Sleepless Detective

kitmehsu's page

87 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.



1 person marked this as a favorite.

You have to remember that they still do damage on a miss, so I won't give more than master and if that is give mutagen alchemist a way to get master with some weapons as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just want to point out that the manipulate trait never required an open hand in the playtest

playtest rulebook pg416 wrote:

Manipulate You must physically manipulate an item or make

gestures to use this type of action. Creatures without a suitable
appendage cannot perform actions with this trait. Manipulate
actions often trigger reactions.

the only thing that changed was somatic no longer requiring a free hand.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Knight of Whispers wrote:

I really dig 5e's bounded accuracy, as PCs feel less like superheros and more like "realistic" fantasy novel characters that keep tension when even fighting mooks.

I also really like PF2e's system, BECAUSE the PCs feel like superheroes, mowing down the riff-raff while casually humming a jaunty tune.

There is kind of a problem with bounded accuracy, in my opinion: even a commoner can break free of a charm effect from a tenth level PC if they roll well enough. With PF2e's system, that's much less of an issue, since there's not even the chance of a nat 20 being an auto-succeed (although there are no rules in 5e that say nat 20's are auto-succeeds in anything but attacks, but most DMs add it. I want lower level threats to still be threats, yes, but I also want lower level threats to be weak in comparison. It's always a balance, and PF2e leans heavily towards lower level threats being basically worthless.

And the higher numbers just make my eyes swim. It's harder to get a bead on how good something is if they get a bonus just from level.

Maybe a new system could work? Bonuses and penalties versus lower or higher enemies, but with no added level bonus. Like, for every five levels a PC has over an enemy, they get an extra +2 to all attacks and DCs, likewise the enemy gets a penalty.

Just my two copper on the subject.

What you want is either +level/5, +level/3, or what ever rate works for you. It's easier than looking at relative levels and as long as everything uses the same rate, it won't radically change things more than any other variant of +level. Cause if you think of about it, +level to everything is the same as you gain +1/-1 for every level difference between you and the target. (think getting a +6 vs the target getting +7 from level vs taking a -1 penalty due to relative level)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

it also mentions no additional modifiers, so that ability scores not being bonuses isn't relevant

Core rulebook pg 258 wrote:
Even in the worst circumstances, you can perform basic tasks. Choose a skill you’re trained in. You can forgo rolling a skill check for that skill to instead receive a result of 10 + your proficiency bonus (do not apply any other bonuses, penalties, or modifiers).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

also the doubling ring lets you copy runes from one weapon to another, letting you focus on just putting runes on a single weapon


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I doubt it since items you craft aren't just half cost, since you spend extra days to reduce the price, you're effectively "earning an income" at a similar rate to the other skills and I don't see players being able to do that at CC.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A few questions about the u armored armor options

First, in the armor alternative sidebar in the armor section, it mentions that bracers of armor have no dex cap, yet the actual block has a dex cap, so which is correct?

If the bracers do have a dex cap, what is the reason to use them over explorers clothes with runes? They have the same bulk and bracers are 8th level so it takes longer to be able to gain them.

Finally, do explorers clothes count as being unarmored for things like monk abilities?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that is too narrow of a reading. For example we know for a fact that sneak attack is doubled, yet still uses the "deal extra damage" wording. And the only exception mentioned is that effects from a crit are not doubled due to a crit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also flatfooted also has a abilities that key off of having it like rogue sneak attacks so that's likely why that one still nests


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For those who are saying math boosters in general feats are wrong, you should look at canny acumen, which boosts either perception or a save to expert and then to master at 17th. So at least on the math improvement front there is precedent


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The trick is you are looking it reverse of how the system looks at it. You are looking at "How much XP is fighting three of these monsters worth" while the system is set up for "You gain XP for a moderate encounter that happens to have three of these monsters" basically the monster isn't worthy any XP, the encounter is what is worth the XP.

Think of it this way, you have Monster XP, which is how many monsters a given difficulty allows for but has nothing to do with player XP. It just happens to be that for parties of 4 that monster XP is the same as player XP.

Its much easier to add random hazards and monsters to an encounter than recalculate the xp value of the same encounter for a differing party size


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the trick is that it is limited to your hunted prey, so only a preselected creature(or creatures with later feats) can actually trigger it. So it's stronger, but less flexible since you can't switch your prey outside your turn


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that was sarcastic hyperbole


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It might be nice for the general feat to increase your weapon Prof to expert when you get your class bump. But no further. Remember that's wizard actually has to take the feat twice to get martial, since they aren't already trained in all simple weapons.

But if that does, the fighter dedication and it's expert weapons feat would need an increase. Probably similar scaling on the dedication and raising the level of the later but letting you get to master profency


1 person marked this as a favorite.

it is likely wisdom based, is there a sample Ki monk in the book? judging from the alchemist that might give you an idea even if the text is missing


2 people marked this as a favorite.

XP is not divided in pf2. Everyone gets the same XP, which is the encounter budget before any modifiers due to additional players. Effectively, players don't gain xp based upon the monsters in the encounter, but rather the encounter's difficulty for the party size and level. So if it was a 80 xp encounter, all players gain 80 xp, even if you had to add in an extra 20 xp of monsters to adjust for a 5th player


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you want to link it to relfex, I say it'd be better to treat your targets reflex DC as the AC (before circumstance and status modifeirs) against the gun's attack roll than making it a reflex save. It's probably the closest thing the system gets to touch ac in flavor (outside of magic, armor doesn't it boost it so it's based upon your raw dex but also tends to have higher profency so it's not radically out of line). That said, I like the idea that guns are similar to bombs in that they deal damage on fail (but not crit fail) and I warn against too high of reload as in most cases the cost is to much as compared to the benefits.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

On the topic of alchemist bulk, don't forget the formula book that adds a whole bulk to the formula. It's why I went for bracers over armor in The playtest


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I could see it done via a condition, making it binary instead of a pool. So assuming that they combine into a single class, you could have the Daring condition, which many feats and features key off of, then choose a daring drive which adds some basic features to the daring condition and links it to a mental stat (Wis for a grit drive, Charisma for Panache). Maybe even make a special Dare action that makes you daring in exchange for a short term penalty, like taking extra damage or penalties to certain checks until the start of your next turn, so you aren't at the risk of not being able to become daring but still need to weigh the cost to use abilities that require you to lose the condition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to see an option for the chiriagon that could be chosen for perpetual infusion that was a temp hp buffer or something that they could actually do something most of the time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I could see a compromise where a campaign hook is like a background archetypes replacing either the lore, skill feat, skill training(which devs have confirmed are now part of backgrounds) or ability score choices of an existing background. So a mindquake survivor replaces their background lore and skill feat, but keeps the rest from their chosen base background.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I find looking up rules to be easier in a well tabbed book but looking up options like feats and spells I find easier through digital sites like the play test easy action library


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, it was looking at the monsters in the playtest that really won me over. I've been on 5e for a while and even did some small dev work for some third parties and while I understood their monsters pretty well, they particularly struck me with blandness. I can really see that removing the attacks of opportunity left open the design space for some really cool abilities that changed the mechanical texture in ways that really help break up combat monotony


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wonder if skill boosting magic items will mirror the ability score bonus one by boosting your proficiency one step. So that a magic item makes someone able to perform the skill if incompetent with it, gives a small boon to most characters and nothing for those already legendary with it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe make it scale by level, but cap it based on proficiency, so a wizard whose trained can only reach +2d while a legendary fighter gets up to +5d. And make it so you use the better of your inherent damge bonus so magic weapons become more important the less martial you are.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So to reverse things, do you need the cs/s/f/cf written out for every attack? Cause I see little difference in the standard rules here. If a spell does damage and nothing but damage, there isn't a need to repeat the same info over again. And if it doesn't have just damage, then you put the results which imo is more clear and less likely to be glossed over, since it has a higher signal to noise ratio


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thinking on this, perhaps a hybrid approach might be viable. So +X weapons still increase your weapon dice, but each class also gets an inherent version and they use whatever is better. So only the fighter can get +5 weapon dice without a magic weapon, but anyone with a +5 weapon can as well. Then the non fighters get dice based on the old BAB or similar delineation. So a paliadin or ranger caps on +4 dice inherent, rogue and alchemist can get up to +3 dice and wizards and sorcs can get at most +2 dice without magic weapons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just wanted to start a thread of the not so obvious changes to the system that people may have missed.

For one, when you get knocked out, your turn moves to just before whatever took you down


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:


Mark blog wrote:

Cantrips

In the playtest, cantrips are spells you can cast at will, but they are no longer level 0. Instead, they automatically heighten to the highest spell level you can currently cast. That means if you're 5th level, your ray of frost is 3rd level and deals more damage, and your light cantrip is better at counteracting magical darkness.

Not here.

I think you are missing that they automatically, as in without imput, are cast at your highest level of spell, as caster level or character level scalling of spells does not exist in pf2. Which means, if they where prepared in spell slots you would either have, assuming a character who has fifth level as their highest spell level, cantrips of the fifth level prepared in first level slots(which is extremely counter intuitive) or be forced to use your highest slots to use cantrips(which severely linits choice either making highest level spells or cantrips pointless since they all compete for the same slots)

So with the scaling indicated, it seams most likely, though not explicitly confirmed, that your cantrips are independent of your spell slots.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Would this be something that seams reasonable? I figure that these wouldn't increase the damage, and may even penalize it at earlier levels (either reducing the damage to d4s or removing extra dice) and the big thing higher level versions would be the better crit effects. Not sure how it'd work with a multi-class solarian/operative but since they both the weapon and trick attack scale off level of their class, I don't think it'd be too dangerous.

Example (off the top of my head stats)
Neutrino Crystal, Fragment (This only exists to allow for dex focused builds to use the weapon at lvl 1, hence adding a category for the crystal)
Lvl 2 (Damage is d4) No crit
Neutrino Crystal, Least
Lvl 5 (Damage is d4) Arc (1d4)
Neutrino Crystal, Minor
Lvl 8 (-1 damage die) Arc (1d6)
Neutrino Crystal, Lesser
Lvl 11 (-1 damage die) Arc (2d6)
Neutrino Crystal, Standard
Lvl 3 (-1 damage die) Arc (3d6)
Nuetrino Crystal, Greater
Lvl 3 No damage change Arc (4d6)
Nuetrino Crystal, True
Lvl 3 No damage change Arc (5d6)

Let me know if this seams like a really bad idea or if I'm over-penalizing it.


6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

So I realized after a bit that everything added (Aquatic base form and all evolutions) from UM is omited from Unchained. Was wondering what the stance is on this, as some pretty flavorful options there, partularly the Minor/Major/Ultimate magic evolutions. Obviously some of the decision was a space constrant, but I am curious about other factors, especially since it's just a blanket ommision. Was it just space or did the evolutions not meet certain standards to imediately be worth salvaging?


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

The oracles curse progresses even if you multiclass, just at half it's normal rate for non-oracle levels.