oconnor0's page

31 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


Ventnor wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Main problem with MCing sorcerer for the focus powers is that you can't use the "sorcerer refocus" mechanic (you can do it in parallel with other, non refocusing, activities) if you want to be able to refocus more than 1 focus point between combat. So it kind of discourages "getting ki powers" unless you decide "I'll just meditate" (possibly on what you have become.)

Still, you got 2 cantrips (shield and a ranged attack probably) from the dedication, and there are plenty of good monk feats which aren't ki spells.

I wonder what happens if you forgo choosing any Monk ki power feats and only get Focus Spells from multiclassing Sorcerer.

If you only want Focus Spells from Sorcerer, your proficiency in their DCs doesn't increase (unless you take the Spellcasting archetype feats or you get Monk ki power spells and use the same casting DC for both Monk and Sorcerer Focus Spells).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

I think that's intended, but to be fair, they can punch better than ever. Every caster is behind the non-fighter martial by one proficiency level, but every martial is not only spell levels, but also spell slots behind a caster by multiclassing.

Personally I like it because you have to make a choice: Caster/martial for weapons supplementing full casting. Or Martial/caster to supplement weapons with casting, usually self buffs or CC. Though I'm biased because MC now allows us to proceed without losing as much as before. Sure a caster loses 2 feats to get expert weaponry at 12th, but at least you keep your full casting and a ton of class feats while swinging that greatsword.

Part of my struggle is that if I go primary martial, I need feats to make the martial character do martial things (besides just Strike) which means I don't have space for enough caster feats. While if I go primary caster, I don't get the martial proficiencies to give me confidence they will be, at least, competent in their martial role.

Feats feel more important for martial classes, that they are bigger boosts for the character; while feats for caster classes feel more like bonuses since their core power comes from spellcasting.


I've been fairly disappointed in my attempts to multiclass. I started out wanting to make a cleric/monk, but the cleric's ability to punch was just bad. Then I went to primary monk but trying to figure out spells (slots or focus) that worked with the monk didn't click for me. Then I tried making a protector monk that uses champion's reaction and shield ally and it kind of works by about level 14 and with a mostly wasted Basic Devotion feat (and wasting half of the Champion Devotion feat).

I don't know if I'm trying to do too much, but it's felt very lackluster to me which has been disappointing because I like the idea of 2e multiclassing.


Interesting. Thank you. I started with making a monk starting with Str 16 and without the Belt of Giant Strength and so was +34 which sounded bad against "legendary plate", but maybe it's all fine. :)


Is there an updated version of the character sheet with the same changes as made in https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CPK5KB1677pb6q9PJcSIEyCwvc6G3182Qrs93dm sPS4/view ?


Undraxis wrote:
I was brainstorming what adaptions I would have to make to make it usable without using TAC rules for armor pen for more modern firearms. I'm guessing for old flintlocks I wont have an armor piercing mechanic but use more deadly or fatal traits, or maybe break the unspoken rule about putting multiple damage dice.

Maybe instead of putting multiple damage dice on them, give them the equivalent of weapon potency and striking runes.


I've been toying with building a Mountain Stance monk and am a little confused.

Mountain Stance (at level 1), Mountain Stronghold (at level 6), Mountain Quake (at level 14), +3 explorer's clothing (or equivalent), +3 handwraps, 22 Strength (start at 18, every ability bonus to Strength).

At level 20, here's what I see:

AC 49 (Base 10, Legendary unarmored proficiency +28, Dex cap +2, Mountain Stance +4 status bonus, Mountain Stronghold +2 circumstance bonus, +3 item bonus)

Falling stone attack bonus +35 (Master unarmed proficiency +26, Str +6, +3 item bonus).

Getting Belt of Giant Strength and say, using, Ki Strike gives an additional +2 making the attack a +37. Which still requires a 12 on the d20 to hit himself. I get that's kind of pointless, but I feel like I'm missing something in accuracy. Like this build needs something else to be able to hit reliably.

What have I missed? In other words, how does a monk like this hit reliably without requiring buffing from another party member?


shroudb wrote:

Flurry of maneuvers 2 enemies with 1 action.

Throw each one 30 ft away while doing damage and not suffering from MAP for either throw.

Why don't you suffer the multiple attack penalty when using Flurry of Maneuvers? Flurry of Blows applies the multiple attack penalty as normal.


Where do focus points go? I'm not seeing it on page 3, 5, or 6.


I've seen both Fast Healing and Regeneration mentioned in 2e? What is the difference?


What are the Training Source and # columns on the first page for?


Not sure about now, but I had players, in the playtest, build characters with 14 in their main attribute and just kept missing their Strikes.


larsenex wrote:
Twin feint, I can attack with both weapons. Assuming I am standing there, First attack is at full bab, second would be -5 for the multi attack penalty unless I am using an agile weapon then its only -3. If the first attack hits then the 2nd attack qualifies the target as 'flat footed' which means I would get sneak attack dmg added if I were a rogue. Is all this good so far?

First attack of Twin Feint is without penalty. The enemy is flat-footed to the second attack of Twin Feint whether or not the first attack hits.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the idea. Having that first page include character creation boxes is pretty cool.

I notice a few titles that are wrapping the table header columns instead of being 1 line; bulk on page 4, Lvl on page 5 and 6. And it's showing up as 7 pages. I assume those are unintentional.

Edit: Oh, looks like it got updated. I'm seeing a similar wrapping on Encumbered:


Quandary wrote:

And the entire action economy seems to promote "doing one thing and some other thing".

There is caster abilities to spend action to boost spell or use focus spell and so on,
but a gish able to weave spells and melee attacks is also reasonable effective use of system.
(2 action spell + 1 weapon attack, or 1 action focus power + 1 or 2 actions for weapon attack or movement etc)
I have been open about my disagreements but in terms of overall system I think it is huge success.

Right, casting a spell and making a strike is what I'd hoped to do. But attacking with a trained or an expert weapon at high-level seems much worse than figuring out how to use those other actions to use master or legendary spells. Like enough worse that it makes me not want to try it. Which makes me sad. (Or maybe I just need to try it and see what happens.)


Where/what is the Alchemical Crossbow?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The weirdest thing to me about multiclassing and the proficiency advances is that multiclassing into a spellcaster lets you get up to master proficiency in that spellcaster; but multiclassing into a martial doesn't give you weapon proficiency - except fighter to expert (with the level 12 feat as all classes get expert proficiency in at least 1 weapon); and monk to trained (for whatever that is worth). This feels like it will be easier to "add casting" to a non-caster class than to "add weapon fighting" to a non-weapon-fighter class.

I assume there is a reason for the asymmetry, but I don't understand it yet.


Right, you need Strength 14 and Dexterity 14 to take Fighter Dedication.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cozzymandias wrote:
It calls out crane stance and ironblood stance because BOTH have a requirement that you only use a specific unarmed strike, making them incompatible

I think this example confuses things since Ironblood Stance does not say "you can only make a specific unarmed strike".

Either:

1. Ironblood Stance is supposed to say "you can only make X unarmed strike"; in which case the example text of Fuse Stance is correct.
2. Or Ironblood Stance is correct in not requiring a specific strike; in which case the example text of Fuse Stance is incorrect (and Crane Stance and Ironblood Stance could be combined and would require making only crane wing attacks).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Fuse Stance (Monk Feat 20, pg 165) mentions that "you can't fuse stances with fundamentally incompatible requirements (like Ironblood Stance and Crane Stance, which both require using only one type of Strike)."

But Ironblood Stance (Monk Feat 8, pg 163) say that "you can make iron sweep unarmed attacks" not that "the only Strikes you can make are".


Malk_Content wrote:
Explorers armour can take runes but you count as unarmoured.

The table on pg 275 says that "No armor" gives no AC Bonus but no Dex Cap; however "Explorer's clothing" has a +5 Dex Cap.


Lord Fyre wrote:

The Robot Slayer background should not be limited to Dwarves. :)

But, adapting Vengeful Hatred (it was "Ancestral Hatred" in the playtest, and I didn't change the name) is exactly what I would do.

Robot Bane would work exactly like the dwarven Vengeful Hatred, but would be limited to Robots and selectable by anyone as a general feat.

Yes, I didn't want to go down giving damage buffs from the background at this point. I expect there is a reason Paizo didn't do that with backgrounds in 2e and while I might be wrong, Robot Bane as a general or skill feat that grants a circumstance bonus to damage against robots feels inconsistent and perhaps too strong.


Vengeful Hatred for dwarves is a 1st level ancestry feat that gives a +1 circumstance bonus per weapon die on damage rolls against one of drow, duergar, giant, or orc. So there is a precedent for a Robot Bane style feat, but it's an ancestry feat and not from a background, and since none of the backgrounds improve combat damage I wanted to avoid that.

Vengeful Hatred could be modified to allow robots or constructs to be chosen as the hated enemy so that dwarves could keep that damage bonus, but that feels a little weird.


Lord Fyre wrote:
oconnor0 wrote:
My in-progress homebrew/conversion is available at: Google Docs I'm fairly happy with the conversion of the backgrounds from the Iron Gods Player Guide to 2e.
This is quite good, though I might want to go in a different direction for some of these backgrounds.

Feel free to leave comments on the doc or here if you have things you would change or think can be improved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My in-progress homebrew/conversion is available at: Google Docs I'm fairly happy with the conversion of the backgrounds from the Iron Gods Player Guide to 2e.

Some things I'm stuck on:

How does technology fit into the game?

The Technologist feat become kind of a feat requirement for dealing with technology in 1e.

Some thoughts I have about how to deal with it in 2e:


  • 1. The feat works as in 1e. You are untrained in all skills when the subject is technological.
  • 2. Without the feat, you treat your proficiency bonus as 1 step lower when the subject is technological (trained is like untrained, expert is like trained, etc.)
  • 3. Without the feat, you suffer a -2 penalty when the subject is technological.
  • 4. Ignore the feat and let players interact with technology without penalty.

#4 is essentially what I did in book 1 during the playtest. This is an adventure about technology, so it worked fine. But I do like the feeling of having the technology be otherworldy and so require some investment to really grasp.

How do guns work?

There's the thread about guns but nothing really surfaced. Touch AC is gone in 2e which is fine. But how to differentiate them from other ranged weapons. My gut says give them a benefit and a drawback compared to crossbows.

I like the idea of handguns having Deadly or Fatal and a new Close Ranged weapon trait that does something like increase the penalty due to range to -3 per range increment rather than -2. Not sure about longarms; though Volley would work, I suppose.

What's a simple rubric for converting magic items to technological items?

Trying to convert 1e items to 2e is beyond my ability at this point. It seems simpler to convert 2e magic items to 2e technological items. Some of these are kind of simple, just reskin the item, so an elixir of life becomes a single-use nanite hypogun (or something).

But the more complex ones are conversions like turning bracers of armor into technological armor. My instinct is to make the armor take batteries (and so can power down after a certain number of hits or combats or days or whatever); but then I'd like it to have an upside or the players just sell the technological item and buy the magical one. The technological one could be cheaper (since it eats money), but that's a little boring?


I've been running Iron Gods, converted from PF1e to the Playtest rules. We're switching to 2e this week. What public conversion/homebrew work have people done in converting the 1e technological stuff (guns, items, spells, etc.) to playtest/2e?

Thanks.


Enervation is gone? Did something replace it?


When I compare druid and wizard spellcasting, I don't understand. Wizards have a spellbook they prepare from, while druids can prepare any common spell plus what they learn later. Doesn't that just make druids better casters?


My biggest issue with animal companion sizes is that Small animals can't be ridden and that full-grown animals have to increase in size. I'd love that be able to have a Halfling ride a Medium boar or dog for all 20 levels.


Ah, thank you. I couldn't find that definition.


I'm looking at the save DC for a class, say for the Dragon Totem Breath. As I read it, a class's DC is 10 + key ability modifier + ? I don't see anything about how your proficiency gets added in. What have I missed?