Zuresh's page

edduardco wrote:

Corrik wrote:

edduardco wrote:

Corrik wrote:

Biztak wrote:

TheFinish wrote:

But you didn't answer my question. Where in Golarion? Get me examples. You have one for Trolls. You should be able to find one canonical instance of a goblin enclave that has integrated into a metropolis, instead of your vague "oh they totes exist".

There is Thornkeep, 19 goblins live on that town, they are considered as cheap help and also valued for their ability to keep the town free of rats.

Do you have more? A handful of NPCs and a group of non-murder monkey's is a great argument for them being a featured or uncommon race. It isn't much of one for them being core.

Where can I find the list of requirements for races to be core?

Having the civilization level and societal presence approaching that of Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Half-elves, Half-Orcs, Haflings, and Humans. In the very least, be a somewhat common sight at your average tavern. None of which applies to Goblins. And won't apply without a large change to the lore, which Paizo claims they won't be doing.

Do you have something that can legitimize that claim? I was expecting something more official.

One of the Tian Xia books listed similar reasons for their core race selection. Dragon Not at home to pull the text for you.

Why are you so invested in this? Being core doesn't mean any of what you said. Doesn't have to do with being a common sight, doesn't have anything to do with being good or having a society integrated in the setting.

You guys haven't seen a single description of a Save or Suck spell and yet are judging it weak. If you have please link it.
The example in the post was literally:
Crit fail, dominated.
Fail, dominated but can make saves to stop the effect (how it works on 5e).
Success, lose action.
Crit success, Nothing.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Bardic Dave wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

All good things come in threes, so what GentleGiant and Brew Bird said, and also: Even not-so-trained characters don't really have to roll anything just to be riding normally on a horse.

Hi Mark, the more previews I see, the more excited I am for PF2. Question about Sure Strike: it takes an action to use, but is there some other limitation on its use? Or does it essentially just replace the Strike action when you pick it up? Thanks!

It's a cool mid (or high, depends on how much you're used to calling everything in double digits high even though it's around halfway through the levels) level perk for fighters, for sure. It's a little bit limited, even beyond the limitation that you can't just do it every time you ever attack (for instance, with your AoO you have to make a basic Strike with the other AoO benefits), but that involves a neat little mechanic the fighter has for using his mastery of weapons to build special combos of attacks that we didn't really get into in the fighter blog, so it won't be possible to explain it without that context. Suffice it to say, you can generally use it when you need it most! ;)

Hearing that the Fighter can freeform combo their special moves in some way makes my icy heart thaw a little :3

Oh boy. After regretting having whined and compared to d&d 4e I finally hear what I wanted. Now I'm really excited!

Leyren wrote:

Zuresh wrote:

So 4th edition it is. Too bad.

Please explain like I don't know 4e.

In 4e fighters got to pick from a number of options at first level (let’s call them “class feats”). The class feats were formatted in a little box with carefully worded rules text, such as:

REAPING STRIKE
FIGHTER 1 - AT-WILL
Standard Action: Attack vs AC
Success: You deal damage, which equals the weapon's or unarmed attack's damage dice plus your Strength modifier if it's a melee attack, plus any bonuses.
Critical Success: You deal max damage.
Failure: You deal damage equal to your Strength modifier.

Other “class feats” were available for the fighter as well, let’s say Cleave, Sure Strike, Power Attack, Double Slice, Intimidating Strike, etc. Importantly, these class feats all used the same action, so could not be combined or stacked, and in fact pretty much de facto replaced the basic strike in 90% of cases (often one of the criticisms of 4e). You got an increasing number of these actions as you leveled up, all using the same format.

Now for the case of “Certain Strike” for PF2, it’s possible that this class feat can’t be used at-will and thus won’t permanently replace the basic strike. However, in that case it runs into another of 4e criticisms (limited uses for martial maneuvers).

Thank you dude, you explained it far better than I ever could. That's exactly what I don't want for pathfinder 2ed.

Zuresh wrote:

GentleGiant wrote:

Zuresh wrote:

GentleGiant wrote:

Zuresh wrote:

In regard to the Certain strike, is it an specific action with that name or does it change how my basic attack functions? I hope its not the first option because it would look like d&d 4th edition with the little boxes saying what you can or can't do, all of them restricted by your class. Also, how will it interact with another things like Power attack? Will those stack? Will I be able to combine several effects?

It's a feat, allowing you to do that as an action. Power Attack is also an action, so you can't combine the two (unless there's another feat combining the two, but then you'd have to take that as well).

So 4th edition it is. Too bad.

Erm, no, no more than taking Power Attack or similar feats are 4th edition.

Well, in the first edition you can combine feats.

If you can't charge, power attack, Spirited charge, whatever else at the same time (Using examples of pathfinder 1ed) because the combined thing isn't an action and you have to choose one of them... Then it's looking a lot like d&d 4th ed to me. And we know how that went.

You're mixing apples and oranges. You can still combine actions, like Sudden Charge does. There were attack "modes" you couldn't combine in PF1 either.

Maybe it's a bad example. As long as there are things that you can combine I guess I'll be happy.

Neume wrote:

GentleGiant wrote:

thflame wrote:

I'm not sure I like the fighter doing minimum damage when he "misses". The way I read this, because there is no "critical failure" blurb, he even does minimum damage on a critical failure too? (Or is it that because there is no critical failure blurb, that there is no effect?) I feel like a fighter should still be able to miss, no matter how high a level he is.

That's a special attack, like Sudden Charge, so probably something you have to take a feat to do and might have to spend two actions on doing.

I just want to support this, because as written, if a critical failure uses the failure line if there is no critical failure line, then, for this action, they will always deal minimum damage on a failure. I can see myriad power gamers lining up to exploit that loophole.

As I mentioned above but got lost in the other posts, the full text of the feat does not leave that loophole. I only excerpted the failure entry from the feat.

I think people are focusing more on the part that says:

Instead of looking into the part that says:
"if a failure entry is missing, that means nothing happens on a failure".

Zuresh wrote:

GentleGiant wrote:

Zuresh wrote:

In regard to the Certain strike, is it an specific action with that name or does it change how my basic attack functions? I hope its not the first option because it would look like d&d 4th edition with the little boxes saying what you can or can't do, all of them restricted by your class. Also, how will it interact with another things like Power attack? Will those stack? Will I be able to combine several effects?

It's a feat, allowing you to do that as an action. Power Attack is also an action, so you can't combine the two (unless there's another feat combining the two, but then you'd have to take that as well).

So 4th edition it is. Too bad.

Erm, no, no more than taking Power Attack or similar feats are 4th edition.

Well, in the first edition you can combine feats.

Zuresh wrote:

In regard to the Certain strike, is it an specific action with that name or does it change how my basic attack functions? I hope its not the first option because it would look like d&d 4th edition with the little boxes saying what you can or can't do, all of them restricted by your class. Also, how will it interact with another things like Power attack? Will those stack? Will I be able to combine several effects?

It's a feat, allowing you to do that as an action. Power Attack is also an action, so you can't combine the two (unless there's another feat combining the two, but then you'd have to take that as well).

So 4th edition it is. Too bad.

I really like the 4 stages of success. Really brings something interesting, wich I think should be the focus of this new edition. More choices doesn't mean more interesting choices in my opinion.
In regard to the Certain strike, is it an specific action with that name or does it change how my basic attack functions? I hope its not the first option because it would look like d&d 4th edition with the little boxes saying what you can or can't do, all of them restricted by your class. Also, how will it interact with another things like Power attack? Will those stack? Will I be able to combine several effects?

I don't know about you guys, but I don't want something only different, I want something better than what we already have.