thecutter0's page

All armor can take 2 dents unless otherwise stated, shields included.

Don't see anyone mention it, so I'd just like to say magic fang. I'd consider them natural weapons if I didn't consider them weapon weapons and vice versa.

My favorite part is also my biggest gripe of the whole thing. Every class gets to be the X class. Fighter gets to be the weapon master class, paladin the armored defender class, etc. It gives each class a definite goal for what you do with that class and what to expect when something is announced for that class. That also means, however, that if you want to play a character concept that fits the class but not the niche that class has, well you HAVE to multiclass when you could have done it with one class before, sometimes this is clear what to do (armored brawler take fighter with monk dedication) and some have options that are decided by details (2handed weapon wielding holy knight can go multiple ways) and some are pretty damn funky (wanting to play a character that focuses on combat that inspires his allies is strangely difficult as inspire courage is a feature of the class and not an option on the spell list).

As for the two being complementary I meant that they mix well for character concepts. Offensive martial characters want to take fighter main class or multiclass for more attack feats and features.

As far as all of the main class features being reactive I really don't get that, lay on hands is healing. Their reaction is a reaction, one that can be done to more often than AoO from fighter and I wouldn't call it their main feature.

Main feature to me would be the thing that makes me want to play the class or multiclass into it. I don't think of their reaction abilities for that, I think of lay on hands.

Honestly, I do see where people are coming from on the lack of smiting paladins. It's something that has been the way to make the holy warriors that slay the wicked for years and making the paladin main class be focused on defending seems to take it away. But I don't agree that, with how the game is set up, it isn't an option. Instead I see that paladin and fighter are made to be complimentary for character concepts.

This is why I think paladin should be renamed to guardian or something at this point, have alignment restrictions taken away and paladin be made into a prestige archetype. That way it could feel special, hell more special I would say.

To me, paladin feels like a prestige class that got turned into a basic class (which I think it might have been, like bard, but that's another story). They're a class that has great fluff, a powerful concept and combine two classes' abilities (or did).

But my insane ramblings about paladins being a bit too special to be a base class aside, I think making a bunch of specific feats for each alignment would just be silly when most of them could be one feat that gives a baseline for the feat and then something else that changes to the alignment/code. The example is making the feat that gives you the ability to add traits to your sword always have fire available because fire can represent any alignment (knowledge and reason for neutral; creation and warmth for good; destruction for evil; punishment for law and passion for chaos are just some examples) and can have the corresponding damage to the alignment as options as well.

Keeps giving an access denied.

Huh, didn't know about the size. I was just going off the PF1 description I remembered which made it sound like a sword with the heft of an axe.

I'll admit that I didn't know the blade before I looked it up, but honestly it looks like a smaller kukri, which are much bigger than they're depicted. Makes me wonder if someone got them mixed up and no one felt like letting them know.

thecutter0 wrote:

I was wanting to create a tonfa fighter only to see that it wasn't one of the relatively few weapons made at this point. Considering that exotic weapons are rather few I wasn't surprised but I thought maybe we could play a fun game of weapon speculation. Simply we post a basic idea of how a weapon would work in 2e and we critique and then we move to another weapon and continue. I'll go first with the tonfas I wanted that began this thought path.

Uncommon Martial

Name cost damage bulk hands group weapon traits
Tonfa 10sp 1d6b L 1 club agile, parry, monk

That looks about right for the Tonfa, I agree. Though as a d6 martial weapon it should have one additional trait. Not sure what though. Does Finesse fit a Tonfa? Or maybe one of the combat maneuver traits?

Myself I like the idea of Firearms eventually coming in, targeting TAC (Since that's a much weaker advantage than in PF1) but misfiring on a crit fail, something like Pistol 20 ft. d6 Fatal d10 Reload 1 and Musket 40 ft. d8 Fatal d12 Reload 1? I think the misfire, shorter range, reload, and lack of 1/2 Str to damage altogether is enough to balance them against bows, but if not then maybe they could have the Volley trait like Longbows? Not a huge fan of Volley though. While the concept is cool there are just too many small maps I think. (Though guns would have a short volley range, 1/2 or 1/4 their already short range increment)

I'd like to see the Falcata make a return as NOT the ultimate min-maxer's weapon. Maybe Exotic 1-Handed, 1d8, Sweep and Deadly d10?

I'm going to admit that I don't really know what to do for guns, but finesse does look like a good addition to the tonfas.

As for falcata, I'd say sweep yes deadly yes, but I don't think a d8 nor exotic, as it is a weapon from the area. Uncommon martial and d6? It is closer to a dagger in size so I would say maybe finesse or agile.

I was wanting to create a tonfa fighter only to see that it wasn't one of the relatively few weapons made at this point. Considering that exotic weapons are rather few I wasn't surprised but I thought maybe we could play a fun game of weapon speculation. Simply we post a basic idea of how a weapon would work in 2e and we critique and then we move to another weapon and continue. I'll go first with the tonfas I wanted that began this thought path.

Uncommon Martial

Name cost damage bulk hands group weapon traits
Tonfa 10sp 1d6b L 1 club agile, parry, monk

I weep that for healing/support the Alchemist isn't even listed as a class to fill that role in the whole thread. Just cleric/bard/ruid/sorc...

As for those that say that if Channel is gone then the cleric will need to spend his spell slots for it... Um... Isn't that the case for everyone else?

Why should cleric be special?

On the alchemist, I just haven't seen it in action and it's mechanics are changed regularly (being tied to crafting and magic items) for me to even try to break it down would be silly.

As far as them being special, I get that they are often called the healing class because people see them as being the premier healer. So I get the concept, even if I don't fully agree with it.

Honestly I feel like the best solution would be equity at this point. If clerics are going to be raw healing then every support should have something to give them a niche that works thematically.

Druids get offensive and summoning spells to reduce the number of turns damage is done, which fits their theme of being savage and violent as well as helpful; bards get inspiration effects, which fits their theme of bringing the potential out of their allies (even if they need a bit of a push here); sorcerers can cast spontaneously and from any spell list but don't get the same powers showing that their power may come from other sources it is not beholden to anything but the sorcerer.

Flavor wise, I'd say they're all strong, but they have had years of flavor to draw on. Mechanically, they feel like they need to be buffed.

MaxAstro wrote:

Strongly agree that Channel Energy is problematic in how good it is, and that it pidgeonholes clerics into being healers.

It doesn't really do that though. Having healing != being a healer.

If you take that away entirely, having healing now means devoting most of your spell slots to Heal. That is far, far worse because now you can't really do anything else.

They need to rebalance this so it isn't so lopsided (and so the rest of Cleric isn't so weak and utterly reliant on Channel), but having a pool of dedicated healing is a good thing to avoid pigeonholing people into the healbot role.

I mean, if the action economy wasn't a thing, yeah. As is you will be expected to use your actions to heal if you have them.

I'm not sure I agree with the point of druid being anywhere close to equitable to cleric as the role of healer. At level 1 a leaf druid has 4 uses of goodberry and 2 heals for an average of 43 healing. If the druid does heal for 43 he is pretty useless otherwise.

A cleric with 14 cha gets 42,5 healing from channel energy, which leaves him to still use his spell points and spell slots for something else or he can heal even more, completely outperforming the druid.

In terms of proficiencies, skills etc. it's pretty close but I would give it to the cleric because they get one more skill and aren't limited to non-metal armor and shields.

As both of them level up their use as healer is again clearly favoring the cleric. Goodberries quickly becomes a waste of time to use in any combat situation, with the clerics channel energy will remain at the top of what healing can do in combat.

Equitable just means that the deficiencies are made up for in some way. Druids are simply more offense heavy than clerics, making them equitable due to being able to do damage and have healing options.

Cleric is only second best.

Channel Energy is the best healer in the game. Check the numbers.
It’s better than a Cleric, it’s better than a Sorcerer. It’s as strong as a class, if you admit that it can be a very narrow specialist class.

Honestly, yeah. It definitely skews the numbers, especially early on when everyone else just doesn't have more than a couple spells to do the job.

Ooh, I do like that Inspire courage idea. Maybe add in functionality to give the THP a boost when you use Inspire Heroics?

Though is this THP supposed to just last for the round you have the cantrip active, and does it renew every use? I'm not sure if every-round renewable THP on the party for 1 action (That also does other nice things) would work out too well, just seems really strong to me. Maybe have it last for a minute but once you get the THP you can't get it again for x amount of time? IDK, an easy damage barrier that can be thrown up every round seems a bit much to me, even if it is a relatively small one. It's still tantamount to reflecting approximately 1/2 hit at least per party member per round.

By bum rap are you saying Sorcerers suck or most people say Sorcerers suck but they don't? (The latter has been my personal experience so far)

I'd say probably only one party member per round and until the start of your next turn.

As far as sorcerers, they just don't have everything on paper. Honestly, they're problem is their appeal, a lack of a specific niche.

I find that due to channel energy being so strong that clerics get pigeon held into healing in circumstances. So I went here to the forums to see if I could find any threads and see if I missed something. Short story, I did but I still feel a change is needed.

I found that out of the four classes that can heal, clerics were fully capable healers and druids and sorcerers were made to have other possible roles with healing (damage for druid and sorcerers are just general spell casters) and at the bottom of the casters is bard when it comes to healing, but they're meant to support and buff.

This lead me to wonder if they were equitable instead of equal. So I thought about it for awhile and came to the conclusion that yes, it is for druid. For bards it's not in most circumstances and sorcerers just get a bum rap.

Thus far I only came up with a fix for bards, and I will test it out soon, but for sorcerers I just don't know.

Those wondering, the fix for bards is to add a small scaling temporary hit points on inspire courage. Probably being 1d4 and the usual scaling for cantrips (3rd adds spell modifier and each appropriate level after that increases base) making bards better in marathon scenarios and still keep the flavor while leaving clerics as the best in most scenarios (as I feel that is the intent for clerics).

Dents still break shields I believe the rule clarification is that you cannot take more than one dent at a time from a single blow regardless of how much damage it does. So shields cannot be destroyed by a single attack.

Thank you, I was trying to wrap my head around blocking. Honestly it feels a little too complicated as it is.

Simply put, the new faq says that dents don't break shields, though I admit that I could be reading that wrong. If that's the case, what is the point of dents on shields?

I'm honestly having a hard time finding this out as well. I can't even find the traits called out.

Honestly I think that it is partially intentional for the sake of playtesting the system itself before the more flavorful parts.