siegfriedliner's page

919 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 919 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mostly take the view that there is room in tabletop roleplaying for the dark themes and sanding the edges of everything leads to everything becoming duller.

But that's mainly a stance I take for people complaining about darker themes in media, massmarket censorship where material doesn't get published because it could offend because most subjects with any weight can offend someone.

I believe that their are some roleplaying games that can reach the level of art, I have seen one or two streamed call of chuthulu games that were genuinely chilling and I have had moments in games I have played that transcended the game and the mechanic and became something more.

Most of the most memorable scenes I have roleplayed or seen were people (pc) standing up in the face of unspeakable darkness and horror and so I have to believe there is a space for such in roleplaying games.

So Golarian and our Earth are already linked The Ossirian Gods are the Acient Gods of Egypt and Golarian and Earth both unfortunately share a troublwd history with Baba Yaga.

If I was going for an alt history to bring the two worlds into closer alignment I would make a run off of reign of winter where baba Yaga is the Empress of Winter as using Earth as a rallying point for her conquest of Golarian.

Which caused Golarian to send heroes to earth to disrupt the Mad Witches march of conquest.

I was mulling over how I would build batman in pathfinder 2e and a funny thought occurred to me.

If you look at what batman is foremost respected for (or at least my impression) it's his detective skill (perception) and iron will (will).

So when making batman who you want to have an iron will and great detective skills and fast reflexes you would pick wisdom as one of his highest stats. Everything wisdom does in the game all of wisdoms skill (except perhaps religion) are vital for your batman.

But inherently when I think of batman the character I don't think of him as an incredibly wise individual, he makes reckless descions and puts others in danger fairly frequently and to a great extent he lets his trauma have far to much dominance of his life

I find amusing the interplay between wisdom as a game mechanic and wisdom as a concept. Though in truth all it really shows is the obvious fact that vague somewhat philosophical concept do not map onto rigid game mechanics. A fact that anyone remotely sensible ,(ie not me) wouldn't need to have spend 30 minutes of his life thinking about.

But are their any functional mechanics that don't quite map to the concept that vaguely inspired that have amused you recently.

So 7 + 5 + 1 (lifting belt) +2 hefty hauler + 3 anthaul =18

Become huge 18*4 =72

You also get to treat 2 bulk items as light so

72*20= 1440 bulk

So enlarge is the best weight lifting spell by a country mile.

See relevant rules

I still have the suspicion that she might arise from the shadows to take on Aroden's mantle of God of Humanity.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Calliope5431 wrote:

Please chill, people.

The fact that they may or may not have intended all along for Wounded to work the way it's is presented in the Remaster is entirely irrelevant. Unless you're super invested in doing an I-told-you-so dance.

What matters is that these are the Remastered rules. There is no ambiguity whatsoever as to the text of "increase your dying level by 1 (plus your wounded value)". That is just how recovery checks work now, officially. I'm confident the devs know about these discussions, and they'll issue an errata if there actually was a mistake.

You may choose to play them in a different fashion, and I wouldn't judge anyone for doing that given most people don't play in the way the Remaster assumes right now.

But please chill.

I agree though there is a little ambiguity still when it comes to taking damage.

But it's clear the intent was to make pathfinder 2e more lethal which hasn't gone down tremendously well with about half the players I play with.

It's a definite pain point one that makes me less inclined to move on to the remaster.

What I find annoying is that for failing a death save in the player core they have it clearly and neatly spelled out that you add your wounded to your dying when failing a death save but for the taking damage rule they didn't just repeat the same clear formating again. It would have been so simple to just say when you take damage and 1+wounded or 2+wounded. But instead they say add a second paragraph with a reminder to add wounded without tying it directly to take damage section.

I suppode more player deaths mean more opportunity to build new characters good and more tpks that potentially can kill a campaign bad.

Definitely a mixed bag,I hadn't really thought of pathfinder 2e as a highly lethal game up until this point. But this ruling can change that I suppose that makes pathfinder 2e better suited to meatgrinder dungeon crawls and less suited to stories focusing on a few characters over several years because of you overinvest in your plot on emphemeral characters who are likely to vanish like the morning dew in a light breeze you only have yourself to blame.

There's my enthusiasm for the remaster gone, I haven't seen anything so far that looks any better and alot of things thatlook worse.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have played a no weapon caster it was a bard who inspired and intimidated when he was not casting spells and the only time he felt weak was versus golems and people immune to mind effecting though that was just a failure in my build.

Crouza wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Calliope5431 wrote:

Yeah 20 fights per rest is sort of excessive in my opinion. Most I've ever done is 12. Sort of impressed I have to admit.

But yep, we have different approaches and that's fine!

(this experience is mostly with modules from published APs to be clear)

Main reason I imagine we can do this is I've had the same group for 30 years. So coordination is really, really strong from the moment we build the group.

But we still love playing these games after all this time. The imagination is the best game engine of all time.

It sound like you enjoy strategy and seem to be making the wizard work for you.

I still hope we get some positive wizard changes that make your experience even better without breaking the balance of course.

I don't think the wizard is some unfixable mess. I just want a little more of the WIZARD back, just a bit. It's been such a great class for all these editions of this game. I feel like the wizard should have a little bit of a special place in any D&D based game. I know PF2 is really balanced, but I'd prefer the wizard near the top of the PF2 game tier. The wizard is legendary in D&D across all editions.

I know these are old, old names never to be used in PF. But Bigby, Mordenkainen, Elminster, The Blackstaff, The Simbul, Manshoon, so many legendary wizards in the history of D&D. PF2 wizard isn't giving me that legendary feel.

C'mon Buhlman, bring back some of the legendary feel of the wizard.

All this tells me is that Mark Seifter was completely right when he referred to wizard as a Green-Eyed Monster. This obsession that the Wizard must not be balanced because it isn't the best class in the game, and this demand to constantly be better than every other character option available, really just highlights this reality.

You think any dnd wizard can even approach the levels of Elminster or Mordenkainen? The literal mary sues of the dnd world who routinely shatter reality and have even come to our own...

The wizard is probably the worst of the casters at low levels they don't get any decent class features or focus spells and at low level spells and cantrip are by design awful (remember 1d4+4 is considered above benchmark damage for a cantrip at level 1).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So whats interesting is that we now have confirmed that 1 of the main reasons to change cantrips was to nerf the overpowered cantrips at level 1. The mind boggles.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Michael Sayre wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

HUH yeah unexpected, we originally thought it was a replacement for Sudden Bolt.

I wonder if we'll just get some more spell attacks, or if they'll hit the Magus with an errata that makes it not rely on spell attacks.

One thing to keep in mind is that magi have extremely limited slots and are more reliant on their cantrips and focus spells. Ignition is a significant buff for the magus with how it boosts their basic routine compared to produce flame, while thunderstrike is much better for classes like the wizard, who are significantly more reliant on their slotted spells.

Giving too micro a look at a specific interaction can lead to missing a broader macro picture where each kind of class and character got buffs in the places they most needed it.

I see Magus mulitclassing into pychics for access to repeatable big damage spellstrikes is going to become even more of fixture of core.

Temperans wrote:

Let me make a simple comparison.

Bard has unlimited wide AoE spells for 1 action.

I haven't noticed this what unlimited AoE do they for 1 action?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't love the wizard class I don't like prepared casters and for the most point I find the classes feat to be fairly dull.

But I don't get people casting it as a
a weak class, it has the most spells per day over every class and access to a great list of spells from 1- 10 at later levels a wizard could easily have multiple encounter defining spells per encounter.

It is a class the particularly struggles at low levels before spells get good (all of its class power is in spells rather than unique actions and focus powers) but that isn't a unique problem for wizards and from level 7 plus it's one of the strongest casters in the game.

So while the wizard may not have the prettiest exteriors or be that fun to drive but it's motor is solid prescion engineering and will get you where you need to go.

To summarise the wizards fundamentals are fine it could do with some glitz and a fancy paint job.

Wizards are functional and I am sure they will remain so though I worry that unless the schools do at least as much as the old schools of magic that generalists will be the default and that a lot of these schools won't see play.

AestheticDialectic wrote:
I have found spontaneous casters to feel like a straight jacket when I've played them, particularly the psychic. Being locked into spells is one of the most feelsbadman things in the game for me, so I really truly do not understand the favoritism for spontaneous casters

I am also not a fan of having spells thrust upon you (sorcerers and psychics I am looking at you).

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am not a fan of prepared spell casting in pathfinder since 1e I have ended up keeping a similar spell liar each day so I didn't drive myself mad trying think about the perfect combination of spells. I do that for spontaneous too but at least that's once per level only.

Wizards were and are the most prepared spellcaster in the game, they are to put it bluntly the highest effort spellcaster to run and if you got your preparations wrong one of the most frustrating to play.

But people like that about them. Any change that would make them less teeth grindy for me would deprive wizard players of their fun.

So who agrees with me that spontaneous casting is easier, funner and possibly more powerful because of the amount of choice you have for each spell slot on the spur of moment.

Or who likes micromanaging a big list of spells each morning to find the ultimate combination ?

Ps this is a mostly tongue and cheek post inspired by the anamist and kinetesist getting me thinking about different styles of spell preparation.

thatdamncat789 wrote:
I disagree with letting the Lores scale with wisdom. I get the instinct but consider when it comes to Lore knowledge checks and DCs that they are lower than the general skills effectively canceling out the lost int. Along with if you're that concerned consider due to the access to medium armor you simply don't need to invest in dex as much as other spellcasters do. This allows you to invest more into intelligence to empower those lores. Not to mention as you level these lores auto scale meaning you don't need to invest skill boosts into them.

I tried a session as a iruxi gish Animist so I had 8 in intelligence and didn't bother to use my lores that's obviously not a serious problem in the end of the days the lores are a very tiny part of the classes power budget but its still a shame to have dead weight.

The Raven Black wrote:
Teridax wrote:
siegfriedliner wrote:
Second making them a 3 slot prepared caster who can sacrafice spell slots of equal level to cast apparition spells (like the Cleric could do for cure spells in 1e) would make the tracking a little easier rather than having two different sets of spell slots.
I 100% support this. Not only would this make the Animist's spellcasting dramatically easier to grok, I feel it would also significantly benefit the class's flexibility: using the same slots for prepared and spontaneous spellcasting would give the Animist more agency over how much of one or the other type of spellcasting they want to use in a day, and make the class's hybrid casting stand out even more by being able to override prepared spells with spontaneous spells as the situation demands. It would allow the Animist to prepare much more niche spells under the assurance that they could always use those slots for spontaneous spells if the niche spells don't work out for the day, and as a consequence of this I think it would also make the class much more accessible and forgiving to newer players, despite the class's other aspects that make it more complex. It would allow the Animist to opt into the Flexible Spellcaster archetype, and could potentially also lead to a high-level feat that could let you cast both an apparition spell and a prepared spell at the same time with low-level slots. It just feels like switching to this implementation would benefit the Animist in so many ways.

I think it would be broken.

They would be able to prepare 3 spells per day (so 1 more than the current version) and cast a Repertoire spell as much as 3 times a day (so 2 more times than the current until level 10 when it will be only 1 time more).

Is the current version of the class so underpowered ?

So before 10th level it would be more powerful than the current setup because you would have the free choice between prepared and spontaneous spells.

After 10th level you have less spells.

But I just think that not having two different separate spells pools would be better in terms of play experience.

I think making their unique versatile spellcasting work well is worth it even if it means power cuts in other areas.

Gortle wrote:
siegfriedliner wrote:
First letting them you wisdom for thier granted lore skills will do a lot to see those skills used.
It is a slippery slope. I'd rather see the role of individual ability scores protected.

I am not to worried their are already wisdom knowledge skills (nature, religion) so this would just be in keeping with the instinctual Vs learned knowledge. Not to mention thaumaturge already went their and wisdom is a lot easier to justify than charisma.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

So there are a couple of quality of life changes I think would make the anamist funner to play.

First letting them you wisdom for thier granted lore skills will do a lot to see those skills used.

Second making them a 3 slot prepared caster who can sacrafice spell slots of equal level to cast apparition spells (like the Cleric could do for cure spells in 1e) would make the tracking a little easier rather than having two different sets of spell slots.

I think adding the flourish trait to some of the vessel spells would also stop people stacking earth's bile in an unsightly fashion.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Calliope5431 wrote:
Pronate11 wrote:
Super Zero wrote:

But my question is, what does that even mean?

How do you "remove" a big chunk from a book that's already been published?


It's a goofy thread, generally, since it's just not how publishing works.

I don't think we should jump on the OP too much for being unfamiliar with that, though. Do we need to continue this thread, given that seems to be resolved?

I have been following a playtest for another game and that experience has given me a great desire to praise paizo at every opportunity for taking risks and breaking moulds. So even if the kinetesist lack a tiny little bit of polish I will take thr opportunity to sing it's praises when they arise.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So what may not have been apparent from opening is I am in favour of monsters having exploitable weakness and resistances that means you can't use the same tactics on all monsters.

Ideally I would want most monsters to resist some damage types and be vulnerable to others and have a strong, weak and average saves.

For example oozes should be cool because they force martials to change up how they approach a fight, but because there are not enough monsters like oozes a lot of players don't have different weapons for different occasions. So oozes can feel mean in the same way that golems can feel mean in that they can be encounters were one or more party member can't contribute at all.

But if there were more monsters with weaknesses to specific physical and elemental damage types then everyone would diversify their approaches and a whole lot more of the diverse tools that exist in the game would see use.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragonhearthx wrote:

I'm sure not the only one here, but I think the keneticist should go back to testing. Or rather back to the polishing table.

There are quite a few things that need to be addressed on how things work. This makes the current form seem a bit too rough for my liking.

I am new to pizo, so I am not sure this is the norm when it some to newly added classes.

No it's a good class and I and a lot of people are really happy with it. But if you had said that about the alchemist I would have agreed ;)

Calliope5431 wrote:
siegfriedliner wrote:

But if you went undead then given how many enemies do negative/void damage and only void damage being immune meant a lot of hilarious joke encounters where they can't hurt you and you can't hurt them (except by bludgeoning them to death).

Well, PCs can generally hurt the enemies because sword damage isn't negative, but yes. We did try FA undead. Then after a module or two we all realized it was a silly interaction, and converted negative damage and evil damage to spirit damage.

Blood lords, as mentioned, has issues. Mostly just "the PCs play thematic options and don't get to use a lot of their abilities" issues, but also "these enemies literally can't touch us" issues lol

(it's worth noting that you don't actually have to go undead - and the module sort of assumes you don't given the joke encounters mentioned above)

That's what happened in our game but I found it frustrating because its the worst of both worlds you get hit by both the positive and the negative damage so being undead is just worse than not be undead.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

So there is a big post about the nature of wizards and how they are balanced around the expectation that wizards can always target every defence.

I don't want to go to much into either the logistics of that both in terms of spell lists or the knowledge to prepare the right spell for the right day.

But if save jan-ken-pon is meant to be what wizards are about then I find it really frustrating that their are a lot of monsters with very similar defences so you can't really play the game to your advantage and also their are a lot of enemies with immunities to the majority of the things their weak save protects against.

For example I recalled on a monster and the gm informed me that will was its weakest saves which seems really cool and useful information apart from the fact the monster was mindless and immune to all mind-effecting effects which are 90% of all will saves (and all of the will saves I had prepared), which was a little bit frustrating and a near complete waste of action.

So what do people think, do you as a wizard successfully target enemies weak saves most of the time and how often do you manage to find a weak save to target ?

Calliope5431 wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Calliope5431 wrote:
roquepo wrote:
Yeah, not being able to use one of the only weaknesses those creatures have seems rough.

Yeah it's not a spoiler to say that blood lords is set in Geb, an undead nation where positive damage is illegal.

There's also the issue of being encouraged in the player guide to play as evil PCs with undead thematics (undead bloodline sorcerer and evil champions are listed as good options for instance) in a country that is evil with lots and lots of undead.

Evil damage and negative damage bounce off most of the monsters. It's painful.

It is far from the first time that Player's Guide advice is more about fitting the theme than about mechanical optimisation.

Yes. Yes this is true lol

It certainly is amusingly terrible for optimization in Blood Lords, however. In that playing anything recommended is objectively the worst thing you could do from a mechanical perspective. Normally the Player's Guide just doesn't give good mechanical advice rather than dispensing actively harmful recommendations. Not that I'm complaining, it's just extremely funny.

Though the remaster does fix the "evil damage" issue via spirit damage, which I'm very grateful for!

But if you went undead then given how many enemies do negative/void damage and only void damage being immune meant a lot of hilarious joke encounters where they can't hurt you and you can't hurt them (except by bludgeoning them to death).

3 people marked this as a favorite.
3-Body Problem wrote:
pixierose wrote:

I think the fighters power is a bit exaggerated. Most other martials get riders to damage of some kind that make their attacks hit harder, fighters lack that in exchange for the accuracy, an accuracy that is still affected by the dice rolls.

White room testing has its value but so does actual play, and from personal experience I've had combats or whole sessions where the fighters accuracy boost did not save it from bad rolls. This is a major outlier, but I do recall the time my level 5 fighter wiffed their entire turn and their friendly neighborhood paladin crit 3 times in a row.
The developers also feel as if fighters are qoeking as intended.

Are you really going to sit here and use an anecdote to excuse the disgusting mess that is an Improve Knockdown Fighter? Show me any single action in the game as efficient as a Fighter knocking a boss flat on their back while dealing damage.

Whirlwind Attack/swipe on 2 or more enemies, lava leap (raise shield , leap, area effect explosion), double slice (on enemies with resistance), synesthesia, level 6 slow etc

2 people marked this as a favorite.

For out of combat healing from the moment you get continuous recovery you can at least I the games I play be full between encounters.

The focus spell definitely dilates the time this takes.

As to whether that affect balance that's very much going to be game dependant. Is the difference between healing up for ten minutes rather than an hour going to change anything is going to be entirely game dependant.

Themetricsystem wrote:

I uh, don't think you've taken a look at what the sustained Animist Focus Spells actually do because for 1-action they pack WAY more punch than any other previously published Focus Spells. Couple that with the fact that you're not spending any Slots to use it, still getting the benefit of the Stride Action you were almost certainly going to take regardless, and be able to cast actual Spells with your remaining two actions anyhow.

I'm hopeful that the kind of thing we are seeing with the Animist is more of a sign that we should expect SIGNIFICANT buffs to the CRB/APG Class Focus Spells more than anything else because, well, I actually don't have a problem with Focus Spells being good and strong, that's perfectly fine and good actually as it encourages PCs to play to their Class/Role niche. If the Remaster hits though and the existing Focus Spells we already have aren't significantly buffed to bring them in line with what the Animist has then, well, folks talking about power creep will have simply been proven correct.

Your correct I thought it was 1 action sustained wildshape Vs 2 action 1 minute wildshape which would be about a much of a muchness (versus an already good druid focus spells)

I missed the status bonus. Though I also missed that it doesn't scale beyond 5th level spells so it will pretty much useless beyond 10th level (unless their is a feat I am missing) and it really needs look over the wording regarding how it works.

I still don't think 3 actions of effect powerful but it is powerful.

Not more powerful than a martial and honestly I would ignore it entirely for my cantrip damage over a ten foot burst for 1 action spell and well that is good probably too good it only becomes brokem if your using three actions doing it and that would be the most unpleasantly boring way to play the game.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:
When your 1-action Sustain has more impact than being able to cast another different 3-action spell all while not having to spend any spell slots or additional Focus Points (which is functionally true for all of the sustained Focus Spells that people are actually talking about) then the point that "well if they sustain they cant use their limited existing actual spell slots for 3-action spells" is completely moot. The Animist gets MORE power out of taking Stride + Sustain for the 1 Focus Point they spent last round or the round before that or the round before that than pretty much any other caster gets for spending the whole turn NOT moving and casting a 3-action spell. That's the issue and why it isn't balanced, and yet, we STILL have people begging for a free action Sustain Feat for Animist, it's bonkers.

That's hyperbole, the 1 action cantrips are some of the strongest 1 actions abilities in the game but they don't compare with the best two action abilities in the game let alone 3.

For wildshape in particular your choosing between spending two actions on round 1 or 1 per round so in fights longer than 3 rounds it's not as action efficient. So with give an take I would rate it as fairly equivalent.

YuriP wrote:
This and some other things makes me think that the class probably will be nerfed in its final version.
To be fair the only real nerf I see being needed is to just not let you stack castings of same vessel spell because pretty much the only major problem I see is stacking earth bile castings. Give sages a way to access the other focus spells and it should work okay.

I really like earth's bile but I like it as a third action that you can use as well as spellcasting using three of them whilst almost certainly effective against creatures without fire or bludgeoning resistance seems pretty boring and tacky.

Sanityfaerie wrote:
siegfriedliner wrote:
A throwers belt with the returning rune should work.
Thrower's Belt? What is this Thrower's Belt of which you speak?

YuriP wrote:

This and some other things makes me think that the class probably will be nerfed in its final version.

But we need to remember that druid's have a very solid chassis too (and even more solid after remaster).

The question is more why some caster get a considerably more solid chassis while others don't.

I would expect changes to the psychic focus amps in the remaster probably just allowing them to regain all their focus points in 10 minutes from level 1.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think once you have used the impulse junction to improve the damage of an impulse it stays improved.

My take on the wording was that if you some how managed to get two two action impulses a turn you couldnt get the impulse junction twice.

A throwers belt with the returning rune should work.

Its unquestionably poorly worded the most balanced interpretation is that it doesn't interact with the immense ability at all.

1d+4, 2d+6 and ,3d+8 are enough to make better than power attack and to make it just about on par with gleaming blades version.

If they just wanted 1d, 2d and 3d they could have simple said the ability adds dice and it would have been much easier to understand.

I think 3d+32 (replacing emanace) with 4 weapon dice is almost certainly too good to be true.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ectar wrote:
keftiu wrote:

Given the choice between classes like the PF2 core Alchemist and Monk or classes like the Kineticist, I'm taking the latter every day of the week.

EDIT: To be less snide - I don't think a dev team growing the confidence to try new things as we hit the five year point in a complex game's lifespan is a sign of the end times. My hope is that the Remaster helps everyone else feel as cool as the new options have been for the last little while, because it's been clear not everybody's at par for a long time now.

Can you expound upon that?

Why would you take the Kineticist over the Alchemist or Monk?

I am not sure what their beef with monks are (though I suppose if you want to be a elemental monk kinetesist does it better)

But alchemist as a class is one with many problems it's overly complex, it's power is utterly situational and massively requires forknowledge of what your up against and your not the best at anything other than making items.

"Your ikon then returns to your hand."

Temperans wrote:
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

For what it's worth if this thread hasn't heard yet, Unarmed support is confirmed for the final release, it was just held back from the playtest.

Meanwhile, I have to rather hard disagree on making signature weapons not the default. One of the things that draws me most to the class is the way the Exemplar is in part defined by a few iconic items which are symbols of their legend, which strikes me as a very mythological hero vibe.

Unarmed and Unarmoured should be fun and viable options. I'm skeptical of eschewing all the paraphernalia of legend, but on the other hand I very much wouldn't mind a weapon ikon that was more to the effect of 'whatever they happen to have on hand', a warrior folk hero who can defeat you with whatever weapon they pick up. Perhaps by keeping a talisman of some kind to hold the runes, but their Transcend ability causes them to destroy the weapon and the next time they shift their spark into their weapon ikon they have to harvest another tool, either from the fallen or from their environment (if necessary could cause it to fly to their hand depending on power budget).

... Lost my train of thought in the middle there...

The fact that they see the "anything you wield is an Ikon" as a level 20 ability really makes me question of they would ever allow that baseline.

I also cannot see how the unarmed and unarmored support could be done, while having the mechanics be so focused on items.

Gauntlets/handwraps probably think the incarnation of Hercules in god of war

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For mythic stuff I want to feel like Hercules or Chuchulain.

Leaping hundreds of feet, throwing building size boulders, causing an earthquake with a mighty stomp (admittedly the barbarian can do this already). Dancing on top of the edge of a blade.

I am not sure how you could do that without affecting the balance of the game and I am certain I am going to be disappointed.

But unreasonable expectations aside I am looking forward to see what they come up with.

What clerics have over anamists better save progression.

4-6 highest level healing spells

Domains and access to more spells due to your god.

What do anamists have over clerics, the best focus spells in the game.

access to spontaneously cast some less than impressive spells

Better feats.

So whilst I think an anamist would be more fun to play for me I am not sure it's more powerful than a cleric.

MadScientistWorking wrote:
gesalt wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:

So does anyone want to point out to the op that damage is a horribly bad metric at measuring a classes effectiveness?

It really isn't. And it's still a tome thaumaturge. That means 3 legendary skills, 2 variable legendary skills and legendary (diverse) esoteric lore which is nothing to scoff at.

No because you can turn a fighter into a disturbingly effective battlefield controller which drops its DPS drastically but is no less effective at resolving combat than a thaumaturge based off of damage.

Like don't get me wrong the thaumaturge is a fine class but its got a whole host of issues that balance it out. Namely you don't necessairly have a free hand most of the time, you always provoke attacks of opportunities, your action economy is a bit wonky, and if you drop to 0 hit points you have to pick up your stuff up.

Your not wrong I have played a level 20 reach fighter enlarged and heroismed by my buddies with disruptive stance and the final boss of an AP ,(a duel class wizard cleric veltlerana) literally couldn't do anything I didn't disrupt.

It was beautiful finally of my build and of course everyone else was annoyed by the anticlimactic boss fight.

I am not convinced a thaumaturge would have done better.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:

Lots of answers in the time to make a single graph.

So, here's the comparison.

I've considered 2 actions, as this is the most common situation in actual play.

I've finally chosen the Tome Implement. First, because the Intensification is better. Also because it's no Status bonus so it kills the discussion about buffs.
I've used either Exploit or Intensify Vulnerability every round, with 50% one and 50% the other (@shroudb: which I think is close to what you should get with this Thaumaturge considering you need only one action to attack every round).
I haven't been able to properly map Exploit Vulnerability, so I've considered Personal Antithesis damage bonus only (which should be the most common situation anyway).
I haven't taken into account the +1 circumstance bonus to your first attack from Tome Adept as it depends on a RK check. That's a significant bonus but I really don't see how I could map it.
At level 17, the Tome gives a +2 circumstance bonus to all your attacks. At that stage your damage should be crazy.
At level 19, you get Exploit/Intensify Vulnerability as a free action. I've tried to map it, but poorly considering that it affects the benefit of Intensify Vulnerability. The level 19-20 graphs are far lower than they should, when you succeed at your RK check and with Ki Strike you should outdamage the Fighter 2 to 1.

This build uses a d8 Unarmed Attack like Goblin Jaws or Kashrishi Horn. It needs Monk Dedication, Ki Strike and Flurry of Blows. I consider Diverse Lore and Sympathetic Vulnerabilities as basic additions, the first one because it's broken and synergizes with the Tome, the second one because it makes it easier to handle Intensify Vulnerability. Grabbing extra Focus Points is also something to consider as it fuels Ki Strike.

About reactions, the Thaumaturge can get nice ones and an extra reaction at level 14. The Weapon one is close to AoO but is limited to the target of your Exploit Vulnerability, so I think grabbing Stand Still...

Are you making sure only to apply vunerability once with flurry of blows? That was always my frustration with the thaumurge monk setup.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:

I've worked for 10 years in the video game industry and I can assure you of one thing: I've never seen a single game designer that was considering power creep positively. For sure, there are some games around there with power creep as a core design component but they are the exceptions not the rule. For most games, power creep is an undesired by-product of game design. Still, it's quite ubiquitous.

So I open this conversation on power creep, using our preferred hobby as gaming material.

I'll start this conversation with an example: the Magus, as I think it's a perfect illustration of the release cycle of new content.
When the Magus has been released, the overall point of view on the class was that it was way underpowered. Fragile, clunky, with an extremely constrained action economy but no real asset. I've been among the first ones (if not the first one on these boards) to raise concerns about what you could do by combining Spellstrike, True Strike and Fire Ray (as it was before the Psychic was a thing). I remember clearly some criticism I experienced at that time: Using Spellstrike with a Focus Spell grabbed through a Dedication is obvious powergamer shenanigans, no one plays their Magus like that. Roughly a year after, the default expectation for the Magus is to grab a Focus Spell through Dedication and the community point of view on the class has strongly shifted, with at least the Starlit Span being considered close to broken and the melee Magus being much closer to the average power level.

The Magus is the perfect embodiment of the release cycle of new content. When new content is released, players start to get used to it. They don't know the builds and tactics so chances are high that they will play it "badly" from a tactical point of view. Soon, powergamers start to release their guides and builds and tactics. These builds and tactics spread across the community and at some point they become the default way of playing. And it's at that point that you can really assess the true power level of the...

For this fighter beating level 10 build are you including the action cost of a stance and the action cost of exploit vulnerability into the mix. I found when your going all out on a single target most don't survive two turns and those action costs and movement really dip into your budget.

Also if I was comparing a level 10 fighter it would be either two weapons (which feels like it does the most damage) or a reach combat reflexes fighter which does the most damage in practice quite often if anyone is tripping, enlarging etc.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I am not convinced by the tenth level animist feature that gives you a bunch more sustained spells at level 10.

I would rather the class had a consistent patter throughout. Its not a real problem but its a bit annoying.

Arachnofiend wrote:
Skeptical. A level 5 character with mythic abilities should be very obviously stronger than a level 5 character without them, which is a design principle that runs completely counter to how PF2 is supposed to function. It's not impossible that the rules are good and useful but I certainly am not betting on it.

I agree it's a problem both on the played side and the monster one if you go into a bestiary and look for a level 6 monster you don't want the one with the mythic tag accidentally decimating your non mythic party because it not really a level 6 monster in practice ita probably equivalent to a level 8-10 normal monster.

Squiggit wrote:
Except for all the class features and the name and the flavor being different yeah pretty much.

Switchable spirits with their own spells and features attached is the thing that I moat remember about the 1e shaman and it's also by far the most interesting thing the animist has going on. So whilst it might have some new names for similar features I would rate the better adaptations of an old class for capturing the feel of the original.

Better than the summoner and the kinetesist purely on the metric of feeling like it's 1e version.

magnuskn wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Mythic rules are categorically NOT an extension of the game past 20th level.

That has me all a little concerned, given how the last set of mythic ruled crushed the already not very big on balance 1E. Me changing to 2E was in large part motivated by the much better game balance. I hope these new rules do not throw that completely out of whack.

I also am concerned I don't think you can do justice to mythic heroes and have them equivalent to equal levelled none mythic heroes.

Having two different level tracks (like mythic in 1e) is in my mind less intuitive than just inflated levels

1 to 50 of 919 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>