Bristle Billie

rainzax's page

2,303 posts (2,304 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. 2 wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,303 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There more details


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Also if you get over the mental hump of "not being unencumbered" and just eat the penalty to speed and ACP a ST 10 Alchemist has a 10 Bulk limit!


Captain Morgan wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
I believe Barbarian and Champion can choose it as a class feat later on
I find it kind of odd if monks can't get easy access to AoOs since, while they don't get a lot of mileage out of reach, if there's one class for the "smack you in the face if you have a momentary lapse" thing it's the monk.
See above. Where AoO disrupts manipulate actions, monks disrupt movement with their AoO equivalent.

Attack of Opportunity triggers off of ranged attacks, movement, and manipulation, but only actually disrupting the latter.

How does the utility compare in terms of actual triggers and disruptions?


93
Ryke Corollary Sextant
Human Barkeep Fighter
Big on Diplomacy and Intimidation
Sweeping Gestures with War Flail
Best Friends with many Dwarves


Mark Seifter wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

In short, it can be easily argued that 16 and 18 are both highly viable starting values.

A 14 is getting to the point where your reduced effectiveness in your main thing will start being noticeable, and hard to offset psychologically, even if your other bonuses are technically making up the difference.

It's also not super easy to wind up with a 14 as your highest stat in the first place. There's only two possible arrays: 14 14 14 14 12 10 or 14 14 14 14 14 8. If you aren't playing one of those two arrays, you will have a 16 in your highest stat.

Consider the array 16 14 14 14 10 10.

This character's primary function keys to that 16.

My question is, those three 14's, can they viably serve as three secondary functions? Or will the game render that math obsolete?

My gut tells me that yes, having a primary at 16, and a few secondaries at 14, is a fine way to play a character who is "well-rounded" and can have fun succeeding at their primary and secondary functions with reasonable frequency.


Seisho wrote:
rainzax wrote:

88

Human
Criminal
Bard / Ranger
Dagger
give us some more, a name, a concept, a catchphrase, something that makes number 88 unique :D

88

Jakoby and Ro
Human Criminal Ranger
Eagle Animal Companion
Golfbag of Weapons
Dedicated Spellcaster Disrupter
Plans on Multiclass into Bard


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Iff,
Feel like your question more like:

"Can I get away with a 16 and 14 in primary and secondary character functions (respectively) and not feel like I've made an egregious error?"


88
Human
Criminal
Bard / Ranger
Dagger


JackieLane wrote:
The only way we got through some role-play moments in my group was through just turning a blind eye to the financial discrepancies.

This was incredibly irritating!


lordcirth wrote:
rainzax wrote:

Ok for comparison, Bastard Sword Caster vs. Greatsword Caster.

Assume both are using the 2-handed grip. If they want to cast a spell, they'd have to use an action to free up one hand. Then they can Somatically cast a spell. The difference is, the Bastard sword could now immediately make 1-hand attacks again, but the Greatsword user would have to use another action to "regrip" before attacking again?

Not quite. letting go with one hand is considered "dropping" and is a free action. going back to a 2H grip is an action.

Not bad.

And means Bastard Sword over Greatsword for better action economy with Multiclass Fighter-Wizards.


Might charge for pub rounds in this edition?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
First World Bard wrote:
Illrigger wrote:
OK, so if I am grasping this correctly (pun intended), the waraxe, because it can be wielded in 2 hands, can be used to strike 3 times a round as either 1- or 2-handed (whatever you are ucrrently using at the beginning of the round), but a bastard sword, because it can only be swung, not wielded, with 2 hands, can only be used to attack once a round (1 action to change grip, one action to strike), because it automatically reverts to 1-hand after the strike?
I don't think that's correct, there shouldn't be any automatic reverting. If you need to change you grip (for example, you want to cast a spell with a Somatic component), there's an action cost for that. Otherwise, you just keep holding with two hands and that's that.

Ok for comparison, Bastard Sword Caster vs. Greatsword Caster.

Assume both are using the 2-handed grip. If they want to cast a spell, they'd have to use an action to free up one hand. Then they can Somatically cast a spell. The difference is, the Bastard sword could now immediately make 1-hand attacks again, but the Greatsword user would have to use another action to "regrip" before attacking again?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Working title Stone Dog proposed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If they take the Maverick dedication, yes.


This is super dope!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I'm sort of concerned that I'm going to be left behind when this hobby goes overly digital, to be honest.

I feel as though folks that play online do so as an admitted concession to being unable (for various reasons) to do so live.

And whereas the the technology will definitely continue to improve, it will never completely replace the social and kinesthetic elements that Steve Geddes mentions above.

In my group, 3 of our 4 new players started with online play, and finally made "the jump" to live. Not that they quit online play altogether, but they definitely express a preference for live play, often including that they had "wanted to for a long time" priorly.

I'm not too worried.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They did 3e better than Wizards.

Now they will do 4e better than Wizards.


Anything on Rogue?


nick1wasd wrote:
I like having property runes separate from the enchantment track, I'll probably have something similar to FF7 Materia that function as property runes...

Alternate Campaign Rule

You can swap out property runes during a short rest. Or perhaps an Occultist class can do so as a "manipulate" + "concentrate" combat action. There are property runes that grant Class Feats to those wielding the item they enchant. And property runes that grant a spell effect or the ability to cast a spell to those wielding the item they enchant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Someone mentioned upthread that, lumped in with Gunslinger and Swashbuckler, we could add the Archeologist (an old Bard archetype) and Sleuth (an old Investigator archetype).

It was nested in a spoiler.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

(For the purposes of the argument, Gunslinger and Swashbuckler are interchangeable, as are Grit and Panache, naturally.)

When I look back over the Gunslinger Deeds, by and large, they were never any more or less "impossible" than combat feats of equivalent level. So to me, that distinction - impossible vs non-impossibe - misses the point. That begs the question:

"What differentiates Gritty Deeds from Class Feats (of the Fighter, Rogue, etc)"?

To me, the answer harkens back to the OP's first post: the concept of a ratio between risk and reward, acted out mechanically. So perhaps an Axiom could be as follows:

"When the Grit pool is full, a Gritty Deed is comparably better than a Class Feat. When the Grit pool is empty, a Gritty Deed is comparably worse than a Class Feat."


3 people marked this as a favorite.

"You are all doomed!" no longer empty rhetoric...


This to me is one of the greatest appeals of the new edition.

That the powergamers can sit at the same table with the new players and everyone else, and the system minimizes play disparities.

Suddenly, the emphasis shifts more towards how you play your character than how you build them.

Perhaps Hubert's anxieties will be relieved that he/she can't break the ceiling because it is possible (yet)?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lordcirth wrote:
rainzax wrote:


Your players are in luck.

Have them roll 3d6 down the line. This averages to 10.5 for each ability score.

Then apply your ABCs. Cap starting stats at 18. Maybe decide upon a minimum value too.

Voila.

No need. Alternative rules for rolling are in the CRB, just like in the playtest.

Sure.

But I'm positive that "3d6 down" will have special appeal to fans of earliest editions, and is incredibly compatible with the ABC character creation algorithm.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
I definitely do not want to return to days of rolling ability scores, that often resulted in bitterness when one of the guys rolled up an "elven hero" and the rest were playing farmboys with pitchforks.
My players would likely rise in revolt if there is not an option for getting exactly that result, because making characters of that sort of different level of capacity work well together is a large part of the fun for us.

Your players are in luck.

Have them roll 3d6 down the line. This averages to 10.5 for each ability score.

Then apply your ABCs. Cap starting stats at 18. Maybe decide upon a minimum value too.

Voila.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
rainzax wrote:

I see Focus pool as being for magic-users. Thus, a Grit pool as being for martial-users. Five arguements:

1) It defines an Adventuring Philosophy represented by the "risk/reward" concept behind the Grit mechanic, which becomes the engine of the class's abilities.

2) Grit is not a "learned technique" as are Sneak Attack, Opportunist, Shield Block, Flurry of Blows. Grit is something else.

3) A Class allows for thematic modularity which could easily include choice of initial proficiencies (gun, fencing, etc), covering both Gunslinger and Swashbuckler.

4) Since it is a class, by default, it becomes a multi-class archetype.

5) A Class (as opposed to just an archetype) would probably be "in demand" enough by the playerbase to justify.

Monk has focus so the magic/martial goes out the door.

#2 Learned? sorcerers don't learn focus spells, it's in there blood so that's out.
#3/4 An archetype allows far more modularity, and could be added to any class hopefully without tethering it to a stat like a multiclass would, so I'm seeing #3 and #4 out.
#5 I haven't seen a majority here call out for a class vs an archetype and I have no way of knowing what the playerbase as a whole wants: So I think "demand" isn't so clear cut. Secondly, it has to be far more that grit, the class: it has to have 20 levels of abilities and I think "demand" would go down if most were copy/pastes of other martial classes feats with a minor change. IMO that's a tough thing as I don't think there are even enough PF1 deeds to have 3 choices every other level.

That leaves #1 and that's a matter of opinion and in no way limits it to a single class, archetype or class feat to pull off.

graystone,

I count "Ki" as a form of "magic" by virtue of using the Focus mechanic. And in so doing, purport to maintain a magic / martial distinction. And besides, even if you disagree that Monks are not "magic", a distinction can still exist with Monks being a special exception.

Secondly, Interesting you mention Sorcerer (which I didn't for my second point). Because, the Grit mechanic can be analogous to sorcery, whereas Fighter, Rogue, and Monk abilities can be analogous to wizardry; One is more talent and the other is more training.

Thirdly, explain to me how an Archetype (a collection of feats) has more modularity than a class (a collection of initial abilities and feats)? I do not understand your logic.

Fourthly, I agree and disagree with you. Agree in that yes, using feats and deeds to distinguish the class sufficiently from other classes will require a lot of design work. Disagree in that "demand" is not measurable. Uncommon measures include thread content in these forums. Enough to say that Gunslingers and Swashbucklers are definitely popular with the playerbase.

Final point, citing a point of disagreement, or pulling in another perspective, is not an act of negation. Your making claims then labeling my points "out" does neither the work to verify nor disavow. Though, I do enjoy the discussion that is generated notwithstanding.


Squiggit wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
@Rainzax - I could see Grit working as a Class Feature. My real worry with/about Grit ends up being classes getting access to too many seperate pools for arbitrary reasons.
I'm not sure that's a big problem. These pools are pretty self contained and separate, generally speaking and if someone takes the effort to go out of their way to get as many pools as possible that's clearly something they're okay with managing.

And Dedication feats are three feat chains between links.

Let's say you have a "pool class", then pick up a second "pool class" at 2nd level with a Dedication feat. You need to choose two more feats from that class before picking up a third Dedication.

The system has that future-proofing built in.


Skerek wrote:
With enough work, it's definitely workable, but that's just it, it'll require a lot of work to make it balanced.

That said, if the group is willing to put in the work - a lot of work - it works great.

Which is to say that the only drawback is the difficulty of initial and maintained implementation.


I see it as a DM tool:

"Is this item available?"
(dice are rolled with character skill being a factor in outcome)
Result obtained.

In our game, if the result is "no" that stands for that session. You can try again next session. We use our imaginations to conjure the story that explains the outcomes of the dice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I see Focus pool as being for magic-users. Thus, a Grit pool as being for martial-users. Five arguements:

1) It defines an Adventuring Philosophy represented by the "risk/reward" concept behind the Grit mechanic, which becomes the engine of the class's abilities.

2) Grit is not a "learned technique" as are Sneak Attack, Opportunist, Shield Block, Flurry of Blows. Grit is something else.

3) A Class allows for thematic modularity which could easily include choice of initial proficiencies (gun, fencing, etc), covering both Gunslinger and Swashbuckler.

4) Since it is a class, by default, it becomes a multi-class archetype.

5) A Class (as opposed to just an archetype) would probably be "in demand" enough by the playerbase to justify.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Cashing in XP to Level Up.

In addition to Artificial 20's idea above, the concept of "cashing in" could put another tool into the DM's hand as regards gaining levels.

Something like "Once you have accumulated 1000 xp, you may spend x days of downtime to level up according to these prescriptions...(gameworld stuff)...to emerge as a higher level character."

For DMs who want either more "realism" or "immersion" or "control" or whatnot.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:

Is it me or Brutish shove is awesome? Yeah, it is Press but you get a full strike + 2 riders on it for no cost. Even on a Failure it causes flat-footed? Will be spamming this every turn!

Also, can the guy from this blog cast Shield while holding his 2h Maul? Are "free hands" not needed for somatic components again?

Just checked the PT, and in there the Shield Cantrip only requires a Verbal Component; if this is true for the Final Print then yes, you should be able to use it with a 2h weapon.

The verbal component is yelling "Shield!" while you swing that baseball bat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
rainzax wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
rainzax wrote:

Upon none-other than the very Site of a potential second North American Civil War for the Soul of the Country, our Popular Culture? Watch out for splash damage equal to Rysky's Intelligence modifier!

Still think the black in Seoni's cloak clashes with the Color Wheel though.

Kind of like if you mix all your pretty paint colors and woops brown. Bleh.

*Rolls saving throw to avoid explaining how the first Civil War was no more a civil war than the Revolutionary War.*
*Rolls a saving throw to avoid devolving into a semantical debate.*
You definitely already failed that save a few posts ago, man. :P

Do you mean the part where there was a disagreement about art?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, if I follow:

Open > Must be first attack this round
Press > Must not be first attack this round
Flourish > Usable once per round in any order

Is there more?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
PS: What I find REALLY annoying is that in PF1, an alchemy crafting kit which "is assumed to have all the material components needed for his extracts, mutagens, and bombs" weighs 5 lbs... And "As a general rule, an item that weighs 5 to 10 pounds is 1 Bulk", it should default to 1 bulk. I'm not sure why someone thought alchemists needed to carry an extra bulk.

Don't know how else to put it. They carry extra bulk because they carry extra bulk. It's part of the very concept of Traveling Alchemist.

That said, I refute your claim perhaps based on a misunderstanding of the rules? I thought 5 bulk is the allowance for a ST 10 character before the penalties kick in.


Vlorax wrote:
Reckless wrote:
lordredraven wrote:
So if I grok the meaning of power attack, since it is two attacks, if it's your first attack it's most likely at -5 to hit in exchange for an extra die? Extra die is good but in a system where -5 real drops your crit burst damage not sure it is a fair trade off

I'm pretty sure it's only 1 strike, which is 2 actions and counts as 2 attacks for your multiattack penalty. Meaning that if it's your first attack, it's at full value, but your next one is at -10. If it's your second strike, it would be at -5.

this is also how I understood it to be.

I see. Kind of like 1E the Vital Strike feat.


Thanks!


And a "flourish"?


What is a "press"?


graystone wrote:
rainzax wrote:
Are you suggesting that a character wearing armor, carrying a weapon, and dragging around a portable chemical laboratory should be treated in the game as equivalently carrying a jansport backpack?

I'm suggesting that it shouldn't be unreasonable to have basic equipment and the things needed for your class to use it base abilities without needing a stat that isn't one of your key abilities or secondary ones. It;s something I see as an issue. I'd rather lose some realism on the lab equipment bulk and have the class work better by giving it a bit of room to just get basic gear, not even talking extra extravagant gear, without having to alter stats just to do so.

On jansport backpack... I'm suggesting that a carefuly packed lab kit [2 bulk] is should be easier to carry than 20 strung longbows in your arms [2 bulk].

When I look at the Damiel iconic Alchemist character, I see a character significantly encumbered.

And really, I think the problem solves itself. You want a high-ST Alchemist, you get to carry heavier weapons and armor in addition to your lab. You want a low-ST Alchemist, you get to carry lighter weapons and armor, if any, in addition to your lab.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tectorman wrote:
rainzax wrote:

Upon none-other than the very Site of a potential second North American Civil War for the Soul of the Country, our Popular Culture? Watch out for splash damage equal to Rysky's Intelligence modifier!

Still think the black in Seoni's cloak clashes with the Color Wheel though.

Kind of like if you mix all your pretty paint colors and woops brown. Bleh.

*Rolls saving throw to avoid explaining how the first Civil War was no more a civil war than the Revolutionary War.*

*Rolls a saving throw to avoid devolving into a semantical debate.*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
rainzax wrote:

Monks need clothes (0 bulk).

Wizards need a spellbook (1 bulk).

Alchemists need a portable lab (a few bulk).

Fighters need heavy armor and weapons (lots of bulk).

Sounds okay to me.

So 2 for lab, 1 for armor, 1 for weapon... they have 1 bulk left for every elixir and every other piece of equipment [including ammo] before they are out of bulk unless they start putting stat ups into strength JUST for bulk... For me, that doesn't sound ok.

Cyouni wrote:
If 3 bulk (aka 30 items of near-your-level, only achievable by level ~6, and only on a pure specialist making items of their specialty) of items are enough to cripple your alchemist, perhaps you should have more than 10 Str.
1 bulk is enough. 3 is having a 16 strength just to carry around what you make at the start of the day.

Are you suggesting that a character wearing armor, carrying a weapon, and dragging around a portable chemical laboratory should be treated in the game as equivalently carrying a jansport backpack?


Leotamer wrote:
While I understand where you are coming from, I vehemently disagree with your design philosophy. You are copying the surface level while failing to capture its soul. And this applies to the new mechanics as well.

I partially agree with you.

I think Kineticist could use Focus to power it's abilities, but also think Swashbuckler / Gunslinger would better be it's own separate "pool" mechanic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yolande d'Bar wrote:
I'd be interested in hearing your issues/war-stories/complaints about it, Skerek.

I think Skerek means converting all the existing 1st edition classes to the 3-act system means you either have to do a lot of prep-work (pouring over 1,000+ combinations) or else adjudicate whether every "free" or "swift" or "immediate" action counts as 1 Act, a Reaction, or is indeed a "free" action.

That's a lot of work, because you are essentially trying to rebalance those classes inside of a new system when all of them were designed with a different system in mind.

If that makes sense?


Upon none-other than the very Site of a potential second North American Civil War for the Soul of the Country, our Popular Culture? Watch out for splash damage equal to Rysky's Intelligence modifier!

Still think the black in Seoni's cloak clashes with the Color Wheel though.

Kind of like if you mix all your pretty paint colors and woops brown. Bleh.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

apples to oranges


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let's settle for blueish-black then.

But since when does red & gold not clash with blueish-black & silver though!

Maybe if the cloak had a hood?


Cyouni wrote:
rainzax wrote:

I am skeptical that "natural 1" automatically means "failure worsens to critical failure" because as a natural 1 would typically result a failure for many/most checks, this would basically doom one in twenty rolls to critical failure.

This would seem to me to be a fundamental flaw in this edition's skill engine.

Any level 8 character, in any thing they're trained in, stat of 10. Attempting a untrained skill. (If you're an expert with 18 in the relevant stat, you can do this as early as level 2.)

I am not sure I follow exactly what you are clarifying here.

Are you saying that "automatic worsen on natural 1" only happens if you are attempting an untrained check?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The cloak is a little "clashy" black.

Maybe if it was gold (matching the trim of the rest of her outfit) or white (matching her staff) or even blue (matching her tattoos)?


I am skeptical that "natural 1" automatically means "failure worsens to critical failure" because as a natural 1 would typically result a failure for many/most checks, this would basically doom one in twenty rolls to critical failure.

This would seem to me to be a fundamental flaw in this edition's skill engine.

1 to 50 of 2,303 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>