oconnor0's page

33 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.



2 people marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:
Garen Sparrowhawk wrote:

Good stuff!

Mountain Stance seems to mean I can't jump now or I lose the benefits which thematically fits with a rooted stance, which I admit changes my playstyle somewhat now with it, but it is what it is.

The other monk clarification stuff like the conflict between Ironblood Stance and Fuse Stance can wait. I'm thankful you guys got out what you did.

That's not what Mountain Stance says. Remember that when you jump, you land in the same action. You might as well say running takes you out of the stance. The intent is you can't be in that stance if you're swimming, flying, or fighting in some bizarre location like in a tree. Ground movement is fine.

That is, literally, what Mountain Stance says:

"Requirements: You are unarmored and touching the ground."

As soon as you start running or jumping, you are no longer touching the ground.

Fortunately, running doesn't exist in PF2 so we can assume that you Stride without leaving the ground.


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.


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:


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.


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".


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?


Enervation is gone? Did something replace it?