Churgri of Vapula

oholoko's page

433 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 433 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

So this question appeared on my table, my problem is with this sentence.

"The first time you hit your hunted prey in a round, you also deal 1d8 additional precision damage."

When you hunt two preys it will be the first time you hit a hunted prey two times... Would that trigger twice? Or not... We reached a consensus of no because it the second time you hit a hunted prey but i just want to be sure.


PF2 layout is not great for searching for rules. Love the game and it's pretty straight forward once you know the rules but damn if you need something specific to search use nethys cause the book really is hard to use.


Temperans wrote:

meanwhile in the backline

The blaster wizard would be playing with dirt as the Barbarian and Rogue hit more often and out damage him.

A relic that improves damage and range better apply to spells otherwise its just messed up.

Blaster wizards do suffer but he can still make people fly, teleport, blast and debuff quite a bit better than the two of them. Even if i do find wizards a bit lacking right now the price for versatility is high.


SuperBidi wrote:

I'm with Temperans on this one. Even if I clearly disagree with a 1 in power for any class, you can't remove them from the poll. The people who voted that low are a bit extreme, but they are still not liking the class at all, which is an important piece of data that must not be discarded.

Right now, there's some kind of "meta", to take a video game word, which is heavy on martials (with bards helping them). But it may change, especially when people will reach higher levels, as casters are better at high level than at low level. Also, the APG may change the meta, too.

Agreed data might be biased but even removing the extremes as it should be done as extremes tend to be a bad thing. Alchemists, wizards are still at a really low point what means they both feel not as enjoyable and not as strong as the rest by a fair bit. Wizards with a 5.8 are somewhere decent as just a bit lower than 6 and 6 being average but alchemists... Well those are at the bottom of a pit without new toys.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Megistone wrote:

We will never have a book about creative process.

I'll make an example: I want to build a monster whose main ability is an aura that makes blood boil inside the veins (it emits magical microwaves, or something like that), dealing increasing damage if you stay around it.
I don't know if someone already had this idea, but I definitely wouldn't expect to find it on a Paizo book.
What I expect is a guideline about the damage such an ability would deal. And I have it; I could also look at the bestiary to find something vaguely similar and start from that.
Now, if you tell me that this kind of guidelines are not very detailed, you are right. But really, having a table about "increasing microwave damage by level" is something that won't happen.

Further decisions like the fact that it counts as fire damage, but fire resistance is halved in this case, are completely on me - and of course it is, because that's where the creative process lies, and the possibilities are infinite.

Yeah its hard to codify in pf2 like they did in pf1 because the game scales is too spread open. The only numbers that really matter are on the sheet, you got a lot of wiggleroom on several abilities, the race builder in pf2 for example could quantify bonus AC, stat bonuses, etc... But now creatures aren't build with those in mind...

Building monsters now is a bunch of easy to swallow numbers and cool abilities instead of... Well this guy has 48 con because if not my party will one hit kill him...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think on a book sole dedicated to monster creation everything zap said would be awesome... Problem is that i don't think demand would be enough for such a product. But yeah a monster handbook with abilities, weakness and everything needed along with more templates and how to keep them balanced is awesome... It just won't fit well in a 10-20 page part of another book.


It's kind of stupid... I hope there's an optional rule on the APG...


The-Magic-Sword wrote:
TRDG wrote:

I was hoping to find something in the new book but after I read through it I drew a complete blank.......:(

Was hoping for some spells to add some way for my Mantis girl, but looks like unless I multi into a Cleric I saw no way to add anything new from the book.

Did I miss anything?

All comments and suggestions welcome gang

Thanks :)

Tom

Biggest thing in general, imo, is the fact that Clerics and (eventually) champions can just take Achaekek as a god to get access to Sawtooth Sabers, and therefore get the archetype at a drastically lower level and without having to give up General Feats.

But yeah, that doesn't concern you as far as I can tell.

Do paladins get training in their favored weapon if it's advanced?

I know clerics get but i think paladins only get martial,unnarmed and simple.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Warprist weirdly enough provides a better support than the regular priest, Shield block and a higher proef save make quite a difference on a frontline support.
But outside of that and specially if your dm likes throwing low numbers of strong enemies instead of a high number of weak ones or a strong one with lackeys you will have a hard time.

And also warpriest does provide the best fullcaster entry into signifier and into knights of the last wall.
And while i do agree in more cases the cloistered is a lot better like really outmatched in some cases. Hell even divine sorc feels better than warpriest sometimes. He has his own niche and i love him for that and not taking the paladin space xD


Question... How does the damage from winter bolt works with objects? I mean it deals 1d8 to the object and then 1d12 at the end of the object turn? What is the object turn? Does it automatically deals 1d12 in area if you hit?


Pronate wrote:
about 90% accurate.

Where does that comes from? In regular already existing weapons it detects with 90% accuracy? Or something else?


Okay first thing i noticed. He can get legendary in all saves or get legendary +2 in one and legendary in another. That's just ridiculous most classes do not even get legendary in one save much less all 3 of them. Maybe put so that he gains legendary in one and master on the other... Giving 3 legendaries is insane.


Castilliano wrote:
Inkfist wrote:
Gisher wrote:
CRB, p. 302 wrote:
If you take on a battle form with a polymorph spell, the special statistics can be adjusted only by circumstance bonuses, status bonuses, and penalties.
The wild order druid focus spell version of wildshape/animal form etc, gives a specific exception allowing you to use your regular to-hits with a +2 bonus if you use your own stats rather than that given by the spell.(page 401 of the CRB)

Inkfist's quote does clarify that the Striking portion does not stack.

The wording of the Wild Order ability needs to clarify what counts as "your own stats" because I can see different interpretations:
1. Your attack bonus before taking Battle Form, therefore including the magic item bonus.
2. Your attack bonus after taking Battle Form, therefore not including the magic item bonus.
3. Your attack bonus after taking Battle form, but including the magic item bonus because the Wild Order ability implies it's still active.

I don't see why 1 would be true since why check a past version of you, nor do I think 3 is implied. That leaves 2, except then the Wild Order ability would seldom be useful. That might be intentional, so that it takes much investment to break the balance curve.
Thankfully I doubt this will arise in any of my games, though I'd like Paizo to answer just in case.

"If you take on a battle form with a polymorph spell, the special statistics can be adjusted only by circumstance bonuses, status bonuses, and penalties."

Like it's said only the battle form statistics can't benefit from item bonuses... Your statitics can... And it's said on the battleform your BAB or the special ones from the form...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If i am not mistaken you can use your regular unnarmed bonus(with handwraps and everything else) or your dinossaur bonus(without handwraps).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Some didnt even want a bonus (or at least not a large bonus), just making the option of being bad at something not straight up self sabotage.

Case in point the automatically failing swim checks.

But that's more a problem of consolidated skills than the proficiency system. An easy solution is to bring back the 1e skill list or a modified version of the Background skill list; In either case giving all classes more proficiency increases.

***********
Btw in my opinion Finesse (from the consolidated skill list) is a much better name then Thievery.

Finess is already a weapon property so Finess is a really awful option.


I want a book that just has feats for multiple classes/skills to use in different ocasions and to make a few archetypes viable for multiple classes. Just silly options that are made with getting multiclass,archetypes and other silly things in mind. Maybe a feat that gives easier access to red mantis, one that gives you some ability to combat undead for other classes that aren't paladins and clerics.
Maybe even a few more universal heritages.


Draco18s wrote:
Indi523 wrote:
I may want my character not to have any knowledge of some topics and a little on one or two That system automatically raises my knowledge based on level not matter what the skill.
Er. Untrained is literally untrained. You don't get +Level if you're untrained.

Lore is the thing you are looking for you can basically have any lore if your DM lets you.


Uchuujin wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
Uchuujin wrote:
How do I get those numbers? Pre-coffee math mostly. I should know better.
I can see how that is misleading though. And would like to know where 189 comes from

+3 Striking Greatpick has a base 4d10 damage. Power attack pushes that to 7d10. Fatal Crit makes 7d12. Average of 7d12 is 45.5

Pick’s specialization effect with grievous rune adds +4 per die, so plus (7x4) = 28.

Weapon specialization adds +4 damage at legendary proficiency.

Strength of 24 (Start at 18, add +1 at 5, 10, 15,and 20, then add Belt of Giant Str) adds +7.

Elemental (or holy) runes add 1d6 damage each, so 2d6 with two. Average is 7.

45.5 + 28 + 4 + 7 + 7 = 91.5

91.5 x 2 = 183

Then fatal adds another d12, 6.5 average. 183 + 6 = 189.

Of course the system is still pretty new and I'm still learning all of it, so I might have multiplied something I shouldn't have.

Okay first mistake is that you get +8 from advanced specialization so damage is actually.

4*9(Pick specialization comes after fatal if am not mistaken and damage does not double because of a crit),
7*2(str), 3.5*2*2(Elemental runes), 9*6.5 (weapon damage) + 8*2(weapon specialization)

So damage is 80+59 = 139 damage.


boychemist wrote:

The level 1 Monk feats Ki Rush and Ki Strike both state "You gain <appropriate spell> and a focus pool with 1 Focus Point."

The higher level Ki feats have a requirement for "ki spells" and state "Increase the number of Focus Points in your focus pool by 1."

I read this as requiring either Ki Rush or Ki Strike before any other Ki feats are allowed. Does this also mean that taking both Ki Rush and Ki Strike only provide a single Focus Point?

This is not discussed in the errata and I haven't seen anything about this is the Monk description. The errata document also does not discuss this question.

Could someone please let me know the answer.

"It’s possible, especially through archetypes, to gain focus spells and Focus Points from more than one source. If this happens, you have just one focus pool, adding all the Focus Points together to determine the total size of your pool. (Remember that the maximum number of Focus Points a pool can have is 3.) If you have multiple abilities that give you a focus pool, each one adds 1 Focus Point to your pool."

I would say that this applies here even thought you aren't getting from different sources.
But that's just how it works when i DM.


Hiruma Kai wrote:
*Stuff*

Even acounting for extra buffs and debuffs (Heroism, +2 circunstance, -2 from flanking him.)

You can get at most to +42 while getting hist AC to 52. At most you will get to hit on a 10+ i can't see how you can hit a treerazor on a 6+...
Without debuffinf the heck out of him.
Even if you use synesthesia you can get him to 49 AC so you hit on a 7+ i guess but then it's not the fighter it's mostly a combination of debuffs and buffs from 2-3 casters.


nick1wasd wrote:
oholoko wrote:
My opnion is that it gets str to damage. But i also feel like wind crash is the one who needs a wording fix... That property makes no sense on it as it should get str to damage as an unnarmed attack.
That property is there so it doesn't get full bonuses, since <><> (infinity) agile 1d6 + full Str (not even taking into account handwrap runes) at 30' that IGNORE CONCEALMENT AND COVER! That also gives an AC bonus! is a little on the strong side, all things considered. So they figured since they want cool effect and flavor to tag along, 1d6 + 1/2 Str was the right place to put the nerf bat while still keeping it awesome

Fair enough. But i still feel like it's not a great nerf.


My opnion is that it gets str to damage. But i also feel like wind crash is the one who needs a wording fix... That property makes no sense on it as it should get str to damage as an unnarmed attack.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Indi523 wrote:
FlashRebel wrote:


In 2E, most of the differences between size categories have been removed, except small characters still have an obvious disadvantage in combat maneuvers since they're more limited in what opponents they can affect at all and start with less HP overall (except for unbreakable goblins).

So, is being small a complete disadvantage, or are there benefits from being small to compensate?

Honestly I think the real question is, is there any difference between small and medium creatures that matters.

From a pure combat standpoint small creatures are no harder to hit than medium ones but also do no less damage.

I don't actually like this. Smaller means less damage and less ability to dominate in a fight. It also means you are harder to hit nd can maneuver where the larger ones can't. This is part of the fun of playing the halfling or the gnome. I have no idea what they thought they were fixing.

If you played a little martial character you relied on dex and there were dozens of ways to make up for the size penalties. Unless I am missing something a halfing sized two handed sword does the same damage in his hand as the 6'5" half orc. How does that work out.

Same way a fighter in D&D 3.5 deals more damage than a tarrasque sometimes.

The mecanics really should not try to make reality and just focus on making a good game instead.


Samurai wrote:
I do feel that the Medium, and especially Heavy armor is far weaker than it used to be, so I've created some house rules to try to help fix it. Each increase in Armor proficiency reduces the armor check penalty by 1 and raises the max Dex by 1. I feel this change is a good one rather than just increasing the Item bonus because it forces the player to work for it rather than just saying "I'm a Champion, I can dump Dex!" You can, but at higher levels, you could now be adding at least a point or 2 to your AC by having some Dex bonus, not to mention the ranged attack bonus.

ACP already goes away if you got the str cap... And bulwark can cover for your lack in dex.


Martialmasters wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Quote:
4-my biggest thought on casters is they want to cast spells not make basic attacks. Personally I don't think it would be unbalanced to have cantrips or at least attack cantrips be one action flourish moves so you can cast and then cast a cantrip as well. Giving you more interaction with the map system as well.

My problem with this suggestion is that it kind of 'solves' action economy too much.

Spell + Cantrip becomes the best answer any time you don't absolutely need to move. A big part of what makes 2e's action economy work is that spending them is context dependent. For martials whether you move or make another attack or attempt a skill check with that third action is all going to depend heavily on the situation you're in, but a one action cantrip would just trump everything else for that third slot.

Also would basically kill gishes (not that Paizo already hasn't pretty much done that).

I fail to see that as an issue since triple attack is the best answer when you don't have to move. As for the Gish thing. I have the to witness a convincing Gish in 2e but I should have a thread in regards to that specifically.

I expect if we get any real gishes they will be out of the box type of things with their own mechanics to enforce the playstyle.

Triple attack is the worst option... Demoralize, raise shield, two action attacks, parry so many options can be better than 3 attacks. I mean even the aid action can help so much more than a third attack with -10...


Talonhawke wrote:
oholoko wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Feros wrote:

Well, evil causes are coming with the new Advanced Character Guide.

In many ways this is fitting, as the Anti-paladin alternate class was introduced in the 1st edition APG. There is sadly no word yet on neutral causes.

Hurray! That would at least make the class two-thirds complete, though I would prefer they go ahead and finish making the class.
Yeah I'm still kinda taking issue with right now only good characters can be masters in heavy armor from what I can tell.
Fighters everywhere: Am i a joke to you?
That was supposed to say legendary.

Oh i think another class will eventually come that gets legendary in armor, and another that gets legendary in attacks... Or even some archetypes to help with that later on. But i would rather paladins and fighters to at least be unique in some with that. Like someone who gets legendary in attack rolls is limited with only a weapon and much later than the fighter. And one that gets in armor does not get armor specialization or like the monk is limited to a unique type.


Talonhawke wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Feros wrote:

Well, evil causes are coming with the new Advanced Character Guide.

In many ways this is fitting, as the Anti-paladin alternate class was introduced in the 1st edition APG. There is sadly no word yet on neutral causes.

Hurray! That would at least make the class two-thirds complete, though I would prefer they go ahead and finish making the class.
Yeah I'm still kinda taking issue with right now only good characters can be masters in heavy armor from what I can tell.

Fighters everywhere: Am i a joke to you?


shroudb wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:

I happened to check on blade of justice feat

Quote:

PFS Legal Blade of Justice Two ActionsFeat 12
Champion
Source Core Rulebook pg. 113
Prerequisites paladin cause
You call upon divine power and make a weapon or unarmed Strike against a foe you have witnessed harming an ally or innocent. The Strike deals two extra weapon damage dice if the target of your Strike is evil. Whether or not the target is evil, the Strike applies all effects that normally apply on a Retributive Strike (such as divine smite), and you can convert all the physical damage from the attack into good damage.

So, smite evil seem to work on any enemy ( or the statement of blade of justice wouldn't have any reason to exist ), regardless his alignment.

Way better.

It's the opposite actually:

*normally* smite would only affect evil targets (since only Evil takes Good damage)

Retribution blade make it so that EVERYONE is affected.

That's a property of the Retribution blade, not a base property of Smite.

Yeah they are affected but they dont take the damage unless they are evil...


HumbleGamer wrote:
oholoko wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:


The number of slots is irrelevant since it is the same ( until the wizard gets or craft his ring of wizardly ), but being able to choose ( talking about a competent wizard and not a beginner ) is a solid choice better than few known spells.

Wizards get an extra spell of every slot(Limited to a spell from the school school) and can recast a spell from the arcane bond, unless he is an unversalist then he can recast spells of every level. So wizards got at least 1 extra spell per slot.

Hasn't also the bard a feat which allows him to cast extra spells in a similar way?

Perfect Encore? I mean an extra level 10 is similar and all but is not like an extra spell slot of every level...


HumbleGamer wrote:


The number of slots is irrelevant since it is the same ( until the wizard gets or craft his ring of wizardly ), but being able to choose ( talking about a competent wizard and not a beginner ) is a solid choice better than few known spells.

Wizards get an extra spell of every slot(Limited to a spell from the school school) and can recast a spell from the arcane bond, unless he is an unversalist then he can recast spells of every level. So wizards got at least 1 extra spell per slot.


Inkfist wrote:
OrochiFuror wrote:


It's fools gold. Any martial that's spending those rounds on attacks spends the subsequent turns with the dying condition.

Agreed. On paper it seems like martial classes have a distinct edge, but trying to leverage 3 actions next to an enemy often means blowing your hero points in the next round of so.

Martial have some great 3 action sequences, but without magical assistance (taste, greater invisibility etc) they have very few practical opportunities to use them.

The two persons i ever saw constantly taking 3 actions to attack where a ranger(with the multiattack edge) and a fighter with a bow. Barbarians normally go for a single powerful strike and then rage or rage power, paladins normally raise shield and move to prepare for a reaction, fighters don't want to risk -10 so they go for shield or something skill related...

But i do feel like mages have less options with the 3 actions than martials. A fighter for example got PA(2 actions), strike(action), move(action), raise shield(action)... Since each has a different cost they need to evaluate a lot.
Since most spells take 2 actions it's quite hard to go away from the cast a spell and then move...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
beowulf99 wrote:

The biggest problem I have with the crafting system as standard is in regards to "mundane items" not so much magical. Why does it take 4 days to create 10 arrows?

I was planning on having an adventure based in an uncivilized land where loot would be less gold and more trade goods for dealing with undeveloped societies. Think the classic Doctor Peabody deep amazon exploration quest, lots of cursed temples and ancient evils.

But I ran into a roadblock when I realized that any character wanting to use a ranged weapon more complicated than a sling would be hard pressed to keep their arrow stock up without me giving them tons of downtime to craft in, or just making arrows and/ or Crossbow bolts SUPER available in every tribal village they encounter, which I just don't know the validity of.

I feel like Consumable items need their own crafting rules with a lower downtime based on the kind of consumable you are talking about. I mean really, should it take 4 days to make a Torch? Or should a character be able to rough together a torch with some cloth and maybe a dash from a flask of oil in a full round or two?

Ohhhh yeah. I hate that part of crafting... I literally removed that rule except for 'hard crafts' like want to craft a regular sword just remove the gold per day... If it's an item of your level yeahhh then we can talk about the 4 days.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Well as they are currently it's not like the Wizard is actually doing anything in combat. He either buffs so allies can brute force better or debuffs so allies can brute force better. What's left is mook clearing which feels like you are a sidekick and whatever limited out of combat spells are left, which have either meh duration and/or require concentration.

An extra martial straight up doubles all damage which means enemies are less likely to target the Cleric/Bard and Rogue less often.

Also getting Wizards just for the RP sounds like the wizards arent even playing the same game.

By that logic isn't better to just replace every character with a fighter? I mean they got the highest average damage, and everything the cleric really is good at doing is healing, and who needs healing when you can simply get pots and medicine can do the job just fine. Also why a rogue, you can instead play a dex fighter with a bow for better to hit, and just share the skills around who needs a skill monkey.


Martialmasters wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

But that is a pretty absurd scenario, as mentioned. Let's try one that is likely to me up in actual play, shall we? I think we have all seen this one at least once per campaign.

The city has been ransacked by a huge army of 40,000 level 0 bandits. Each of them has dragged a citizen into the 1000x1000 foot town square and is holding them at knife point while their leader addresses the populace. You know, that old staple of table top RPGs.

Our Halfling barbarian can eventually kill all the bandits, but not before they kill a lot of civilians. But the wizard can wipe out all 40,000 bandits in one go with zero casualties?

Now which of these scenarios do you see the most often? Did you say neither, because you never actually see such a contrived scenario in actual play? Very good!

The really silly thing is that the wizard and the barbarian are actually both stronger for relying on each other. The barbarian can chop down hoards if they get surrounded, but the wizard can help get the barbarian into range with spells like haste or flight, and can soften up enemies from range so the barbarian can finish them.

I think part of the issue is a lot of spell casters don't want to be the guy buffing the people getting the kills. They just want to kill too

Yeah. I mean if you think about it the caster can teleport the wizard in the middle of the enemies, or haste him for walk in between his 'fireballs'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
If you really want to be a more efficient blaster, you could go for Draconic sorcerer and get 3 focus point for 3 dragon breath per rest.

Focus points don't work that way. You only get 1 point back in a 10-minute rest, even if you rest longer, so you might be able to use three dragon breaths in your first encounter of the day, but then you'd only get 1 in your next encounter.

Remember, the refocus activity has this requirement: You have a focus pool, and you have spent at least 1 Focus Point since you last regained any Focus Points.

I think he means with Bloodline Focus and bloodline wellspring. They are both a bit late to come but still, you normally don't get to use more than 2 points in a fight.

MadMars wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Henro wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Wait, you literally haven't played a caster yet, but you already concluded that it's going to be bad? OK Boomer.
Seeing someone else at the table play a class is still actual play experience.
You could look at somebody play a PF1 caster, run around casting burning hands and magic missile and conclude that casters are super weak and all those people on forums are out of their mind when calling casters OP.

To be fair a lot of them appeared to be. Casters weren't nearly so overpowered in PF1 as many people pretended (the hysteria on this forum could be amazing to watch), and aren't nearly so unplayable in PF2 as many people here pretend (the hysteria over the nerfs can be amazing to watch.)

They were too strong in PF1 and needed to be re-balanced, and they were re-balanced poorly, but not cripplingly so in PF2.

It's not the "exciting" opinion to have, but I feel mine is the correct one.

And about this... Yeah. Casters wen't overpowered in PF1 as long as you didn't try to make them. Problem is it was quite easy to make them overpowered and at least in my tables well people did...

They also made other characters overpowered but the problem with casters was the not the silver bullet for a situation, they where the silver bullet for every situation. Blaster casters weren't a problem, problem is when you are a blaster caster that can open doors, remove curses, fly, become invisible... And mostly perform all roles.


The DM of wrote:
Henro wrote:

Most of my combats don’t take place in actual “dungeons”, but rather in forests, caves, plains, on rooftops, in bedrooms, inside volcanoes, on other planes of existence, and more. The fight is wherever the party happens to be, and battlefields vary wildly.

You are rarely in a situation where every enemy is politely gathered in a clump around you unless the entire party has worked together to make that happen.

Totally agree!

You do realize, however, the majority of your locations are tight quarters though, right? Caster fireballs in bedrooms... epic but disastrous. Martial fireballs? Perfectly safe.

I think outside of small squirmishes inside dungeons i never had that many encounters in tight spaces. Or it was an large open area(open fields, mountainranges, etc.) or it was a large room by large i mean at least like 16x10 or so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:

I don't have any actual experience playing a caster in 2e, my current character is a Barbarian, and he's been alot of fun. The Sorcerer in our group seems to be having less fun though, plinking away with trash cantrips like Daze. I kinda feel bad for him, but then again, we're low level. Maybe his character will get better at higher levels.

If we do another campaign, I think I'll play a caster just to get the experience and see how bad it really is. Looks bad so far though.

I tried two casters(Recently of course). Bard felt really great, cleric felt well... Decent? But the thing is, in pf2 casters don't seem to depend as much on spells anymore(I did had a great time with searing ray 10d6 vs undead) but most times i solved problems with skill checks instead. Medicine checks, religion to discover more about the monsters, lore from the bard to learn everything, when my cleric got the consacrate i made 2 zones to protect the party.

The only moments i could remember that a spell shined alone were a spell that predics omens and the searing ray that does a s+~%on of dies. Besides that most spells i used where healing or buffs. And even if my buff caused 3 fighters hits to become crits... It feels like the fighter job instead of the spell job.


Ubertron_X wrote:
Currently playing a Warpriest I am not complaining so much about the power of spells but about the action economy. Due to 99% of all spells requiring 2 actions (some even 3) I feel hopelessly action starved in comparison to the melees. Want to do a AE heal? Neither can move nor raise shield nor attack. Do a normal spell? Chose to either move or raise shield or attack. Sustaining spells? Lol, you kidding? All the while our fighter is zooming around, using skills, multi-attacking or blocking as he sees fit. Caster gameplay is just so static.

This is true... I don't know maybe casters need more versatile spells actionwise. I mean my favorite spells right now in order are heal, magic missile, harm. Because i get options... They should probably make more of those so casters can choose the more 'bardic' route(The bards having 1 action cantrips often can do 3 actions a turn and not stick to the 2 action and raise shield).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Didn't you forget the duration of the fast healing effect?

Ah, yes, I missed the duration. Sustained-up-to-a-minute.

That one can probably keep the once per 24 hours restriction. Which, as I've said elsewhere, for some hexes it may need to be kept on a hex by hex basis, but in general should be removed.

I would rather see the heal nerfed slightly than it being 24h day. I mean it's not as if healing is an issue in PF2. A regular character with 2 skill feats can heal 2d8 per 10 minutes of rest to all PT even rolling a 1.

I hate 24h daily things for pf2.


I can easily see why not all of them are. But i think quite a few should be after all. With the DMG new rules for non-combative npcs it should become a bit easier to create high level npcs who aren't level 20 wizards instead gaining bonuses when bluffing or negotiating.


HeHateMe wrote:
BellyBeard wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:

Giant Instinct is a really thematically cool idea implemented in an asinine way. Forget Clumsy, the real issue is all your abilities come from wielding a special large size weapon. You only get one of these, so if you lose it, you might be boned.

There's no other class out there whose abilities are linked to one specific weapon. It's extremely poorly conceived and designed.

What they should've done is tied your abilities to being bigger and stronger than anyone else. You know, like a giant. Instead of wielding some stupid special weapon.

You can get other large weapons, or make them yourself in downtime.
I understand that. However, that doesn't fix the core problem that without one of these uncommon weapons, you have no class abilities.

I can see your point, if you are locked without a way to craft and only 'regular' shops it can be annoying. But it's not that bad for such a damage bonus.


Captain Morgan wrote:

-Dragon's extra damage doesn't work on things immune to that element and gets double dinged by anything that resists both that element and physical.

-Spirit has the same thing, but there's an entire type of enemy that is immune to the extra damage (constructs)

-Aninal can't use weapons at all when raging, specifically ranged weapons.

-Giant gets the highest damage in the game which nothing is immune to, only gets resisted once, and can still use a bow.

I think the number of times I've found myself in too cramped conditions to wield a large weapon (pretty much just being swallowed whole in practice) is a lot fewer than the number of elementals orconstructs I've fought.

Spirit is a mixed bag. Some enemies are immune to it but the type is so good with some enemies, and being able to do two types is just soo fun.


Gaterie wrote:
does anyone know what cackle do ? It looks like it removes the "concentration" tag from the "sustain a spell" action but it retains the only disadvantage of this tag, while adding two other tags with their own disadvantages. I get this ability for free, and yet it feels like a punishment. Why does this ability exist?

Because cackle was an almost non-choice on the witch and they just rolled it over as a mostly harmless class feature. It's flavorful but not great at all.


Henro wrote:
Dubious Scholar wrote:

So only humans are allowed to cackle at level 1 is what you're saying?

Why is everyone so hung up on wanting it to be stronger? It doesn't have to be the class defining trick it is in 1e. It's okay for it to be a ribbon. They wrote it broadly enough that basically any vocalization is valid.

Leave cackle alone.

The problem in my eyes isn't the power level - it's a class feature so there's nothing that says it's not like it's competing with anything else. My problem is rather that it's not at all obvious what it does to a newer player, which I believe to be a problem for such an early part of the witch's kit.

As for the 1st-level feat thing, I agree that'd be a little unfortunate. Perhaps there should be some other way for Witches to get 1st-level feats? (Like Wizard Theses). They already have some really thematic feats at 1st (Cauldron, Wortwitch and familiar's tongue) so it feels like a shame only humans get those.

They could just roll it over onto spellcasting like they did with the sorcerer and the bard.


I think the problem is that you are assuming pf1 rules on PF2... You don't need to say something that does not happen when it does not happen.
There's no rule for why you do not gain 100 hp when you fall... Because you do not gain 100 hp when you fall. Now there's no rules for larger weapons dealing more damage because larger weapons do not do more damage.
Some monsters also do special damage with weapons. But that's because PF2 is completely assymetric with monsters.

Edit: The only question i can answer that pretty much is easy is the one with the 3d10 weapon with the player wanting runes. The only rune that would increase the damage in that weapon would be a major striking, since runes do not increase the number of dice they set the number of dice.


dirtypool wrote:
oholoko wrote:
Also trolls and the fact that the old must 'die' so the new can succeed does not help.

There is an equal size trolling element devoted to the idea of "kill the new thing in its crib so they'll go back to the old." The point some of us are trying to make is their neither of those views are necessary.

Like PF1? There is 10 years worth of PF1 content, and 10 years worth of easily adaptable 3.X content. With 20 years of material to use in your campaign, PF1 will continue to be around for a very long time.

Like PF2? Get on board the train, we're pulling out of the station and headed that-a-way.

Like OD&D, AD&D, 2e, 3.x, 4e, 5e, OWoD, NWoD, CoD, GURPS, Traveler, GeneSys, whatever...? Good. Play what you like, do what you like, you're limited only by your preferences and your imagination.

The problem is when you start telling other people what their opinion SHOULD BE about the game you like, or espousing to them that your opinion of that game is fact and more valid than theirs.

This whole industry is a subjective medium driven by personal taste and opinion. Let's try to be cognizant of that and let people express their opinion of products without feeling like it's an attack against our own taste and experience.

O no i am talking about the old must die not as a troll. But as a 'sales person'. Troll is when you want it to die just because, but not launching pf1 anymore for example is a calculated move because paizo can't keep printing pf1 new content and launch pf2.

I am not saying it's wrong or anything but the old must die mentality can come from a place of change and not from a troll space got it? I don't know if i am expressing myself well haha.

And yeah there's a healthy debate in there too of people talking about how others should stick to PF1 specially since pf2 content is too basic yet. And pf2 mecanics are quite a bit simplified. And there's the same debate but why the change should be made.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artofregicide wrote:
Kasoh wrote:
Artofregicide wrote:
I don't get why everything has to be a competition - especially between two products from the same company.

PF1 died so that PF2 may live. Its noble sacrifice will be remembered by the people who keep playing it until they don't.

If you like PF1 and wanted more content from it, then obviously the introduction of PF2 is something hostile to you. It isn't a competition, because PF1 is no longer being developed for. There is a finite amount of content to play through now.

Lovecraft influences aside, I really enjoy the Lost Omens setting. If I want to continue to follow developments in it, I have to switch or buy books I can't use and do conversion work I don't have time for.

And if you game with people who are willing to run multiple systems or play multiple games then you're in a great position. A lot of people do not have the luxury of time and money to own multiple game systems, know the mechanics of those systems enough to enjoy it, and play them.

I play PF1 twice a week (down from three) and PF2 once a month and I consider myself someone who plays a lot. For people who have trouble getting their group together consistently, the notion of playing multiple systems is probably laughable. And the commitment of a game system for a year or two of play in a campaign means that yes, you abandon old favorites.

I'm going to be charitable and hope that you just didn't read my post very closely.

I'm not saying that Paizo should maintain two different editions. Nowhere was that brought up. PF1e has 10 years of material under it's belt, I think that's plenty.

People still play D&D1e. And have fun. Or traveller. If you want to play the newest, flashiest thing, good for you. If your group wants to play GURPS, hey, that's cool too.

Obviously, most of us have more games than time. That's just life. I'm not talking about whatever game(s) you choose to play, that 100% up to your table.

I'm talking about acting like that somehow...

I think the problem is... Well people barely have time to keep up with 1 rpg system. And well a new one comes and then you need to justify staying with the one before or going with the new. Then later it gets to mob mentality, i don't think most people hate one or the other system. But because they need to justify their purchase... It goes bad.

Also trolls and the fact that the old must 'die' so the new can succeed does not help.


Or you could have an elemental patron and picks all elemental related lessons... I would rather the player being able to pick his patron than locked to one from the start.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

it feels like the bard being able to play an instrument instead of using verbal, material or somatic components. Or the sorcerer changing material components with somatic ones. It's mostly fluff instead of an increase in power.


A new subforum has appeared i think they will be releasing it soon.

1 to 50 of 433 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>