So I was wondering if you take the deadly simplicity feat as a cleric and your god is nethys(who use staffs), does your die go up to 1d10 if you two hand the staff?
Search Posts
I think you would just say ambigous gender in your gender box and leave it at that. I see this feat meaning you are good at looking like someone who is the ancestry/sex/age. I dont think it means you cant be of undetermined gender
I agree it does require clarifications as I two got from my reading that is is your proficeny bounus+casting attribute. To give a example a level 1 18 charisma bard would have +5 to hit with touch attacks
I may be a minority here, but i am liking the new spells so far. Mostly I am looking at from the fact that enchament/illusions spells are now more viable. Yeah blasting may be bit weak at low levels but I also at least in my mind it is more viable at higher levels as resitance/immunity took a major nerf as far as monster are concenred.
I am a okay with the auto progression.The way I see the way to gate character is to hit is to make certain checks avaible only to those with high enough training. We already know that is how some trapes and rituals are going to work. Also with scaleing DC the proficeny modifers are going to matter as we don't have the issue getting so good at a skill that you are guaranteed to auto screed if it is up to your appropriate level. Though I do agree I do think we should be given at least one free option as far sigbature skills are concenred. I dont however believe it should be tied to int though given that all of sudden you could become legendary in a metric bootload of skills that may sort defeat the purpose of really picking
What makes this worse in my option is general training, if taken for every ancerstery feat, can double the amout of general feats avaible to the charcter
As another example of usage of human ancestry feats, a low-level sorcerer or wizard could take General Training for Armor Proficiency, thus saving themselves the trouble of having to cast mage armor.You're going to need to explain why that's bad. I think it is more that they can do preatty darn easily where other races really cant do that, or if they do they have to give up there general feat to do it type of thing.
I agree. Given the nature of the system, granting class and general feats makes human/half elfs and half orcs way better then they outta be. I can see a single general feat at once, but being able to take it mutible times is way out of line in my option. Also yes I do beleive dwarfs are in need of a sprucing up to make them on par with the rest of the races.
Well to give my two cents in here, I think the new mutliclassing sounds great. It really makes it something I would actually want to use rather that something I would never touch in a million years like in PE1. It will hopeful allow a variety of classes without it going into, mutliclassing is jsut straight up better then a single class. The only real issue I see is those stat requirments, persoanlly I think 16 is a bit high. Perosanlly I like to see it maybe a 14 or even 12 if we are going to be using attributes at all. That would even make sense as it sort goes down the line of you arent quite brainey enough to be a full wizard but you sort of do it as a hobby type of thing Also for those who think that the wizard decidcation is a feat tax, it really is not. We know cantrips are going to be way better in PF2 and I could think of a rogue who likes having that weapon always up his sleave so to speak.
I will say for those complaining about the down turning in spells know for the sorcerer remember this. Many spells got turned into rituals for PF2. Rituals anyone with the right skills can use. When looked at it this way, sorcerers just got a huge buff compared to there first edition counter parts.With rituals the amount of quote on quote spells they know will be huge. Also if rituals cost resonance guess who is going to have tons of it, sorcerer's.
The way I see it Multiclassing will work. You have a level 14 human who is 10 level fighter and 4 levels rougue. you level up to 15 and decide to take another level in rogue. Now you qualify for another class feat. You can ethier choose to take any feat a level 5 rogue can or you could take anything a level 10 fighter can. I doubt there will be way to gain both at the same time, your just going to be able to pick and choose what you want between however many classes you choose to take. I also don't see it being possible to trade out general or skill feats for more class feats. Pazio seems to be treating these feat types as different currencies and dont think you will be able to trade out as you like between them, if you could I see you running into the skill feats will never get picked conundrum.
Woohoo I called the mergeing of the oracle and sococer *insert self smugness here*. Personally I am glad for it as if you realy think about it what rally was the difference between orcales and socercers. Also it means we get a spontaous caster of all types in the core.
I am 100 percent a okay with this type of monk, the push for more modulartiy in PF2 is definitely a giving these guys a much needed buff in my option. I am also not super worried about the ac as the way I see monks should not nessarly be standing in one spot and getting wailed on. The monks are going to be fast and the fact that Attack of oppurtinty are no longer standard means these guys can be duck in and out of combat. With the the new action econemy they can move, punch, then move out again and not nessarly get a AOO. Something to think about I think
193) will PF2 teach me the true meaning of love
I could see them eventually adopting RotRL but I see them adapting something like, legancy of fire or council of thieves. I figure you may want to give some love to some of the other old adventure paths
Hmmmm I would have to say oracle if I wanted to go for covering your general play styles, having a spontaneous divine spell caster. Though I would find it interesting if they merged the sorcerer and oracle together to be the spontaneous caster. At level one you could pick witch type of magic you do, heck we could even have drudic magic in there as well. Sort of a you were born with magic ethier given to you by the gods or it runs in your blood sort of thing That being said I doubt pazio would do that
Also I will say very impressed with this class preview. I am loving that now counterspelling will be easier then ever as it might mean I use the the darn thing. No more of the clunky sacarficing your one action to do it in the hopes that they cast a spell you can counter.
Love no most of what I’m seeing here. One thing I don’t care for is critical failure on a save against Phantamal killer forcing you to make a second save. Just feels kind of clunky to me. Phantamal killer always had a second saving throw vs now you only have to fail one saving throw for it to do something
Hmmm it seems to me that the alchemist is going to be one of those "we are really going to see the system before making a judgement on classes". The rehaul of alchemy items does excite me as I always found it sad that it was pretty much ignored in the old system except as a thing yo sometime found on monsters. Also remember archtypes are going to be in this book day one so there could well be a melee focused archetype day one. We do have the public playtest, so for those of you who are feeling a bit gloomy, we will get our chance voice our objections once we get a better look at the picture.
Occultist have a absurd amount of diversity to the point you can easily have a balanced party using nothing but occultists, especially if you are including archetypes. They can heal,buff,do nukes, skill monkey and be a front line fighter.
White necromances are though are the ones that dont raise the dead. Specifically because undead are evil. What they can do though is use a lot of necromancy spells such as turn undead and finger of death
I would say more often then not you are really not going to be able to practice your craft openly. With the exception of Geb, and possible places not ruled over by anyone such as the shackles, most people will be very uncomforable around you and will ethier outright avoid you or want you dead. Now this doesnt mean you cant be a necromancery it just means your going to have to hide what you do. You can also be a white necromancer but that means you are not raiseing the dead.
Hey N. Jolly. Just to let you know the bolt ace is automatically proficient with all crossbows. They added it in the ACG errata and they also get for free any masterwork crossbow.
Now if going to different tables was impossible I would have to say the necromancer should not have been as antagonistic. Given how the worshipers of pharsama feel about undead, would not have been better to keep a led on the fact that you raise the dead. There still are plenty of nercromatic spells you can use that untimely wont antagonize the guy who job is to hunt down undead and necromancer
Okay so as far as I see it this problem should have been fixed before the game begins. Knowing there may be some serious character conflicts the inquisitor and the necromancer should have agreed to be seated at different tables.
Like a lot of poster I would say go with the AP who theme most match the interest of your players. Though if I had to suggest one I would say reign of winter, it is very linear and this can be very nice for new player who may not know how to role play. I would also say stay away from emerald spire as a mega dungeon could possible be very boring for your players.
Like a lot of the posters I would first try to talk things out with the gm and rogue. If that fails just tell them if they don't stop your out of there. I would not do anything in character as that never ends well and makes you look petty.
Darrell Impey UK: They do explain that beacons need to be lit to illuminate the town. Given orcs have dark vision, the defenders would want a way to illuminate the town in the event of a night attack so that they are not just stumbling in the dark> |