shroudb's page

3,072 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 806 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You can easily fit a 2 bulk kit on a bandolier, efficiently enough to draw everything you need without spending an action, but if you put a single vial (that can be as well a part of the aforementioned kit), then it's an action to draw it out.

in short, somehow it's designed so it's easier to open and pull out all the stuff from its 8 pouches simultaneously, rather than just 1 thing from 1 pouch.

Paradozen wrote:

Druids cannot wear metal armor without penalty. But if you multiclass druid you can wear metal armor all day without problem. The only anathema you gain through dedication is your orders, not the shared ones.

A Bard with Know-It-All and Dubious Knowledge always knows when they've critically failed to recall knowledge because every other result yields 2 pieces of info.

plus, as a mc druid, you can teach everyone how to speak druidic!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
Such honest. Very question. Wow.

Not cool, man. There was no subterfuge. I asked for a specific thing (which due to Wis to AC was possible in PF1), explained my understanding of the "fixes" I was aware of, and asked what I was missing.

The answers have been useful, but mostly break down to "don't do that". I didn't complain about that result. I indicated I understood.

The rest of the discussion has been interesting, which is cool. Some of the math is enlightening. This accusation... not so much.

actually almost none said "don't do this".

most have said that even with dex 14 you already have enough AC at level 1 (15), and then proceed to explain how to get that even higher (dex 16, or mountain stance, and etc)

your post was dismissive of any real answer given and focused on the "oh well, i guess they are broken/it can't be done".

in short, you came here with a predetermined conclusion in your head, and rejected/dismissed the advice given


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thewastedwalrus wrote:
So a party will typically get a fair number of equal-level consumables as rewards but will have to look a few levels behind if they want to go shopping for more. Seems pretty alright.

apart from the fact that with prices as written it's always in favor of the party to sell the consumables, no second thoughts, and buy permanent items with the money.

since the cost:value is biased towards permanent items to an extreme degree.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

i think you're undervaluing Wolf drag by a ton.

imo this feat alone makes wolf stance superior to tiger stance for dex monks in every way.

it's basically an added trip attack, that autosucceeds, bypasses size limits, and doesn't increase MAP.

So, it's basically like a "1 action: You drop whatever enemy prone. Only usable if you hit with your Strike before."

plus, Fatal d12 is a huge amount of damage, the little bleed of tiger stance doesn't even come close to how much damage this adds. I mean, it's +11 damage +4 per striking rune. Even before Striking runes it'd take 4 rounds+ of bleed to come close to that, and after Striking it just keeps scaling.

(plus i think it's totally biased to say "it has a lots of if's", and listing "hitting" like an "if". I mean, by the same standards, every sinlge style attack has the same amount of "ifs", if they don't hit, they equally do nothing)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I think the intent is for people to mostly not use on-level consumables, but instead use those from a ways down the chart in level.

Whether that's a good plan is a slightly different matter, but I think it's the clear intent, and it works. A 10th level permanent item is around 1000 GP. An 8th level consumable more like 100 GP and more within the price range people are discussing.

doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of tying items with their level?

if at level 10 the consumables you are using are the level 8 ones, why not simply name the level 8 consumables "level 10s".

also this doesn't work at all with awarding treasure, since now instead of going to the loot table and picking up "appropriate level rewards" you simply throw the table off the window and award random stuff like it was before.

plus, and more importantly, the exact opposite is what the rules suggest, the RAW AND RAI are pretty obvious that you should award EQUAL level consumables, not lower level ones:

"For instance, between the time your PCs reach 3rd
level and the time they reach 4th level, you should give
them the treasure listed in the table for 3rd level, worth
approximately 500 gp: two 4th-level permanent items, two
3rd-level permanent items, two 4th-level consumables, two
3rd-level consumables, two 2nd-level consumables, and
120 gp worth of currency."

you get the same amount and same level of consumables and permanents.

Table 10-9 shows that for every permanent, you get an equal level consumable.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
IIRC the current price formula is the way it is to prevent players from affording items well above their level. If consumables were so cheap, you might see people buying Potions/Scrolls of Fly and other powerful spells from really low level. I guess there's a danger these items could mess things up?

we already have "level" of stuff though to keep things like this in check.

Again, a simple fix is having each and every consumable in the game cost that much PER BATCH. (also much easier and elegant to Errata it this way)

If a "scroll of fly" wouldn't break the game, 4 of them won't either.

And it makes much more sense economy-wise to be priced at most around there (around 1/20th).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
shroudb wrote:

it actually demolishes the economic scale of the common folk as well:

rent is now around 1/4th of the full price of a building, a simple bowl of soup costs around 1/4th of the cost of "lifetime eat as much as you want" and etc.

again, the underling issue is that it shows that "a one time commodity should cost around 1/4th-5th of a permanent commodity of equal value"

While I generally agree with your point, I think you missed one the key element of my analysis: There is a difference in consumables that anyone can use and permanent items that require specialization to use. Even a cheap can of soup should be more expensive and less satisfying than what a professional chef can whip out with knowledge of the market to purchase ingredients and use their superior tools. Which is why I think potions should cost more than scrolls, and the wand thing is not quite a permanent item for granting 1x use a day of spells for people that aren't casters, but I agree that the prices still feel off for consumables

that's false though.

you may have used the wand, but there's no difference in pricing due to the "wand limitation".

ALL permanent items, even those with absolutely zero limitations, costs exactly 4-5x the amount of a consumable one.

"Specialisation" actually doesn't do jack for pricing.

Again, market is simply going to crash in Golarion within weeks, if not days, if the prices for commodities/services/consumables are simply 5x the price of the equal "level" of permanent things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:

Potions are priced by game balance on specific spells rather than spell levels, but didn’t take into account the cross price for a generic level of scroll or wand which don’t engage in similar spell specific price discrimination.

From a developer viewpoint it’s the scrolls and wands that are wrong for those specific spells.

it's not wands/scrolls though.

ALL permanent items are priced the same regardless of limitaions.

again:

a ring of resistance costs just 4-5x the price of a potion of resistance of the same value. One is permanent all day long, the other is 1 hour.

it just doesn't make sense economy wise. Why would ANYONE craft one and not the other?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:

There is no basis for it in reality, and it's in fact pretty laughable that anyone considered competent in melee combat would need 2 whole seconds just to adjust their grip on a weapon.

The game isn't unplayable with this RAW, but it's pretty goofy. I'd make the change to free action.

it's equally unrealistic to need the same amount of time to stab with a dagger and swing a huge greatsword around, let alone swinging 3 times with the greatsword in 6seconds.

do you think that's goofy that two-handers attack with the same speed as weapons designed for speed?

or do you think that two handers should be changed to have their strikes cost 3+ actions each?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

i agree.

and it's NOT just the wands (with their limitations).

every permanent item is valued at just 4-5x the cost of the same consumable one.

You can drink a potion of resistance for 1 hour OR for less than 5x you can have the same exact resistance forever, permanently on, with a ring of energy resistance.

Basically:

all consumables are valued at just 1/5th of owning a permanent equivalent thing.

The whole golarion economy is going to crumble within weeks if we follow those standards. You can deck out a whole army in full magical gear with the cost of a few mid-level consumables...


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:

Potions are priced by game balance on specific spells rather than spell levels, but didn’t take into account the cross price for a generic level of scroll or wand which don’t engage in similar spell specific price discrimination.

From a developer viewpoint it’s the scrolls and wands that are wrong for those specific spells.

how many people do you know that at 6th level and up used +1 daggers as a one time thrown weapon and didn't bother to pick them up after a fight?

because a simple potion of healing (6th) costs around 150% the price of a +1 weapon.

that's simply insane economy wise.

Again:

if the price of a "one time commodity" is expected to be around 4-5 times the value of an equal value permanent commodity.

Then how much do you expect to be payed, as an adventurer, for a "one time mission".

Using this economy it should be around a week of the monthly wage of a Guard.

Unicore wrote:


But building the prices around that world dynamic is problematic for heroes that see and spend wealth that common folks will never even dream of.

it actually demolishes the economic scale of the common folk as well:

rent is now around 1/4th of the full price of a building, a simple bowl of soup costs around 1/4th of the cost of "lifetime eat as much as you want" and etc.

again, the underling issue is that it shows that "a one time commodity should cost around 1/4th-5th of a permanent commodity of equal value"


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fallyna wrote:

Agree that potions are terrible bang per buck compared to wands, which is only partially offset by the extra usage options.

I'm wondering if this is deliberate by design, because most parties (in my experience) scorned potions as treasure, either selling them immediately, or carrying them around forever without using any. In most fights you usually had better options each round than retrieving and drinking a potion. Wands were almost always superior, to the point where they've been severely nerfed to compensate.

A possible solution is to hand out potions and other consumables as treasure to encourage players to use them, while making wands much rarer, so players either buy or craft them?

a min max party like this will just sell the potions and buy the wands with that money.

the only real solution imo is severely cutting the value of consumables.

i mean, if you're going to "houserule" that wands/etc are rare and potions are common*, you may as well just fix the underlying issue from the get go.

A fair solution is simply saying the "cost of consumables is per batch of them". That will make them each cost about 1/20th of a permanent item which is much more balanced imo.

*which is a fallacy on it's own since why would someone "craft a potion" over "crafting something much much better". Even cost wise, crafting a "batch of potions" is more expensive than crafting a "wand of same thing", so it takes more time, more money, AND it still sales much worse since there's no demand.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rek Rollington wrote:

Certainly permanent items are a lot more valuable, but consumables can’t be super cheap because they can be used again and again. Permanent items like wands have limits to how many times they can be used in a day but one off items don’t now that resonance is gone.

Sure, for effects that last 8 hours your going to want a wand but for quick durations the potions would be too powerful to be super cheap.

Take Haste for example. 360 GP for a wand of haste or 95 GP for a potion. If you made it 1/15th or 1/30th they would be 12-24 GP each. You could pop them into every important fight rather then just once per day.

using your example with the haste, the wand "pays off" itself in less than 4 days. Everything afterwards is gold pieces falling from the sky, filling up your pouch each and every day, at the ratio of a 100 pieces per day no less.

Wands in particular are NOT invested.

you can buy 2-3-4-5 wands of haste and it instantly tramples on the poor potions. With "just" 2-4 wands, you have haste for ALL important fights for the rest of your life. With the same amount of gold, you have haste for all important fights for... 3-4 days?

again: we're comparing buying a car for the cost of 3-4 taxi fares.

Why would you EVER choose "4 haste" vs "1 haste per day" for the same exact price?

If an adventurer wants to spends a literal fortune to have a single day of being pumped with potions, let him. In the long run he's only hurting himself.

If "consumables" are so expensive, adventurers literally have no reason to exist, because it implies that the "cost" of hiring a "level 15 guard" for his entire lifetime, is about the cost of hiring a "level 15 adventurer" 4 times in total.

p.s. 1/15-1/30 is nowhere near "super cheap". It's actually still in the extremely expensive category. Your potion of haste, at 1/15 is STILL about the cost of a permanent +1 weapon that you could have as an offweapon/ranged

To understand the value of a consumable vs a permanent item, for about the same thing, in real life, you should expect a "consumable" to be around 1/700-1/2000 for something used once vs something used once/day (expected to repay itself in like 2-5years)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BobTheCoward wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Aricks wrote:
graystone wrote:
Bastress wrote:

That's extremely handy to know of if you're in a party that's complaining about you holding them back.

and it's really nice that you can pass that item around on a daily basis to make sure that the party isn't slowed down by someone when you're doing long treks through the wilderness, then hand it back to the superfast one when you expect a fight against whatever you're tracking.

Now the alchemist can keep up when carrying his basic gear! :P

This makes me laugh, and that's good because laughing helps me cover up the crying.

I say that because for an item only 7 levels higher (level 9) and 50 gp less (110 gp) you can have that same speed buff in the form of an elixir that only works once and only lasts an hour! Crafting costs being what they are that means that an alchemist would probably be better off picking up the craft magic item feat and cranking out wands than they would making alchemical items in their downtime.

Yet another example of alchemical awesomeness.

consumables are WAAAAAY overpriced in general.

when it costs like 5-6 consumables for a same level permanent item, it means that within a week of usage you are already ahead, let alone a month or two...

Consumables need to be at minimum halved in base cost to be even slightly worth it...

There is a much larger pool of possible consumers for an elixer than a wand, right? Now someone who is not arcane has to spend a feat and train a skill.

it's not just the wand.

ALL permanent items are just around 4-5x of an equal level consumable.

imagine if the price of a full car was equal to the price of 5 taxi fares. Sure 1 taxi fare may be worth it the 1 time in your life you absolutely had to move and you had your leg broken, but that's about it.

I mean, if you, as an adventurer, have the option of 5 one use potions, or a brand new flaming magic weapon, or boots that will let you fly each day for the rest of your career, or a ring to go invisible for the rest of your life, would you ever choose the "5 potions"?

the price of a consumable item should be around 1/15th (at the very most) to 1/30th (should be the average) of the price of a permanent item in general. That should ensure that you get like "half a month to a month" of use to equal a permanent item, not the travesty of "less than a week".


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Aricks wrote:
graystone wrote:
Bastress wrote:

That's extremely handy to know of if you're in a party that's complaining about you holding them back.

and it's really nice that you can pass that item around on a daily basis to make sure that the party isn't slowed down by someone when you're doing long treks through the wilderness, then hand it back to the superfast one when you expect a fight against whatever you're tracking.

Now the alchemist can keep up when carrying his basic gear! :P

This makes me laugh, and that's good because laughing helps me cover up the crying.

I say that because for an item only 7 levels higher (level 9) and 50 gp less (110 gp) you can have that same speed buff in the form of an elixir that only works once and only lasts an hour! Crafting costs being what they are that means that an alchemist would probably be better off picking up the craft magic item feat and cranking out wands than they would making alchemical items in their downtime.

Yet another example of alchemical awesomeness.

consumables are WAAAAAY overpriced in general.

when it costs like 5-6 consumables for a same level permanent item, it means that within a week of usage you are already ahead, let alone a month or two...

Consumables need to be at minimum halved in base cost to be even slightly worth it...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The way i see it:

I don't really like the idea of reducing the penalties, since this infringes a bit on the level 20 capstone of eliminating the penalties.

Medium armor would be great for the Beastial mutagenist, although, it indeed doesn't fits that much "conceptually" and doesn't help with "skill mutagenists".

The idea that i am 100% fully behind is the "increase the bonus by +1 if the mutagenist is the one imbibing the mutagen" since it fits both conceptually and fits all types of mutagenists.

If the "increase item bonus" is "too much" for pf2 maths (it isn't since they cap at expert but whatever), then maybe a "floating" status bonus (so as not to stack with other buffs) could also be a thing, like "while under the effects of a mutagen, you get a +1 status bonus to either attack, saves, AC, or damage, chosen when you drink the mutagen"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alenvire wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
NPCs will have attack/damage/saves at their level that are equivalent to PCs with the expected PC gear at that level. Whether or not the NPCs actually have the equivalent gear for you to loot or are just extra well trained to boost their attack/damage/saves (at the expense of other cool feats that your PCs have and the NPCs don't) is up to your GM.

Where was this written. If that is so... Then PF2 is running off a flawed concept.

Why would a player not get frustrated when a rogue with bad gear just flat out rogue's them in every way with no gear? Its basically saying a level 20 rogue NPC vs 20 rogue PC, the PC always only on par even if he has appropriate gold in gear vs the NPC who has a padded armor and shoddy dagger.

Why would us GM's think that's not total BS and just a bad system?

PF1 always gave reasons as I have said before. And often it was just a NPC character that was made so narrowly defined no PC would actually want to play it. Or wasted a finite resource just on the off chance this was the fight of their life. I can understand and accept that. But, just bonus stats for arbitrary reasons is Lazy developing.

You can get away with that with monsters. People expect it. But not NPC's.

they have talked in depth about how the whole point is "ease of design" in that be it a monster, an npc, or whatever, everything is built the same: like a monster with you using the expected numbers for that level.

npc's do NOT compare with PCs. you just stat them as you would expect them to be stated for their level.

obviously, we don't yet have the npc/monster building forumlas yet, they are said to be in the coming books, but we do have the beastiary that backs this up (as an example, goblins ARE a pc race, yet they are built like monsters)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alenvire wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

A level 5 NPC built as an NPC does not have PC level gear. One built as a PC, however, does and should.

NPCs built as PCs should thus be relatively rare so as not to throw off WBL stuff.

Agreed, to be fair to shroudb though, the NPC's in the first book saves don't appear to follow normal rules, but, that could just be because of the fact they are weird races who may have racial bonuses of their own.

going by bestiary, you can see that the saves of the monsters are actually more or less assuming equivalent saves as with "+item bonus to saves"

going by that, it's fair to assume that you do add those as expected to npcs.

if you don't add +item bonuses to stuff, you will soon reach the point where people will stop hitting the party (no +item to attack), their saves will be pretty much terrible, their skills will be equally bad, and etc.

The bestiary already assumes such bonuses for the humanoids in it, same thing you should expect for npcs as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alenvire wrote:

I feel like poisons are still ok, but, nothing you should focus on sadly.

However, using dragons as your target is a bit excessive. It would be a better point if you used a average fighter and wizard DC's for those levels. As dragons are to this day, still not common enemies in AP's. (How I wish they would make a dragon oriented AP where you fought multiple per AP) Humanoids are still by far the most common enemies you will fight. So, a fighter 20 with legendary fort and 18 con would be a 32 ish. And a wizard with expert fort and say 14 con would be around 26. Those numbers are fluid but not every enemy runs around with runes that increase saves so its a fair number. A potent poisoner is only 1 feat and would give you a decent chance at optimal enemies for poisons. Wizards, Clerics, any other then fighters and champions really have a decent chance with only 1 feat expenditure. Not bad.

actually... they do.

actually every enemy DOES run with "runes that add to saves". If they don't, you add the equivalent bonus to their stats because it IS assumed that "everybody is expected to have +x to saves" by the tight maths of PF2.

potent poisoner is actually 2 feats AND the game math ASSUMES equivalent +item bonus to saves for every single enemy at that level. Also, everyone on level 20, even wizards, should have 18 Con.

Fort in general is the toughest save to beat by FAR.

Poisons are the ONLY fort save that actually does absolutely nothing if one passes the initial save.

Those 2 combine result in:

Average chance to succeed at level 13 using the level 13 poison is only 30% actually if you take the whole level 13 bestiary in account.

In short:

poisons are pretty terrible at this point.

(p.s. dragons are actually not that high in Fort saves, there are around average for their respective CR)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

basic save is the language to tell you how to deal with the damage.

the poison is an additional rider effect on that save.

there exist plenty other "deals X with basic save, if you fail the save also Y happens"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The research field gives:

"Whenever your
proficiency rank for simple weapons increases, your
proficiency rank for unarmed attacks increases to the
same rank unless it’s already better."

which according to the recent Friday reveals it's actually baseline for everyone.

and

"You can gain the benefit of any mutagen, even if
it wasn’t specifically brewed for you"

Which again is baseline for everyone since it's leftover text from the playtest and has since been removed from the live version of PF2.

So, it literally does nothing.

The class already has several issues (like chirurgeon's ability actually doing almost nothing as well due to every single "treat wounds" upgrade going by medicine rank and Chirurgeon's ability lacking the language to rectify this) but this one is the most glaring imo.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

To add to the list:

Synaesthesia seems like one of the strongest debuffs in the game, debuffing simultaneously various aspects of a target, and even in a save it still lasts for a round.

Black tentacles are extremely effective since not only does it robs actions in an Aoe, with a duration and damage on top, but even if they do manage to break free and leave, it's still a -5 debuff to attacks effectively since Escape action is an "attack" progressing MAP.

And you have to remember that if they fail to break free with their first action, all subsequent escapes are equally harder due to MAP.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

i don't think an argument is meant to be either enjoyable or not enjoyable. an argument simply is a stated fact/pov.

You used something for a comparison that uses none of the strengths for one of the paths and used something that uses all of the strengths of the other path.

that's simply fraudulent.

take it as you want, but having an extra +2 ac in exchange for 3-4 less spells per day, at level 1, is not that big of a deal, they are balanced fine between them exactly because focus spells, in the early levels that you only have very few spell slots, are much more important than later on when you have more normal spells to spam.

you may disagree with this, and that's your right, don't make a Cloistered if you don't like them, i won't press further.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

one of the major issues that really hurt is that chirurgeon's ability to substitute Craft for Medicine is practically useless because every single upgrade to Treat wounds from the base skill (increased amount) to the skill feats (more targets and etc) are ALL still tied to Medicine rank.

so, not only you have only 3 skills to upgrade, but as a Chirurgeon, you basically are forced to spend 2 out of the 3 skill increases in medicine and Craft.

I'm pretty sure that the ability should have read "and substitute Craft for all Medicine requirements" in order to actually be useful at all.

secondly:

All alchemists should have (imo) automatic increase in Craft at 3/7/15. Just that one skill would have been ok imo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:

Sudden Charge is a 1st-level class feat, as opposed to a 12th-level class feat that is competing with flight.

If a dragon or giant barbarian wants reach, there are reach polearms that deal d10s for damage.

Flight is distinctively different than the mobility of 1 action pounce. One offers MORE mobility, the other offers different FORMS of movement.

in short, one allows you to bypass obstacles and hit fliers, the other allows you to gain 1 free stride each and every round. They are definitely not comparable in usage.

As for Getting d10 weapon with reach, sure you can, but again, they are two-handers and that means you lose the shield.

btw it's an oxymoron to simultaneously say "they get less damage from specialization AND it's not d12 one-hander because the extra damage is from specialization"

It's either one or the other.

plus, even without specialization, you can go for a d10 from the get go. Tough to find a one-hander doing d10s.

Animal offers, in the end, +12 damage + greater die, which is +4 average on 4dices, so +16.
dragon offers in the end... +16

and that still doesn't adress all the other benefits like best grapple mod in the game, free quick draw, and best barbarian AC.


Colette Brunel wrote:

Animal Skin is competing with other 6th-level class feats, which can be fairly good.

Sudden Charge is dominant among 1st-level barbarian class feats. A barbarian likely wants to pick it up anyway. Predator's Pounce is a 12th-level feat; it has some stiff competition, like an actual fly speed, which is no joke for mobility.

The one-handed weapon dealing equal damage to two-handers is a bit of an illusion; the damage is coming out of the allotment for improved damage from specialization abilities.

Grappling and the monk multiclass are about the biggest actual mechanical incentives. But not every animal has the grapple trait, and not all barbarians multiclass into monk.

no reason to go for sudden charge with animal barbarian.

free "quick draw", 1 action move+strike or 1 action 2 strikes, +shield, +the best barbarian AC, +grab or Reach if you want.

those are the benefits.

You can't say they aren't mechanical benefits, because, well, they are. It fills the niche of the savage totem warrior and offers mechanics that compliment that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

it's the most mobile, and by far, of the Barbarians.

first of all they have a "one hander" that deals equal damage to two-handers. So that means you basically use a twohander+a shield.

They have the ONLY "grappling" weapons that i can think of, so maybe the highest grapple modifier in the game.

they have access to both 1 action 2 attacks (at level 10 from monk mc) and to a 1 action move+attack (that's basiclaly free action on the first round of combat)

and they don't need to spend an action at start of combat to draw/put hand on weapon.

That allows for some amazing battlefield mobility+damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It would certainly be nice if Int 16 allowed a trained skill to be upgraded to expert, and int 20 allowed an expert to Master.

it would be making Int a stat worth considering upgrading later on like all the other stats. Now, it's mostly "what you started at except if you're a wizard/alchemist"


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
Gloom wrote:
All in all Charisma isn't in as bad of a place as you're trying to frame it in.
Yikes, nothing to do with using the trendy "framing" word. It is what it is; I actually thought they could have been onto something with Resonance, some good design space, like the Occultist being the master of Resonance, and using Int instead of Cha.

having playtested Resonance, it was a horrible mechanic.

That aside, They did buff Cha by making its skills quite better and much more accessible.

Now there isn't a single character, be it a combat focused or not, that doesn't benefit from at least one Cha based skill by quite a bit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

i agree that's weird that it doesn't reset the duration.

like, if you are poisoned by a week-long poison, and minutes before it expires you're poisoned again, it does nothing, but if you become poisoned 1 min after the old duration ends it gives you another week of poison.

that's just illogical.

let alone that this sentence alone kills one of the most common tropes of "keeping someone poisoned" or "slowly killing someone with poison" since the duration never extends.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

"hide behind the mountain of dead bards": no seriously, if you are a small character, the ancestry feats for sneaking are exceptionally good and with a bit of mobility they easily allow one to hide even mid combat if he needs a breather.

Next one is concelment/dazzled: there are plenty of ways to gain some concealment or inflicting dazzled, and it's a flat 20% miss chance.

mobility class feats: Stuff like "strike and step/stride" and etc basically make enemies not wanting to pursue you simply because you keep denying them "actions".

Teach your frontline how to grapple: Grapple quite streamlines in this edition and it's more than worthwhile. Keeping the bad guys into place means kleeping them away from your backline as well.

and even if they break the grapple, the Escape action is an Attack action. So: escape, move, attack means that at most your backline suffers only 1 attack at -5.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Yeah, I've yet to make a character that I didn't want to excel in at least one of Intimidation, Diplomacy, or Deception.
As all are forms of coercion, I wish they just wrapped them up, like Unchained did: Influence (you can role-play in which manner you coerce the NPCs).

yeah... no.

what's next? All knowledges being 1 skill "knowledge", all physical skills being "athletics" and etc?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
totoro wrote:

I don't see how anyone could say cloistered cleric > warpriest. Folks always try to find some difference and point to it as the thing that matters. In play, cloistered cleric < warpriest. If you are willing to take a penalty for a roleplaying choice, take it. If not, your GM might be willing to give you something to make up for the weakness of the choice.

Light and Medium Armor proficiency is not trivial. AC gets tested all the time in play, even if you are not a front-line fighter. The two proficiencies give you the character building flexibility to focus on STR or DEX. Shield block is exceptionally useful. Expert in fortitude doesn't come up all that much, but it's better than not having it. Deadly simplicity is quite valuable if the deity with the simple weapon is what you really want.

The cloistered cleric gets the ability to cast an almost-worthless spell. Healer's blessing, for example, gives you the ability to heal +1 hit point once per ally over the course of the next minute.

Can you play a cloistered cleric effectively? Of course! Is the cloistered cleric better than the warpriest by any reasonable metric? Nope. At a minimum, you the cloistered cleric should pick up deadly simplicity and I think they should get an extra domain. Even though the domain spells suck, taking a suboptimal doctrine has versatility as the reward.

because you picked the worst domain in the book doesn't make Cloistered bad, just you biased.

d12/spell level AoE domain, 2d6/spell level single target at every encounter all day, burst for 3x in a battle, charms, illusions, etc are all great.

Cloistered is the "pure caster cleric". It's not the trditional dnd/pf1 "armored cleric that can also wades into melee, but his spells are only for support."

both are viable, and offer different enough playstyles.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Colonel Kurtz wrote:
Garretmander wrote:
Colonel Kurtz wrote:

They have also taken the bite out of Dex (finally) with it not being the Initiative score.

I like Str being the damage score, for weapons. It's a shame they didn't manage to land on Charisma in some way as being slightly important for everybody, like attune a number of magical items equal to 5 + Cha modifier or something.

They didn't quite, but I keep finding myself pumping charisma anyway for better feint or demoralize.
Yes, and you have Diplomancers; I would just like something more concrete.

Cha is better than Int as it stands now, with the amount of "trained skills" you get already, and Int only giving trained skills, it's much less important that having at will -1 to everything debuffs as well as being competent in gather information and etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Legoman wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Legoman wrote:

Is there any way a non-fighter character (with 8 str but mucho dx, 18+, rogue skill boosts to athletics and a way of getting a trip weapon through Gnome Weapon Familiarity - Kukri - and then boosting that weapon) will ever match a flat out fighter with 18 str as a trip-fighter build?

Is it pointless/ineffective to attempt try and build a tripper without maxing out the strength for athletics?

Is multiclassing in Fighter the only way to access Attack of Opportunity?

(Use of Ineffective in effect!)

there is a discussion on the rules section if "skill rolls with the Attack trait are attacks", the majority, backed by a playtest dev insight that "yes, you do use dex for tripping finesse weapons" believes that the answer is "yes".

in that case, a rogue will be as good as a fighter in tripping, since Skill proficiency has nothing to do with weapon proficiency and everyone gets expert/master/legendary at the same time.

Thank you for the swift reply.

Will that be legal soon? Or will it be enough that it's on the forum as -intended as- legal?

why you're asking me when a faq/errata will be out? how would i know lol?

as for it being legal or not, better talk it with your gm, some people will see it one way others another, if it's for pfs, then i don't have a clue since i don't play pfs


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Legoman wrote:

Is there any way a non-fighter character (with 8 str but mucho dx, 18+, rogue skill boosts to athletics and a way of getting a trip weapon through Gnome Weapon Familiarity - Kukri - and then boosting that weapon) will ever match a flat out fighter with 18 str as a trip-fighter build?

Is it pointless/ineffective to attempt try and build a tripper without maxing out the strength for athletics?

Is multiclassing in Fighter the only way to access Attack of Opportunity?

(Use of Ineffective in effect!)

there is a discussion on the rules section if "skill rolls with the Attack trait are attacks", the majority, backed by a playtest dev insight that "yes, you do use dex for tripping finesse weapons" believes that the answer is "yes".

in that case, a rogue will be as good as a fighter in tripping, since Skill proficiency has nothing to do with weapon proficiency and everyone gets expert/master/legendary at the same time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

the "smoke" coming out of a used smoke stick is not a "smoke stick" any more than the fire in the forest is the "fireball" which caused it.

As an example, Acid flask (the item) produces the effect of "x persistent acid damage". If Nethys woke up an evening grumpy and said "i declare that there will be no more Acid flasks in the world" that wouldn't make the persistent acid damage disappear, only the items called "acid flask".

in sort: as soon as you "use" an item to produce an "effect" then, as far as mechanics are considered, what the item was is irrelevant and has no correlation to the effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Peat wrote:
But why wouldn’t they just say “every check that has the Attack Trait is an Attack Roll” if that’s what they meant? Seems a strange omission or choice to tangentially cross-reference or make you use transititive logic to figure it out rather than stating it. But we’re all only human :)

the easy answer is that maybe they thought it was intuitive enough.

The difficult answer is that maybe there was a really hasty redesign in the whole "attack" thing. (if you look at the Spell section, you'll see several spells without spell attack rolls being labeled as Attack, a trait that certainly doesn't fit the bill for them)

but overall, i thikn we should wait for errata/faq

the RAI at least seems (as indicated by the dev post as well) to be evident, and the RAW is not easy to rule in one favor or the other, so at least we have that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sara Marie wrote:
Changed thread title from "Let's talk about some stupid builds." to Let's talk about some ineffective builds."

Hey! who said they were ineffective!

(but seriously now, i think the intent of the thread isn't to build ineffective builds, but just weird/alternative/niche ones)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mountain stronghold is akin to "raising a large shield" (both are +2 circumstance)
+6 total from "armor and dex" not including +item bonus, is akin to full plate armor.

so, you're targeting a Full plate character, with a raised shield and Legendary armor proficiency (only monk and paladin i think in the whole game get that). Sounds normal that you only hit on 12+

As for what you can do, a simple flat footed (flank, grab, trip, etc) makes that a 10 to hit. Add an intimidation on top, and it's now a 9.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Atalius wrote:

"You attempt to grab an opponent with your free hand. Attempt an Athletics check against their Fortitude DC. You can also Grapple to keep your hold on a creature you already grabbed."

Just wanted to ask how the last sentence of that description works "You can also grapple to keep your hold on a creature you already grabbed". I thought if you grab them the first round they are automatically free on there turn on the second round? How and when does one maintain the grab?

well... you thought wrong ^^

"Success: Your opponent is grabbed until the end of your next
turn
unless you move or your opponent Escapes."

they are grabbed until the end of YOUR next turn.

in short:
your turn:
you grapple them, you do your rest actions of the round
their turn:
they can either attempt to break free or do whatever, if they didn't manage to Escape
your next turn:
they are still grabbed and you can still hit them while they are grabbed or do whatever
you turn ends: grapple ends.

So you can keep grappling them to keep them indefinitely if they cannot manage to escape on their own turn with their own actions (Escape is an attack action btw that suffers from MAP)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Inkfist wrote:
Strange Fatal is strictly worse than deadly as you level then as deadly does add extra dice depending on your striking rune but fatal doesnt. Seeing as deadly weapons also tend towards rogue builds wouldn't a deadly weapon far outstrip the potential of a fatal one?

not even remotely close:

Fatal upgrades the die.

That inherently is much bigger increase from Striking compared to an extra 0-2 d8 (since you double the increased dices, the more dices (striking) the better fatal becomes).

As an example:

disregarding the static die, a crit from a Pick increases the 2d6 to 2d10 (so +4 damage due to fatal), while a crit from a Striking Pick increases the 4d6 to 4d10 (so +8 damage due to fatal)

What basically happens is:

"when your weapon has Striking, add an extra 8 damage from Fatal(as opposed to 0 from deadly)"
"when your weapon has Greater striking add an extra 12 damage from Fatal(as opposed to 1d8 from deadly)"
"when your weapon has Major striking add an extra 16 damage from Fatal (as opposed to 2d8 from deadly)"

as you can see, apart from the "base die" that both fatal and deadly add, both "scale" with the striking rune, Fatal scales much better (+4/+4/+4/+4 as opposed to +0/+0/+4.5/+4.5).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

if you're so worried about Cloistered AC, you can pick up Champion dedication at 2 and expert heavy at 14.

it's 1 level later than the expert medium of Warpriest, but heavy is 1 Ac higher compared to medium to begin with.

Starting with 14 str/14 cha is not difficult, and if you want, you can even push for a 16 in either one of those stats by taking additional flaws

be a human and grab shield block and d10s heal at level 1, and then grab shield ally at 6 from paladin.

you can even pick emblazon for extra Hardness for your shield, if you want even more sturdiness.

Cloistered can esaily pick up an offensive domain and really take advantage of his naturally higher DCs/spell attacks.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Miracle/Wish/Alter reality/Primal phenomenon allows you to not only replicate a spell of 7th level or lower from any list.

but also "Produce any effect whose power level is in line with
the above effects."

Dimension door (5th) allows a 1mile teleport.

I see an effect of "instead of teleporting i want to run stright for the same amount of distance" to be quite equivalent.

So, "Miracle/Wish/Alter reality/Primal phenomenon to Run 1 mile forward" seems to be feasible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Red Griffyn wrote:
Garretmander wrote:
citricking wrote:
Garretmander wrote:

About the only thing I wish is that warpriests would get master prof with their deity's favored weapon.

Sure, I guess that promotes mercenary cleric characters who pick deities based on favored weapon, but I still would have liked to see it. I might houserule it that way, possibly at a very late level (17?)

All warpriests get a bit further behind martials at level 20, I think it would be a good place to put it as a feat. But that might be too late for you?
Thinking about it, I'd probably just include it in the warpriest final doctrine.

Why not move up their fort bump to 13, then slot in master at 15 (two levels behind everyone else and only for their deities weapon)? If you put it as a captsone or capstone feat you might as well say they never get it because no one ever plays in the L18-L20 range anyways. Every other non-fighter martial is at master by L13. You shouldn't force the class to have 7 dead levels in a single weapon proficiency (L13-L20) or 5 dead levels in casting proficiency (L15-L20) where they are a proficiency rank behind everyone at all times (It makes them the jack of all misses).

Giving them Master at a 2 level delay on a chassis with little feat support for weapons is already going to be challenging enough. You're probably already multi-classing into fighter to get a bunch of delayed feats to feel better in melee. Don't punish the subclass, just make it more desirable rather than less.

they still get 10th level spells. It's not like picking "warpriest" somehow makes you a bad caster.

plus, as an example, from 11th level and onwards you have access to Heroism (6th) on yourself which will give you that extra +2 attack, or, at 15 you get divine aura which is basically +2 to everyone's AC+ chance to blind every enemy that hits you, and etc.

So, if a Warpriest, under self buffs, reaches the attack bonus of a full martal (sans Fighter) and he still has a full spellcaster's progression, i really see no issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atalius wrote:
Could I attempt to try and Trip two different enemies using Flurry of Blows?

if you're using Flurry of Maneuvers and they are both adjustent to you, yes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Uchuujin wrote:
I'm still not certain when I use shield block, before or after the damage is rolled. Because that can make a big difference in the usefulness of shields.

the trigger is "when you would take damage"

taking damage is the 4th step in the damage "order of things".
rolling the damage is the 1st step.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
masda_gib wrote:
mirtexxan wrote:

Nope, it doesn't.

Under the description of critical damage seems pretty clear that fatal (similar to deadly) is an additional damage that does not get multiplied.

Where? The Critical Hit text doesn't say anything about that. Page 278 says all damage is doubled and page 279 "Counting weapon dice" just says that for effects based on weapon dice count the extra die from fatal isn't counted.

With the specific mention to not double the dice from Deadly, I would think it gets doubled.

p.451 on doubling, it even uses the fatal trait as the example^^

"Benefits you gain
specifically from a critical hit, like the flaming weapon
rune’s persistent fire damage or the extra damage die
from the fatal weapon trait, aren’t doubled."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aricks wrote:
shroudb wrote:

Starting at 7 you only have 1 6th and 2 5th items. Spending one of those 5th items for just 30 at will one use "cantrips" seems really wasteful. I mean, but a staff and get spells per day AND at will infinite cantrip...

As for being worthless feature without feats... Well, 2 at will conditions with some minor (for that level) damage is about as much as 2 cantrips imo. 2 cantrips are about a class feat.

So the feature, for the bomber, is equivalent to a class feat imo.

Nothing really mindbogling powerful, but not dead feature as well.

Flawed premise anyway, debilitating bombs only work with quick alchemy. So not only can it not be used with bombs made from infused reagents it also doesn't work for downtime crafted stuff. Until you get perpetual bombs you won't even use that feat. Unless you want to burn one of your 10 reagents at 6th level to make a 1d6 bomb that gives a status effect for one round. Assuming you hit that is.

i wasn't talking about debilitating.

bombs on their own, with 0 feats, have debuffs.

1 to 50 of 806 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>