimately it led us to comparing stats and such. We noticed that the humanoid monsters who use weapons had their damages significantly lowered because they now use player scaling essentially and bigger weapons don't mean more damage. Ultimately it made us feel there is a bit of disparity among different creature types of the same CR. For instance, CR 7. There is a Ogre Boss, but there is also natural attack based creatures and some dragons. In the end, it seemed like u have basically CR normal, -, and +. Things that use Humanoid weapons and are not overtly magical seem like the weaker side of the CR value, things that use natural weapons that end up with multiple damage dice feel stronger than that, and then you have these dragons with insane damage breaths.

Now I know in the past this sort of thing was normal that certain creature types were meant to be lvl 7 challenges and therefore CR 7 but dragons were bosses while humanoids were somewhat like filler. So ultimately the CR of dragons and other iconic magic creatures were a bit low for their danger level. The issue seems though that with this level based XP system and without the creature types of something like 4th edition you are getting the same XP for a Ogre Boss as you are for a Stego or a young black dragon.

Has this come up for anyone yet? I don't suspect many people have leveled too high in this edition due to its current age but this seemed very obvious comparing creatures in the bestiary 1.

Figured this could be an interesting discussion.

Sounds like you understand the ramifications of the changes you made and it likely will work out rather well. Iv had Alek avoid going directly into Breachill so far cus I think hes likely a bit singular of a character and I liked the fact that my group semi doesn't trust him cus the whole Hellknights being a bit evil but not. Basically him never making himself known in Breachill gives them a red hearing that he could be up to no good.

I think the flavor of ancient anything is that when u can live to 600 years old your perspective on life and time is vastly different from younger races. You will piss away 250 years just doing whatever when u know u have 300+ left. Sure, a really old half elf could pull that off but they still wont have that 600 year max lifespan perspective.

For me now, im just curious how much making Ancient Elf a ancestry feat would suddenly incentivise many more elf characters to just grab it for that easier access multiclass. Sure, its limited till lvl 4 and first rank dedications are more about proficiancy but I could see a good number of players just grabbing a fighter dedication or something for the profs and the average age of elf adventurers changes.

Part of me can see the benefit of it being a heritage rather than a feat. But the other part of me thinks it would be fine. Inner conflict. Lol

Because ultimately in the end its not like a character cant just grab the dedication at lvl 2 and get their adaptation themes. Making it a feat would allow them to get their dedication and two class feats at lvl 2. That could open up some early level unintended stuff and builds with 1 more possible class feat. So yea, its not a no consequence change.

As it is now, Ancient elf is there for people with complex character concepts that dont really feel that their actual elf heritage is all that mechanically important to them. Which is quite limited in scope at the end of the day but eh, it gets the trope accross if you dont later regret not having more elf like ancestry traits.

Yea, generally speaking errata is very conservative. It would be cool to be able to see some major changes like this when it is discovered it could be a better option long term. But eh, it is what it is. I don't play Pathfinder Society myself so a house rule is easy enough for me. I just tend to avoid doing too much houserule/homebrew because in the past I tended to go overboard with it.

graystone wrote:
Yigg wrote:
Sounds to me like a lvl 1 only Ancient Elf ancestry feat to let it grab a proper elf heritage could give that option of a old elf that still retains their environmental adaptations.
I think it's be easier to make an ancient elf feat with a prerequisite like Ancestral Longevity [at least 100 years old] that just grants the multiclass feat at 1st. That way, you'll have base ancestry intact and you can change any future feats requiring ancient elf to requiring the feat instead.

It would have to be a homebrew replacement of Ancient elf as a heritage to a ancestry feat at this point but yea, that likely would have been a cleaner thematic implementation for the concept. I don't think that's something an Errata would change, but it would be awesome if a change like that would be possible. It also sounds like 200 years + would be more fitting however. It would make it functionally incompatible with Half-Elves since that flavor doesn't quite match up.

I appreciate the detailed response. Sounds to me like a lvl 1 only Ancient Elf ancestry feat to let it grab a 2nd elf heritage could give that option of a old elf that still retains their mechanical adaptations as well as thematically shows that late start flavor Ancient Elf was built to show.

The only other question id have left to make sure I understand the lore of elves. Are there some elves in the lore that actually do not have any particular adaptation one way or the other?

Also, I guess this solidifies it that Half Elf --> Elf Atavism --> Ancient Elf is not something that makes thematic sense.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So with that in mind, what makes them incompatible with something like the Wandering Heart feat? Have they been away from their original heritage for so long they no longer adapt? The main question my friend asked was what if you are simply a 400 year old wood elf? The main disconnect is that Ancient Elves do not have an Environmental Adaptation like their other kin.

Just had a long discussion with a player of mine regarding something I have seen quite a bit. Specifically Half Elf --> Elf Atavism --> Ancient Elf. This ultimately ended with us assuming while agreeing to disagree that there is a unspoken advanced age requirement on this heritage while also saying that it must be an elf that never settled in one spot for too long because it never gained an environmental adaptation. But honestly, im somewhat confused. I read over the entry and searched for Ancient in the Lost Omen Players guide and it stated this one type of elf group contained Ancient Elves. It also went on with a feat to state that it could only be taken by an elf with a environmental adaptation. So this almost comes off as Ancient Elves may be their own proper heritage itself rather than the very minor niche of old as hell elf that comes from a heritage of elf that never adapted to their environment.

I also went back to 1st Edition to see if there was any mention of an elf of this nature and didn't find any. The heritage also seems like it may be intended to just show a elf that didn't commit to an adventurer life until recently and dabbled since then... but this leads into what type of elf were they? So there seems to be a bit of thematic conflict here or im simply missing something. Are there young Ancient Elves as well? Are they their own species? Do all elves who walk away from their preferred terrain for a couple hundred years turn into Ancient Elves and convert their racials? Maybe im over thinking this but they seem like an odd choice for a heritage if they are not their own proper subspecies with young and old members.

This isn't intended to be a discussion on the initial Elf Atavism ruling, but me trying to understand the theme of what an Ancient Elf is really intended to be in the lore.

Any discussion is greatly appreciated.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Funny you mention that, I have a character currently playing as a

4th Level Rogue (Knife Master/Scout)
1st Level Gunslinger (Bolt Ace)
1st Level Evangelist of Pharasma

He plans on following that path out to lvl 15 with her to get the holy form from 10th level Evangelist.

Hes part of my Carrion's Crown group. The Bolt ace is due to a crossbow marksmen (Dreamscarred 3rd party) character who died previously in the campaign. Cella (the rogue) took up his crossbow and multiclassed to carry on his legacy.

Im just wondering about the SWD change now that it's actually getting commended on by a Designer.

Mark, would you call it an overlooked side effect that it suddenly made half orcs super effective at being scarred witch doctors? Just wondering if there is a slight regret with the change in hindsight now.

I had a player running a SWD at the time and let him continue to play her with con until she died. Overall she just seemed like a less efficient but much tankier caster. It felt right.

And it does not reset your Animus pool at all as well, correct? Seems like a do over sort of ability. The causing the energy to burst out thing makes it sound like it would. If not, they could spend all their time self buffing themselves with a increasingly stronger retaliation damage against melee. Although im sure most smart enemies would not hit the thing shrouded in mystical energy. They just get to pelt you to death with arrows. lol

Prince of Knives wrote:
Yigg wrote:
Also curious, do you have many testers for your classes before they are shown to the public? Just wondering if my suggestions here seem useful or too late.

To give you an idea, the open beta for Path of War: Expanded has lasted for either just under or just over two years now, across four different forums, with constant live revisions and engagement with dozens of posters.

We try to be transparent during the development process ^_^

Ah, ok. So is there a better place my comments could be posted rather than here? I generally love to follow the step by step process in developing new content. In general I like the feeling of the Path of War classes.

Also, can you possibly give any feedback to the above listed things I encountered? I just want to get a better understanding of the class as a whole.

I did notice that Blade Meditation scales off of how many Animus points they have so perhaps the idea was them to not run out but instead to build Animus as a means of making enemies think twice about attacking them. The description sort of implies the energy is burned off but I see no mention of their Animus resetting back to base value like their maneuvers. Perhaps that would be a flavorful addition?

Font of Animus could probably use some clarification. As it sounds at the moment you can use it out of combat to gain a small pool... however it does not say that you cannot repeatedly use it amass a large pool. A move action roughly translates to 3 seconds worth of time. As a DM who tends to understand and follow things as intended I wouldn't let my players use the ability until the previous pool dissipated but others may have an issue putting their foot down.

Strike of Elemental Devastation: The augmenting section of the ability states a maximum of 3 points can be spent to augment it but that each beam has to be augmented separately. I assume this means 3 per beam but is also capped by your Animus spending max for maneuvers as normal? Essentially 3 per beam but no more than the 4-5 ud be allowed at higher level? Also, only the water beam has a DC save in order to avoid the effect. Is this intended? It seems contrary to the fact that the augment section talks about augmenting the beam effecting DCs as well. If this was intended to be water only I figure it may have specified.

Just smack me if im overloading everyone. lol I tend to be passionate like this with any class I like/allow in my games. So far all dreamscarred classes have been allowed. Only harbinger and mystic worry me a little but I already discussed my harbinger issues before. Perhaps this is due to Path of War Expanded being one of the few books i'v purchased before their actual release? I figure any help to clear things up before final printing would be appreciated.

Thanks for the interesting content.

Noticing a few oddities as I read through it and I'll ask as I finish it but for now I do have a simple question.

Anima at low levels seems to be essentially endless. You gain 1 every turn or two if you use a maneuver. However, from what I can tell the only way you could spend two a turn is if you used 1 to augment a maneuver with your class feature and 1 to augment a maneuver based on it's specific augment option.

To me, this means that unless you invest in a Anima burning feat at low levels then you never will run low or out of Anima points. At the moment I only recognized the healing feat which can only be used once an encounter.

Based on the nature of recovering maneuvers it seems very unlikely that any low level Mystic with even 12 wisdom would ever run dry in a fight.

Is this all intended and am I following things correctly?

Overall the class looks very fun and unique. Only other things im a little weary on is how universally effective the air glyph seems compared to the others as well as how overwhelmingly strong the earth lvl 19 glyph seems. I suspect someone using it properly could keep a high level party immortal. Wisdom modifiers later on will allow a full party buff with only a single anima point as well as a duration that basically shuts down most enemies. Sure, you will be staggered at 0 hp but with even a light fast healing trait you can stay fully functional.

Also curious, do you have many testers for your classes before they are shown to the public? Just wondering if my suggestions here seem useful or too late.

I'll follow up if I find any other things that seem odd.

Sounds interesting. I really do love this class, was going to make one but I think I'll hold off till it becomes a bit more finalized. Any teases you can give into the Tenebrous Reach replacement?

Honestly, id be rather excited to hear that the Harbinger is going to be using basic weapon ranges so their movement speed actually matters more. Would seem more iconic to me.

Wondering if anymore thoughts of changes have been made to the harbinger with recent testings or anything.

I only way I can see Monstrous Companion being worth it is if the effective Cohort level is equal to the usual level of your animal companion. Essentially making it a better Cohort than leadership at the cost of not having any followers. Level 20 Druid would have a lvl 20 monstrous cohort. That CR 7 magical beast would have 13 class levels. It would end up having a higher HD number than a standard animal companion as well.

I also personally wouldn't let anyone that simply had leadership get monstrous companions at all.

Anyone else agree with this view to make it worth it while still playing into the intended purpose of reducing complications?

EDIT: You know... even this hardly does what was intended. To make it worth it you would have to allow them to basically be a equal level Cohort with class levels that also gains the benefits of animal companion levels. Essentially combining your companion and your cohort into one. Big issue with this of course that your Cohort would be far stronger than most PCs... lol

Clear candidate for a feat that should simply be deleted.

Honestly, after thinking about it a bit I kinda feel Tenebrous Reach is in a good place. My only concern was that the class suddenly became a pseudo permanent ranged class due to the duration. However, this has been confirmed to be fine and within the intended design goals.

The key thing to think about now is how the class feels to the player since the point of a game is to be fun. Rather than give it at some really high level and go from 5/10 feet ranges to 70 feet out of no where. I feel it would be better suited to be given where it is or even earlier so the player can feel that range progression on their attacks as they level.

My end suggestion would be to give it two ranks. A earlier(or same level) lesser version with half int duration. And then a increase to full int duration at 17 or 19.

I don't know about others out there but when im playing a class I want to feel a natural progression with my characters without all these sudden changes after a drought of progression. Not that there is any drought in the normal progression of a harbinger but even from a concept standpoint it would seem more natural if this was a capability the harbinger was not able to sustain nearly as long until they master it.

We all know that the differences in attributes from 13 and 19 is not going to be completely massive in difference. At least not from natural levels.

I'd love to hear some feedback on this idea.

Interesting follow up. Makes me wonder how fighters survive at high levels then. Good thing I stuck with the idea that stamina points is a fighter only thing to hopefully let them have some edge.

I guess the same could be asked about other melee characters such as two weapon fighting rangers. Although they do have the dex to support other ranged backups.

Regardless, useful information.

This class reminds me of Itherael from Diablo 3, The Archangel of Fate. The inevitable style of its fighting seems to fit the theme that you can't avoid your fate. The Harbinger will come for you, and it will kill you, unless you kill it first.

I compared it to Liam Neeson and Ragna the Bloodedge combined.

"DAMMIT! I will find you... and I will kill you."

EDIT: I do admittedly have very little experience with Pathfinder at higher levels. So I will take your word for it that the close range melee attacks doesn't make the harbinger suddenly super safe.

Gotcha, well im always glad to help. I'm probably going to be a familiar name poking around most future DS product comments.

Hopefully the passion of my suggestions don't come off as rude. I tend to get into things I really like and come out a bit more forceful than I intend.

I just really love the Path of War classes. This coming from a person who hated the encounter powers and whatnot of 4th edition.

A switch with voices would be fine considering most enemy's tend to try and avoid AooPs anyway. I'm still a firm believer in the idea that it's not the abilities placement as much as the fact it changes the way the class plays entirely with nearly 100% upkeep for any reasonable amount of INT.

And even if the DM can always adjust their campaign to have waves of enemies or longer rounded combats it always sucks as a DM to have to modify a campaign around the idea of a single character.

But yea, I feel like giving players Voices far sooner than they currently get it is a good idea so id be ok with the swap and a duration tweak.

My question would be how do you view the duration? Do you feel its intended to change the class so drastically and that thematically the class is supposed to go nearly full range at a certain point? If so, then I can't argue with it since it was a intended design goal. It just personally seemed out of place to me.

Unchanged I could see it being given at 18/19 as a near capstone equivalent ability. Atleast the sudden jump in power would be only seem among the most powerful harbingers.

I kinda want to clarify a bit more after thinking about it. At higher levels the range really isn't the problem and honestly, I really do like the idea of the ability. The idea of rushing back to ranged and slinging shadow projections of your weapons for a duration is awesome.

The only issue I see is the duration. Once per encounter with INT mod duration means anyone with some decent int is going to get 100% uptime on it due to average battles not taking a huge amount of rounds. This removes strategy. If you can essentially always do it then all it does is turn the harbinger into a range class which it didn't seem like was the original intent. Essentially lower cooldown means it requires some thought and timing to get the most out of it which makes the class more interactive.

Pretty much my only suggestion would be to make it half int +1 or something. That way its a strategic decision during a key moment of a fight rather than a permanent thing. Half int also means that a person has the option of focusing into INT if they do want a perma upkeep. Which is certainly possible with enough focus.

I guess it just felt odd for this class based around melee combat and being able to get anywhere they wanted instantly suddenly turned into a borderline 100% ranged class over halfway through their progression.

Hope that makes a bit more sense. In short, slightly tweak to the duration and I think I found me a new favorite class to go on my list next to soulknife.

EDIT: Another idea would be to keep it as is but make it a once a day. Honestly though, this seems to go more against the class intention than just lowering the duration.

Overall, its not going to effect me liking the class. I just may house rule it myself to be half int +1 instead of what its currently listed as. Gotta love RPGS and the ability to change anything on the fly!

I also agree with Tenebrous Reach seeming a bit out of place and honestly, a bit too strong. If that was tweaked (to a short range), removed, or changed to something more fitting I could feel much more comfortable with letting people use this class without restrictions.

EDIT: And yes, I am on pretty much every comment section now as I nerdily buy up practically all DS content. lol

1 to 50 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>