swoosh's page

2,036 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,036 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

keftiu wrote:
Two Iconic changes in this edition have replaced women of color with nonhumans. It’s definitely a little frustrating… and I quite like the new Oracle and Psychic!

I cannot complain about any of the new iconics in isolation. The pattern however is becoming awkward: shifting Rivani and Alahazra out of focus, quietly making Seoni paler and blonder, something Paizo described as an 'evolution', and the subtle reintroduction of biological essentialism through Ancestry options all create an uncomfortable disconnect between the way Paizo talks about these issues and the way they design their products.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Imagine crying censorship and bad faith because someone asked you not to post spoilers of a new Adventure Path.

Very brave.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cori Marie wrote:
Would have been nice to use spoiler tags for the AP that's still coming out and lots of people are playing.

Yes. Not liking an AP is fine. Dropping an unspoilered line by line overview of an adventure so new it is not even fully released yet feels a bit mean spirited.


I have noticed that many, maybe even most, of the ideas people have for thaumaturges are on the sillier and memeier side of things.

It seems people are treating it as a joke class rather than something to be taken seriously. I wonder if that is something Paizo is happy with.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
Oh yeah, the question of whether an AoO happens seems like it was fairly well settled already (summary for those who've missed the last half dozen posts, if they Sneaked successfully and became Undetected throughout movement, no AoO.

Is it strange to anyone else to read a thread with a back and forth argument where nobody really agrees on anything only for someone to show up and unilaterally declare the issue has been settled, usually by asserting that they were Right All Along?

It happens a lot here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I'd rather they focus on getting Kingmaker done for PF2 than errata for archetypes that probably barely get used.

Kingmaker's been done for a while. Just like the APG errata, if information is to be believed. The AP backmatter that's slated for errata has already been indicated in various forum posts too.

Paizo just seems to have some issues with followthrough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kuzcoburra wrote:
But, statistically, we can confidently conclude that the Thaumaturge will consistently perform as one of the highest damage dealing classes in the game once it starts swinging. Other classes might get lucky rolls with max results on bonus damage dice, but the Thaumaturge at its worst is going to be hitting as hard as a Giant Instinct Barbarian.

Well, no. At worst the Thaumaturge is going to be getting nothing because they critically failed Find Flaws or because the weakness is one they could have simply exploited naturally and because empowerment is less of a proper damage bonus and more an acknowledgement of the quasi-two-handed nature of the class' core mechanics.

More commonly, 2-12 additional damage which, contrary to your assertion, puts them more in line with an Animal or Fury barbarian than Giant except the Thaumaturge's extra damage cannot crit and is mutually exclusive with triggering weaknesses normally. So strictly worse than either of those combat mechanics.

And that is not even touching upon the action economy, which you mentioned in your opening statement but do not appear to have accounted for in your math.

I am not sure any conclusion can really be drawn when so many of the underlying mechanics of the game are simply ignored here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alfa/Polaris wrote:
No, it does not tell us anything, as the two weapons have very little to do with one another besides being in the same general category.

They are both 1d8 0 reload (after correcting the daikyu's typo) long range bow type weapons with no other traits enhancing them. Simply factual to point out that that is a significant number of similarities. Pretending otherwise serves no one.

Then the crossbow picks up additional range at the cost of requiring a magazine to be loaded.

A common refrain in this thread has been that Paizo must have forgotten to include traits for the Daikyu or otherwise erred when printing it because it is obviously undertuned. Paizo, after seeing those concerns, turning around and printing another weapon in the same category with the same damage and same lack of enhancements and even the same weapon group sends a fairly clear message that they are happy with the place those weapons are in. Otherwise the repeating crossbow would not exist as it does.

What it does not tell us is why, since the repeating crossbow could easily just have been a martial weapon without really rocking the boat, but it does not change what Paizo decided to print.


Guns and Gears just added the repeating crossbow is nearly identical to the daikyu but gains an extra 40 feet of range at the cost of a 3 action reload every 5 attacks.

Given how much scrutiny has been leveled at the daikyu, Paizo printing a second advanced ranged weapon that is so similar sends a strong message that this is fully intentional, minus the obvious reload typo.

It does not really tell us why they made these weapons compare so oddly to their martial counterparts but it does tell us that it is entirely on purpose.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The eidolon does not get its own actions. The two of you share actions, the eidolon entry says that outright.

The only line that prescribes any priority to the actions is the rule about confusion and control effects. Otherwise there is no guidance beyond that you 'share' them.

The only other place action sharing is discussed is the tandem trait, which mentions specifically that you cannot use tandem actions if you are unable to act. Weirdly redundant under their interpretation but probably not any more meaningful if they have already decided how to rule it.

Quote:
Where does it actually state (besides the exception in the meld into eidolon feat) an eidolon can be going around doing things while their summoner cannot act (asleep, petrified, etc)?

You already quoted it. The book could not be any clearer in that regard.

If the rest of the group wants to disregard that to make the summoner weaker even after you have already pointed it out, all you can really do is respect their decision.


They will not be the only company, but Paizo does seem to be experiencing these delays more frequently than other book publishers.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:
Please unsticky, close, and lock this thread already, this is like having a "Feedback Box" to leave notes for a business that leads directly into a shredder.

That is probably the point.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Your biggest clue should be that letting a Summoner do that would be cool and fun. This is Pathfinder 2.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The-Magic-Sword is correct. Paizo is fairly ambivalent about their digital customer base. If more shipping delays occur, expect your PDF to get pushed back just as far or even farther.


Pathfinder might not be your cup of tea if you do not like wizards. They are pretty ingrained in the setting.


The biggest culture shock I have seen groups encounter is healing. In 5e, PF1 and 3.5 healing is a fairly low value tactic. PF2 does not function properly as a game without a healer. Make sure your party has one.

Note that also unlike those other systems, investment in the Medicine skill and associated feats is a valid path to becoming a competent healer too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Tage wrote:
They feel like they are an artificial tax that has been imposed.

That is their design intention. During the playtest a number of options were considered and a preponderance of players, according to Paizo, deeply enjoyed the fantasy trope of a character who is helpless without magical equipment. Paizo crafted their magic item rules specifically to cater to this fantasy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Is your GM using cover rules properly? Anecdotally many GMs, even in PFS, forget or ignore lesser cover entirely in PF2.

Whether or not those cover rules are being used properly is a significant contributor to the question of whether or not archers are good. The near permanent -1s from lesser cover and the common -2s from standard an archer will have to deal with has a very meaningful impact on their damage output or deprives them of their advantage as a turret if they want to mitigate it.


Aw3som3-117 wrote:
Please tell me you at least understand the concept I'm explaining about the order of operations

I understand it, it is just a fundamentally flawed premise that reflects nothing in the rules. There is no order of operations. There are just two abilities you must at all times account for. Grasping Reach applies before Fatal activates. It also applies after Fatal activates. It continues to apply at all times until you turn it off because it is, once activated, essentially a passive effect. The concept of checking for grasping reach once and then never looking at the ability again does not relate to any actual rule.

Quote:
It doesn't cease to function. If something increases damage by 10, and then an ability nullifies damage, does that mean that that the increase in damage ceased to function, or that you need a special exception to overrule the increase? Of course not.

If you had an ability that reduced the damage you dealt by 3 and a second ability that increased the damage you dealt by 10, would you argue that you must deal 10 extra damage because it applies second and overwrites the damage penalty? If that does not make sense and you think 10-3 is 7, then stop doing the same thing here.


Stunned and Slowed do the same thing. Fatal and Grasping Reach do relatively opposite things. The comparison does not really follow.

Quote:
Fatal has a die size.

Fatal has a die size and you're under an effect that reduces your die size. So you apply both. Fatal-1.

Aw3som3-117 wrote:
I understand what you're saying, but again, the assumption that that's how it works is unfounded in the rules

It is pretty well founded in the rules actually, because it's what Grasping Reach does.

We have two interpretations. One of them requires you to assume Grasping Reach ceases to function whenever you crit, based on nothing but wishful thinking. The other is based on both abilities functioning as written at all times.

You can 'both sides' all you want, but this is just trying to finagle some extra power out of an ability.


Aw3som3-117 wrote:
One reduces; one replaces. Basic math tells us that the order is VERY important in that scenario, and I see nothing in the rules that would indicate the change to d12 happens first.

The problem with this line of logic is the whole notion of 'first' to begin with. Grasping Reach is not a triggered ability. There is nothing to support the idea that there is some logic gate that you only pass through once.

Weapons wielded in your extended reach have their die reduced one step. That is it. That is just what the ability does and if you want it to stop, you need to stop wielding your weapon in an extended grasp. There is no 'temporarily suppress this ability when...' language to infer or squeeze out of the text here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Be glad you never played PF1 or 3.5 then.


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
One very real issue with saying Grasping Reach works over Fatal is no matter how it’s ruled, one of the rules will betray the other.

Fatal bumps the weapon up to d12 and gives you an additional d12 die. Grasping Reach reduces the weapon damage d12s to d10s.

There is no betrayal because both abilities function. They just happen to mitigate each other just like any other bonus and penalty applying simultaneously would.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
RAW is pretty obvious here.

I love it when people hop into a thread full of posts arguing over vague RAW minutiae and unilaterally declare this.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Why though? In RPG culture the term longsword is well understood within its current niche. Renaming it to satisfy HEMA enthusiasts does not really serve them at all.

Even saying it benefits historical accuracy is a reach, because modern sword classifications are just that: modern conventions for the convenience of historians and hobbyists.


Calybos1 wrote:
??? I understand all those words individually, but not in that order. What on earth are you talking about?

Is this bait?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Energy mutagen alchemist with a longspear does about half of a giant barb's damage and maybe 60% of a dragon barbarian's or rogue's.

Giving them master in weapons makes those numbers slightly more competitive but still noticeably behind.

Truly it would be the end of the world.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You don't need thousands of hours of experience to know that there are some things casters just suck at in PF2.

What's less apparent to people in this thread is that those gaps are cornerstones of Pathfinder 2's design philosophy. There are serious gaps in what spellcasters can do and those gaps tend to conveniently align with what martials are good at.

This is how PF2 addresses martial-caster disparity: by making martials indispensable even though they still kind of suck.

Notice that PF2 doesn't have 6-th level casters anymore despite how popular they were in PF1 (weaker than full casters, but more likely to encroach on martial design space). Notice the things that PF2 casters are the most obviously worse at compared to PF1: Layering defenses, dealing with bosses, summoning meatshields of their own, etc. None of this is on accident.

PF2 creates a synergy where spellcasters are good at manipulating battlefield conditions, AoE damage and providing lateral solutions to problems.

Martials meanwhile are good at hitting things with sticks.

That's the balance. That's why blasting bosses or building pseudo-martials out of warpriests or wizards with weapon dedications or even mutagen alchemists feels bad. Because you aren't supposed to do that.


I get why some people don't like PF2's caster balance and why people think the game missed the mark.

But PF2's balance doesn't allow Paizo to make the changes people here want, martials still suck too much.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

The cultural shift from PF1, where rolling our collective eyes at odd rules and dodgy balance was standard, to PF2 where a large segment of the community seems to assume a degree of infallibility on the behalf of Paizo is fascinating.


It's how the math bears out. A fighter w/ 3-4 attacks and d12 weapon vs ranger w/ 4-5 attacks and 6 agile favors the fighter. Doesn't include ranger rehunting or fighter using dual hand or exacting either. Sawtooth or chakram can boost the ranger, but will still never be significantly ahead at any point.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Does that make the Class weak? Not really. It's actually fine, it has some issues as far as being Streak-y when it comes to crits and some logistics issues at the moment, but it is not a "weak" Class.

The Playtest gunslinger is so problematic that you are often better off taking a proficiency dedication and never using a gun at all.

If that's really okay to you it informs a lot about your opinions regarding the Witch.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cool Tiefling wrote:
He chooses to disregard my example of rules writing that goes against what he believes

Nothing you've posted contradicts the rules cited at the top of the thread. Weapon Familiarity verbosely listing both weapons does nothing to invalidate the general rule in the same way that Domain Initiate describing focus pool mechanics doesn't invalidate the general rules for focus pools.

To establish the distinction you want to make you need something that explicitly does so. Or you can just keep patting yourself on the back, since that seems to be the only real purpose of this thread.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
that there were so many forces in the world trying to stygmatize and stamp out non-standard means of earning an income, forcing more and more people into the regular 9-5 paradigm.

Could be people just have legitimate issues with the service, rather than you being some sort of moral crusader leading a modern civil rights movement in the sphere of D&D.

I do not see anything wrong with a GM wanting to monetize their services if they can find the customer base for it, but this incessant self aggrandizement is just gratuitous.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
you have a very good chance of killing an equal or lower level character with 1 action.

Define very good.

Using the numbers you provide we have a ~25% success rate, so if you have four enemies you can kill one of them at the cost of 10 actions and a spell slot, on a character who has maximized their investment in charisma and intimidation.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Cordell Kintner wrote:
What I really didn't like about this discussion was that no one used any stats to try to argue against me.

This is an odd criticism to level when you were the one making a math-based argument, especially since you're admitting in this same post you never actually bothered to check the math at the time.

It's deeply irresponsible to argue a rules element is mathematically overpowered without even bothering to run the numbers to see if your claim is true. It's disingenuous and hypocritical to then deflect that responsibility onto other people for not correcting your mistake for you.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
If trip unsuccessful, you did nothing.

You keep emphasizing this as if it's unique to combat maneuvers, but it isn't. Strange.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
and it's by no means a strawman.

Just to be clear, this isn't an attempt at glibness.

The previous exchange fits the literal definition of a straw man. RD stated a position and you intentionally misrepresented that position for the sake of appearing to discredit it. I am unsure if you're being dismissive or willfully ignorant, but it deserves emphasis, that is quite literally what a straw man is.

You also more or less called them a liar and accused them of arguing in bad faith, baselessly as far as I can tell.

Awfully intense reaction for a quibble over a minor footnote in the rules of a tabletop RPG.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:
we aren't here to discuss how people feel about the Rules, we are here to discuss what they actually say and mean.

Pretty sure we're here just to pat ourselves on the back about how smart we think we are, while ridiculing people who come to different conclusions about badly written rules text as incompetent morons.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Craft checks are for making things. You aren't making things, so no check is required by that logic.

Occasionally we mock people with strawman arguments, too.

Discussing what the rules mean is pretty far down the list.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

Clickbait video, clickbait thread.


graystone wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
like in the Shifting Rune discussions which proved me correct so I'm done here.
I don't recall anything being proven in the shifting threads. Did I miss errata/FAQ on the Shifting Rune?

Shifting magic staves is no go per errata.

Odd in a way to gloat about being right all along and then point to a document of changes to the game as evidence.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Again, reasonable. But not RAW, and also not possible in PFS play.

Most PFS GMs I've interacted with would run it the way you say not to run it, though.


Preferring one ruling over another is fine.

Weird though how often people try to gaslight on this forum "Oh no you were always wrong."

Not sure how it adds to the discussion.


Odd opinion coming from Zapp. Given the obsession with "offering warm flesh", one would think they'd be much more enthusiastic about a set of feats that give you another bag of HP and AC comparable to a party member.


Cordell Kintner wrote:
Tarpeius wrote:
The sentence you highlight covers cases of a familiar having more ability slots than would be filled by a specific familiar's granted abilities. It is not relevant to this discussion.
I'm not sure what you're asking here then. If you're asking if you can use those slots for other abilities on top of the ones granted by the specific familiar, then no. You consume those ability slots to get that form. Until you lose that familiar, those slots are forever consumed by the form, you will only be able to select additional abilities if you get more slots.

Appears to be asking if you have to buy unique abilities, i.e. if they cost more than the rule say tey do.

Under his reading, a Dweomercat Cub would actually cost 5 abilities, not the 4 it says it does.

If you're having trouble understanding or making sense of it, it's likely because there's nothing in the rules to support his reading in the first place.


Gortle wrote:
Can you provide an example of A

There are none. A is based on guessing what the rules mean and inferring that a one round duration means exactly one round later on the same initiative.

Luckily, there's no need to guess as we have the actual rules quoted above.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
When characters are attacking only once or twice in a turn with additional abilities or mechanics in play, it matters enough that it only affecting one or two die values is basically making entire turns matter more.

Attacking once means IC will work 1/ten turns.

Your character will benefit ~1-2 times over an adventuring day at that rate.

Good, but this image of the group being utterly reliant on IC and falling into strings of misses the moment the bard does anything else is clearly fictitious.

The vast majority of checks, even under IH, simply be won't affected one way or the other.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
In both groups, we have avoided attacks and damage and both hit and crit solely because of the Bard doing their Inspire songs. And in rounds where they aren't doing that because they are pressured to do other things, or because rolls don't work out for Linger/Heroics, the results show that we miss or get crit because of lacking those bonuses.

Bards are amazing. Indisputable.

But IC is +1, IHIC is usually +2.

Definitely big bonuses in PF2.

But IC will only turn a miss>hit or hit>crit on one die value each.

18/20 rolls won't change. Down to 16/20 for IH, still only happens 20% of the time.

Rolling those specific numbers regularly would be a real statistical anomaly.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

No matter how you feel about them.

It's interesting how wide of a gulf there is between Paizo's perception of the class and this vocal section of the forums' perspective.

From the latter we see a consistent stream of threads critical of the Wizard as weak and/or boring and from the former we see a stream of nerfs that gets longer with each subsequent errata.

No judgement either way here, just highlighting how radically different the perspectives are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's interesting how desperately certain people want familiars to suck in PF2 that they'll go to such lengths to try to litigate any capabilities they have away, everything else be damned.

1 to 50 of 2,036 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>