Churgri of Vapula

oholoko's page

352 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 352 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Artofregicide wrote:

Experience > Theorycrafting.

Your article is nonetheless appreciated, at least as a quantitative comparison of classes. I think it somewhat misses the point of why casters feel tepid, especially compared to almost every other game in the genre. But many more articulate posters have outlined the problem, which isn't dpr or even save or sucks. Utility and control spells have been removed or badly nerfed. The return of the healbot is just another nail on the coffin.

I've found that I have the most success playing casters like martials, with a few big spells and some support stuff. I haven't played a ton of high level play, however, so I can't speak for this.

But, for what it's worth, experience leads me to say PF2e is a lot of fun. It's just a lower magic system, and that's okay. If you want to play a real wizard play 5e or PF1e.

"There's lies, damn lies, and statstics".

With this i can agree. Casters tend to be more support, control and damage is a bit nerfed even if it is quite useful.

Thought in my groups casters tend to be a bit more appreciated for being able to do something outside the norm while the non casters do things in the norm.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Genocidal Jester wrote:

PC: Oh lord thy god, how I beseech thee: May I prepare protection this morn?

GM: Depends. Hast thou bought thy pizza and chips?

Though I jest, I guarantee you, somewhere this has actually happened or will happen. GMs did not need additional empowerment.

PC: Worry not i have prepared Blood monies.

GM: Wait... You cannot prepare as you have not learnt that.
PC: Learnt last level. Was in the pfsrd so it's fair.
GM: Okay i will not allow that spell
PC: Off with the head of this tyrant! Why can't i learn something even when it's official from paizo.

Same thing that probably happened at some other table... And will probably happen again as people still play pf1. Took blood money as an example but there's a lot of them...
Would rather put more power on the DM to veto than force him to find an harder way to block usage.


Zapp wrote:
oholoko wrote:
The only difference i can see between the two spells

Flaming Sphere used to create a, wait for it, flaming sphere 5 ft.

Rules language back then wasn't as well developed, so you'd simply assume that whenever a flaming sphere rolls through you, or when you willingly run through it, you burn.

Compared to this, the PF2 spell is more akin to... let's see... the glowing, pea-sized bead of Fireball fame, except instead of streaking to a point of impact, it just hangs there in the center of a square, easily avoidable, and causing no worse harm than a cigarette burn even if you don't avoid it.

Then, at select points in time, it flares up, enveloping its square in flames. The bead can move, but still causes no damage just by passing you by. It is only in the square where it first appears (when the spell is cast) and in the square it ends its movement, including no movement (when sustained) there's any damage dealt.

See?

This way the description explains how and why there is no damage except when there is.

The rules are clear. If you have never played a previous game of D&D there's no cause for confusion.

And with a changed description (and maybe even a new spell name) there would be no confusion even for those of us with prior experience! :)

Except not really the way it's described by raw you do not burn if you pass by it in both editions. You may have misunderstood the spell before and now are making the same mistake.

It might been a mistake from your whole table but happens in mine took a while for a player to understand that trip do not need an attack roll before the save. I would recommend instead using raw or rai as you see fit, specially if you are the DM do you think the spell is more interesting dealing damage to the foes that pass by it? Go with that but if you want to play more raw just read what the spell does and it does that... Do not assume just be a use logic applies that it will apply to the game. If it did dragons wouldn't exist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
oholoko wrote:

It seems to fit well enough. Think like this. It's a small sphere of flames, you can direct it to an opponent but outside of that the opponent can dodge without much trouble since it isn't large enough.

At least that's my take on it.

Thanks.

Yes, it's not that I can't make it work.

It's just strange that Paizo didn't opt to include a minimal amount of descriptive text to flag "this isn't your grandfather's Flaming Sphere".

But it's exactly the same... The only difference i can see between the two spells(Pf1 version and pf2 version) now is that before it stopped on the first guy who touched it and now it can go through creatures before stopping where you ask it to... Before it also did not do damage as you passed inside it... I am confused. Is that you misinterpreted the spell all along?


Mellored wrote:

Tangential question.

Do higher level creatures have better save features? Like no half damage on a success.

I can remember a monster having evasion i will go search for it. But i am not sure it's normal...

Edit: Giant Eagle has the evasion ability and makes successes into critical success.


Zapp wrote:
K1 wrote:
Zapp wrote:
K1 wrote:

The enemy takes no damage.

Thank you. Do you have any thoughts on the specific issues I want addressed in this thread?

Which one?

Basically, how the spell is described as creating a sphere of flame with no language pertinent to its differences compared to classic versions of the spell.

The actual spell description is pretty close to how it was previously described. For instance, in AD&D: "A flaming sphere spell creates a burning globe of fire within 10 yards of the caster"
Yet, previously the spell was continuous, now it is... intermittent, is that a good characterization?

Do you feel the spell's description should have been altered to better match its (new) mechanics?

It seems to fit well enough. Think like this. It's a small sphere of flames, you can direct it to an opponent but outside of that the opponent can dodge without much trouble since it isn't large enough.

At least that's my take on it.


Samurai wrote:

Volley means a "simultaneous discharge of a number of missile weapons".(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/volley) Why not take that literally?

Volley (>>>)
Weapons with the Volley trait may make a 3 Action Volley attack. A volley consists of 2 attack rolls, each with a -2 penalty. There is no MAP because Volley counts as a single action. Both strikes must be aimed at the same target.

Now Volley can situationally be a positive trait. 2 attacks at the same target at -2/-2, or choose 0/-5 and still have 1 more action to move or attack again at -10? A better chance at hitting with the +0 first attack, and can change targets if needed, and you still have a 3rd action, or stand there and let the Volley of arrows fly?

That's literally the fighter double shot...


As an attack cleric you can harm, shield and then attack seems fair enough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mellored wrote:
If you want to "fudge" as the GM, just add an extra creatures to replace the one that crit-failed.

First rule of fudging is if your players noticed you are fudging you are wrong already.


Hiruma Kai wrote:

Out of curiosity, why is the caster generally assumed to have no offensive magic items in these comparisons? Fighters are always assumed to have the best weapon and runes, and presumably a backup ranged weapon for when they can't engage in melee.

As far as I can tell, the most damage efficient magic items per action in the game over 4 turns are the Wands of Manifold Missiles. You can use a pair, one in each hand. Spend 2 actions on the first turn, and for the rest of the fight get 2,4,6 or 8 even extra magic missiles every turn for no effort. Its like haste for wizards.

At 6th, you can afford 2 of the 1st level spell versions, at 10th you can afford 2 of the 3rd level spell versions, at 14th you can afford 2 of the 5th level versions, and at 18th you can afford 2 of the 17th level versions, instead of keeping your melee and backup ranged up to date in terms of runes.

Assuming a 4 round boss fight against an enemy level+2, going nova with both wands is like 28 damage at 6th, 56 at 10th, 84 at 14th, and 112 at 18th. If it goes long, say to 5 rounds, they simply get more efficient.

Alternatively, mix them in with 2 action cast spells on the 1st and 2nd turn to boost overall damage with that 3rd action instead of making a strike with a bow or whatever.

I think it's mostly because you assume fighters will have items while wizards got several other options instead of a buffing weapon. But definetely manyfold is now a musthave in any of my characters that can cast it.


Mellored wrote:

Assuming 4 rounds * 3 encounters per day....

Dragon Barbarian 13, using swipe with a Guisarme to help normalize multi-target damage.
Using the chart, 50% chance to hit, 10% chance to crit.
(.5 + .1*2) = 0.7
3d10+5+3(specialization)+8(dragon rage) =
32.5 * 0.7 = 22.75 (2 targets)

Level 13 arcane caster using a level 7/6/5/4 multi-target spell. Which they can do 3 times per day (likely hitting more than 2 targets).
Eclipse Burst (7th, 8d10+8d4) + Chain Lighting (6th, 8d12) + Cone of Cold (5th, 12d6) + Fireball (4th, 8d6)
(64+52+42+28)*.25 = 46.5
45% chance to hit, 45% chance for half, 5% chance for double, 5% none.
(.45 + .45 * .5 + .05 * 2) = 0.775
46.5 * 0.775 = 36.0375 (2+ targets)

So yea. Blaster does 58.4% more damage than a barb. And still has the level 3/2/1 spells for utility. Casters easily win.

Let's try 5 round * 3 encounters (15 rounds of combat) a day.
So if I assume 1 cast of electric arc (7d4+5).
(64+52+42+28+22.5)*.20 = 41.7 * 0.775
= 32.317

So at 15 rounds a day, blasters still win with 42% more damage.

I do agree with the point.

But still... Why does the charch leads to 50% to save? The charch is crearly in favor of the melee characters the AC is lower than the save DC by a bit normally. And remember that a barb of the same level has items to balance his to hit compared to the blaster. And also a level 13 barb will have at least one damage rune so at least 1d6 extra per target...

Just to point out i am disagreeing with the way you calculated it, not with the point overall. I do believe even if the mages do less damage their sheer utility, variety, ability to hit from distance compensates for it.


Samurai wrote:
oholoko wrote:
RealAlchemy wrote:
I have a hard time accepting that it is more difficult to shoot a longbow at a target less than 30 feet away, so I have issues with the idea of the volley property in 2E. I understand that its real purpose is so that both the longbow and shortbow are viable in game, and I came up with a possible replacement. Would it be reasonably balanced to remove the volley propery from the longbow, but instead give the shortbow the agile property as the lighter draw weight makes it easier to fire quickly? Then each hit with the longbow will still do more damage and have longer range, but the shortbow will hit multiple times more often.

That was a suggestion ever since the playtest actually saw it a lot, i thought it was the way it should go... But then playing with a fighter ranger i saw it would be just silly the fighter wouldn't benefit from it at all. And rangers would go crazy with the shortbow, besides that point blank shot gets useless.

I think both are fine even if i do agree... It makes no sense 30 feet is just silly you can hit 5-10 foot away with a longbow and it's easier than 30 feet haha.
Why do you say "Fighters wouldn't get any benefit at all" from Agile? They can use Agile just like any other character can't they? And it's true Rangers would love it most, but I don't know if that is reason enough. People keep mentioning how powerful a +1 bonus is in 2e, so much so that Animal companions can't even get Magic Fang anymore. Yet Point Blank Shot gives a +2 to hit in the first range increment, either by negating Volley or just giving a +2 bonus.

Fighter got a whole tree for archery, dual shot and etc.

It's a +2 damage bonus on a non-volloy... Or a +2 to hit on a weapon first range increment making long bows viable.

Giving agile will just make rangers better with bow do nothing for fighters. And make everyone else use shortbows because +1 on the second shot is just better than an average +1 damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay let's check the accuracy for both everything okay...

6d6 fireball.
fighter with +1 striking weapon. 2d12(Let's grab the best one for comparison)

Assume that AC and ref is moderate okay?
Caster DC = (5+2)+4+10 = 21
Fighter to-hit = (5+6)+4 = +15

Moderate AC = 21
Moderate save = +12

fireball on average deals to 1 target:
5%(12d6)+35%(6d6)+50%(3d6)+10%(0)
so the average damage is (0.05*12*3.5)+(0.35*6*3.5)+(0.5*3*3.5)+0 = 14.7
or 58.8 to 4 targets of the same level.

Now a fighter using swipe with an great-axe
30%(4d12+8)+50%(2d12+4)+20%(0)
He will also use a greataxe to deal as much damage as he can:
So the fighter will do on two turns
((0.3*4*6.5+(2*6.5)+8)+(0.5*2*6.5))*2 = 70.6
While the fighter does 70.6 to targets of the same level.

Big considerations:
While the fighter does more damage this means he has to spend two actions in melee. While the mage can do it with much more ease at a safe distance... The fighter gets exposed to attacks and flanking and probably needs to run towards the creatures. The wizard can run away after throwing the fireball from range.
The wizard can choose to target weaker saves and wasn't build with multiple enemies in mind. While the fighter requires both a feat and an optimal weapon...
The wizard hits all enemies while the fighter hits only two... Finally both of them do work really well together as the bonus damage from the wizard makes the fighter kill both enemies next turn while without it he will need(On average!) a third turn to finish them.


I think so? But i am not sure.

"Trigger A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it’s using."

With this trigger i would say it is before since you can disrupt an move action with a few feats so it would make no sense to be after.


RealAlchemy wrote:
I have a hard time accepting that it is more difficult to shoot a longbow at a target less than 30 feet away, so I have issues with the idea of the volley property in 2E. I understand that its real purpose is so that both the longbow and shortbow are viable in game, and I came up with a possible replacement. Would it be reasonably balanced to remove the volley propery from the longbow, but instead give the shortbow the agile property as the lighter draw weight makes it easier to fire quickly? Then each hit with the longbow will still do more damage and have longer range, but the shortbow will hit multiple times more often.

That was a suggestion ever since the playtest actually saw it a lot, i thought it was the way it should go... But then playing with a fighter ranger i saw it would be just silly the fighter wouldn't benefit from it at all. And rangers would go crazy with the shortbow, besides that point blank shot gets useless.

I think both are fine even if i do agree... It makes no sense 30 feet is just silly you can hit 5-10 foot away with a longbow and it's easier than 30 feet haha.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atalius wrote:
Thanks, this is one area (besides Trip) where the Scythe is better than the Greatsword (Gorum). Would a boss fight at level 12 be against a monster usually with an AC of 34? Or 37?

Depends a lot on the boss... And i would suggest that when fighting a boss the tact is completely different. When fighting a boss as a cleric it's better to buff off your friends and let them handle the blunt of the fight. Using your debuffs mid fight and attacking once maybe twice per turn, you will be doing a lot more damage that way. Maybe using some of your powers to take a hit or casting in front of it to take the opportunity attack first.

So using trip instead to try and get his AC lower is actually better than counting on a crit with the scythe or even doing damage with the greasword.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atalius wrote:
Anyone know the likelyhood of criting at level 12 with a +24 to attack roll Vs a monster one level higher than me? Trying to calculate how likely the Scythe D10 Deadly would work. Thanks for your help.

Okay let's first check what +24 entails.

+4 str(16+2+1= 19)
+2 item
+16 expert(12+4)
+2 status(Heroism)

So you can probably wiggle 1 to 4 more from circumstance(Help action) and -2 from flank.

37 With a +24 to hit here you only crit on a 20 so 5%(even with a +25 if you get both flank and help you will be stuck with 5%)
34 With a +24 to hit you only crit on a 20 5% too(With a +25 from help you can crit on a 19 too, and finally with flank you can probably get to crit on a 17 what is pretty good)
33 With a 24 to hit you crit on a 10%( with +24 you get 15%, and with flank 25%)
31 This one is quite easy to crit so no need to calculate it.


prileska wrote:

So how do the enlarge effects work in this version then?

The enlarge spell lists the effect as "Gain clumsy 1, reach +5, +2 damage".

Whereas Giant's Stature gives "Gain clumsy 1, reach +5".

Titan Mauler gives us "Use oversized weapon. Gain clumsy 1, and increase bonus Rage damage from +2 to +6".

That's it they work as described. Increasing in size does not increase damage, reach or anything if it does not specify that it does so.

prileska wrote:

Does Giant's Stature also give the +2, due to being larger, as the enlarge spell? And would this be Clumsy 2 while using a large weapon, while enlarged?

No enlarge does it but giant stature just increases your size and gives reach.

Also clumsy does not stack unless it says otherwise. If you are slowed 1 10 times you are slowed 1 still.

prileska wrote:

The damage die rules state, if I'm using a d12 (2h bastard sword), it doesn't increase. One handed would be 1d8, moving to 2d6 normally, but would that just be d12 then? Or does it just give a simple static + to damage (in the above case, +6 from titan mauler, and the potential +2 from enlarge).

Weapons deal the same damage no matter what size so yeah titan gives the static increase when raging but otherwise nothing happens... And like i said no +2 from enlarge since the Giant stature is a different effect than enlarge. If someone casts enlarge on you and you rage the bonuses do stack thought.

prileska wrote:

As a followup question, is the extra potential +8 damage worth a dedication, and 2 more feats. When laid out like that, it seems (while thematically cool), mechanically weak.

+6 static damage is a lot... But i don't think it is worth it if you are doing it for power. You can instead just keep +2 damage and go for a far more useful feat after the dedication.


sherlock1701 wrote:

Incap spells are partly useless because they do nothing to bosses. Crippling bosses is far, far more useful than crippling their minions

The other part of their uselessness is that there are usually better options at the level you have to heighten them to for them to be at all effective. Essentially, they're generally only worthwhile at their base spell level. They're just too unreliable to bother with.

It's just in my tables that people tend to die to mooks instead of bosses? I mean most times deaths happened where mobs of enemies. On regular bosses normally 1 death happens and it's pretty rare.


It's nothing, it's nice to be able to talk to the dev and help them ^^

Okay i will take everything in from the feats and send back what i feel later probably during the weekend. ^^

Edit: Also calling two friends to help me with it so probably will be a long post soon.


I can see the idea now. It's just that the paths in pf2 always were so meaningful. I mean fighters and monks are the only ones that lack one and they both compensate by being overall a bit less locked.
But I don't feel like the warlock is quite a bit free to invest with the rest of the feats. Might be just me though.
I just feel like instead of "DARK PATH" just grant a feat if that's the only thing. A path should be meaningful IMO.


Atalius wrote:
oholoko wrote:
Atalius wrote:
Hmm maybe the plan is just to do everything the same except go Cloistered? Because by level 11 his weapon will be as good as a Warpriests?
Well if you do that it's better to not invest in divine smite. But yes your damage will be higher with harm. Even if your AC will probably be not as high since you lack armor prof.
Ohhh ya forgot about the armor, so I should get medium armor prof and sport some breast plate at some point?

Not at all... Those are just worth early game. I mean two feats or a rogue dedication and a general feat to stay trained in them? And never getting expert?

If you got cloystered just accept no armor as default.

Baarogue wrote:
How does one go about raising their armor proficiency above Trained when gaining it via feats instead of as a class feature?

They can use paladin as an archetype... But i don't think any other way exists. It seems like the archetypes in the book got some way to do it.


Atalius wrote:
Hmm maybe the plan is just to do everything the same except go Cloistered? Because by level 11 his weapon will be as good as a Warpriests?

Well if you do that it's better to not invest in divine smite. But yes your damage will be higher with harm. Even if your AC will probably be not as high since you lack armor prof.


First thing, you should give something besides an feat level 1 with the DARK PATH maybe a small benefit/medium benefit. I mean there's no difference between taking Unhollower and Leeching Curse and Hexer and Profane Empowerment, in this case i would rather not get a level 1 feat and get the path with some cool benefits along the way.
Also maybe is just me but i feel as if he should get LEGENDARY WARLOCK only on a path and instead change proficiencies based on a DARK path?
One should probably get legendary on will saves, the other i am not sure...


Michael. I am quite a bit surprised by your ideas, as a fellow brasilian(I think i heard somewhere you where one but not 100% sure) i hope you keep going steady ^^
Also if you keep going forward with the warlock class i hope you can create a homebrew product or start a 3pp. Since pf2 3pp/homebrew scenary is still fresh and empty.


Sylvic Scrivener wrote:
In 1e CRB there were various backgrounds and general blocks for NPC's whom you may want to use for balance (i.e., expert, aristocrat, soldier). Does that exist in 2e CRB? I am wanting the Half-Orc archivist to go with the group to the citadel but can't find anywhere a guide on how to build an NPC that is classless.

No it did not make it into the CRB, it will be in the book for DMs


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atalius wrote:
Harm Warpriest is starting to sound like he sucks :( basically a weak caster, and a weaker martial than a barbarian and a fighter.

Well... He is a generalist. Obviously he won't be as good as a fighter/barbarian/paladin it would just go back to 1e where casters could be indisputed kings...

He is a decent caster and a modest striker. He will get his fighting proefs faster than a cloistered but will never be as good as a paladin, he can buff well, heal well and can cast decent spells.
But he isn't the best at anything, if you want a holy crusader go paly instead, if you want better casting go cloystered instead. If you want someone with a bit more flexibility and not as good in both go warpriest.
My tip is that most enemies got some weakness. Not all saves are the same, enemies that got strong saves sometimes got low AC. So diversify your stuff, and use your powers to make your trip more effective.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atalius wrote:
With a 20 Wisdom at level 10 how likely am I to land my Harm spell vs enemies? Since my proficieny will only be trained.

Best +24

High +22
Medium +19
Low +16
Terrible +14

With 20 wisdom and trained you will get a save of 10+level+7 = 27
So your chances of hitting are about
5% on the best (50% half,5% double, 40% nothing )
15% on the high (50% half,5% double, 30% nothing )
30% on medium (50% half,5% double, 15% nothing )
40% on low (50% half,5% double, 5% nothing )
45% on terrible. (15% double,5% nothing,35% half)


"Duration 1 round"

I am guessing it is just to explain that it applies both to the rest of the round and this action you take as part of casting the spell. Since the boosts last until the end of the turn.


NemoNoName wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

Cantrips and focus spells give 2e wizards staying power that low level 1e wizards never had.

Tighter system math and spell balance encourages tactics and teamwork instead of just lazily steamrolling encounters with 'I win' buttons

1e wizards are stale, overbearing and prone to quickly running out of tricks if adventuring day standards aren't adhered to (especially at lower levels). It's an all around boring package.

Sure, but in exchange they got anything special about them removed. There is simply nothing relevant Wizard does that another class couldn't do. And that other class would be doing even more things, or doing the same things better.

I think that's true for every class. There's nothing that another class can do that you can't except that class can do even more things. But i wouldn't say everyone can do what wizards do better. Wizards are the best prepared caster even with the nerf from the playtest, and the arcane list feels like the most versatile one.


Dansome wrote:

I'm a little confused; can non-casters gain access to Halycon spells? If so, how do they prepare them? This is in reference specifically to the Halycon Speaker Dedication.

The Attendant dedication gives them training in spell rolls, but does not specify whether they are spontaneous or prepared (or simply have in their repertoire).

I'm assuming they can't get them, but just checking.

They get one spell slot and it's spontaneos. It's in the first feat ^^


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope those slots go up to at least level 6. I mean i find the flavor cool and all but only gaining a level 1 spell with a level 6 feat seems a bit weak specially if compared with basic spellcasting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Devil automatically kills you if you cast a spell with a spell level of 4+


SuperBidi wrote:

Hi everyone,

Both the Dragon and Spirit Instincts use the same wording, which is a bit misleading to me (non native english speaker):
"While raging, you can increase the additional damage from Rage from 2 to 4 and change its damage type to match that of your dragon’s breath weapon instead of the damage type for your weapon or unarmed attack."

I want to be sure that the 2 effects (damage increase and damage type change) are linked. So, either you increase the damage and change the damage type or you do none of that. But you can't increase the damage without changing the damage type.

Thanks for your help.

Agreed. It's somewhat misleading. My interpretation is the same as yours.

You can increase the damage if you change the type of the rage damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are some enemies that literally can't hit flying enemies... And by that I mean a lot of them... Every animal can't do anything to a flying enemy unless the animal has fly.
Besides that positioning with flight is just so much better in combat, evading traps, snares and hazard mid combat. If you can't see how flight is broken in all aspects of the game I am sorry but I don't think I will be able to prove it to you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
K1 wrote:

I do agree, bur some Ancestry feats are definitely way too good.

Like halfling fortune + guiding fortune.

Or improved orc superstition.
Eventually even orc ferocity.

To think that a class would have to invest much to unlock permaflying is ok, but since it is heritage, i will give it to them earlier.

I'd say more lvl 9 incomplete ( which means just x minutes per hour ) and lvl 13 at will.

Fair enough. I do think 3 ancestry feats for, flight, glide and some kind of small bonus related to it is enough. I still think it shouldn't be a common thing. I mean i can accept it in my games but in some campaigns it can suck balls when the player can solve everything easy. I think it might be enough but still they should be uncommon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnight Anarch wrote:
I'm trying to understand what's out there (or will be) with materials specifically lining up for PF2E before I'm able to start a longer campaign next year. I'm not familiar with the breadth of 3pp options these days but someone mentioned Kobold Press maybe doing Midgard stuff for PF2E. Maybe that's inevitable? I don't really know. What sort of settings should I be investigating or keeping an eye on?

I bet Drop dead will release something in the future since their focus was PF(Remember future can be 1 year, 2 years etc, not like 2 months for now). But the one i am looking really forward to is from dreamscarred they are going through a rough path right now but i bet they will bounce back with something for PF2


Gorbacz wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Franz Lunzer wrote:

Including the restriction "this book" isn't ambiguous, it is very simple and clear, and has to be a clear intention of the designers.

The spells from other books will be available, with your GM's permission, or through other options in those books, I'd bet.

Paizo intended to empower GM's in this edition, and I like that.
** spoiler omitted **

I still don't get people like you, empowered players was the best thing about 1e. The main selling point for me.

Only if your entire table was "empowered" and your GM was ready and willing to accommodate that. If any of those two conditions was not met, PF1 games tended to gravitate towards major frustration for at least one person involved.

Blood Money is one of those things... If you let other books and a player knows of AoN it will appear.

And if it appears it is annoying to take off... it's easier to make players need to ask the DM than the DM having to depower a player. And if i am not mistaken it's from an adventure and was supposed to be a reward.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
K1 wrote:

Lvl 15 would be impossibile, so we would have to stick with 13 or 17.

I'd say that lvl 13 could be the best deal.

- Fly is a lvl 3 spell, which requires lvl 5 to be casted, and allows a target to Fly for 5 min.

Heighten spell 7, which requires lvl 13, lasts for 1 hour.

- Barbarian will learn his flying stuff at lvl 12. While Raging, he gains flying speed.

- Mercury boots are a lvl 10 item.

Lvl 13 for a complete flying form, maybe with a time limit, seems honest.

Yeah 17 sorry it was my mistake.

I would go with glide at 5 or 1, at 11 or 13 limited flying and 17 illimied fly.
I just think ancestry feats shouldn't be as powerful as spells and class feats(Specially at the same level and while the class and spell ones are limited.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:

honestly, just slap "uncommon" on that bad boy and give him 25ft fly speed, either a GM is prepared to deal with flying or isn't.

I don't think you should gimp the race nor make it complicated by giving them all these debuffs or what ever. flying isn't a combat problem, so you shouldn't be balancing their combat statistics around having flying.

also i think 4 hit points at level 1 is absurd, should at least be a 6.

Flying is an all around problem... Exploration, combat and everything else.

That being said. I would just make all those races with flying 'advanced' ancestries like some of the devs said once. It would be quite hard to balance around them. Or only make races that can gain flying with time only getting 'true' 100% flight at level 15 with the last ancestry feat.


Samurai wrote:
oholoko wrote:


Well... I just think no one would pick this level 11 or so. I would rather see it as a class feat.

It's level 1, not level 11. I set it low so that whenever you become Expert you qualify. Fighters start at Expert and Barbarian and Champion get it at 5th level. The non-martial classes take a bit longer, but they can also take it if they want. A Wizard may want to grip his staff with 2 hands for the extra damage.

It's a level 7 feat for most martials(Except fighters that as human can start with it level 1 or non human fighters that can grab it level 3) and a level 11 feat for anyone who isn't a martial...

In case you didn't get it, you can't retrain earlier feats for general feats with requirements you didn't meet at the time. So what you are doing is basically making fighters the guys who already got ways to do it become even better at it while making the rest wait more to get that... I would rather just make a class feat at level 2 that every martial who needs can get(At most level 4 with dedication and a basic feat for non martials) than instead make people wait until a high level to make the build work.

Edit: Just saying i still think it isn't a good idea. As a bastard sword is already good and would instead become just a better weapon...


Samurai wrote:
rainzax wrote:

Re-gripping Strike

(Class Feat 2)
(Flourish)
As a single action, you Interact to change the grip from holding a two-handed weapon with one hand to wielding it with two hands, then Strike.

I'd say Barbarian, Champion, and Fighter.

Modeled after Quickdraw

Rather than create it just as a class feat for each of the melee types, I propose this:

Re-gripping Strike
(General Feat 1)
(Requirement: Expert skill in the weapon)
(Flourish)
As a single action, you Interact to change the grip from holding a two-handed weapon with one hand to wielding it with two hands, then Strike.

Well... I just think no one would pick this level 11 or so. I would rather see it as a class feat.


I can remember them saying something about it will only be done after a 5e conversion so it might come after next year but can't find the source.


Dr. Tamatoa wrote:


One of my points is that it doesn't have to occur during game play, since it is a downtime action. There is nothing in the rules, or the organized play rules, that say that you have to encounter a similar creature in the module or do anything related to the module that you played. Just have the feat and make the DC.

Yeah... But that's the thing 'You can spend 7 days of downtime trying to bond with a normal animal (not a companion or other special animal).' You won't just find a bullet to bond... If you do i can say your DM or the PFS DM is being too nice and shouldn't. I would be baffled if a player even suggests that...

Dr. Tamatoa wrote:


Secondly, a GM at the end of the game will probably just sign off that the player succeeded at their DC 20 Nature check for their downtime action.

Except when they mention. Oh yeah and i just happened to stay 7 days next to a bullet without it attacking cause... You know.. That's easy enough.

Dr. Tamatoa wrote:


I make no assertions about PFS1, however, I have read the rules for PFS2. The downtime actions in PFS2 go much further than just a roll for income at the end of the adventure. They are abstraction of many actions that players can take after the game. And since this feat was added to the book and has not been banned in society, then Paizo expects players to use it. And I expect someone to try a variation on this technique.

I can agree players weasel they way out of things... But it's just... Well if someone can survive 7 days near a bullet without being eaten that bullet is docile or those players were so craft in that that they deserve that bullet...


K1 wrote:

Multiclassing has issues indeed.

I was considering a random dedicated caster.

You will have 1 lvl 3 spell till lvl 11, while pure casters will have lvl 6 spells.

Then you start from character lvl 12 with a lvl 4 spell, and a higher spell every 2 lvl, till 20.

I am trying to figure out how can somebody be useful with a lvl 3 spell around lvl 10.

Being 2 lvl behind pure classes, limited to 1 slot unless you take another class feat, would have been a thing.

But this way is awful.

Dedication
Base spell
Expert spell
Master spell
Extra spells

5 talents out of 11, and you are not even remotely close to that class.

I will be able to cast Maze by lvl 20
Yay

While a caster will cast it by lvl 15

5 level Gap is too much for something which requires you to waste half of your talents. And whatever, you will be able to use lvl 7 and 8 at the end of the game. Lvl 18 and 20.

Ranged and melee dps are in a way better spot.

I am trying to figure out how can somebody be useful with a lvl 3 spell around lvl 10.(Haste? Cantrips for damage versatility? Cantrips for small tricks like prestidigitation? Healing with wands?)

The whole thing with multiclass caster isn't about being compared to the main class... It is to make you more versatile, you won't be ever a full caster with multiclass. You are another class with some extra versatility...


Captain Morgan wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I strongly disagree with...at least half of your Background ratings. Lie To Me is ridiculously awesome and I'd rate Green for any Cha based character, just for example, while Assurance (Athletics) is a fine Feat for succeeding at below-level checks (a common occurrence) automatically.

This is not to say it's a bad list, exactly, more one based on a style of game that's alien to me, with social stuff in particular valued vastly lower than I would based on my own Pathfinder experiences.

OF course, I play Paizo APs, so maybe my experience is a relevant metric...

Assurance (athletics) lets a level 7 master trip a level 7 ogre boss without rolling and ignores multiple attack penalty. It lets a level 8 expert do the same, and also leap 20 feet straight up without rolling if they have Sudden Leap. That's before you get into climbing and swimming.

It's a way to estimate the opponent save without having to critfail first on a spell, besides that combining with fear and debuffs you can trip level apropriated foes without worrying too much.

Also it's a fun way for your dex focused character to trip someone without investing anything in str ^^


Artofregicide wrote:

I should point out, if it's not obvious, I'm not planning to use any of these houserules or any houserules honestly when I run 2e. Not that I necessarily think they're all bad but the point wasn't to "fix" 2e as to understand the choices made.

Plus if I do houserule, it'll be from a place of better understanding.

What is the point of the post then? I mean i thought those houserules were supposed to be what you planned for a table or what a DM planned for you... If not what is the use of discussing something you just pulled out of a hat and no one ever will use them? Sorry i am not trying to be annoying... Just confused as to why...


K1 wrote:

To me it could be fine, but what bother me is about comparing

-Fighter with Champion Dedication
vs
-Champion with fighter dedication

To me, the Fighter way ( armor proficiency apart ) could be even better as a protector.

I feel the opposite. Paladin reactions, Lay on hands and the ability to get any cleric powers make the paladin a lot better as a protector/support to me. While the fighter can be better defending outside of the +2 AC.


darrenan wrote:
Quote:
Divine grace... Is not good but it's not the worst having +2 on every save for a reaction is pretty great it's like getting +rank on it.

It's not all saves, just vs. spells.

** spoiler omitted **

Yeah... Agreed but a lot of saves are spells. Like about 1/3rd at least...


Any martinal class can qualify being human and getting Aldori with a general feat. Other races will need to wait level 4 to get the archetype.

1 to 50 of 352 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>