roquepo's page

Does it still use the weird scaling it had before? That's weird.

Is there a kind soul here that can confirm for me if the Barbarian's Spirit's Wrath feat has received any changes?

My Spirit Barbarian has already retired, so it is not like I care much now personally, but despite how much I like the feat it always struck me as weird the way it was originally written and I am a bit curious to know if it has gone through revision.

StarlingSweeter wrote:

Being able to rage constantly without enemies needing to be present and the additional bonus to speed at 3rd are also some really good quality of life. 11th level Mighty Rage giving you even MORE alpha strike damage?

Im going to be honest this remaster is more than I could have ever asked for.

Plus a reason not to use heavy armour

I think there is a level 8 feat to make Barbarians work with Heavy Armor.

Swashbuckler damage will still be low before they get striking runes, but being weak early on is something surmountable if later on they really get going.

I hope they stick the landing with Swashbuckler, it is such a cool class fantasy and the mechanical niche has always been super interesting, just held back by how feast or famine panache is. Bravado is a really promising trait, but it won't mean much if the feats with it suck.

I've read that Clawdancer apparently has some sort of stance-swapping built in, how does that exactly work? Do you have feats that change your stance afterwards or maybe feats that make you drop stance and others that make you enter one as part of using them?

Been thinking for a while about what could change to make the class feel a bit better and this is what I came with thus far.

> Taunt gives the defensive benefits it gives now to allies, just a +1 to hit to the taunted enemy and a +1 bonus for you to hit taunted enemies. It's benefits disappear if you move away from the enemy (in case there are several taunted enemies, it breaks if you are getting away from one without getting closer to another). I imagine the Taunt ability as enemies getting unnerved by you focusing on them, an additional +1 to hit makes you more of a threat, makes it so you are encouraged to attack the enemy that you are trying to draw attention to and somewhat helps with the delayed scaling. As for the type of bonus, status would be weaker than circumstance, and I think the latter would make more sense, but Status would keep it in check if needed (it would also cause no weapon compability ). Moving away breaking the effect solves the issue some people have raised earlier about the coward Guardian.

> Intercept Strike looks like it is meant to be the Guardian's bread and butter. In order for that to work well, it needs some movement attached to it, no feats required. A Step at level 1 would be enough probably, but it needs to scale with level, be it with feats or automatically. Once enemies start being larger than medium on a regular basis and flyers start showing up, a step does not cut it. The rest of it looks more than fine, though.

> Threat Technique needs an aditional defensive benefit on top. Some people have mentioned Temp HP ad a possible solution, but I am against it. First, Temp HP cannot be made to work only against taunted enemies. Temp HP is also a mostly magical effect that does, in my opinion, not fit the flavor of the class. I think an earlier and improved Armor Specialization like ability would be enough. I also think that it should stack specifically with Intercept's strike DR just to dodge the feels bad moment.

I think those 3 are a good place to start. Later today I have a session with my group and I will ask then if they want to give the playtest a try.

As for my first impressions:

> Ho boy. The delayed proggression is going to be a contentious topic, isn't it? The first delay I think it is alright and fair. Level 7 offense for level 5 defense is acceptable. What is not acceptable is the master proficiency for weapons. 17 is way too late, it should be 15 at most, make legendary armor and master weapons the same feature and call it a day.

> The bulk looks also a bit questionable. You are +2 AC ahead on levels 5 to 11, and 13 to 14 and 19 to 20, +4 ahead on levels 15 to 18 and even levels 1 to 4, but your core feature to attract enemy attention gives enemies a +2 to hit you, making it in reality a -2 from levels 1 to 4 and even most of your career against the enemy you need to keep in check the most (most of the time, the highest level one). It gets a nice damage reduction on crits, but it should probably also get a lower damage reduction for normal hits as well.

> Intercept strike needs to come with movement at some point. Actual movement. Combats get more mobile as you level up, being adjacent to an ally does not cut it by level 8 or 10. By level 20 it should scale at least to 20 or 30ft of movement to not be a dead feature in most combats. As it is it is better to just stick to intercept Foe until level 14 and then do Intercept Foe into Intercept Strike.

> Some feats need some work. Energetic Specialization is not it, for example, the resistances are laughable. If it gave all 5 resistances it would be decent, but as it is it is just impossible to justify. On the other Hand, Hampering Sweeps is just too good for a level 2 feat, I think.

> Perfect Protection should specify how it interacts with a Fortification rune.

Guess I should post my first impressions here.

I really like what you are trying to do with the class, but it looks very rough around the edges.

> Drilled Reactions is a bit wonky because lots of the tactics available don't even use them in the first place. I also think it is a wasted opportunity, having a class that can give proper, non-limited extra reactions would be amazing, both fun to play with and it would give the class a very strong niche.

> I'm fine with heavy armor because I think the class is more fit for ranged combat anyway, it is just a needed help for melee commanders. I like the current overall proficiencies too. I'm also a big fan of Warfare Expertise. If I could add something, it would be that for skill checks caused by your tactics, your allies can use your Warfare Lore stat with a penalty (something like a -2 or a -4) instead of their regular skill stat if it is lower. That way, even if your allies are not that well prepared to take advantage of your tactics, they get to do something thanks to your instruction. Sort of a consolation prize.

> Tactics in general are all over the place in value, but I like the general design. One thing I want to say, though. I hope for the final release we don't see a slighly too efficient Trip or Grapple tactic due to the lack of testing.

> I'm generally fine with the design of feats, but there are a few that worry me. First is Defiant Banner. It is alright for the most part, but it needs a smoother scaling. 5 resistance to physical damage is not that much by level 13 and 12 is a bit too much by 14 I feel like. Another that worries me is Fortunate Blow, I just think it is too good to not have a once per 10 min CD instead of flourish (of course, I might change opinions if I get to test it).

> Why does the AC get a delayed proggression? Once you released both the Cavalier and Beastmaster dedications it stopped making any sense. Just give it full proggression, it is IMO a very important part of the classes flavor, you should not need to ignore the in-class version and pick an archetype instead.

> A weaker version of Pennant of Victory early on would be neat.

You can't say that damage is niche, it's core to the game.

And isn't AoE damage damage too?

You are turning the question into a non-question. In a party without casters I'd play a caster and in a party without martials I'd play a martial. But that's not my question. I can rephrase it as: In a balanced party where every need is covered, would you play a caster or a martial from an optimization point of view?

I don't consider a party without a caster an optimized party. I don't consider the buff and debuff department is well covered at all by martials and AoE and healing, while can be covered to an acceptable degree, do not reach the heights casters can reach. We'll see when Commander releases, but what I find redundant right now are buffing martials, not casters.

So under that premise, assuming that hypothetical 3 person party is formed by 1 caster and 2 martials, what I would add it would depend completely on their builds. In general though, I think it is easier to end up with a well tuned 3 martials 1 caster group than with a 2 martial and 2 casters group, but I think that has more to do with overlap between casters due to how the spellcasting system works rather than anything else.

Single target damage is also a niche that needs covering and not for that martials are less appealing.

To me it is more than casters offer the strongest versions of those niches. In the healing, buffing and debuffing and AoE damage fields, no martial comes close to what the right caster can do.

So I'll flip the question around, would you run an extra martial that adds even more single target damage to the party but with poor to mediocre healing, aoe or buffing, or a caster that covers the weak points of the party better, but that can only do competitive single target damage under certain circumstances?

I'm currently playing with a level 19 party with no casters. We have AoE, tons of healing and a good amount of debuffs (we have 2 trip bots on top of several sources of clumsy, enfeebled and frightened), and we all agree that we are having a harder time due to not having a caster.

I formulated it like that because it is hard to compare casters and martials to begin with.

But in a way, yes. Those classes shine at their niche, a necessary niche to cover at that, and thus, feel like strong classes to me, whereas some other casters don't have as strong of a niche and thus feel like inferior versions of other, stronger casters due to the toolbox-y nature of spellcasting.

To better phrase it (and with this I don't try to invalidate what I've said earlier) is that if I had to make a top 5 strongest classes in the system, at least two of the three I mentioned would make the cut.

I think it is more a matter of appeal than power why caster popularity has waned over the years. Martial's moving pieces are way more synergistic, and people tend to like that, whereas casters, regardless of blasting or controlling, are more toolbox-y. Casters are also harder to play, and I think most people prefer to keep play patterns simple.

As for power, I think at least Bard, Sorcerer and Cleric are above most martials in what they do.

I'll add Scorching Ray, this one is really basic and fits my list of basic blasts. For the others, I'll look at them tomorrow or on Tuesday. I still don't know how to speak about them, either just saying they have good value or explaining why they have good value... I don't want to lose the very direct structure of the guide.

I'd just make a small entry for sustained spells past level 16 called Effortless Concentration or something. There aren't many worth talking about and you can just go over them in general without mentioning many specific spells.

If you mean how to tackle all situationally good spells, I'd make a second list under your generic one with very short explanations.

But I prefer to avoid this conversation in this discussion

Fair.

I second Phantom Orchestra, it is nuts. I also really like Control Sand, but I get why you wouldn't want to include it the guide.

In regards to wands, I would make a note that while wands for blasting stuff are bad, they are still worth it for evergreen spells that are not damage oriented. Even blasters want extra utility.

I would also include Scorching Ray/Blazing Bolt. It is not that great once you get your rank 3 and 4 spells, but there are not many viable multitarget options early on and it gets the job done.

Good guide overall, short and straight to the point.

I'm still baffled that Rogue got more relevant changes in the remaster than Ranger.

Flurry Ranger also reacts really well to both precision increases (like Heroism) or damage increases (like Stoke the Heart), no other class can take more advantage of those than a Flurry Ranger due to the amount of hits with an actual chance of hitting they can make a turn.

Until high levels they are not that impressive without that support, sadly. They also suffer the most from the action cost of Hunt Prey.

Most action compression stuff gets the Flourish trait. Mostly just focus spells (or actual spells) get around it.

roquepo wrote:

Spells can either be disruptive or non-disruptive.

I somewhat disagree. Let's take the most classical "non-disruptive" spell: Heal. Heal has 30ft. of range and if you use the 3-action version you can't move. So despite being non-disruptive you need other characters to take it into account. Even debuffs generate changes in focus fire (there's no point in attacking the Slowed 2 enemy over those who succeeded at the save).

Most spells ask the party to adjust to them. It's just that buff/debuff/healing spells are positively welcome and as such martial players adjust more easily. Control spells on the other hand can generate a lot of issues.

I may have oversimplified it a bit in my example above. Guess the idea would be better represented as a gradient. The more disruptive a spell is, the less you want other disruptive spells to not make strategy too hard to read.

Also, 3 action heal is not something I personally play around, either as a martial or the caster. If a good situation comes for it, I cast it, if not, I don't. Don't see a point in playing around it when the 2 action version is generally better.

Besides, since "stay close to your caster" is a strategy that applies to such a wide variety of spells, it is something that barely takes any effort to remember. Most people I've played with just do it instinctively.

Trip.H wrote:

Repertoire casters IMO are the closest to those w/ "spell list paralysis" precisely because they don't have an easy time changing their selection once made.

While Clerics have the full list to pick from each day, the fact that they can just freely pick the next day really does mean that it's kind of a nothing-burger to see a giant list.

This has been somewhat the opposite of my experience. Repertoire casters spend some time considering spells, but not significantly moreso than anyone else and do it during what's usually downtime (i.e. leveling up) too.

Cleric and Druid style prepared casters on the other hand not only have a lot of overhead but are expected to sometimes make decisions mid session (because it happens every time they rest). While the individual decisions are more reversible, the volume and frequency are significant enough to make them problematic. To the point where a significant number of prepared casters I've had in my games simply abandon their own mechanics and play like a spontaneous caster (i.e. picking their spells once and rarely, if ever, changing them).

This is my experience too. Most complex thing I've seen is a friend coming up with a few spell arrays to adjust for general situations and designating a few slots as flexible slots to adjust for particular stuff whenever it was possible. Most people just have 1 spell array, slot out the least important spells they have when needed and call it a day.

I also somewhat agree with SuperBidi with the fewer the easiest it is to play around thing, but I would want to add to it. TL; DR, I don't think it applies to all spells.

Spells can either be disruptive or non-disruptive. A Fireball is disruptive, as it friendly fires. So does most battlefield control spells. Those you want to minimize to a degree for the sake of being easy to play around you (you also should let your group know what your general plan is if you have one, but that I think is a general advice that also applies to martials). There are lots of spells that do not care about your party in the slightest and for those your party should not care much if you use them or not because they won't need to forsee you using them to capitalize on what you do, just react to it. If I buff a martial, they don't need to prepare for it, they just need to make it count afterwards. Yes, they can do stuff in advance to make the buff more impactful, but it is not that important as them letting you cast your Fireballs and Walls of Stone, not even close.

Even as a spontaneous caster, I like having a few niche spells as long as they are the kind of spell my party does not need to play around. As long as you have good signatures, it does not matter that a particular slot of yours you only use once in a while as long as it is impactful when it gets casted

Turns out flurry of blows + twin takedown will perform slightly better than double slicing on the flurry ranger. You might also manage to squeeze out slightly more damage using Tamchal Chakrams instead (d6, agile, deadly d6), though they are effectively the same outside of higher level or extreme AC opponents.

Both have Flourish, though.

Now I have some time, the build I was talking about earlier (free hand Fighter + Wrestler) goes like this:

Lvl 1 Snagging Strike
Lvl 2 Combat Grab
Lvl 4 Wrestler dedication
Lvl 6 Suplex
Lvl 8 Whirling Throw
Lvl 10 Agile Grace

Better done with an ancestry with a D6 agile unarmed attack (like a Lizardfolk with Razor Claws) or with a Martial Artist dedication gotten through FA.

Suplex Function is capitalizing on those moments an enemy either refuses or fails to escape your grab, since you can use it as your first strike on your following turn (enemy is grabbed until the end of your turn). Whirling Throw combos extremely well with hazardous terrain and persistent spells, on top of being amazing at keeping melee enemies away from your backline. It is also amazing when the maps have holes and cliffs.

With FA you can try and get stuff like Stumbling Stance, Dazing Blow, Follow-up Strike, Strangle, Submission Hold and Spinebreaker. Last 2 are really good because they don't have any effect on failure or crit failure, so they are pretty safe to use regardless MAP.

Seen something really close to this in action (levels 15 to 18 only as Fighter, played until level 8 with a character that used these but as a Barbarian) and it works really, really well.

I can't say I'd like waiting till level 10 for a build to come together with Flurry of Blows for Heaven's Thunder. If I was doing that build I'd just be a monk.

By level 8 you can use Heaven's Thunder and Double Slice together and before that you are just a regular dual-wield Fighter. Also, just realized you can use Kamas instead and skip the Ancestral Weaponry feat completely. You loose the extra damage from backstabber, but that's not a big deal, also quite better than going for the shortsword.

Build pops off at 10 because you get some actual leeway to move on top of the amazing damage, but it is not like it is useless before that. Just a bit boring by FA standards.

Like, you can do:

Lvl 1 Double Slice
Lvl 2 Sudden Charge + Monk Dedication
Lvl 4 Monastic Weaponry + Whatever
Lvl 6 Jalmeri Heavenseeker (and Ki Strike) + Ancestral Weaponry
Lvl 8 Heaven's Thunder + Wholeness of Body
Lvl 10 Agile Grace + Flurry of Blows

Edit: You could change Ancestral Weaponry for Ki Rush and get the 3 focus points by level 8 if you want to go down the Kama route. I think that's worth it.

Also, another build that is pretty fun and quite effective is free hand Fighter with Wrestler dedication. With FA you can also sneak a Martial artist dedication there for extra damage. Point is to abuse Combat Grab, Whirling Throw and Suplex to keep an enemy either locked down or wherever you want them to be.

With FA you can get a dual-wield build going that uses Double Slice, FoB and Heaven's Thunder with Shortswords or Dogslicers for superb DPR. It is clunky early on, sadly.

You need to get a weapon familiarity feat with any of those weapons, Monastic Weaponry and Ancestral Weaponry to enable Heaven's Thunder with the weapons. On top, Ki Strike and Wholeness of Body are also really nice to have. Only Fighter feats you need are Double Slice and Agile Grace (Fearsome Brute is really nice too, though), so you can use both your FA and normal feat slots for the Monk and Jalmeri Heavenseeker feats.

Your turns are very modular. Turn one you get to HT, move and FoB with Ki Strike, turn 2 you can FoB if you want to move twice, either FoB + Strike or Double Slice if you only need to move once and both if you can spend all 3 actions attacking.

Very strong if you are starting close to level 10.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't think it is an amazing spell, just that it is alright and that a 1/5 is too harsh.

Among those I would only bother with Sure Strike and Lose the Path, though. Only Occult has both too.

Also, in my defense, I tend to forget Sure Strike is an actual spell and not a perk of having a staff of divination, which I usually end up buying with all my casters.

Illusory Object I love, but generally I'd rather learn it at rank 2, I'm not willing to spend a signature on that.

The rest I either don't think too highly of them for mid to high level play or I would just get some scrolls with the spells on them.

Also, thanks for the link, didn't know English had an abbreviation for that.

IFF has meaning to me. Sorry if that is obscure to you but it was deliberate.

I'm curious, where does that come from and what does it mean? Never seen it before.

I'm going to disagree. I'd rather find something else to do with my reaction that wasn't spell related. Early on you don't have enough spells slots. Later on you at least have Blood Vendetta as competition.

The effect is not strong and useless against a lot of enemies. It only triggers on a critical failure. I don't even want to waste the space to learn it. I can't bring myself to raise it above 1 star. We will have to continue to disagree about that one.

Thing is, past level 10, what are you using your rank 1 slots for anyway? I can barely find an excuse to spend the actions they take to cast in combat. It is really niche, in that we agree, but for boss encounters it is a good reaction when it triggers (one I would probably prioritize over other reactions when facing a boss). I'm completely fine with agreeing to disagree, though. It is your guide afterall.

Is meowing at a half empty bowl of food a familiar ability? If it is, that one.

Some stuff I picked up while reading the arcane section:

- In the cases in which a spell was renamed in PC1 with no mechanical changes, you use one of the names for the entry and the other you add in the description. Sometimes you use the remastered name for the entry and others you use the old name. Thought you might want to make that consistent later on (if you want examples check Magic Missile and Sure Strike).

- The Wand of Manifold Missiles was renamed to Wand of Shardstorm, you might want to include that under the magic missile entry.

- Acid Grip is a reflex save instead of an attack roll, you might want to have a different entry for it.

- Comprehend Language was renamed to Translate in PC1.

- Obscuring Mist was renamed to just Mist in PC1.

- Dimension Door was renamed to Translocate in PC1.

- Phantasmal Killer was renamed to Visions of Death in PC1, but it comes with a few rule changes.

- Cone of Cold has two "C" at the start.

- Prying Eye was renamed to Scouting Eye in PC1.

- You might want to add that See the Unseen is an straight upgrade to See Invisibility with a few extra abilities and a bonus vs illusions.

- Tonges was renamed to Truespeech in PC1.

- True Seeing was renamed to Truesight in PC1.

- Control Sand has two "F" in the "IF".

- Plane Shift was renamed to Interplanar Teleport in PC1.

- Maze was renamed to Quandary in PC1 with very minor changes.

- Mind Blank was renamed to Hidden Mind in PC1.

- Weird was renamed to Phantasmagoria in PC1, but the spell changes quite a bit.

- Wish (and all the others) was renamed to Manifestation in PC1 and it was somewhat nerfed, might want to add two entries.

Also some stuff I personally disagree or that I would add:

- I think your rating of Schadenfreude is a bit to harsh just because it is a level 1 reaction and that's imo the best way to use level 1 slots past a certain level. It has strong competition in Lose the Path for Occult, but Arcane and Divine don't get access to it, so I find it a decent option at mid to high levels.

- I would mention the value of making Shadow Siphon your level 5 signature spell since despite having 2 extra levels to counteract, it is still a counteract.

- I think Arctic Rift deserves a higher rating. Crit failure somewhat removes a creature from combat for a round or two and it eats an action per target on failure. Damage is considerably lower than rank 8 Chain Lightning but it comes with a lot of crowd control.

- Falling Sky is a great scroll spell (or spellbook spell for Arcane Sorcerers). The important part of the spell has no save and the save effects are very generous to account for the incapacitation trait.

If I find some more time I will go over the others.

Thanks a lot, will give it a read when I find some time. If I find anything I'll post it here.

Before Two Element Infusion I would just use Consume Power only for its defensive benefits, it is easier to squeeze damage out of the fire side.

Metal best impulses imo are all defensive and utility based. Flash Forge is a great boost during exploration, Plate in Treasure, while niche, is among the best solutions to silver and cold iron weak enemies there is, Consume Power we've already discussed, Scrap Barricade is with wood the earliest wall you can get your hands into and finally Alloy Flesh and Steel is a straight up nope button agaist lots of effects (and together with Effortless impulse, an amazing survivability boost, with 10-15 resistance to phisical damage and +2 to AC).

I think the best way to go about this is building the character similar to a mono-fire kineticist, but getting with the remaining feats the cool utility Metal has. Fire only needs Flying Flame, Thermal Nimbus, Aura Shaping, Effortless Impulse, Furnace Form and Ignite the Sun to be at peak performance afterall, those are lots of free feat slots.

Yeah you'd need safe elements in order to take the fire damage needed to trigger consume power. I'm not sure if it's worth it though. There's too many hoops to go through for such a small damage bonus.

It is not about it being worth it or not, it is about having a way to still use Consume Power in the encounters in which you can't use it defensively.

Also, saying that it works that way and not saying why doesn't help much, with all the evidence provided previously looks like a GM call.

I think that metal is the worse main element in the class, but the few Impulses it has that are good are really good, so I find it a serviceable secondary element. The utility impulses it has are also very interesting and this combo, while not much, makes it so it is not worse in combat than monofire in the worst case scenario for the build.

I asked because I was tinkering in pathbuilder since my current campaign is about to end and I'm still unsure what to play next and the idea of playing an automaton that is a living furnace sounded like fun. Came up with this and thought it could be both useful and fun to do.

Finoan wrote:

roquepo wrote:

We all agree at least that the interaction works regardless with Safe Elements (targetting yourself to not get the benefits)

Looking at that, yes. You can exclude yourself from the benefits of your aura using Safe Elements.

But now that's 2 L4 and 2 L6 impulses to make the build work. Which means it doesn't come online until...L10? Well at least by then you can easily get your three fire gates and one metal gates lol.

You can pick Thermal Nimbus at 5, so level 8. Also, not like you are useless before 8 either.

I haven't looked at resistance junction, but I expect that it is similar. When you exclude yourself it will be for the full duration of the effect.

You get to deactivate it temporarily whenever you want an effect to affect you. So nope, it just works.

Is it spelled out anywhere that taking 0 damage is distinct from not taking damage? Because more than a few game systems treat taking 0 damage as a valid damage trigger.

As I posted earlier, I don't believe a 0 damage trigger is even possible to begin with. When calculating damage, process go through steps, the first being calculating damage, second being determining damage type, third being applying weaknesses, resistances and immunities and finally reducing HP . Taking damage and losing HP are 2 different things (iirc there are effects that specify that you need to lose HP instead of taking damage when a resistance is in effect) and the 2 only ways of reducing damage I know of are resistances and immunities and having a negative strength score or a penalty to damage rolls, which never can do less than 1 point of nonlethal damage.

plus, Consume power isn't even higher resistance, they are at the same level, both give resistance equal to your level.

My mistake, went by memory here instead of checking it and assumed the resistance scaled at the same pace as the damage.

This makes it way more GM dependant, I agree.

We all agree at least that the interaction works regardless with Safe Elements (targetting yourself to not get the benefits) or if you have the resistance junction (can voluntary forgo the resistance at will and the extra resistance from the stance is added to this one), right?

Since you only get one reaction, the PC is essentially giving up their feat's ability to protect them against acid, electricity, or sonic damage later in the round in order to guarantee they get a damage bonus to metal impulses on their turn (along with giving up any other reaction they might have). In an encounter where the player is very certain none of those damage types will occur, that's a nice way of squeezing use out of Consume Power.

This was exactly my intention, looks like a nice consistency insurance for fire + metal kineticists and it combos really well with the fire aura junction and Two-Element Infusion.

So I guess it is possible that a GM could rule that your Thermal Nimbus resistance is what prevents the damage and Consume Power is redundant and doesn't prevent any damage and therefore doesn't do anything.

According to the damage rules you first roll damage, then determine damage types, then check for resistances. Taking damage is step 1, reaction becomes usable by step 2 and the part that nullifies damage is step 3. So it shouldn't matter that the end result is you taking no damage because the process should go: you are receiving damage from the aura, then determine that the damage is of fire type, there you use your reaction and finally you check the resistances.

Thermal Nimbus does damage to you that you can stop with Consume Power to boost yourself. If I understand this sequence correctly, since the higher resistance is the one that takes preference, when at the start of your turn you would take damage by your own Thermal Nimbus, you can use Consume Power, have it take precedence over the resistance Thermal Nimbus has and get the extra damage, right? Or do you need to deactivate the resistance from the stance with Safe Elements for it to work due to something I've missed?

Tried it. It is alright for what it tries to do, but I would not want to do it again. I've been playing for so long that levels 1 to 3 don't feel that interesting anymore, level 0 adds more time in that level stretch.

A Decent Enough Guide to Bards has been remastered. That said, it probably has lots of things that flew by during revision (be it bad wording, typos or wrong terminology). If you spot something that needs fixing, send me a DM in these forums and I will change it if needed.

As for the Ranger guide, that one will take a bit more time. Mostly because remaster changed basically nothing and it feels more of a chore than anything else.

A Decent Enough Guide to Bards is still halfway there on the remastering process. I'm recovering from a surgery so it will take some time, will post here whenever it is done.

Forgot assurance was Fortune, back to the drawing board then. Thanks.

How would you rule the interaction between these two, as both checks using Assurance (and thus the focus spell doing nothing) or as only 1 of the checks using Assurance and the other one being rolled normally? Started thinking about this for reasons completely unrelated to RK, but now I would like to know other people's opinions on this.

pauljathome wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I can't see too many folks using Nimble Strike. Rogue is super powerful using gang up, always working with another melee, and ensuring they get their sneak attack and debilitations. Anything that doesn't do this is a low value feat you're doing just for fun. The rogue play-style is fairly simple and super effective.

Nimble Strike at least provides an option for something different if you feel like doing it.

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.

Anything in the control of the DM is inherently less useful than something the part can control.

If you can make yourself enough of a threat without that extra strike, any GM would have to go through you. It is not as universal as Opportune Backstab is (which always triggers as long as you have a martial buddy with you).

Basically, I don't think it is something to pick for the damage, but so monsters are heavily punished for attacking you. As I said early, if you are going for a flourish strike other than Preparation, it starts looking really enticing since you are putting most of your damage in your turn instead of on your reactions.

But yes, I agree with those that think Opportune Backstab might be generally better. Will probably roll a character with Nimble Strike whenever I can to see it in practice.

But the Nimble Strike pass different message to the enemy/GM. While Opportune Backstab attracts attention to you (soft-aggro) showing to your target that "every time that some ally of this creature hits me this creature take advantage of the gap to Strike me. This creature is dangerous, maybe is better to primary target it to prevent these reactions" while the Nimble Strike pass the opposite message that "every time that I Strike this creature it not only tries to avoid the Strike as also Strike back! Maybe is better to focus in another creature".

A Nimble Strike Rogue can benefit from Gang Up also, but it doesn’t make it more likely that Nimble Strike will happen.

Nimble Strike helps you stay alive, though. A common issue I've seen Opportune Backstab Rogues have is that they tend to fall down rather quick in lots of encounters. Doing lots of damage, being squishier and needing to stay adjacent to enemies does that. Feat is bonkers, but it has a few downsides.

So Gang Up may not help Nimble Strike proc more often, but Nimble Strike does make Gang Up be relevant for more rounds.

Haven't had the chance to try out the former yet, so I'm curious about how it fares in actual play vs Opportune Backstab.

To me it looks like an interesting sidegrade. Higher level, less consistency and more feat investment for all the defensive benefits looks like a fair trade-off.

I think it starts being particularly interesting for certain builds that plan to put more damage in the Rogue's turn and skip Preparation, like FoB or Triggerbrand Salvo rogues. Lets them be more mobile outside of their turn and should make not ending turn adjacent to an enemy barely an inconvenience (maybe even desireable).

If you tried it, did you get the strike off more or less than you expected? Did you feel like the defensive aspects of the feat chain outweights the offensive drawbacks when compared to the alternative? How did you feel about skipping/delaying debilitations or other level 10 feats for it?

gesalt wrote:

Red Griffyn wrote:

Rogue also has ways to reduce the action economy and avoid needing a mount. Skirmish Strike allows a 1 action step and strike. That could be combined with a feat like the goblin scuttle that lets you step as a reaction to 'move 10ft' raise your shield and strike twice a turn. I feel like there must be a way to step 10 ft so you don't lose your reaction, but I can't think of it and my AON searches aren't turning up anything.

Elf step maybe?

That won't work. Its 1 action to step twice, but your step doesn't actually become 10 ft. The issue isn't the distance sinec you can almost always stride >10 ft. Its that you have 4 actions you need to do: Strike, Strike, Raise Shield, Move (10ft). So you need some kind of action economy compression feat even if it was raise shield + move, or strike + strike, or raise shield + strike, etc. Its just that skirmish strike is right in the base chassis so if there was a way to improve your step distance you wouldn't need any archetype.

Only way I know to increase step distance is Tiger Stance.

Honestly, if players don't mind the lack of simplicity, it's nice to have multiple valid options for condition removal.

Restoration is now something of a scroll or NPC spell whereas Sound body and company are the versions PCs will actually pick for their repertoire. I also like both existing at the same time, but it adds more complexity than anything else, so I'm not against removing it completely, since the spell being more fit for NPC is something that a GM can decide to handwave anyway.

They both exist technically, but Restoration is kind of absolete spell now.

As for what to allow and what not, I'll wait for PC2. We need to see the bigger picture before jumping to conclussions. Right now the best course of action IMO is just allowing everything.

The reach and large mount interaction is unfortunate. I get why it is the way it is, at least at low levels. I just wish you could get around it later on via a feat or anything. Large mounts are already inconvenient a lot of the time without factoring in the reach thing.

I personally think Jousting is at its best with a lance wielding ruffian rogue from a small ancestry. It is among the weapons with the highest damage potential for the class, has reach for bigger Gang Up returns and rogue can fit an AC really well in its action economy (Gang up also gives you an on-demand off-guard if you go at 5ft distance from an enemy).

The upgrades you mentioned are alright, but I think remasterd rogue was the biggest of them all.

I also like Desert wind + Boomerang spam on a math level, not as high of a ceiling as Fire kineticist unless you get 3 damage ticks, but lots of utility on top.

That said, I'm pretty sure I would find it quite boring after a while. You are basically locking yourself out on a single damaging impulse for the rest of your career. From 1 to 20.

Ravingdork wrote:

it helps making new friends much easier too.

Buffing and healing (and sometimes debuffing) get good reactions from teammates, which sometimes generate weird situations where everyone wants to do it. I play my Barbarian in a PbP adventure right now, he is completely underleveled (level 3 against level 7-8 opponents) so he gets obliterated every time and I have 2-3 players lining up to heal him. And they really don't understand when I tell them to blast instead, as I have no way to affect enemies with 4 more levels so it's wasted resources/actions to heal me.

Too much positive reinforcement is not always a good thing. The "support caster" should definitely be a thing, but it becomes annoying when it's the default assumption.

One of my fellow players was exactly there a year and a half or so ago. She was overly defensive in playstyle (she prepared low level Soothes a lot and used them to raise us as soon as we fell down, causing us to go down again instantly due to the low health and stack wounded over and over), to the point it almost caused a TPK a few times. She has learned since then than sometimes just killing the enemies is the best way to keep your party alive.