shroudb's page

3,608 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,608 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

SuperBidi wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Snare specialist removes cost for 4-8 daily snares.

True, reading it again, it does. I missed something.

shroudb wrote:

The way I see it:

1 setup
1 step/stride
1 shove

Is perfectly viable, 3 actions to do the burst of a max level spell is not shabby at all.

You're right, you can use the step/stride to position yourself for the shove.

Still, one issue is that you need to succeed at shoving, otherwise the enemy (as long as it's not stupid) can back off.
Also, one nice use is against stupid enemies. I don't think a zombie can understand that you just set up a trap.
So, I agree with you, with Lightning Snares, they look playable. Still, it's sad to get it that late.

12 is not that late since the edition is designed to more easily allow max level. I'd say it's midgame.

But even before that:

Even at 3 actions, imo, they are still usable.

Apart from the regular uses (choke points, camps, ambushes, etc) the way I see them is as a delayed spell.

You set them on one round, you trigger them on next. It's not like the Shoves/throws do nothing else, they still reposition/damage the enemy.

And at "end game" having up to 16, 1 action massive damage spikes is extremely effective.

A neat thing to note is that:
Your already setup snares don't "expire" after they are set.

You can entrench a position in a few days to make it hell for enemies to intrude/approach/pass.


What I would do to keep it inline with the rest Instincts:

Start with the fury Instinct as a template.

Use those numbers for the extra damage and resistance (choose appropriate types).

Instead of "free class feat" you gain "Blood magic". (you gain a higher level class feat but lose a bit of flexibility)

Blood magic: As Arcane Sorc MC without the skills but with "spells gained from Blood magic have the Rage trait".

New feats:
6: Basic Blood magic. (as basic sorc spellcasting). The spells chosen gain the Rage trait. (stronger than basic spellcasting due to the trait addition, but comes a bit later to make it inline with the other Instinct feats)

12: expert blood magic. As expert spellcasting+Breadth. Spells gain the rage trait. (much stronger than a mc feat since it's 2 feats for the price of 1 AND gives the trait on said spells)

Keep in mind that at level 11+ you get what you were trying with the auto casting since you get to use a "Rage trait ability" alongside your Rage action. So you can choose a spell and cast it.

This way you gain:
1)The ability to cast your spells without wasting actions for Moment of Clarity
2)2 feats over going barb/mc sorc (3 if you include clarity)
3)the ability to cast a spell alongside your rage action at 11+

I think those are inline with the rest instincts, slightly towards the strongest side, but not by much.


I feel that for a Bespell build, a monk is also worth checking.

Bespell affects ALL attacks on a round. And Monks have both the ability to attack more times per round via Flurry AND proc Bespell 1-2 times per fight for free via Ki strike/other powers.

Plus, they can either go with a stance and hold the staff in one hand and still attack with the other, OR go for monastic weapons and use Shifting rune as above.

Something like:
1: stance/monastic
1: (human, or general 3) Ki strike
2: wizard dedication (or Stunning fist if you allow Ancient Elf heritage)
4: basic spellcasting
6: basic arcana (can't recall if there's a wizard feat giving a focus, else probably something like a familiar)
8: advanced arcana (Bespell)
10: stance maneuver/wind jump
12: Expert spellcasting/meditative focus
14: the one you didn't pick from above

There are a few maneuvers that shine with true strike since they have critical success riders (fatal, bleeds, etc)
Plus, if you go with something like wind stance (at 10) you can proc Bespell and go for the wind stance aoe, adding the d6 vs all the targets.


Muzouka wrote:
Does the cantrip granted by Otherworldly Magic get heightend even if you don't have a spellcasting class?

Yes.

All cantrips autoheighten unless they specifically say they don't.


lemeres wrote:
shroudb wrote:

no, they aren't completly seperate.

as you pointed out, there are times where you can fit a bit of control alongside damage.

but it does require specific scenarios happening, like starting next to the opponent with all of your 3 actions and saving your reaction for damage and etc.

usually, you have to decide between a 2 action attack like drag OR flurry. And even then, having the option to grab instead of an attack and still fitting in a stunning fist that may steal 1 more action from your opponent, is what i would call "switching to control".

Ah, I forgot about the advantages of assurance athletics. Hmmm... other stances can use a similar trip tactic while having other damage boosters.

But I like that wolf drag covers a different situation that the assurance trip does (higher level enemies/enemies with high reflex saves for their level). So wolf stance can be far more reliable with knock down. Great set of options.

So you might need your reaction for something other than stand still? What are of the good reactions available to monks (assuming no multiclass)?

well, shield block is accessible to everyone and monks can use shields, although it takes an action to use it.

then you have the various reactions from ancestries. From +saving throw, to orc ferocity, to goblin scuttle.

and in most of my builds, i do tend to pick MC in something, although, if there was one class that can easily go without, it would have been monk. So many great options that you can safely pick a great one in each level.


Maxwell D'Ahmagge wrote:

Eh, it's so-so.

If you want to move an enemy then you get to shove the opponent with your Strike value, rather than your Athletics value. So you are likely to get +2 or +3 out of it. This is valuable if you want to move him out of a choke point, or knock him off a cliff/pier (if 5' movement will do this). And it makes him flat-footed for any following attacks, so you don't get a full -5 when you swing on him next.

The 'flat-footed until the end of your turn if you fail' is kind of a sop to people who failed: it doesn't help other party members. Without this, I'd rate the feat as poor.

But note the requirements: you must be using a two-handed weapon, & the creature must be your size or smaller.

With an Athletics/Shove, it can be done to a creature one size larger than you... but you must have a free hand or a weapon with the Shove trait. Such weapons include Light Mace (Agile & Finesse = Rogue), Warhammer (1 handed) and Greatclub (2 handed).

Note: This is a feat with situational usage. Power Attack (frex) is usefull any time you have two actions left.

it's a free action shove, with a flat footed on top, that autosucceeds if you hit with your strike.

and if you miss with your strike, it makes htem flat footed to boot.

it's pretty great for so early on due to the action economy saver, it actually makes shove much more useful rather than situational useful (since you won't be "trading" your strike for it, but just getting it on top of it)


Hiruma Kai wrote:
shroudb wrote:

True strike+Pick is <3

Don't forget that you can sacrifice a spell slot at daily prep for extra True Strikes.

And a Power attack crit from a Pick... Well, let's say it hurts.

I admit those pick critical hits are scary.

I'd probably do something like a bastard sword (or dwarven waraxe if I could find a good way to get the max proficiency with it) myself.

shroudb wrote:
Access to heroism, even if limited times per day, helps keeping the pick crits consistent even against boss AC.

Out of curiosity whats your source of heroism? Ally caster in the party? Trick Magic Device and some Occultism or Religion?

The pick allows a shield though, as opposed to two handing a bastard sword, so there's this upside. I generally really like shields.

As for heroism... That's brainfart on my part forgetting that it's not in the Arcane list.

Nevertheless, haste is almost as good, since it allows a power attack+true strike even on rounds you have to move around.


SuperBidi wrote:
shroudb wrote:

Imo, snares are worth the 1-3 actions to setup (later on Rangers can setup it in 1 action) since they do amazing damage.

As an example, the level 12 snare deals an average of 63 damage with a basic ref save.
A single target Spell of that level, disintegrate, deals just 66 and has to go both through spell attack AND basic Fort save for that.

Having, as a ranger, 4-8 "max level spells" worth of damage isn't bad at all.

Compared to strikes, you'd need around 50 or so average damage per round to reach that much damage.

It does need a build that you can move/throw baddies on them though.

To put an enemy into a snare, you need:

- 1 action to move to position
- 1-3 actions to setup the snare
- 1 action to move away from your position (as nothing states you can make Snares on an adjacent square, so you create the Snare on your position)
- 1 action (minimum) to move the baddy inside the Snare

So, even with Lightning Snares, it's hard to use.
Also, nothing states that the Ranger doesn't pay for Snares. Snare Specialist just says you can deploy Snares in a few actions, it doesn't state it costs you nothing to do so. I've I missed something?

Snare specialist removes cost for 4-8 daily snares.

The way I see it:
1 setup
1 step/stride
1 shove

Is perfectly viable, 3 actions to do the burst of a max level spell is not shabby at all.

Even at 3 actions setup (5 actions in total) its still decent, and as mentioned, you could set, and an ally can Shove in the same round.

You can also check my Master Yeeter build in the weird builds thread for Ranger/Monk that yeets (whirling throw) his opponents into his snares.


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

I've built exactly a character like this:

Fighter/wizard miner.

He has his divination staff shifted to a pick, and goes crit fishing like crazy.

Access to heroism, even if limited times per day, helps keeping the pick crits consistent even against boss AC.

I was debating Bespell, but feats are kinda tight to pick it up as a mc feat.

True strike+Pick is <3

Don't forget that you can sacrifice a spell slot at daily prep for extra True Strikes.

And a Power attack crit from a Pick... Well, let's say it hurts.

Does the wiz gets something that a sorc doesn't get for teh build?

I am planing to play a fighter/sorc.

double charges on his Staff compared to sorc.

plus, better spellcasting for MC.

as written, spontaneous MC you only get 1 spell (per level) that you can cast. While with prepared MC you still cast only the one/two spells (per level), but you can switch them daily from all within your collection.


A few corrections in addition:

You can't have 24 cha clerics.

Heroism is in the occult list as well, so Bards and Sorc will probably be better (can reach 24 cha, bard has useful abilities for such a setup like dirge and etc)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Grimmzorch wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Draco18s wrote:

20 foot by 20 foot by 20 foot, by the way, is also not 400 5-foot cubes.

its 64 5-foot cubes.

I'm a graphic designer. Math isn't exactly my strong suit. XD
For visualization purposes 20cubic feet is the interior space of a medium size refrigerator.

It's also roughly the space of ten human adults.

People often underestimate cubic footage because they unconsciously include the empty space many objects have.

But that's not the way it works. Imagine just about any object or creature. Now imagine it being liquefied or turned into dust. That puddle or pile of dust more accurately represents that thing's cubic footage. That's why an adult human is generally considered roughly 2 cubic feet.

The problem imo with trying to visualise it as "10 humans" is that's almost impossible to visualise 10 humans fit so tightly that there 0 wasted space in between them.

IF you actually manage to visualise them so tightly packed that there 0 dead space... Then you actually have compressed them enough to fit in a refrigerator.

So, easier to just imagine the refrigerator from the get go^^


I've built exactly a character like this:

Fighter/wizard miner.

He has his divination staff shifted to a pick, and goes crit fishing like crazy.

Access to heroism, even if limited times per day, helps keeping the pick crits consistent even against boss AC.

I was debating Bespell, but feats are kinda tight to pick it up as a mc feat.

True strike+Pick is <3

Don't forget that you can sacrifice a spell slot at daily prep for extra True Strikes.

And a Power attack crit from a Pick... Well, let's say it hurts.


SuperBidi wrote:

The way it works:

- Buying poisons or snares is very expensive. It's better to either be an Alchemist/Ranger or to use items you find during the adventure.
- Poisons have to be prepared in advance and applied in advance to work. They don't cost combat-actions, which is their main asset. They are not overwhelming but a nice bonus during the first rounds of combat. Applying poison during combat is not worth it.
- Snares can also be prepared in advance, but you need to be able to access to the combat area beforehand. It happens very rarely. During combat, it's 3 actions to prepare a snare, and then you need a way to put an enemy into it (shove for example). Anyway, for 3 combat-actions, they are once again not worth it, as you could do better by just attacking.

So, poison is nice to have, snares are hyper situational. Clearly, poison is better to have than snares.

Imo, snares are worth the 1-3 actions to setup (later on Rangers can setup it in 1 action) since they do amazing damage.

As an example, the level 12 snare deals an average of 63 damage with a basic ref save.
A single target Spell of that level, disintegrate, deals just 66 and has to go both through spell attack AND basic Fort save for that.

Having, as a ranger, 4-8 "max level spells" worth of damage isn't bad at all.

Compared to strikes, you'd need around 50 or so average damage per round to reach that much damage.

It does need a build that you can move/throw baddies on them though.


Castilliano wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Castilliano wrote:

You can build most of a Dragon Disciple now via Barbarian or Sorcerer, depending on which aspect you wanted to emphasize. I'm not sure what more Paizo could add that they would add, since we won't be seeing stat bumps.

Maybe Draconic Frenzy (like dragons have)? Senses? Longer durations?

I agree claws aren't meant to be primary for a full-caster, nor should they ever be comparable to full casting. So if you want a good dragon-claw PC, start w/ a martial chassis & take the Sorcerer MCD. Since the claws are finesse, a Rogue-Thief works great in this instance. The other martials need a bigger weapon die, but the Rogue's bonus damage is balanced for having a lower die.

do note that Thief doesn't get his "dex to damage" with natural attacks or unarmed, since they aren't weapons.

He only gets dex to damage with actual "weapons".

Sad face... :(

Don't yet understand Paizo's reasoning of separating the unarmed & weapons. Likely there's a loophole I haven't seen that they're closing because that's a specific difference from PF1 (& earlier) in many cases.

probably because you can get much higher damage (trait depending) on unarmed than with one handed weapons.

It's in this weird spot where you can get almost two-handed damage with some of them, and yet still have both your hands "free".

In PF1, the natural attacks were one of the worst thing ever imo, with people trying to grab horns and bites and whatnots to fit into 7+ attack routines.

So, my guess is that in PF2 they want to control that.

So, if they go with a philosophy of "look guys, natural attacks can get busted, so we need a way to police what one can do with them", then making certain that only things they specifically want to work with natural attacks work with them, is one such way.

As you mentioned Thief rogue. If dex to damage worked for unarmed, it would make "monk MC" almost a mandatory pick if you wanted damage, since getting "d8 finesse, agile, backstab, free hand, trip" weapons for the cost of 2 Feats is so far above every weapon in the book so far.

now, it's still a nice MC, getting 2 attacks in 1 action at level 10 plus a great attack to go alongside it, but it's not that one-sided since you'll be losing a bit of damage from losing Dex to damage alongside it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Personally, i think a little more well rounded build, maybe a Wolf style dex monk with some strength, is more universally useful because he can switch from a pure damage, to a "control" build in the blink of the eye, and his defences will naturally be higher (at least in the earlier levels) so he can stand his ground and maybe get more attacks in.

Are those necessarily separate? Wolf drag can reliably make an opponent go prone. And that sets up an attack from Stand Still because standing up is a move action. Also, you can fit in a flurry (you have an agile weapon and the enemy takes a -2 from being flat footed while prone).

I feel like the question is whether you are going for a mobile style with flurry and stunning fist, or on a wolf drag+flurry for the most attacks. You can debuff in either circumstance.

no, they aren't completly seperate.

as you pointed out, there are times where you can fit a bit of control alongside damage.

but it does require specific scenarios happening, like starting next to the opponent with all of your 3 actions and saving your reaction for damage and etc.

usually, you have to decide between a 2 action attack like drag OR flurry. And even then, having the option to grab instead of an attack and still fitting in a stunning fist that may steal 1 more action from your opponent, is what i would call "switching to control".

But as i said:

the beauty of such a style/feat choice, is exactly that:

it's so flexible in what you can do in a round. It won't reach the damage of a strength based Dragon monk going all out, but it's not that far behind for all the tools it can get and use imo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
shroudb wrote:

4.:

your choice of hitting with the "actual Claws" that deal the damage as per Sorc power OR hit with the monk unarmed attack that's merely called claws (but it's actually just fist/fingers) and do the monk damage.

Traits used for each attack are as gain for their respective attacks.

With Tiger Stance, or better yet Wolf Stance, you can’t actually hit them with ‘one or the other’ without using meta game logic/reasoning. The Claws will protrude from the fingers and inevitably conflict. Mountain or Crane stance specifically limit your attack pattern, and Dragon Stance could be reasoned as ‘one or the other’.

Neither Tiger or Wolf stance have restrictive language. Only Mountain and Crane have that. As for "not using the claws" ofc you can. Do you also disallow someone punching if he has claws?

So, for tiger/sorc, you CAN actually use one or the other.

but:

yeah, didn't go in with the "you can ONLY hit with that" stances attacks thing, mainly because i was trying for a more generic responce concerning "can i combine 2 different attacks into one" in which the answer would be "no, but you can use either".

I do agree, that with the specific language some of the stances have, you are directly disallowed to Strike with ANYTHING other than said Strikes. But those stances are only the minority.


4.:

your choice of hitting with the "actual Claws" that deal the damage as per Sorc power OR hit with the monk unarmed attack that's merely called claws (but it's actually just fist/fingers) and do the monk damage.

Traits used for each attack are as gain for their respective attacks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Castilliano wrote:

You can build most of a Dragon Disciple now via Barbarian or Sorcerer, depending on which aspect you wanted to emphasize. I'm not sure what more Paizo could add that they would add, since we won't be seeing stat bumps.

Maybe Draconic Frenzy (like dragons have)? Senses? Longer durations?

I agree claws aren't meant to be primary for a full-caster, nor should they ever be comparable to full casting. So if you want a good dragon-claw PC, start w/ a martial chassis & take the Sorcerer MCD. Since the claws are finesse, a Rogue-Thief works great in this instance. The other martials need a bigger weapon die, but the Rogue's bonus damage is balanced for having a lower die.

do note that Thief doesn't get his "dex to damage" with natural attacks or unarmed, since they aren't weapons.

He only gets dex to damage with actual "weapons".


3 people marked this as a favorite.

For pure damage, Dragon style is probably the best.

You can go full damage and use mobility as your defense (move/flurry/move) alongside defensive feats like Winding path and Guarded movement to be mostly safe from everything as you waltz back and forth.

A few ki powers, notably ki strike and either blast or the one that lets you pseudo-fly, and increased focus recovery. As well as "passive" stuff like brawling focus and stunning fists.

Personally, i think a little more well rounded build, maybe a Wolf style dex monk with some strength, is more universally useful because he can switch from a pure damage, to a "control" build in the blink of the eye, and his defences will naturally be higher (at least in the earlier levels) so he can stand his ground and maybe get more attacks in.


most of those can be answered by:

1)because half+ of the alchemist feats are feat taxes with 0 flavor and only trying to be a math fixer for an incredibly weak core class/class features. (100% opposite of pf2 philosophy)

in conjunction with:

2)see 1

and finally with:

3)in combat poisons are utterly terrible. "Pre-buffing" poisons is meh at best, but at least usable. Until level 13 that is. Because why print high level poisons? (that we were told that would be in the final version during the playtest, but whatever)


FlashRebel wrote:
Saros Palanthios wrote:
In addition, the classes that grant animal companions also all have feats that give your companion take extra actions-- Druids can take Mature Animal Companion at lvl 4; Rangers can take Companion's Cry at lvl 4 and Mature Animal Companion at lvl 6; and Champions can take Imposing Destrier at lvl 10.

Mature Animal Companion doesn't grant an extra action: it lets the animal companion act on its own when not directly commanded but it only does one action.

I understand what the minion trait is about : it's a way to let players have creatures under their control without stretching encounters too much or breaking the action economy.

To be fair, I was messing around trying to create a rogue with druid archetype feats to get an animal companion and thus always have a flanking partner available. The mounting part was mostly a bonus.

well, at level 6, you can get gang up and constantly flank with your mount.

the upside of the mount is that it's basically +1 action /round compared to a non mount in every round that you need to move (since with 1 move from your mount you also gain basically a "free" move as well)

the downside is it sharing your MAP and etc.

so there are tradeoffs, better action economy vs better attacks.


Blave wrote:

I'm not talking about exploration activities. I even said most GMs would not allow Guidance to cover an hour(s) long activity. That includes myself as a GM.

I was more thinking about stuff that takes a minute or two. Maybe an Intimidation check for Coercion or something like that. By RAW, you make the check at the end of that minute which would make Guidance awkward to use. I'd just let a character cast it before that minute starts.

ah i thought you were talking about exploration, sorry.

For long duration activities, i would personally rule case by case.

Regardless of "when" you make the roll (which by definition of a game, you will have to make once and not like a dozen of times), there are some activities that actually rely on continuously trying to achieve success throughtout the duration of the activity, so it still seems sketchy to me to allow a "last second cast to augment" those checks.

but in some (few) occasions, i may houserule something like a "sustained casting of the spell" to cover the whole activity.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Blave wrote:
shroudb wrote:
"Duration: until the start of your next turn"

It also says "You ask for divine guidance, granting the target a +1 status bonus to one attack roll, Perception check, saving throw, or skill check the target attempts before the duration ends."

I read that only as "you must roll the check before the end of your next turn". The activity you're using the check for could still go beyond the duration, i.e. you don't need to actually finish the activity during the duration.

i would never allow a "1 turn check" to be an 8hour+ long duration activity.

a check that is supposed to span an activity repeated over multiple of hours is not done in mere 6 seconds of time. It is done in all this time combined. (regardless if it's just 1 roll)

That's like saying "here, for the next 6 seconds you're a bit better in Perception. So you should use those 6 seconds to scout for 4hours ahead".

(Plus, in *most* exploration activities, you don't even "pre-roll", but you roll only when something appropriate for said roll occurs)


Blave wrote:
shroudb wrote:

Guidance has a time limit for the check as well.

You can't apply it to checks that take more than the duration of the spell.

Nothing in the spell says that.

Only the Imperial Bloodline's Acestral Memory focus power does have such a caveat.

"Duration: until the start of your next turn"


Guidance has a time limit for the check as well.

You can't apply it to checks that take more than the duration of the spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bigguyinblack wrote:

Which is why I said in my earlier post "...Then if you are lucky some of your allies go after you but before the enemies..."

My point was that there is a time frame where the enemy is still frightened 1 and you can effect your allies with Inspire.

No.

Compositions specifically END all ongoing effects if you cast another.

Dirge:
Enemies around you are Frightened 1.

It ENDS this effect.

So the very instant you cast another composition, the Frightened 1 effect is removed.

To put it in another way:

ALL round duration effects normally expire at end of round.

So, "+1 status bonus to attack/damage" (from Inspire), as an example, would last until the end of the round.
Frightened 1,as another example, would last until the end of the round.

That's the general rule.

Composition SPECIFIC rule ENDS "ongoing effects".

It doesn't let them expire, it directly cancels them.

Else, every single composition would be able to overlap.

Note the specific language :

" any ongoing effects from your previous composition spell end immediately"

Frightened 1 IS, by definition, an ongoing effect.
So it does end immediately.


Quietpaw wrote:
This sounds like a great ruling, thanks! Would you require the same actions and roll checks vs Fort against a willing target or an unconscious or paralyzed one? My group has played 6 times already and in 2 or 3 sessions already we have encountered pulling and repositioning questions with no clear CRB answer. One player ran out of breath underwater and the others wanted to grab and pull him out to the surface. Another player got paralyzed by a ghoul and someone wanted to drag him back out of melee range. And in a third case players tied ropes on each other and wanted to pull each other back to safety or up to a ledge after falling. How would you handle the action economy and move speeds here? Underwater had extra difficult terrain since water already slows you down. In this case it was still water so I didn't require Athletics to move.

Reposition hasn't come up on any of my sessions.

as a quick guess, since i haven't thought about it:

Paralyzed: Like dragging a 6 bulk "weight", more if he has a lot of bulk/armor on him. He's not resisting, he's just heavy.

Underwater drowning: Probably normal shove. eYou'd still need to beat a Fort DC (drowning victims sadly do try to pull you under/resist strictly due to reflex) AND i would probably rule for something like "crit fail makes THEM grapple you down"

Ledge falling: oof... i'd say "follow the leader exploration activity" but the thing is, if someone does fall, and the rope is not tightly pinned on the wall itself, it might provoke saving throws from the rest to not get dragged down instead. On the other hand, an "expert climber" would probably secure his rope to the surface unless for some reason he explicitly doesn't want to do so (he wants to pull the rope back up as an example)


Bigguyinblack wrote:

But you can cast Dirge of Doom and say a spell. Then if you are lucky some of your allies go after you but before the enemies. On the enemy turn they stay Frightened 1. Then on your turn you can Inspire. And any allies that go after you but before the enemies are both inspired and fighting frightened enemies.

Also note that you can use Lingering Composition on Dirge of Doom. It isn't perfect since enemies just need to move away from you to negate it but there will be times where that isn't practical for them.

the moment you cast Inspire, the ongoing effect of "frighten 1" will disappear.

and yes, lingering on Dirge is amazing, but it's not that clear cut win over Inspire.

to me, Dirge is best in prolonged battles and Inspire in shorter ones.

Thing is, on the first few rounds, your targets can be easily Intimidated, after the intimidation is over and they are immune, THEN it's time to Dirge.

So, on a fight that will last like 3-4 rounds, Inspire will usually have you covered with a +1 and Intimidate with a -1 on the focus targets.

After those rounds elapse, THEN you switch songs.


Claxon wrote:
Atalius wrote:
Claxon wrote:

It depends on what kind of character you want to build.

I built a Maestro bard and didn't pick up a second muse. I suppose I have less versatility in the long run, but how valuable it is...I'm not sure. Scrolls, staves, and wands can potentially fill that gap in my opinion.

Impossible polymath does expand your options to other spell lists, which maybe is a big deal. But it's an 18th level ability, and very few games reach that point, so I'm not terribly concerned about it.

Besides which, the things that you can do as a Maestro can be equally powerful and interesting, IMO.

Interesting, if you don't mind what did your build look like?

It's not complete and i'm not even sure it's good. Just something I was fooling around with based on an idea I had.

Quote:


Ak Tor
Male goblin bard 20 Core Rulebook 386, 386, 386
Common, CG, Small, Goblin, Humanoid
Perception +26; darkvision
Languages Common, Gnomish, Goblin
Skills Acrobatics +27, Arcana +26, Deception +37 (+39 vs a target that failed to Lie to you or you successfully used the Seek action against.), Diplomacy +37 (+39 vs a target that failed to Lie to you or you successfully used the Seek action against., When you Request something, you treat a critical failure as a failure.), Intimidation +29 (+31 vs a target that failed to Lie to you or you successfully used the Seek action against.), Medicine +22, Occultism +26, Performance +35 (+37 vs a target that failed to Lie to you or you successfully used the Seek action against., +37 when making a performance of type Acting., +37 when acting, orating, performing comedy, or singing.), Religion +22, Society +26, Stealth +27, Theater Lore +26
Str 16 (+3), Dex 20 (+5), Con 18 (+4), Int 18 (+4), Wis 10 (+0), Cha 24 (+7)
Other Items +3 major resilient leather armor, +2 greater striking rapier, dagger, mentalist’s staff, major, sling (20 sling bullets), staff
...

Interesting, but why 2 staves? You can only prepare one each day.

Or is it for flexibility across days (some days using the one, other days using the other)

Also, at that level, why not just add a "shifting" rune on your staff and have a "+2 greater striking shifting Staff of X" that you then proceed to shift to a rapier?

This way you won't need weird action loses if you want to use your staff and your weapon in the same combat.

Also, this way you also keep a magical greater striking weapon of different damage type if needed, or shift it to L weapon, and etc.

No need to carry daggers and etc then.


Wheldrake wrote:

Player: So, I throw my octopus familiar into Bad Bob's face.

DM: Er... Alright, I think this will count as an improvised weapon. Make a ranged attack roll at -2.
Player (after rolling dice): I hit! What happens?
DM: The octopus grabs Bad Bob's face and he's... erm... distracted. Count him as being flat-footed until he can get it off. Let's see... on his turn, he tries to break the grapple. He makes an escape attempt with an unarmed attack against... your athletics DC.
DM (rolls dice): Oh, he failed his escape attempt! It's just one action, so he can try again at -4, and again at -8... Oh, two more failures! Your familiar is really keeping him occupied.

Working within the rules for throwing things, grapples and escaping from grapples, I think this works! The only doubt I have is whether, when the octopus hits, it has to make a grapple attempt. If so, it could be the master's Athletics check against the target's Fort DC.

Escape is not "agile" so it should be -5/-10

Also, please refer to "Cthulhu toss" with something more appropriate and majestic than simply "improvised attack"

Tbf, little chtulhu would still need to at least succeed at a grapple/athletics check, but since he's our Lord and saviour, I expect nothing less than Nat 20s.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
This makes Bardic Lore better than I'd thought compared to standard knowledge skills, as you should always get the absolute lowest possible DC.

Bardic lore is not "all lores into one".

It specifically is its own type of lore that allows recall knowledge for everything.

It doesn't give you the bonuses of having a specific lore vs a specific check.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Narxiso wrote:
Atalius wrote:
Dirge of Doom with lingering Performance even better
I think dirge of doom is the best cantrip. However, it’s a debuff, not a buff.
I tend to bypass Demoralize because you're only casting 1 Composition Cantrip most times, unless you Harmonize but that's your whole round. You can instead Demoralize and use a Composition Cantrip and have another action free or cast a normal buff spell too. Sure it's only 1 foe at a time but it's 1 foe frightened plus your other buff. [it's a double whammy for the foe as it gets debuffed and the party gets a buff]

You can cast dirge of doom to inflict frightened 1 for 1 round, no save, then follow up with inspire courage to buff allies, no harmonize needed, so long as you don't go right before all the baddies.

The fear effect of dirge of doom is immediate. The only thing you lose this way is that enemies can recover from the fear normally on their turn. As long as you don't go right before them, it gives your allies time to take advantage of both at once. And you can still shoot a bow or something.

Without harmonise you can't even CAST a second composition in the same round.

"You can cast only one composition spell each turn, and you can have only one active at a time.If you cast a new composition spell, any ongoing ef f ects from your previous composition spell end immediately."

And that's even before starting the debate if the fear effect is an "ongoing effect" or not (it's exactly the same as the buff effects, so I would rule ongoing personally)


Brew Bird wrote:

I would argue it's when you drink your mutagen that you make the change. Making the decision during preparation doesn't really follow, since you're changing how the mutagen affects you, but not the mutagen itself. Any Bestial Mutagens you make will still affect anyone else normally, since you're not actually brewing a different mutagen.

That's what I'm also going with.

The choice of how to affect you relies on when you drink it, similar to how you can use Elixirs of life for either healing or Counteracts with feats.

You make a bestial Mutagen but bestial Mutagen can either give the extra option or not, but both versions are still the same item called "bestial mutagen".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:

You have inspired my homebrew for Alchemist.

...

A question I have for yours: Why the trajectory adjustment to make Alchemist eventually Legendary in Alchemist Class DC?

Alchemist is not a "martial", his proficiency progression is that of a caster. Casters have lower weapon/armor proficiency but legendary DCs on their abilities.

In the same vein, I think that Alchemist should also get legendary DCs.

Afterall, the pf2 alchemist is basically a support that uses alchemical items for buffs and debuffs, with damage tossed in more like an afterthought at most. So he needs the same success rate as a caster needs for his spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
Seriously, NN, what do you intend to accomplish? You're alone against the whole PF2 troll squad; do you really expect you can give rational argument in a rational discussion? Hey man, i have to tell you a secret: you won't find anyone rational here, because the PF2 troll squad has already send away every rational...

My goal is to provide sanity for people like you. To let you know that you aren't crazy. I've learned that the number of people who read a thread is an order of magnitude or more greater than the number of people who actually post in it.

Yes, there are a reoccurring group of posters who instinctively learn to gang up on anyone who disagrees with them by favoriting each others posts and what not. So what? That happens in probably every forum on the Internet. It even happens in physics forums.

I'm not trying to convince them. My goal is to work it out for myself and others who are struggling with the same concepts. It has to start with someone.

My advice, is to recognize the ad hominems and the passive aggression and baiting, (all of which the moderators simply refuse to moderate) for what it is. If you respond directly to the (passive) aggression and baiting, the moderators seem to be all over that, so flag it and move on.

Don't judge the game based on the moderators failing to moderate these people. The forums are still the best place to find answers and figure things out.

i agree, but "these people" are usually the passive aggressive ones that that think and post like everyone is out to get them and "ruin their fun" (aka: gaming the system).

the same kind of people that fail to realise that in a group game, EVERYONE needs to have fun, not only them by gaming the system.

Thankfully, the forum has enough people to offer a clear view on the rules and such, and only a minority that try to metagame every encounter.

feel free to disagree, i mean, i know i'm not gonna change your mind.

my posts are mostly so that newer players can see how the game/system works, and not to convince people the people who are so diehard about making every single encounter of theirs an "ambush" against the "evil GM".


Faenor wrote:
shroudb wrote:


Potent Poisoner: Poisons deal minimum damage even on a successful saving throw (still deal 0 on a critical success)

What does minimum damage mean exactly?

Loading the +4 DC seems pretty hard you make unless poison DC always user the Alchemist DC?

Other than that, I mostly like it. Seems really needed to make the Alchemists class viable at all.

if stage 1 of a poison is, an an example, 4d6, minimum damage is 4.

as for DCs, everything "Invested" uses your Alchemist DC from my original change in the Invested trait in the top of the post.


Normal +d6 (+ other things) would be around 6th level class feat.

General feats are generally much weaker though, mostly around +1 tops +2 bonuses.

So, I would just give it as a 6th level feat to fighter and maybe ranger.

Let the other classes MC to get it.

As a general feat, I wouldn't put it in less than level 13


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The ring sounds OK.

The Aeon stone is gamebreaking OP. I would completely scrap the DR and the "always on +AC" and make it something like:
Trigger: You are attacked by a physical attack. Reaction: Gain +1/2 circumstance bonus to AC against the triggering attack (level 10/15)

This is based on the power level of class feats that allow you to raise a shield as a reaction, which is plenty imo.

Belt:
Seems like a greatly improved bag of holding.
I would just have one version, the smallest one, as a bit higher level (like 2 higher or so) than the 1st bag of holding.

Rune:
Extremely OP imo.
I'd just make it as a reservoir for Focus points.
Like: level 7/13/19, The runes hold 1/2/3 Focus points. You can use those points as if they were your own. The Runes focus points recharge at daily preparation.
The level 13/19 versions give you a new focus power:
Free action metamagic focus power:
Increase the damage die of a spell without duration by 1 die (2 for the 19 version)
For spells with multiple instances of damage (like magic missile) apply the increase to one instance of damage of your choice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:

20 foot by 20 foot by 20 foot, by the way, is also not 400 5-foot cubes.

its 64 5-foot cubes.

20 cubic feet are not 20ft*20ft*20ft (that's 8000 cubic feet) it's 20ft*1ft*1ft (or 20*(1ft*1ft*1ft) to put it simpler)


ye...

somehow, dragon monk, flurring with bites and wing slashes doesn't sound too appealing to me, both flavor, and mechanically wise.

For "purebred" dragons (not half-dragons) i would also go with full-on
ancestry+class = one and the same.

my main issue is that we not only "know" the end product, we also know all the middle stages of it.

so that leaves very little "customizability" to the player.

it seems like a forced progression where you have none-to-limited player agency.

I mean, you can't really say "my dragon won't pick up breath in order to pick up flight" there are SO MANY iconic abilities that you can't do ithout, that leaves very little to "add" with customizable abilities without breaking the game.


kaid wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
HammerJack wrote:
Likely because every player and creature has a progression of fortitude, whereas a player who was not at least trained in athletics would be effectively autograbbed, after the first few levels.

Although to be fair monsters autoGrab anyway most of the time. Though I agree it should be against fortitude anyway for the reason you list.

Escaping a grappling is against the athletics DC though.

I know some people were kinda mocking the paladin that gets a reaction if something is grabbed/bound but a LOT of critters seem to really be very grabby this edition so it winds up being something that does get used a fair bit.

he is kinda more limited when he deals his "persistent holy" compared to the other 2.

but at least his 5ft step is always amazing AND CG is always far less restrictive than LG and in the Champion case, even from NG (NG has the strictest code imo).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Syries wrote:

I did the math though. The damage just doesn't seem worthwhile for the feat. Using the example of a dragon instinct barbarian you're doing Str+Weapon Specialization+Rage. At level 8 that's 14 damage with a basic fort save. If they save it's a mere 7.

As opposed to a +1 striking greatsword dealing 2d12+14. Way more damage. Sure you have to consider MAP and if you're striking at -10 it might be more worthwhile to trash for at least something but imo there are other better single actions out there than doing 7 or even 14 dmg.

assuming you hit your first attack on a 10, the -10 will make it a 20.

your opponent will be grabbed, since that's the condition for the thrash.

so you will need a 18 to hit with the 3rd attack.

that's 10% to hit and 5% to crit.
so 2d12+14 (27) means an average of 5,4 damage

assuming your opponent makes the save half the time, Thrash will do an average of 10,5 damage

so, there's definitely merit on the feat.

as for "better actions", it depends. 10 average damage is not a shabby 3rd action at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
shroudb wrote:

Just kind in mind, EVERYTHING you can do, so can your adversaries.

So be prepared for guards alternating between them to "shoot hostiles" while guarding or enemies readying attacks before they turn each corner.

If the guards were expecting an imminent attack why wouldn't they alternate being Ready? If the PCs were fighting their way to the prison cell, of course I'd have the guards use a Ready Action. Why on earth not? But you have to be as strict with the NPC triggers as you would with the PCs'.

The great thing about PF2 is now the players know what can happen. Players know that applicable Reactions can occur before Init is rolled. Now, the players know if they've been causing a ruckus, there's a chance they could open the door and get an arrow in the chest before they can act. Why do I get the feeling most GMs don't have a problem with that application of the rule?

It's only reasonable if you can shutter walk and be always on the ready, to actually do so.

No need to expect something, it's your job.

End of the line is:

Raw clearly says that Reactions occur before Init if the GM approves of said reactions.

As long as you keep it consistent there's no reason to play into a universe where everyone and his mother has free attacks before Init.

An ambush is fine. Getting free attacks every time you turn a corner or open a door, isn't.

Else you are back to "everyone starts with free attacks before initiative" that happened in PF1 and was explicitly removed from pf2.

The very definition of Initiative is how fast you can react. Just saying "I'm ready to react" doesn't MAKE you faster to react than your initiative except on very specific situations (ambushes as an example).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
shroudb wrote:


It also EXPLICITLY says that

" The GM determines whether you can use reactions before your first turn begins, depending on the situation in which the encounter happens."

Which means:
Judge each Reaction in a case by case if it happens.

Yes, Shadow already tried to weaponize that. The GM is making an objective determination on what Reaction occurs outside of your turn. Normally, you don't get your Actions or your Reactions until your first Turn. So, for example, you don't get an Attack of Opportunity Reaction until your first turn in the Init order. The GM also makes an objective determination on whether the Trigger requirements have been met.

So this is about what applies per the rules, not what applies per "I-don't-like-it."

Quote:
So you may have a Reaction "ready" to happen. But you still can't do it before your turn comes.

I have to laugh because the rule you quoted tells us that you can use some reactions before your first turn begins. A Ready action allows you to take Reactions when its not your turn. The GM decides whether the Trigger occurs because as stated in the rules, the Trigger is typically something outside the control of the player....the GM has to make the call.

Haha "weaponize" good one buddy. Same thing I guess with the weaponizing of "I want more free actions" that you're trying to make it sound like remotely reasonable.

Afaik the rule lawyering won't get you out of that though.

The RAW is pretty clear:

Reactions that are sensible to be used before your 1st turn, occur.
Reactions that aren't, won't.

It's plain and simple.

Line of sight/effect is pretty reasonable. If you disagree, feel free to play "Instant snipers".

Also, reading comprehension fail if "some reactions aren't usable before your 1st turn" translates into "I can use whatever reaction I want before my 1st turn" for you.

If you want to play in a universe that everyone shudder walks like "move ready move ready move ready" then be my guest.

It sounds hilariously bad imo, but your home game, your homerules.

P.s
Just because you choose to ignore all the rules that don't fit your narrative, doesn't make you correct.

Rules are clear:
A) you can ready outside of initiative
B) only sensible reactions will occur before initiative
C) only the GM can judge what's sensible.

P.s.2
Just kind in mind, EVERYTHING you can do, so can your adversaries.
So be prepared for guards alternating between them to "shoot hostiles" while guarding or enemies readying attacks before they turn each corner.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ragwulf wrote:

I have a question concerning sneak attacks. According to the rogue entry you can melee sneak with agile and finesse weapons and with ranged attacks or thrown ranged weapons if they have the agile or finesse trait.

Does this also mean that you can sneak with spells that require a melee or ranged spell attack roll? And is it correct that you can't sneak with alchemical bombs since they lack the agile or finesse trait?

You don't need "agile or finesse" ranged weapon.

You need agile or finesse melee OR ranged.

You can sneak attack with bombs just fine.

You normally can't sneak with spells because sneak attack requires Strike, and spell attacks aren't Strikes.

But there's a level 4 rogue feat that allows spell sneak attack (although you won't trigger Debilitations, since those are still tied to Strikes)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:
The ShadowShackleton wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Or players wanting free actions in every combat.
Yep Shroud has it exactly.

Well, how about the GM wanting free actions in every combat?

If I recall my 30+ years of gaming experience correctly it is mostly the monsters who ambush the players, not the other way round...

Feeling discriminated here, please help!

(please consider that there might be a little irony hidden in this post)

Wel... if the GM wants free actions, he can always give monsters "free action abilities":

"What do you mean my zombie moved twice already so it can't attack?? It's a... err... quicksilver zombie! it moves 3 times in a row with 1 action!"

The only downside is the usual "book thrown to the head" but you get immune to that after a while.

(also no i simply cannot consider that. I take these boards very seriously Sir, i do not appreciate you implying that someone may be using irony and/or sarcasm^^)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
shroudb wrote:

My ruling is simple:

As soon as both parties are alerted, it's initiative..

That's correct per RAW. That does not preclude a Reaction occurring before Init is rolled because Reactions can happen "at any time."

If the Ready action is declared before Init is rolled, If you're waiting until the the parties see each other, then the Trigger has occurred and the attacks happen before Init.

Quote:
In some cases, a trap or a foe has a reaction that tells you to roll initiative. For instance, a complex trap that’s triggered might make an attack with its reaction before the initiative order begins. In these cases, resolve all the results of the reaction before calling for initiative rolls.

This is Paizo explicitly telling us that Reactions can occur before Init.

It also EXPLICITLY says that

" The GM determines whether you can use reactions before your first turn begins, depending on the situation in which the encounter happens."

Which means:
Judge each Reaction in a case by case if it happens.

So you may have a Reaction "ready" to happen. But you still can't do it before your turn comes.

My rule of thumb is simple, concise, and fair :
Reactions affecting something in your line of sight/effect BEFORE the initiative, usually happen.
Reactions affecting something outside your line of sight/effect BEFORE the initiative, usually don't happen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
I don't know in fact. I remember on other discussions seing people calling for a faq, but they either have rights I don't have or this was on discussions that could be called for a faq.

PF1 forums had a Faq button (next to the flag, edit, etc)

So people could press that and it showed like: "15 people marked it for faq" and etc


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
The thing is that players and GMs alike seem to be very much confused about the transition from exploration mode to encounter mode and vice versa, which is one of the reasons for this thread.

It's my perception that the problem arises from GMs treating the differences as a basis for restricting actions. The difference is the time scale. You can move in and out of Encounter Mode as needed. Or, you can slow down or speed up Exploration Mode as needed.

Quote:

As an example in our campaign while exploring we encountered a "sleeping lion" and our GM stated (abbreviated and wrongly): Well in PF2 surprise rounds aren't a thing anymore, so if you want to attack the lion please roll perception. Which is quite absurd and completely against common sense because it could easily lead to the lion attacking us before we even had a chance to attack him.

That is what I meant when I wrote: "It more or less comes down to when the GM decides to start encounter mode."

The problem is not Encounter Mode. It was appropriate to switch to Encounter Mode. If there is a round by round chance of the lion detecting you. The GM should have had you roll Stealth against the lions Perception DC. If everyone beats its Perception DC, then there is no reason to roll Init because the party is undetected/unnoticed by the lion and the lion isn't going to take any actions until it becomes aware.

Or players wanting free actions in every combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
shroudb wrote:

Initiative is rolled when both parties are aware of each other, in order to determine order of actions.

Someone kicking a door immediately alerts the group in the other side.

So you roll initiative before the ready in such an occasion....

I think we may be conflating concepts or talking about different things.

As I read the rules...

A Ready action creates a Reaction based on a Trigger. Whenever the Tigger occurs, the Reaction occurs. If you declare a Ready action before Init is rolled, it doesn't matter whether you lose or win Initiative, when the Trigger happens, the Reaction fires.

If my Trigger is goblins coming around the corner, then as long as I can see they are goblins, I shoot. It doesn't matter whose turn it is or when Initiative is rolled. Per RAW, if the GM waits until the goblins come around the corner to roll Init, then the Reaction should occur before Init is rolled.

If the GM wants to roll Init before the goblins come around the corner, then the Attacker simply holds the ready action.

The problem arises when the PCs are the Targets. If you roll Init before they come around the corner, you're tipping them off. So you'd have them come around the corner, the Reaction occurs, and then you roll Init. It should work the same way if the PCs are the ambushers.

But you see, in you example with the goblins, the goblins don't have any sort of stimulus to react to before you see them and shoot. The moment they come in line of sight/effect is instantaneous.

If, as an example, my players heard them and setup (stationary) in ready actions to shoot them as they appear, I wouldn't mind.

In your room example though. There's a door breaking/opening. And that's not instantaneous.

So the guys inside can react.

So initiative is rolled.

As I mentioned a bit earlier:

The very act of smashing the door is an Athletics Initiative Check by the one breaking it for me.

My ruling is simple:
As soon as both parties are alerted, it's initiative.

Again :

You can declare and ready anything to go off "before I open the door" and I'll be OK with it.

As for reactions set before hand rolling.

The RAW is pretty clear: you can only make Reactions before your Initiative IF they make sense to the GM.

For me, shooting without a target doesn't make sense.
Raising a shield, does.
Moving sideways (to gain cover does)
Etc.

In effect, each reaction, by RAW, has to be judged independently if it goes off before or after initiative.

1 to 50 of 3,608 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>