Churgri of Vapula

oholoko's page

270 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 270 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

All around me are familiar faces. Worn out places... Worn out faces.


Cellowyn wrote:

Thanks everyone for the information. The Titan Mauler Barbarian seems to be a little bit skewed. I do understand the F=ma argument, but this is a fantasy game. My son built a Gnome barbarian Titan Mauler that uses large weapons. We are struggling a bit to figure out how to adjust his damage in two cases:

1. Normal form when he’s Small and swinging a large sword (I’m struggling with this anyway, but rules are rules)
2. Gnome large form (he took that ability), so when he goes from Small to large, the sword becomes Huge. Would he roll extra dice in this case like a Giant would?
Just trying to work my way thru this when there are no rules outlined. I can manage, but I thought I’d check with the Hive Mind.

If it does not say the damage changes it does not change. It's a fluid game mechanic. And if he grows unless the ability says that he grows proportional it just stays the same.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I prefer the rule for "using wrong-sized weapons" is "you can't" with the addendum of "if something tells you that you can, that ability will tell you what effect this has."

I'll also take "small characters can be effective martials" as preferable to "I can squeeze some extra damage from size modifiers."

Worse part was that going 1 size in the later parts of the game was huge. And going from small to medium normally was almost useless.


Bardarok wrote:
Darkwynters wrote:
There is a sidebar on CRB page 91 which tells how to up the damage of a weapon. One of my players had an Ogre Greatsword which did 1d12+2 damage.

That sidebar tells you how to increase the damage die of a weapon when an effect calls to increase the damage die. Such as the fighter feat on the same page.

Nowhere does it say that increasing size increases the weapons damage die. That's a PF1 rule that didn't carry over to the playtest.

Enlarge person and the Giants Totem both give static damage bonuses instead of increasing die size.

Yeah another example is the the thing that paladins(and clerics with a feat) get in the playtest increasing the die size by one when wielding a simple weapon from their god.


Ediwir wrote:
More referring to how bards had feats to improve their casting that were in large part denied to sorcerers. Like Improved Spont Heighten.

I guess it was a bit weird. But having an extra spell slot just made them so much better at casting IMO.


Ediwir wrote:
I'm just hoping that this time around, Sorcerers are better casters than Bards.

In my group the sorcerer felt like a better caster. The bard felt like a better class.


Bardarok wrote:
From what I recall it was mentioned during the playtest period as highly likely that rangers would get focus spells as an option, but I don't think there has been any confirmation since the PF2 rules have been finalized.

I think there was a confirmation they would get some but they didn't say if it would be in the CRB. So they might not have some at august 1st. But i doubt it wouldn't be in the gods book.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LordVanya wrote:

As I also don't wish to take away from all the cool stuff being revealed, I'm going to make this short.

I hope that the final release has better minion rules and flavor text, because the playtest version broke the game's verisimilitude for me.

You are telling me that somehow the creature that I have a mystical bond with that is supposed to be a special member of it's species with the strength and endurance to be an adventuring companion is always slower and dumber than a random wild animal I may encounter and have to fight?

Balanced game play be damned if I have to suspend my disbelief to this extent.

I justified with the creature wants to make sure my commands are correct so it does not take full advantage of it's speed instead having to match my pace. While summoned creatures s basically the opposite most times they are bound to me so they fight my commands off.

But yeah the minion rules will be kept from the way the dev team is talking, 20+ minions each with a full turn will not be a thing anymore.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
I asked JJ why in-universe clerics have that ability instead of something more related to their individual gods and he said it's because they're designated to be the prime and most masterful channelers of positive and negative energy around, which is an okay reason I guess, but I still would prefer clerics who don't necessarily hurt undead and heal people (or the opposite), most of all now that we have so many ways to heal up and a dedicated healbot is somewhat less necessary.

That's a shame. I was hoping that they'd listen to the feedback that making one class much better at a core task (healing) than anyone else makes that class a necessity, which is bad. It's especially bad when that class comes with as much baggage as the cleric does.

This is one place where I thought 4e did good. They placed all the healing classes (cleric, warlord, bard, artificer, shaman, and probably a psionic one I'm forgetting) on mostly equal footing (as well as moved a lot of the healing burden to the person being healed). That meant that a party consisting of a warden, an artificer, a sorcerer, and a runepriest was just as viable as one consisting of a fighter, a cleric, a rogue, and a wizard.

5e is also doing pretty well on this front. A bard that has learned healing spells or a druid is mostly on equal footing with a cleric without the Life domain. I'm OK with the healing-specced Cleric outhealing everyone else, but IMO a baseline cleric should be about as good at healing as a bard or druid.

I can agree with this, every Healer should be on the same footing with things that can help and boost him above that. I can see a few classes healing a bit more being but those should be choices for them to become better at that niche


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stone Dog wrote:
Do we know if the class paths are mandatory or is there a default cleric?

Well from the way they are talking i think there is no default cleric, you are always a cleric with X path even if one path is clearly the 'default' one. Like rogues in the playtest, there was 3 types clearly one is the common rogue(The one with dex to damage) but there were two more and you had no choice to not pick one.


Halcyon_Janissary wrote:

Curious on your thoughts about whether a human could take the Natural Ambition Ancestry Feat more than once. This feat grants you an additional 1st level class feat.

My assumption is yes, but I've seen other instance of selectable ...things which specifically call out the ability to take them more than once, and Natural Ambition doesn'y have that; so now I'm leaning toward no.

Thanks!

The one that lets you pick a general feat calls out that you can take multiple times so i don't think you can do it. It would make no sense for one to call it out and the other to ignore it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

I love kobolds personally but the new ones seem unnecessarily cutesy. They look kind of like toys. Plus the stylized big head stubby limbs aesthetic feels like it steps on goblins' toes a bit.

To be honest, without this thread explicitly saying so I wouldn't have even thought they were kobolds.

Personally some of my favorite kobold designs have come from Paizo. Stuff like these.
This one from Monster Codex
And this one from Inner Sea Races

That said, excited for kobold ancestries not having an intentionally garbage statline. Even if I have to pretend they don't look like what they look like.

BluLion wrote:
Those links don't seem to be working, though tbh,I don't think fur-affinity lets you link just the images themselves.

The hyperlinks don't work for me either but manually looking up the link after you get the error seems to work for me.

To the plushy dungeon with him!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thundarr the Barbarian wrote:

Of the kobolds on the cover of the new Bestiary, I hereby name them Larry (the red one), Curly (the blue one), and Moe (the black one). In my games, this trio of kobolds will forevermore be known as the...

** spoiler omitted **

Why? Because I just did... and the Lords of Light demanded it.

EDIT: Hmmm... Larry isn't really a typical fit for a fantasy setting. Maybe I should've named that one Shemp instead... Nah! That just aids Larry in becoming more memorable.

I just keep thinking now that they got their names by randomly looking over words on a parchment and choosing the ones that look the coolest before forcing a weak peddler to translate their new terrifying common names.


portaly wrote:

hello, currently im playing a large barbarian with a giant totem.

im unable to find the implications as of what damage or reach differences are there when you use a larger weapon.
will the strength modifier change from 1.5?

p.s
as of character development, what are the bonuses/losses?

thank you!

Reach i think changes when you grow to large but that's on the barbarian feat already. The damage change only happens to your rage bonus, a huge creature greatsword will deal 1d12 like the one from a small creature


Lightning Raven wrote:

Nah man. Buying power just cheapens the whole value of having a magical item. Specially when items that don't offer any unconditional and mechanical benefits like these are never going to compete. On top of them not competing, the math of the game actually expects the players to have these items at the intended levels, which makes them catch-up items and not actual benefits. Hence the term "mandatory choices".

I would rather spend my character's money on stuff that let me do things that he can't already do... Which the Big 6 (or whatever the number) don't do at all, they just let you keep doing what you're doing. The huge difference now is that if in PF1e you did -5 dmg because you lost your best weapon, now you're dealing with a loss of 4 whole dice to your attack. This issue has been brought up often here with people actually making math to showcase the huge disparity that is losing a weapon in PF1e and PF2e. In PF2e the disparity is so huge that your back-up weapon to bypass DR will actually net you LESS damage, than just simply swing your best item at the monster.

I always felt in pf1 it was even worse, lost your death-ward item. Oh yeah you are dead, lost your +save item guess who is killing the whole party today?

But yeah i am biased in that cause i want magic weapons that do matter, even if i do like the idea of a slower progression if you lack the weapon. Something like gaining the striking rune bemefot but with -4 to -5 levels(The first kicking at level 8 or 9 instead of 4) with a feat or ritual to get them to the same level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
oholoko wrote:
Striking grants 4 total dice, in the playtest you got 5 extra dice for a total of 6.
It's thus very plausible (though by no means certain) that you get extra dice from just being high level (or something else) in the final game.

I think is plausible that more features like paladins 'smite' and fighters 'PA' become viable adding dies for conditions or actions in feats. And that you gain small increments of damage with class, like the barbarian feature that came out in the spoiler.

Lightning Raven wrote:


Be either 5 or 4. It still makes martial classes just some random using a rare magical weapon, which is a shame.

This will definitely will be the first rule I'll remove. Hopefully, it doesn't require a lot of effort, but even if does, it's being scraped. No more mandatory "choices" anymore for my group.

I can understand that even if i do enjoy adding dice to magic weapons, i just like the concept of money being able to buy some power after all. But i do hope some general feats or some rituals make it possible for a char to instead of using weapons or armor gain those bonus without using weapons and stuff.

Maybe a vow of poverty-like feat that you gain stuff for donating instead of buying and the bonus go up as you level being able to be changed with a ritual that takes some small objects you get from the people you donate to.


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


You ignored the bold bit there. That composite longbow required significant gold investment to upgrade to that point. Cantrips are free. A caster shouldn't be able to do comparable damage at will for free, especially when you consider at will damage tends to be biggest contribution a martial character can make while the caster...

Yes you make a good point., but the cantrip is also 2 actions as opposed to the weapons 1, plus range, and a bunch of other things. I'd suggest increasing the range at the very least. maybe adding a mid-level feat that makes cantrip attacks 1 action instead of 2. Due to overall weakening of casters cantrips are going to be way more important.

Bardarok wrote:

With striking taking up a rune slot and only going to three bonus dice won't max Longbow damage be more like: 4d8+3 Str+2d6 Other runes or ~28

Compared to 9d4+7 ~29.5

You get two shots with the bow which does make it more damaging for the action economy but it probably should be if it is a primary weapon.

I'd argue that cantrips should start off closer to weapon damage and then fall behind because as the caster level ups it's more likely that they are going to use a slotted spell or power so cantrips move from primary combat position for a low level caster to a backup option for a high level caster

Striking grants 4 dice (5 in playtest).

Striking grants 4 total dice, in the playtest you got 5 extra dice for a total of 6.


CobaltCrusader wrote:

Thanks for summarizing, I was bad at taking notes during this.

When I asked the question about class paths I was a little disappointed to hear that the monk (and by extension the fighter) would not be getting path expansion options I was a bit disappointed, but I do have hope that there will be interesting options available for certain paths.

I think ultimately the future of pathfinder is bright, I really liked all that I've seen from the panels and what I got to play at the con. What's coming in the future has me very hopeful for what's to come.

Well they do have good option specially the monk with ki powers, stances, special strikes and even grappling


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paladinosaur wrote:
Leshies and Lizardfolk seems like a terrible decision. There are lots of more popular ancestries.

Agreed... But i think they will be giving those and make a bigger more well defined book for the cool ones... Like kobolds.


Spellmonger wrote:
oholoko wrote:
wxcougar wrote:

#58

Monk class feature 17th

Graceful Legend: Your sublime movement grants you unparalleled protection and offense. Your proficiency rank for unarmored defence increases to legendary, and your proficiency rank for your monk class DC increases to master. If you have ki spells, your proficiency rank for spell attack rolls and spell DCs with the tradition of magic you use for your ki spells increases to master.

Is this power progression i am so happy... This is the best.

Wait... "tradition of magic"... "ki spells"...

Monks just got a whole lot more interesting and versatile, unless I am misreading things.

Yeah monk can do some cool kung fu stuff now. Like walk around a lot with a veil of shadows, some ki blasts. A few things like that ^^

Edit: Damn ninja'd


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wxcougar wrote:

#58

Monk class feature 17th

Graceful Legend: Your sublime movement grants you unparalleled protection and offense. Your proficiency rank for unarmored defence increases to legendary, and your proficiency rank for your monk class DC increases to master. If you have ki spells, your proficiency rank for spell attack rolls and spell DCs with the tradition of magic you use for your ki spells increases to master.

Is this power progression i am so happy... This is the best.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
I just realized Rage is no longer prevented by heavy armor, thank Gorum.

WOW that is huge actually thanks for pointing it out.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
BinbouMiko wrote:
One thing I that interests me about this is if striking takes the same slot as flaming, and if those are still constant d6. If so, then we get to make a choice like in Monster Hunter World, where big raw d12 weapons want striking, but a weak d4 dagger would be better with elemental first.

That actually makes it interesting, i mean probably it will be 3 runes max like it was before. But someone might instead of getting striking go for a greater rune that gives elemental damage all 3 times getting +xd6 of acid, +xd6 of fire and +xd6 of good. Would be pretty nice even if they were less than the +3dX from striking.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Possibly the +2 is the attack bonus from being Master quality. They might have just decided "+2 greater striking greater frost greatsword" looked better than "greater striking greater frost master greatsword."

I would rather have a master greater striking greater frost greatsword than a +2 greater striking greater frost greatsword. But i guess they might have went with +2 instead of master.

Edit: Also went to look on 'Treerazor sheet' that was posted somewhere in this forum. It seems that indeed +5 just means +5 to hit so damage does not scale with that. Since with his teeth he has +43 and with the axe he has +45(Could also be that he just scales differently but i would rather believe that's how runes work for now.)


So i was looking over the thread where they are currently talking about the spoiler #XXX, and i noticed there is the striking rune... But i also noticed that this one:
Spoiler #99
It's a +2, Greater striking, Greater frost. So that means the blades go up to +3 extra dies of damage and then go up to +6 using striking? Or +3 now it's only to hit? Anyone else noticed that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon Onozuka wrote:

I'm sure wands will be more expensive, but if they basically give you an extra spell a day compared to a single use scroll, I know my players will almost always save up for the wand version and pretend that scrolls don't exist. After all, potentially infinite-use is always more cost-effective in the long run.

My point is that there is still too much overlap with scrolls in this variation, except wands seem to just be better (& likely more expensive). If PF1 wands were basically 50-use scrolls, then the basic PF2 wands are 1/day scrolls with the possibility of extra features. At which point I question what the point of scrolls are.

I'd rather just throw out basic wands being daily scrolls and only make wands with other more advanced features.

I find my players almost never buying consumables, so having trinkets and wands that can be used 1/day might make the idea more apealable to them.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

Screw versimilitude and the nice fuzzy feeling that reality fits neat little boxes in your brain you've made for yourself. And that those boxes are nice and orderly. Oh and your boxes are the same as the boxes over there.

It's a game, opponents are supposed to be challenging, encounters are supposed to be interesting. I don't care if my PC could potentially do the same things the Gladiator NPC can do, I want it to be a tough cookie I can fight and have satisfaction from winning. Pretty much nothing else matters.

My opinions about that changed over the years because too often the desire for realism/verisimilitude conflicted with me having fun.

It does seem to be a current trend, and I am fine with that, I really like the Starfinder NPCs most of the time.

I once thought it was better when you had all the freedom in creating npcs/monsters... Then i tested starfinder monster/npc creation. That thought went away pretty easily when i could create a monster in like 5 minutes and he was both chalenging and customizable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nick1wasd wrote:
Alright, I'm just gonna ask because I can't make sense of it all. Why can't new Magi be full casters off the Arcane list? What, other than "that's how it was in PF1!" should be stopping the theoretical new Magus class from being a full 9th level spell user? I get being a Focus Caster, you curtail a special set of things they can do that would make sense for them and no one else, but if they did make them full 9ers, what would be wrong with that? ALSO, there's the "free action" thing for a reason, silly forgetful people who wonder how Spellstrike would work :P (FREE ACTION SYMBOL; Whenever you cast a spell with an attack roll, you may deliver it with a weapon instead of your hand)

To me it is because the whole 'free action magic' attack is already quite big, getting high proefs in both armor,weapons and magic is also something that would cost the class, then getting magic 9 levels on top is quite scary. I don't think it's impossible to make them but it's quite hard to keep balance with them on the game in my mind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Chakat Firepaw wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think multiple checks for picking locks makes sense if we're talking about pin an tumbler locks, since you have to set all the pins to the correct height in order to pick the lock.
Given that pin tumbler locks are a 19th century invention, (and the kind you are probably thinking of mid-19th century), you probably aren't going to be encountering them on Golarion.
We have airships and spaceships on Golarion.

Tech progression is weird when you get magic.


graystone wrote:
oholoko wrote:
I always felt that in PF1 actually since most times you would do a weird metamagic combo so you needed a good spell for it xD
I think I only saw this with people playing magus. With the rest of the casting classes I mostly didn't see alot of metamagic. Most time one trick [spell] ponies don't work well in the long run.

Well most of the times i did see that, might been just my tables. I mean people had more spells, but they used one or two a lot more than the rest and lower spell slots were mostly replaced for something that made you more flexible.

graystone wrote:
oholoko wrote:
Pf2 normally i saw wizards and clerics buffing and using weapons most times.
I saw plenty of buffing in PF1 and weapon use was often seen by clerics: wizards/sorcerer often used weapons at the start but the more spells they got the less they used weapons.

Yeah... But i meant instead of using utility spells and putting buffs one time they were actually using the buffs during the fight and then using bows or crossbows. I guess it was because of the spell limit and cantrips being subpar to weapons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
BluLion wrote:
With normal Vancian magic, I guess the slots could be a tad restrictive, but with cantrips being stronger, I still think it shouldn't feel necessary to have more spellslots.

For me, the combination of stronger cantrips, lower slots and abilities to recast used spells will end up with the situation that you are going to find yourself ALWAYS casting the same handful of spells.

Rounds:
1- cantrip A
2- cantrip A
3- cantrip A
4- spell A [big monster shows up]

next combat
1- cantrip A
2- cantrip A
3- cantrip A
4- recast spell A [big monster shows up]

Next combat
replay 1st combat...

While I'm also conservative with my slots and am grateful that cantrips stay relevant in combat as you level, I don't want every combat to look like every other combat or you're just replacing the old trope of a wizard using a crossbow with cantrip and a favored spell or two: I'd rather have it that after a few levels I could go through several combats and not have to use the same cantrip and/or spell in any of those combats if I wished.

I always felt that in PF1 actually since most times you would do a weird metamagic combo so you needed a good spell for it xD

Pf2 normally i saw wizards and clerics buffing and using weapons most times.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

I have a STRONG suspicion that ALL Classes are going to get another starting Class Feat at level 1 and that ALL Multiclass Dedication Feats are going to get moved down to level 1 in order to help facilitate the huge number of hybrid classes from PF1 that DON'T have to wait until level 2 to "come online."

At least, I'd like to hope it turns out that way.

I hope that everyone get a free floating feat like the fighter that can be up to half your level rounded up, most feats that seem bad tend to have one or two good uses but are so overshadowed by others that letting a floating feat happen can help a lot.


thejeff wrote:
dmerceless wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
I'm a little disappointed to hear Battle Medic still bolsters your target for the day. I liked the idea of Battle Medic just letting you Treat Wounds faster. Now I'll have to continue with my idea that Battle Medic is hitting someone with a shot of adrenaline that would make their heart explode if they took it more than once a day.

I like to think of it like that: Battle Medic is you trying to bandage up some wounds very quickly in the middle of a clutch situation. It definitely helps, but there's only so much you can do this way. If you want to further help that person recover, you actually need to take the time to examine wounds and treat them more carefully. It makes sense to me.

(Also from a balance perspective Battle Medic just letting you treat wounds 100 times faster with no drawbacks or extra restrictions would probably be too much for a level 1 Skill Feat.)

OTOH, it doesn't really make sense that once you've bandaged up the wound they took to their left arm in the first fight, you won't be able to do anything about the wound to the leg they got in the second fight.

But hey, it's an abstraction for balance reasons. I'm happy with it.

Agreed but what i am wondering is how will battle medic scale up, will it scale normally or there will be feats to also make it more reliable?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FedoraFerret wrote:
Not gonna lie, Twin Feint feels kind of lackluster given how prevalent the flatfooted condition is. Rogues in the playtest games I ran never had a problem inflicting it or getting it from their party members. So committing a feat to make two attacks as two actions, one of which has full penalties but gets the flatfooted that you could've gotten on both attacks by moving into a flank or, like, amping up your Intimidate skill seems like it'd be mediocre.

I also hope it does a bit more. If it combines both damages into one it would already make the attack quite a bit better, but for now we only know it make the opponent flatfooted for the second one xD


Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
If you have 1 healer, what happens when that healer goes down? I've always thought a secondary healer vital. Better still if everyone can do a little healing, in case there's only 1 left standing.

Once back in 3.5 i was the healer guy, we had nothing else to heal at several points. If i did go down everyone was f*%$ed as 1 point per level per day is almost useless xD


Ediwir wrote:
oholoko wrote:
Ediwir wrote:

So, more details on Treat Wounds - it affects 1 target only, and also bolsters on a failure.

That’s... a bit restrictive, I have to say.
One person per 10 minutes or one target for 1 hour rest?

There is no such thing as a 1hr rest.

Qundle took 10mins to heal Zel, then 10 minutes to heal Mykah, then 10 mins to heal himself, then they handwaved one hour off so that Carina could lay all of them (ok this sounds bad, I meant cycle through focus points to heal them to max).

By one hour rest I meant the 1 hour you are bolstered from treat wounds.


Ediwir wrote:

So, more details on Treat Wounds - it affects 1 target only, and also bolsters on a failure.

That’s... a bit restrictive, I have to say.

One person per 10 minutes or one target for 1 hour rest?


Deadmanwalking wrote:


Also, if you ignore the above and choose to do this, you can easily just, say, give people double XP until they hit the same level as the highest level people. That's quick, easy, and makes this problem last a shorter time.

I do this since i let players create a new character at (lowest player level - 1)... Weirdly enough it made people hate being the highest leveled char since they get no extra exp.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nick1wasd wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
oholoko wrote:

Fatal is worse than deadly in most cases. Remember deadly adds 1 if expert, 2 if master and 3 if legendary.

While fatal changes the dies and then adds one.

Taken in isolation, this is still better for Fatal at every level.

With a normal Heavy Pick and Str 18, a crit does 3d12+8 (27.5). If it had Deadly d8 instead of Fatal it would do 2d10+1d8+8 (23.5)

With a +1 Heavy Pick and Str 18, a crit does 5d12+8 (40.5). If it had Deadly d8 instead of Fatal it would do 4d10+1d8+8 (34.5).

With a Master +2 Heavy Pick and Str 18, a crit does 7d12+8 (53.5), while Deadly would be 6d10+2d8+8 (50).

With a Master +3 Heavy Pick and Str 20, a crit does 9d12+10 (68.5) while Deadly would be 8d10+2d8+10 (63).

With a Legendary +4 Heavy Pick and Str 22, a crit does 11d12+12 (83.5), while Deadly would be 10d10+3d8+12 (80.5).

With a Legendary +5 Heavy Pick and Str 24, a crit does 13d12+14 (98.5), while deadly would make it 12d10+3d8+14 (93.5).

The gap narrows slightly at Master/+2 and Legendary/+4, but those are actually bad choices that I only threw in to give Deadly every advantage. It's not a huge advantage on average, but it's a very consistent one.

Now, whether Fatal is better enough to be worth as much as it seems to be priced is another matter, but it's flatly superior to Deadly d8 (which seems the default version of Deadly).

Yeah, Fatal seems to be an odd duck when it comes to pricing, and except for Bows (d10) the only Deadly die we've seen is d8, so it does seem like they're "pricing" it because it can get so far out of hand should you abuse it's presence.

There's d6 deadly too.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bardarok wrote:

I like the idea of home brewing new weapons but I think number of traits alone is not a good way to balance the weapons since some traits are just better than others.

Fatal is clearly better than deadly

Finesse and Agile are just better than most of the rest.

So.. be careful of power creep I guess.

Fatal is worse than deadly in most cases. Remember deadly adds 1 if expert, 2 if master and 3 if legendary.

While fatal changes the dies and then adds one.


MaxAstro wrote:

I hope that both crit failure on a natural 1 and crit success on a nat 20 go away. A level 1 goblin should not have a 5% chance of landing a crit on a level 20 fighter.

I'd prefer natural 1 and natural 20 to change the result by 1 degree instead. So if you'd normally succeed on a 1, it's a regular failure instead; if you'd normally crit fail even on a 20, a 20 is a regular failure instead.

I am already using that :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would say going to 12 HP would be a cool idea for an sorcerer archetype. Something like bloodrager since they will probably not make it into a full fledged class.


Vali Nepjarson wrote:

So one of my biggest concerns for PF2 is in my favorite class conceptually, the Sorcerer. Carrying on the blood of dragons or ancient magical cultures or whatever and channelling them into magical potency is probably the coolest concept for me out of the classes.

Unfortunately, we got the playtest and the Sorcerer was...well underwhelming. I love the concept that Sorcs have access to any of the 4 spell lists depending in their bloodline. That's cool. The problem is that no matter what spell list you pick, the Sorc is always just an inferior version of the primary spellcaster for that spell list.

Why be a Fae blooded Sorcerer when the Druid has the same spells, more health, Wild Shape (a single ability almost as flavorful and major as the spellcasting itself) and 4 potential paths which are all quite potent, while the Sorcerer only gets a couple bloodline abilities, some of which are cool but none of which even come close to making up the distance.

Plus the spellcasting itself is weaker, since the Sorc can only have so many spells and cannot heighten those spells however they see fit.

All in all the Sorc of the playtest was bland and uninteresting and I am very much hoping it gets a complete redesign from the ground up that gives the Sorc it's own niche outside of the other casters and makes you want to play them. I have not seen any evidence of anyone showing them since the info on PF2 has started coming out, and I don't know if this means people still don't care that much or if Paizo is trying to keep it under wraps because they're really excited about it.

But this is all just my estimation. I want to know what everyone else thinks. Is the general thought that the playtest Sorcerer was underwhelming and undesirable or am I in the minority? And if the former, how should the Sorcerer be fixed.

Personally, I would REALLY change the entire core of the class, taking some inspiration from the 5e Warlock, although not going quite so far down that path.

First, I'd keep the fact that the Sorc can...

I am sorry but the book but the book already shipped to printers...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
IAmPageicus wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Heal directly manipulates vital essence. Soothe is the occult healing spell you're looking for.

Thank You!!

For not only the speedy reply but for adding a spell that fits perfectly with the Bard... I read through all the spells and when I read the NAME soothe I thought it had something to do with sleeping recovery lol.

This way of adding theme's to the mechanics is great. Making it really have a flavor in not only character creation but progression and now to find it carries over to the spells is really impressive.

At first I was feeling this was just a money grab due to 5th edition "ease of use dominance"

But the amount of CARE and FEEDBACK has shown me 2nd edition Is a new beast on its way to being what I thought 5th was going to be. Every time I "think" I find something I hate there is something shown to me that I absolutely love.

Sorry for Wasting your time lol...

Actually this question comes up a lot. They way spells lack a description makes most of players do this mistake too... And the erratas of the playtest do not help.

But they said PHB will be more approachable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Feros wrote:
I went with + half level as many of the Heritages already used that mechanic. The resistances were right in with Arctic Elves and Inflammable Goblin. Since that is in keeping with what we already have, I don’t think it is too far out of line. Now if it was an attack bonus or on all defenses other than a corner case…yeah, that would be way too much.

Resistencies is a thing. There's no checks with resistencies after all. But +5 on any check makes crits 25% more likely now and failures 25% more likely to happen.

With the tighter math even +2 to any kind of check is already a huge problem as it increases the chance of success massively.
How about instead of adding +level, add +half level if you are untrained and give a circumstance/conditional bonus of +1(Scaling to +2 in some way.) when trained or more. That solves a bit


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Loved the ideas. But i do think a few of them need some balancing as it always happens... And why is it missing the plushie bold heritage?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Leafar Cathal wrote:
Does anybody feel that, although goblins are Paizo's brand recognition, the new Kobolds would fit the CRB (and the scenario) better?
No
To the plushie dungeon with you!

15 minutes with the plushy bolds should do trick and 'change'his opinion.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:

By "The scenario" do you mean Age of Ashes?

In that case, yes, a kobold pc would really shine in that ap.

Personally I still think that goblins are so iconic and unique in PF that they're the best choice for the CRB.

I certainly hope plushies kobolds reach those lofty heights one day, though!

Bold plushies are best plushies.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Leafar Cathal wrote:
Since Kobolds can be diverse among themselves, what about two free ability boosts as Humans?
Well, the free +2 that all Ancestries get lets everyone be diverse now, and I don't see low Dex or high Str Kobolds as normal or common. I definitely don't see them as more diverse than Halflings or Elves, to pick two random examples.

Well kobold are know miners and mining is definitely str and while I do agree +2/+2 seems to not fit kobolds. But I do hope they change kobold -2 to something other than str or con...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
I think focus powers with scaling results based on how many points you spend would be great. We shall see how the devs solved this

Psion?

1 to 50 of 270 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>