Adventurer

ikarinokami's page

714 posts. Alias of christopher myco.


RSS

1 to 50 of 714 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I would think so, because as it stands champions of koroda and irori can't use smite evil with their deity's favored weapon or the blade ally power. So there must expectations that you won't always chose to use your deities favored weapon as a champion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

if you dont mind the math, complexity, and bad editing at times, Shadowrun 4th and 5th edition will pretty much fill your needs.


divine lance is definitely not underpowered. you trade raw damage for the ability to use probably the best and least resisted damage type.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaterie wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
Casters are better at dealing damage to multiple enemies and destroying cannon fodder.

Awesome.

In the other hand, the edition is fitted to make cannon fodders negligible and ignorable.

Quote:
if the caster knows which is the worst save of the creature/npc at issue, they will do better than a martial.

Hence:

1/ if the full-casters metagame (there is no way to know Fort is the strongest save of a zombi but the weakest save of a lich - both monster look exactly the same)
2/ if the full-casters prepare spells attacking every save (the last "awesome" wizard build I saw was targeting Ref only - but he was awesome according to pro-wizard nonetheless)
3/ If the full-casters are wizards (how many Fort/Ref spell does a bard get? how many Ref blast does a cleric get?).

Then the full-casters are awesome against the monsters no one cares about.

This is a very complicated way of writing "full-casters are useless", but in the end I agree with you.

your logic is flawed. not doing better does make you useless. because even if you don't know the worst save, you will do about equal, because anytime the creature should crit fail, you are going to do super well. like I said, the game is extremely well balanced among martials and casters. that casters are no longer the overlords they were in 3.0-PF1 does not mean that they are useless or weaker than marshalls, they are infact about equal all things considered.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Gaterie wrote:
Blave wrote:
Gaterie wrote:

What are the awesome utility spells you need more than 1/day (+scrolls, wands etc)?

I mean, is it that useful to cast floating disk or gaseous form 2/day? i'm not even sure a full caster would memorize it 1/day.

Well, you never said to limit any arguments on Utility spells.*

Martials are better at dealing damages and debuffing enemies. Why would I play a caster if my goal is to deal damages or debuff enemies?

So no, I don't limit arguments to utility spells. But before we talk about damages or debuffs, you'll have to convince me a caster may deal more damages or better debuff than a fighters.

Casters are better at dealing damage to multiple enemies and destroying cannon fodder. if the caster knows which is the worst save of the creature/npc at issue, they will do better than a martial. its very well balanced. let's be real 3.0-pf1. where casters games with support from martials, now both martials and casters can shine equally.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

electric arc is pretty balanced.


thenobledrake wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
how are uncommon spells supposed work for clerics? don't clerics just know spells? or does your deity just refuse to grant you use of the spell? which is such a wierd concept.

You can use the Learn a Spell activity to be able to prepare them, but that requires finding a source to learn from.

So basically, they work like being prayers that not everyone is taught and/or exploit that it is the caster's knowledge and faith that are powerful not just gifts from their deity.

I can see how this could work for some deities but for others it would be anthetical to everything the deity stands for.


how are uncommon spells supposed work for clerics? don't clerics just know spells? or does your deity just refuse to grant you use of the spell? which is such a wierd concept.


I have, and it was mainly inspired by the fact that I just finished reading "death heretic" and decided on the spur of the moment to refuse the resurrection.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wish we could get 2nd edition multiclassing back, still my favorite.


shroudb wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
This is just gonna be another thread full of people who want the swords to have more traits isn't it

it isnt even that it's just logic

if we accept what a longsword by the games rules
and we accept what a greatsword is by the game rules
how does the bastard sword lose a trait.

it's impossible, in the worst way. its literally the in-between size of the great sword and a long sword in the game world. how does that size make it no a cut and thrust sword anymore.

how do you know that?

maybe it's not only the size of the blade, but the shape that also changes and switches it from cut and thrust, to simply cut.

Maybe something like a broader, heavier blade than a longsowrd (hence why you can two hand it for more impact more efficiently)

p.s. we already know that the fantasy swords already have very little resemblance to actual swords either way.

you would be right except there are description and pictures in the book, so we know exactly what they look like. it makes 0 sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
This is just gonna be another thread full of people who want the swords to have more traits isn't it

it isnt even that it's just logic

if we accept what a longsword by the games rules
and we accept what a greatsword is by the game rules
how does the bastard sword lose a trait.

it's impossible, in the worst way. its literally the in-between size of the great sword and a long sword in the game world. how does that size make it no a cut and thrust sword anymore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. bracers capping dex. I understand it's for game balance, however there is no logic way to justify it. what's the in game explanation for why bracers would make you less agile? bracers +1/dex 7 would make so much more sense in a logical way and accomplish the same balance reasons.

2. the bastard sword isnt versatile - again I cant even fathom an in game reason for that, is there divine intervention at work?

3. great sword doesn't have reach? there isnt even a reasonable physical way to use it, so you dont have reach. the entire point of it's invention was to have a sword with the reach of a polearm.

anyone got any others? we aren't talking about magic, or people walking on water, just things that if we accept the rules of game world just dont make sense.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

the elements save for fire can bludgeoning, pierce or slash. I think they should have allowed the sorcerer to chose. if I make my earth, air, or ice blast manifest like needles they will pierce, if I make them like razors they will slash.


thenobledrake wrote:

knowing that an ogre or other clearly tough, acting a lil oblivious, and not spry on their feet creature is going to have a worse chance to pass a reflex or will save than a fortitude save is NOT metagaming.

That whole application of the idea of metagaming is just forcing people to metagame, but to their known deficit rather than to a benefit. The moment you say "you can't target the weakest save because your character wouldn't know which one it is" (which is BS because there are basically always readily apparent cues that the character should be able to use to figure it out, or could just guess) you are effectively saying "if you as a player know what a good choice is, you have to deliberately make a bad choice instead."

You haven't removed the influence that what a player knows has on what a character does, you've just changed the outcome from a character being allowed to seem competent to a character seeming clueless.

I agree with this. if we assume you grew up a spell caster in Golorion, I think it's safe to say that some assumptions are universal.

1. Giants are probably tough

2. enemy spell casters probably have strong minds

3. don't try to fire ball agile creatures etc.


1. druids have some great class feats and focus spells, so them having more slots probably would have been too much.

2. bards have a lot ways to effect things besides combat, more slots probably would make them too much also.

3. Clerics, have two things, if they invested in charisma, they dont really need slots for heal. if they went war priest, they do have a lot of feats to support that, so they dont need as many slots

4. sorcerer has feats that boosts they spells per day. in addition some of those focus spells are seriously good.

5. wizards there focus spells aren't quite as good, there class feats while good are really about being more versatile

overall I thinks its very balance in regards to the varying spell slots each class gets.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Unlike many classes witches have different and equally popular conceptions.

You have the arcane witch that goes to the academy and keeps spells in a spell book, very popular with YA.

You have the witch that makes pacts with powerful entities, and communes with a familiar

and perhaps the oldest tradition of all old witch in the woods.

I think that the witch should be determine by the archetype. you should have a

1. the arcane witch, that case with int, has a spell book and studies magic
2. the witch that made a pact with some outsider. uses charisma, has a familiar and uses the spell list most appropriate to the outsider.
3. the witch in the woods, uses wisdom, and casts from the primal list.


could you do the tiger monk with base 18 str.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blave wrote:

That's something I'd completely ignore in any home game. I'd totally allow such a charcter to become expert with all monk stly attacks. But for society and anyone going strictly be RAW, it sucks, no doubt.

The Iroran cleric also can't use any of the cleric weapon buff feats with their favorite weapon since all of those specifically require a weapon. I'm talking about Emblazon Armament, Align Weapon and their follow up feats.

I'm not sure about this, from the description of handwraps, you should be able to emblazon, align them by there description. I also think they might also work for the paladin divine blade power.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I like it this way. there is pf1 for those people. PF2 imo strikes a good balance between the free for all of 3.0/3.5/pf1 and the super constraint of 5E. they have set the boundaries I hope they stay within them, and don't introduce options to go beyond them, unless its mythic or epic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

the good thing about the campaign setting being hardcover now, is perhaps you can stuff the less popular interesting stuff that doesn't sell as well with, with the more popular parts that do sell well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Ignoring examples and sidebars is on them, not the book.
After looking at the iconic alchemist sheet and seeing the errors in it, I can totally see ignoring the examples: IMO relying in inference instead of actually spelling something out in plain text is something that needs fixed.

actually you cant call that error, because you can't say either is correct since they are both part of the rules. Just as the one the developer said, side bards and examples are super important for issuing and discussing rules. In fact if you read most case law, you will find the rule is usually demonstrated by an example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SpawnLQ wrote:
Rysky wrote:
SpawnLQ wrote:
I figured that was the case. But still, pretty big mistake for release, and while experienced players may understand the lack of clarity in print, anyone newer trying to learn it will not. Hopefully they fix it in print to stop a gap in translation of RAW and RAI.
To head that off, the example Ki user in the Monk section specifically calls out needing Wisdom.
You're absolutely right, except it's an example box for a sample build. Just like Crane build recommends Dex primary but you can pick Str if you want, any of the sample builds are just that....examples. I can say I'm building a Crane Monk and learn Ki skills to still use the book RAW. Basing an entire mechanic on a sample build in a side box isn't practical.

It recommends certain attributes, then says specially your ki spells are powered by wisdom.


its in the sidebar, which is part of the rulebook. monks use wisdom


1 person marked this as a favorite.

inquisitor is one of those classes to me, that would work better as a cleric doctrine, than a separate class.


I would say fort will then reflex


tqomins wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

Excellent job here.

Proficiencies for Unarmed Strike sure look weird.

If MC adds proficiencies, it might add even more value to include them in your table :-D

Yeah, Unarmed Strike is in a very strange place right now. For example:

1) No way to raise UAS if your class doesn't hand it to you

2) Alchemist only gets Trained, though mutagens seemed designed to encourage unarmed alchemist melee

3) Champions of gods that favor UAS still only get Trained (this highlights a separate issue with Champions not advancing proficiency of favored weapon)

4) Fighters start Expert and leap to Legendary at lvl19 with nothing in between, and can't use Weapon Mastery for UAS

Mark suggested that some of this was due to some details falling through the cracks as different sections of the book were handed off between different staffers. So I'm eager to see what kind of errata/clarification we get for it.

My preferred would be if UAS worked like unarmored defense: your proficiency goes up along with whatever else you're getting. I'm hoping that was the intention and what we'll see

I'm pretty sure unarmed combat works the same for fighters as any other weapon group. unarmed belongs to the brawling group.


I hope they develop actual psychic rules, and not just have them be occult casters.


Freehold DM wrote:
zimmerwald1915 wrote:
KahnyaGnorc wrote:
Back in High School, when I was getting brochures from various colleges, one from NYU touted it as "Conveniently located at the center of the universe." That's Absalom.

What, does NYU own real estate on the corner of First and 1st now?

Institution is truly a parasitic landlord.

NYU has purchased a great deal of New York City, which has a lot of people upset. An entire neighborhood has become NYU dorms and housing and this had drastically altered the socioeconomic landscape.

NYU is like the borg. they have even started assimilating parts of downtown Brooklyn.


there isnt really a typo. the sample character is part of the rule book.


Manhattan is only part of new York city. you still have queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx and Staten island.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
no solars, no tarraque, ugh. since second edition AD&D the tarasque has been my favorite monster.

The Tarrasque is cool, but how often has it actually been used?

That was the reasoning they gave (I believe) for not including it, basically it was a gimmick monster that was never really used much so it made more sense to put in monsters people actually would/could use.

Which is not to say Tarry is gone, it’s still the Herald of Rovagug so will most likely show in the Deity book coming up.

wouldn't the same argument apply to treerazer?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

no solars, no tarraque, ugh. since second edition AD&D the tarasque has been my favorite monster.


roll4initiative wrote:

I was planning in my head all day of making an Elf Champion (Liberator) of Erastil but noticed when I got home that Erastil doesn't have Chaotic Good for a worshipper's alignment. This makes no sense (to me) for an Elven deity of home & community.

Also, Asmodeus: No Lawful Neutral worshipper's alignment? I thought most Chelaxians that worshipped Asmodeus were LN.

A liberator would be the very antithesis of what Erastil stands for. He is the god of community, of the invisible chains that bind us to our communities. of the obligations that we owe our home and community. He is the idea that the one should sublimate thier own desires and dreams for the betterment of our community. I can't even conceive of any way Erastil would ever support a liberator.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

all magic got "normalized"


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

I dunno, there aren't that many things you lose. The one thing I've spotted that would be an issue is the Champion's Divine Ally, which doesn't seem to work with a fist and I suspect might be an oversight. (The Cleric Deadly Simplicity feat got language to explicitly make it work for fists for Irori, and I suspect it should have been present on the Champion as well.) Otherwise most classes seem fine? Like, there are certain feats you want to avoid, especially fighter feats which often specify what kind of weapon you are using, but you probably wanted to spend your class feats on monk stuff anyway.

A fighter who takes the monk dedication winds up with better accuracy while punching than the monk. A ranger winds up with a flurry that loses almost all of its penalties on follow up strikes. A rogue can flurry with sneak attack. A barbarian... actually barbars don't really need to multiclass, they have incredible support for unarmed fighting in class.

I'm not sure it's an oversight. Divine simplicity seems to be just about training. while divine ally is that an inanimate item is inhabited by a divine spirit.

so I could see how they could draw a distinction. personally I hope they do errata it to allow paladins of koroda and irori to be able to have divine ally abilities with their fists.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

the biggest difference to me, is that it's obvious that Pathfinder 2nd is a very deliberate and well thought out game. which is both a positive and a negative, but I think its great it's so fundamentally different from first edition. Happily there is so much content for first edition, that if you don't like the more "grounded" approach of 2nd edition, there is a near limitless amount of content for first edition.


a Sample character is a rule reference. in fact the word "reference" tells you is a rule. The reference character can only be created by the rules.


I would say a hard no. the good thing about the proficiency system is that it is easy to establish a quantifiable power system. additional feats and class update should expand horizontally on the power curve not vertically. the best thing about Pathfinder 2 is that it is designed in such a way that you can quickly identify and counter power creep. and adding more ways to improve weapon proficiency would be power creep.


Captain Morgan wrote:

Rangers either have the most powerful version of AoO in the game, or Disrupt Prey should be a reaction, not free action. (And the latter is probably the case, since I imagine it was meant to work with Snap Shot.) Even with it as a reaction, it is still probably the best as written because it disrupts ANY of the triggering actions.

Sudden Leap lists its number of actions as a fighter feat but not a barbarian feat, which is luckily easy to figure out once you know it is the same for both of them. (Also, it lost Sudden Charge as a prerequisite, and is significantly buffed in terms of allowing you to stride before you jump + treating your max jump distance as double your speed + lower long jump DCs generally. An optimized jumper has at least +20 to the roll. All that means you should retrain out of Sudden Charge once you take this, because it lets you jump 20 feat on a natural 2 and lets you attempt to move up to triple your speed in total plus ignore a ton of difficult terrain.)

disrupt prey is weird. I couldn't decide it if was really powerful or really weak. because free actions are different now. in general they only occur on your turn.


I mean the side bar does clearly say that wisdom empowers your ki spells. I dont know if it can get more clear than that. it's gonna be the same for any monk. monks like fighters dont have archetypes.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

my big one, is that it seems a paladin of Irori, can't use blade ally with his fist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaulin wrote:
I read somewhere you can choose between the 4 elements with elemental bloodline, but only fire deals fire damage. The others deal bludgeoning.

that is correct. so for water. your damage type is water and it deals bludgeoning damage


1 person marked this as a favorite.
masda_gib wrote:
I would also say Antimagic Field is the rare spell. But only because I'm sure I read that info/speculation somewhere here or in a blog or on reddit already... but I can't remember where.

You are correct. it's odd to me, that wish is not even uncommon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bardic Dave wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
On elemental bloodline / primal spells - is there any way to play a water power focused caster? Or would their powers be based off of ice like the old elemental bloodline ?
Water is specially the damage type not ice now.
Am I understanding you correctly that water is its own damage type now? Interesting!

it is called the elemental plane of water afterall


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
On elemental bloodline / primal spells - is there any way to play a water power focused caster? Or would their powers be based off of ice like the old elemental bloodline ?

Water is specially the damage type not ice now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:

Can anybody share how Fury Totem worked out for Barbarian?

While the cultural/psychological flavor of totems was right up my ally, the very overt and flashy magical direction was unfortunately not.

Also, about Sorceror Signature Spells, all I know so far is you get 1 per Spell Level.
Does "1 per Spell Level" mean you must designate one of each spell level, or is that just the total? (of any spell levels)
Are they still daily-swappable, or is it mostly fixed like spells known are?

I think you will be happy with the fury instinct and with how signature spells work.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Huh. So no wizards summoning demons or devils, then. Unless one of the benefits of the Conjurer specialization is an expanded summoning repertoire.
If they stuck with the playtest this isn't quite true. Planar Binding and Planar Ally are Rituals, so a Wizard can still summon a Glabrezu and bargain for power or things like that, he's just not gonna be summoning them mid-combat.

the wizard could use wish, specialist wizard summoners can make their summons have bonuses.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I went with one copy of each

1 to 50 of 714 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>