Seltyiel

Zuresh's page

9 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.



2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
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.

The only thing that it means is that it will be playable from the start. Being core means nothing except for you apparently.
I don't like it either, so I'm not gonna play it. I don't have to advocate that it shoudn't be there.... Wtf...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
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!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.