iNickedYerKnickers's page

28 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


beowulf99 wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Drawing a weapon provokes AoO anyway.

Which is exactly what I said. The question was if the "interact" in quick bomb would provoke, even though Quick Bomb itself does not have the Manipulate trait.

The answer was yes.

The Interact action has the Manipulate trait and, thus, may provoke an AoO.


Also, Serenrae allows for redeeming evil doers. A Cleric of Sarenrae could drop a dude to Dying 1, heal him a bit, and then say, "Okay. Are ready to repent and give up your evil ways?"


2 people marked this as a favorite.

On one hand, a level 5 challenge should be trivial at level 15.

On the other, why would climbing a wall as a 5th level challenge be trivial 10 levels later if I have not improved Climb and/or Str?


Ancestry... b/c.. ABC's of character building. Ancestry [A], background [B], class [C]....


shroudb wrote:

I mean, how can one playtest if "alchemist's fire" is worth the focus cost, if as an example, the change is to be able to chuck them at will.

because if they are at will, then great, they are in a good spot.

if they are just 4-5 bombs/day and that's all, then they are terrible.

* Alchemical items, including bombs, can be made ahead of time, in batches of 4, for 2x the cost of buying 1 at the market.

* A 5th level character w/ 18 Int will get 9 batches of infused reagents per day. Advanced Alchemy lets him, at the start of the day, convert 1 batch of infused reagents into 2 of any one alchemical item (that you have the formula for). Thus, he could make, if nothing else, 18 bombs for the day.

* He may use focus to extend the Splash damage of Alchemist's Fire by 5', but it is not necessary. He still gets Xd8 Fire Damage and X persistent fire damage and 1 splash w/o spending focus.

* Alchemical Items =/= Cantrips. Cantrips cannot be manufactured and handed out to other people to use whenever they feel like it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
StratoNexus wrote:
... After we learn the system, a trap's required proficiency level is certainly not information players should have...

I disagree. Knowing how to disarm traps includes (or ought to) the ability to study a trap and discern quality, complexity, etc. The response should certainly be narrative rather than listing a stat block -- "This is a superbly crafted trap with quite a complex mechanism" -- but some information should be accessible.


swordchucks wrote:
You end up with a lot of half-hexes going into walls and worse.

We already get that with half-squares, or less, in all sorts of curvy, rounded areas. Half-a-dozen of one, six of the other?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lady Melo wrote:
If Expert, Master, or Legendary in weapon, armor, shield, or saves carried anything other then +1

I would expect, eventually, to see Proficiency-gated abilities that will make gaining proficiency more interesting, like the gated Skills Feats and Actions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

So in, order.

Thematically the rogue or cleric isn't the "best at weapons class" and never was.

Narratively, the rogue and cleric haven't devoted the same amount of focus to becoming a master of arms, focusing more on developing skills and magic respectively.

For base class, sure, but individuals often break molds and that is part of the fun, sometimes, of playing a fantasy character.

Quote:
Mechanically, the edge in proficiency is the equivalent of BAB. It is one of tee most important balancing points for martials to have to make up for not having magic or sneak attack.

With class weapon proficiencies, the best damage dice a Rogue can get is d8 (Spear or Staff two-handed). Otherwise, they're swinging d4 or d6 while Fighters are swinging d10 or d12. At 12th level, with +3 Weapon Potency, a Rogue is swinging an average if 20.5 damage with 4d4 + 3d6 sneak, or 24.5 with 4d6 + 3d6 sneak. Without the conditional sneak, it's 10 and 14 respectively. A Fighter is swinging a constant average of 22 with 4d10 or 26 with 4d12.

Even with the same BAB, Rogue's certainly aren't outshining Fighters.

Judging by several threads and many posts in these forums, Fighters are certainly not handicapped by the absence of magical ability. Indeed, when MC Fighter is the way -- as some have emphatically commented -- to make a Caster viable, it's Magic that needs some balancing to Fighter.

Slaughter the Sacred Cow that says that Rogues, or anyone else, must intentionally be kept less good at hitting things than fighters. There are other ways to establish class distinctions. If a non-Fighter wants to specialize in striking that's some customization that ought to be allowed.

Quote:
An improve proficiency feat would not only go against the goal of moving away from feats that give boring numerical bonuses...

Alertness, Fleet, Great Fortitude, Hefty Hauler, Incredible Initiative, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Remarkable Resonance, Toughness...

But, there is more than just a +1 bonus in a new proficiency. There are gated abilities as well. While none are available in the play test for Master Swordsman or Legendary Crossbowman, or what have you, expect them to come. So, improving proficiency would be more than just a boring numerical bonus. It would open access to proficiency-gated feats/tricks/etc.

Quote:
... it would become extremely over centralizing because of how powerful +1s are.

If feats are done right, choosing to improve weapon or armor proficiency should be an actual trade-off, not a default setting.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree. There is no good reason -- thematically, naratively, mechanically, or otherwise -- that a Rogue cannot be a legendary swordsman or a cleric legendary in armor w/o multiclassing.

Some sort of Improve Proficiency feat or tree should absolutely be in the general list.


Bardarok wrote:
iNickedYerKnickers wrote:

That's poop.

Even if it means trade-offs (excluding multiclassing), I should have the means to Master+ my racial weapons.

Then you'll want a classless system not Pathfinder.

That is poop too.

PF1 Rogue could, with some effort, get a very similar base to-hit bonus as a Fighter. There is no good reason -- thematically, naratively, mechanically, or otherwise -- to gate total mastery of proficiencies by class


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Igor Horvat wrote:
Just becuse you had access to some weapon since you were a kid doesn't mean that you put effort(had a certain class) into practice to become a master.

Perhaps I confused the topic with the specific reference to Racial weapon.

I'm not looking to auto-master just 'cause it's my racial weapon. Rather, non-Fighters should have the means to put the effort into mastering a weapon or very narrow group and/or their armor proficiency w/o having to MC fighter. There is no good reason, narratively or mechanically, that a Rogue, for instance, cannot become Legendary with Rapier, or improve his armor proficiency beyond Trained.

Gating access to Master+ Proficiency (any of them, including Perception and Saves) by Class is poop. There should be a simple General Feat (e.g.: Improved Proficiency: Increase one Proficiency by one level up to the maximum proficiency by level.), General Feats for specialization (weapon, armor, perception, saves, etc.), or Feat Trees along those lines.


That's poop.

Even if it means trade-offs (excluding multiclassing), I should have the means to Master+ my racial weapons.


malcolm_n wrote:
... (for example, at level 7, this feat would increase your maximum Hit Points by 7)...

As I read it, at Level < 5, the bonus is +4, otherwise the bonus = +Level. The example supports that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When sooooo many maps have curves and circles, are angles really that big of a problem?


Bardarok wrote:
Because they wanted a universal proficiency system. Not everything has a path to legendary for all characters...

Well, that's poop!

That prevents player driven character development. "Choose this class or else never be Legendary in X" is garbage. Sure, make it have trade-offs. Perhaps my Rogue being Legendary in two Goblin Weapons means he'll never Master Stealth, but I should have the means if that is the Vision of my character. Otherwise, talk of customization is more poop.


There ought to be a way, for instance, for my Goblin Rogue to be able to become Legendary w/ Goblin Weapons and/or Legendary in light armor.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Change the battle map from the 1" square to a hex map!


Why can't I improve proficiency with my racial weapon without being a Fighter (class or MC)?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It is less than the air speed of an unladen swallow.


I don't understand why it would get easier to crit fail with better proficiency. That's counter-intuitive. The more proficient one is at a thing, the less likely he/she is to fail at it.

Otherwise, I like the concept and will suggest it to my group.


The GM has enough to keep track of and do. The more tracking that can be offloaded to the players (e.g.: tracking that I have a +2 to hit for flanking, instead of the GM tracking a -2 to AC), the better. Secret rolls put more on the GM. They may be thematically appropriate for some things for... reasons... but should be the exception.

Along that vein, I don't think PC debuffing, penalties not conditions (e.g.: Bane in 2e), should be a thing. I get that debuffing is thematically cool, but, mechanically, a debuff is no different than a ally buff. Taking the example of Bane, enemies are at -1 to hit. That is on the GM to track. But, it is mechanically, no different than saying the PC's are at +1 AC/TAC which would offload the tracking from the GM to the players.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

A "level-appropriate challenge" says, to me, that, whatever it is, it is roughly my equal. Therefore, it should either be a stale-mate (roughly 0 to 5% success rate to either side) or closer to a 50/50.

However, it should be noted, that not every challenge should scale by level. If climbing a wall, at level 5, is a DC 15 challenge, then that same wall, with no modification, should not be a DC 25 just because I am now level 15. Similarly, not every challenge should be "level-appropriate". In fact, I would argue, that most challenges should not be because, again, "level-appropriate", means I have come across my equal and, as a fantasy hero (or villain) that should not happen often.


Mudfoot wrote:

In fairness, it was ever thus. Suppose you had a PF1 sorcerer with 17 Cha (+gear) and bumped it to 18 at 4th and 19 at 8th. Then the game finished at 11th level. That 19 is useless. Should have bumped your 13 Dex instead.

Though that said, the +1 after 18 is artificial and unnecessary. It seems that specialisation in PF2 is really frowned on. And the whole even-numbers-only thing is an obsolete throwback.

+1


Lausth wrote:
What if fighter could forge magic weapons?

Can't anyone that is a Expert at crafting take Magical Crafting??


Draco18s wrote:
iNickedYerKnickers wrote:
1. Interact: Retrieve kit
Battle Medic says nothing about needing a medicine kit.

Wow! Our group completely read everything wrong then :)

Thanks for the notice!


If shields are damaged when actively used to block...
... why aren't weapons damaged when they strike?
... or armor damaged when hit??

I love the idea of Raise Shield / Shield Block making shields more interactive than before, but the disparity of taking damage when weapons and armor do not doesn't make much sense.


Draco18s wrote:
Technically we have that skill-action. Its called Battle Medic. And the reason it's a feat is because you heal someone for 1d10+WIS in a single action.

Except it's not a single action. At minimum it's two...

1. Interact: Retrieve kit
2. Battle Medic.

Or, 3. Interact: Stow kit (vs. leave it on the ground).

More actions are needed if you have to remove a shield first or it's stowed in a backpack.