Search Posts
I think I'll give a somewhat dissenting opinion. I thought it was ok but no more than that. Although I think a great many of my problems may well have been from the novel. I read the book so long ago that my memories are quite vague. My biggest issue is that far too much got crammed into a single movie and, as a result, lots of it didn't really make much sense. It really needed to be a miniseries and not just 2 movies. As an example, how the heck did the small guerrilla force rebels suddenly mount a huge army to attack and defeat a technologically more powerful foe literally half a world away? How the heck could they achieve surprise when there are people looking down from space? I've always hated the trope that people raised in very harsh environments magically become superhuman warriors, both individually and at an organizational level. It is just so incredibly not true. Toss in all the eugenics garbage and poorly explained mystical stuff and I was left confused much of the time.
You're not the only one. This post has moved the Tian Xia books from my "will buy" list to my "may buy, have to look at it closely" list. It is completely and totally what I do NOT want to see in my fantasy. And yes, I completely realize that Golarion already has lots of anachronistic stuff. I tend to not like that very much either. I play in Golarion DESPITE a lot of non fantasy tropes, not because of them
In general, absolutely. But you're probably playing with a GM that you know and you know (in general) how they'll react to Nimble Strike. I've played with GMs that I most certainly would NOT take it, I've played with GMs where it would be very valuable
Maybe. The one thing the rogue suffers from is that she is BOTH a little fragile for a martial AND a high value target (take him down and the groups damage goes down considerably. From the other sides point of view Gang Up HURTS). One hard to quantify advantage of Nimble Strike is that it makes striking the rogue less attractive, which translates to more staying power. That is going to vary HUGELY with the GM and with the bad guys you're facing and so is REALLY hard to quantify. But it IS going to be a factor at least some of the time.
a party built for stealth (which uses lots of resources/power budget so should pay off like that even if an abnormal approach to a combat-focused game). I ran a 3.5 campaign where the entire group was very stealthy. It was quite different and a lot of fun but basically balanced (the PCs don't always get to choose the terms of an encounter and a fair bit of their budget went to the stealth).
Why? The new gang up makes it super easy and you have a higher speed which can help setup flanking. A large mount might run into small map problems, but even they have can flank from more squares at once. With a medium mount it just seems easier to me. You're quite right, at least from level 6 on. I'd momentarily forgotten Gang Up for some reason. It still hurts one of the cavaliers traditional roles which is to go into the back to gank the squishy caster but that isn't all that great a tactic in PF2 anyway (they just don't make squishies like they used to :-) :-))
Even the ruffian rogue REALLY wants sneak attack and that is going to be fairly difficult to consistently achieve with mounted combat. But you're right, it would make for a quite interesting character. Especially if they got the animal companion through the Cavalier Archetype which lets them get Quick Mount which would certainly greatly help them.
For some players, sure. But don't forget that many players won't even get the story (or they'll get some very short version of it) since they won't buy the book (or read the blog if Paizo decides to publish that portion of the book). They'll just show up at the table one day and find that their favourite God is no more. Not to mention that it is all but impossible to come up with an exit that EVERYBODY will think is good. Your "wow, that is a wonderful exit" is going to be somebody elses "Wow, was that lame/cliched/out of character/whatever". And vice versa. And there are going to be players who are just very attached to a particular God (at least for a particular character). I've had divinely oriented characters who absolutely would NOT get over the death of their diety, no matter how well told the story. Just like I've had characters who wouldn't get over the death of their spouse, or children, no matter how good the story was. That kind of story is only good IF it is the story the reader wants to read.
From a different thread
Only to a very limited extent. Don't forget that a LOT of players will not even be buying the book so the first time they hear about it will be when they sit down at the table and are told that their character is now illegal (or has no spells, or whatever). This will be especially true in PFS. You know, the public relations/outreach thing designed to entice new players. The new players who won't have read the book but will be supremely peeved to find that their cleric of <whomever> must suddenly change. As I say. I think this is overall a bad thing. I (very sincerely) hope that I am wrong about that
It would probably mean I'd retire the character. If it was a character I liked I'd likely be seriously peeved at Paizo. I think this is very likely to be a mistake that will make more people angry than happy (with the majority being "Meh")
1) My horse is slower in combat than most PCs (2 x 40 is less than 3x30) At first level, sure. But fleet is a pretty common choice, grabbing a wand of tailwind is pretty common, quite a few classes have speed increases either baked in or readily available, boots of speed are available, etc. In my experience by about level 8 or so most characters (Even the ones in plate mail) are going substantially faster than 25 feet a round. The biggest exceptions likely spell casters who just don't really need the speed as much
Escape is hostile though. It is definitely not trying to be nice with your opponent and follow their wishes. By that definition almost ANYTHING PCs do around enemies is going to be hostile. I think that is way too broad.
Wouldn't the animal companions remove themselves from danger without being commanded? The animal companions went down early in a very tough fight. If anybody had spent the actions to try and save them the fight would almost certainly have been a TPK. Both companions died before they could stabilize themselves. Edit : Not blaming the GM. She was probably trying to be nice by attacking the animals instead of the PCs as the latter could easily have resulted in character death or TPK.
In my personal experience (which is limited to a single AP), you are generally better off just stabilizing a downed comrade rather than actually healing him/her (assuming you don't absolutely need the downed character to win the fight). You're often right but there are quite a few exceptions 1) The one you pointed out - you really need the person to win the fight1a) This is especially true if you can arrange things so the other character contributes but in a fairly safe way. Eg, a bard inspiring from a distance (they get up, move and inspire their first round after getting up) 1b) You need the downed character to do LOTS of healing. You do a little healing to get them up, they do a lot of healing to keep the fighter up 2) You want to run away. Getting the other character up is generally essential for that 3) You can put enough hit points into the downed character that they're reasonably safe (and do so at a convenient time) for no greater cost (in effect) than a stabilize. Eg, you're in a one or two encounter a day wilderness campaign so 1 of your level 6 heal spells as a cleric is a VERY minimal cost.
I should probably preface this by saying that I love PF2 and think it by far the best form of D&D yet created. Almost too many to list. Amongst their number 1) My horse is slower in combat than most PCs (2 x 40 is less than 3x30) 2) If my level 10 druid turns into a pussy cat I lose a fight (eventually) to a normal mouse. And probably can't run away from it (certainly can't run away from a giant rat) 3) My unconscious rogue can still dodge a fireball so effectively that they take no damage 4) If I'm significantly faster than an enemy (say, 35 ft vs 25 ft) I can NEVER actually hit them in a chase unless I have reactive strike. 5) The whole hit point thing. Oh, it works very well from a gaming perspective but it is REALLY strange that my level 1 character is in NO danger of dying from a goblin with a glaive hitting me in the throat (critting me)
I am currently playing Quest for the Frozen Flame. We're level 5 and the lack of runes is getting pretty frustrating and just not fun. We have a grand total of one +1 rune in the party (no striking runes). We've managed to eek out victories so far by lots of use of runic weapon spells. But that means that
I was playing a cavalier and losing my mount really hurt (both mechanically and from a roleplaying perspective). The GM was nice and allowed us to count adventuring days as 1/2 for downtime as otherwise we'd have been left with the two REALLY unpalatable choices of lose a week where, story wise, that should spell pretty much certain doom or just never get to replace the animal companion. But I was still down my companion for 3 sessions and when that companion has cost you 2 of your 3 class feats that kinda sucks. Both mechanically and from a "feel good roleplaying" perspective. Having your martials doing 30% or so less damage really hurts. It probably doesn't help that we're all experienced players so we KNOW and FEEL how much below par we're hitting. And its not as if the AP is sending soft encounters our way. It is just getting seriously frustrating and impacting our enjoyment (the 2 martial characters, at least, have been pretty vocal about it :-))
While you're absolutely right about that "enjoyment" doesn't necessarily have to mean "spend lots of money". I've been retired for over 10 years at this point. My tastes are relatively cheap. Reading, internet, movies, tv, gaming. playing with my cats, helping at the rescue agency, socializing with some friends. I splurge on the occasional opera or live theatre or the like. Go out to a decent dinner at least once a week but mostly make my own meals or eat fairly cheap. I did lots of travelling before I retired and seem to have totally gotten it out of my system. I live in a city with good transit and walk, cycle or take transit nearly everywhere. With an occasional renting of a car. Be realistic about what you want to do when you retire. But it really does NOT have to be expensive unless your tastes lean that way.
To a large (not complete) extent this is addressed by giving a LOT of monsters some kind of action compression abilities (multiple attacks for 2 actions, move and strike for one action, etc).
But if you're playing a two handed weapon fighter, or an archer, or a two weapon fighter, or a free hand fighter then shield block becomes much less valuable. It may be well meant but that is CERTAINLY a powergame request. The fighter IS pretty much the best (or, at least, tied for the best) 2 handed weapon class out there. That +2 to hit and reactive strike are pretty darn massive.
It really isn't. Although its admittedly slightly awkwardly worded I think that the intent is pretty much crystal clear. No two weapon fighting for you. While it is slightly awkwardly worded with that interpretation it is INCREDIBLY poorly worded if the intent was to allow two one handed weapons to be wielded. And there is the power argument as well. It is quite balanced with the conservative interpretation (essentially, you get to do the damage of a 2 handed weapon since you cannot freely use the other hand to do things like raise a shield). But wielding 2 weapons would clearly be overpowered (arguments above notwithstanding).
I think you're pretty much missing the point. IF the character actually uses their shield, then shield block is pretty much worth a general feat (I say pretty much to try and avoid arguments on where it is on the general feat power spectrum). But if you're playing a two handed weapon fighter, or an archer, or a two weapon fighter, or a free hand fighter then shield block becomes much less valuable. Still has SOME value since even somebody specializing in another fighting style will still sometimes want to use shield block. But much, much less (especially since the monetary cost to keep a useful shield for blocking is non trivial). For THOSE characters swapping Shield Block with an arbitrary general feat is very clearly a power up. It is slightly less powerful than just giving those fighters an extra general feat but only slightly. And there are quite a few useful general feats. And, of course, if Player A sees Player B getting a "free" feat from whining then they're going to want a free feat too. Why can't my druid (especially Pre remaster) ALSO swap out their shield block for a general feat? Why can't my cloistered cleric swap out Proficiency with their dieties weapon for something? Why can't my lizardfolk swap out his claws attack for something? etc. etc. etc It is
You say you like to make massive sets of house rules. Fine. Do what you want. Most of us, however, don't. Edit to add: From a purely mechanical point of view, the 2 huge advantages that Humans get that are almost universally considered to make them one of the best ancestries mechanically are
Especially at low levels general feats can be HUGELY powerful. As in almost character defining or almost meaning the difference between life and death. Eg, grabbing a longbow on a caster, or grabbing armor or better armor for many characters.
IMO, exchanging the "useless" feat is already covered by the retraining rules. So, Bob's really your uncle. I would most certainly NOT allow this. As stated, its NOT following the rules and is a significant power up for those (probably a majority) fighters who never (or very rarely) shield block. While I'm sometimes willing to create house rules to power up a weak class there is no way I'd do so to power up what is generally viewed as one of the most powerful (if not most powerful) martial class in the game.
Assuming that you're talking about timber sentinel note that it does NOT specify that the kineticist gets to specify what kind of tree is grown. So if the GM thinks this is problematic they have an easy solution. But yeah, I don't think paizo considered the potential world altering non adventuring uses of some kineticist abilities.
Paizo nerfed pre-buffing in PF2e, which IMO is one of the worst things they did to casters. Pre-buffing the right thing requires real engagement with the environment, world/lore, NPCs, plot, etc. by players. Not in PF1 it didn't. A party that just stuck to the staples (barkskin, life bubble, etc) was MASSIVELY better off than one that didn't. Entire dungeons were basically made trivial by life bubble, others by communal air walk. Sure, from time to time being really engaged would let you do still better. But most of the time the staples were just fine and dandy thank you
This is an incredibly silly argument. By the rules, there is no way to learn to play a game which one cannot make an income off (since lore game does not, raw, work). By the rules, there is absolutely no way or need to ever go potty. Or to toilet train an infant. By the rules, one cannot learn to read your own language. Children just automatically learn to read and write. The rules do NOT remotely come close to describing everything that can be learned or taught and to claim otherwise is incredibly silly
Personally, I think I'd have a call back to older versions of the game and have the local High Druid challenge them to a 1 on 1 fight where only druid abilities can be used. A fight to the death, of course. They can either accept the challenge or not. If they don't, NATURE (DEFINITELY all caps) intervenes and sends something subtle like the Tarrasque after them. That will learn them :-)
I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only GM who fairly frequently will allow a skill feat to apply in situations where it feels like it SHOULD apply even if RAW it clearly doesn't. And/or will have it apply in different ways than strictly written. I absolutely LOVE the intent behind skill feats but quite often absolutely loathe the implementation. I strongly get the feeling that they just received very, very little attention so they're this incredible mish mash of incredibly cool things, kinda useful things, almost useless things, and things that actively make the game worse by their very existence by gating things that should be accessible to all characters (perhaps gated behind proficiency level) and gates them behind a feat. So my solution to the above is to be sometimes be insanely liberal in interpreting how skill feats work. As an example, you have Eye for Numbers you definitely win the count the bean contest in any non PFS game I run (and probably PFS games unless its a major point)
The loss of one spell per level is painful but I quite like the Flexible Caster archetype, especially with a class like druid that has good focus spells and so can live with the loss of the spell per level (its still painful, mind :-(). Gives you the best of both worlds (Spontaneous and Prepared).
What would you guys do for a alt history of Earth where we have Pathfinder Races and magic running around? How would you start such a history, how would you handles religion since a lot of modern religions are a single god, would it be possible to even replicate such a feeling of a single all mighty god or would it be best to scrap everything and do a single set of deities worshipped world wide. Perhaps I should write several patheons that are battling over Earth? For religion you can do what Tolkein did. There is one God but there are multiple lesser gods.
Yeah. My ideal would be using a curated list of archetypes which are thematically appropriate to the campaign. But even thematics don't fully account for balancing. Animal Tamer and Beast Master are appropriate for Extinction Curse and Quest for the Frozen Flame specifically, but both are marked power upgrades. Its not even that simple. I've sometimes used Free Archetype to cover a weakness in my character or bolster a strength and then used my ACTUAL class feats to grab the "flavour" choices.
I think it got it about exactly right (maybe slightly on the too powerful/flexible side) and that the issue is that some of the other classes are too weak/inflexible. One thing that the thaumaturge definitely has that others don't is that it is quite good from level 1 through level 20. Only a few other classes really accomplish this. And it pretty much does it all in class. A pure Thaumaturge is quite viable and attractive. And I also think the Thaumaturge is more campaign dependent than most classes. Both in how useful Exploit Vulnerability is but also in how useful RK is, how much the action economy hurts you, etc. But we're largely arguing semantics here. We both think it is roughly on par with the better classes and better than the average or worse classes.
Its a very nice class but really is one of those classes that has to be played to see both its strengths and weaknesses. It is definitely limited by the action economy in ways that aren't obvious on just reading the class. Its not a huge single target damage dealer unless its ability to target weaknesses is particularly effective. Its not bad, mind. Certainly on par for a martial. But its not a barbarian or a fighter. But, given how much else it brings to the table, it should NOT be as good as a barbarian or a fighter so thats fine.
You're trying to claim that the rules would allow you to wield a bastard sword in 2 hands and still use Implement's Empowerment? Uh, no. Even if you find some convoluted line of argument that could conceivably allow that no sane GM in the world would allow it. If you tried it on me I'd just laugh in your face :-) (including in PFS).
At least they are stuck with one handed weapons.Isn't a bastard sword a one handed weapon? I read no requirements on Thaumaturge abilities that things don't work when wielding a weapon in two hands. I also didn't see "free hand" as a requirement. What's to stop you from using a bastard sword as your implement, gripping it two-handed, and also casting from scrolls at the same time? Its pretty much a moot point. With Implements Empowerment you pretty much get the same damage with a bastard sword in 1 hand or in 2 hands. So why would you ever use it in two hands?
Its a very nice class indeed but in practice it DOES have its limitations which significantly bring it down. As Hammerjack pointed out, its biggest issue is its action economy. You pretty much ALWAYS want at least one extra action every round :-). Its a martial with an attack stat of only 16. Hardly the biggest problem ever but that does put it somewhat behind the curve 1/2 the time. From a combat point of view its a bit MAD. Most people want to max out (or close to max out) Cha and Str. That means your other defensive stats are going to suffer. Some of its abilities are also fairly campaign dependent. Exploit Vulnerability is MUCH better if your campaign features lots of different enemies with weaknesses that you don't know about in advance. If you're facing enemies without weaknesses all you get is Personal Anithesis. Even worse are campaigns where enemies almost all have weakness <blort> because then your entire party will be hitting that weakness and your damage booster just became useless. All that said, I LOVE it, ESPECIALLY for PFS where covering all the RK and all the social skills just rocks. Its definitely on the high end of the power/flexibility spectrum but its NOT over the top.
I haven't played him a great deal yet but my PFS fighter dandy with tut-tut has been both effective and fun. Dandy itself is just a gold mine for roleplaying (you get to complain or compliment everybody on their sartorial choices) especially in PFS where broad and in your face characterizations are rewarded when compared to subtle ones. And as a fighter he hits pretty darn often with tut-tut despite it being a press attack. And he has both the armour and hit points for it not to be suicidal to go off by his own for a bit. And sudden charge to get him where he needs to be. He's NOT a one trick pony (he's a fighter after all :-)) but tut-tut makes a very nice trick that comes up often. Demoralizing a bunch of enemies at once rocks
I think one key thing that this thread points out is that Paizo has, in general, done a superb job of balancing PF2. Nobody has managed to give a single clearly game breaking thing. We've managed to identify several things that are more powerful than their alternatives and some places where balance could perhaps be better. But even there people are disagreeing on how large a problem it is. Contrast that with PF1 where there were literally dozens of game breakingly good combinations and most campaigns stopped at mid levels because it just became too hard on the GM. I don't play D&D 5th but people seem to think that game has huge balance issues with sufficiently experienced players at higher levels. Paizo really has done a superb (albeit imperfect) job and I just think this should be explicitly called out in a thread like this.
Oh, I'd give honourable mention to Tut-Tut from the Dandy archetype (a great archetype in general, both mechanically and for flavour). I haven't played him too much yet but it has been quite effective on my fighter (clearly this or a flurry ranger is going to be the best character to build to succeed on a press action). Its even PFS legal.
Prior to the Remaster I mostly saw bards using Inspire Courage. But, post remaster, I think (theory crafting, NOT experience) that the optimal strategy is now Dirge of Doom combined with the new and improved Bless Spell. But that may be reined in by the fact that it is going to be boring as heck for the bard player. Effective but boring. So likely needs TWO characters, one bard and one other (Cleric being a good candidate). But that combination seems like it would be quite nasty
Technically, Untamed/Wild Order is about changing to one battle form per fight/activity using the untamed/wild shape focus spell; then spend 10 min to refocus/regain the focus point afterwards. Pre remaster I found that from time to time I ended up throwing more than 1 focus spell when my plans changed. Sometimes I'd throw a combat spell and then realize that I should really wild shape, sometimes I'd wildshape and then something would make me REALLY want to cast a spell or get some healing out so I dismissed the wild shape. But I never ran out of focus points, even pre-remaster. Since, as you say, MOST fights I just spent 1 focus point,
|
Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 5,324 posts (9,349 including aliases). 61 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 86 Organized Play characters. 36 aliases. 
