tuffnoogies's page

tuffnoogies wrote:

Ugh. Now it seems rather stingy. That does explain why there's no time limit mentioned though. Thanks.

I am very curious as to how you thought Spellstrike worked and why you thought an unlimited amount of time to recharge it seemed too generous?

Did you think that it gave you back the spell too?

No. I was thinking it recharged the weapon with the spell so you wouldn't have to blow another spell slot. Kind of like sustaining a spell.

I am not sure why you think it’s stingy. The magus could, in theory, spellstrike every round.

I was thinking there's not a lot of spell slots to fuel it, but I guess cantrips would work fine.

It seems there's a fundamental misunderstanding about how Spellstrike works; the Magus never recharges the "same" Spellstrike, they recharge their ability to do a new Spellstrike.

Example:
-Battle begins, Magus starts with the ability to do a Spellstrike.
-Magus does a Spellstrike. This involves casting & striking. Both the casting and striking are immediately resolved and have nothing to do with future Spellstrikes.
-Magus cannot perform another Spellstrike until they recharge.
-The Magus can recharge as noted (or via a 1+ action Conflux spell). This has zero effect on the upcoming Spellstrike other than to allow the Magus to make it.
-Magus makes another Spellstrike which requires casting another spell and making another Strike.
-Magus cannot perform another Spellstrike until they recharge.

Does that make sense?
Recharging only does one thing; remove the inability to perform another Spellstrike that's imposed on the Magus after Spellstriking.

Ugh. Now it seems rather stingy. That does explain why there's no time limit mentioned though. Thanks.

Do you mean recharge one's ability to make a Spellstrike?

If so, what do you mean by time limit or I should ask why do you think there is one? There isn't.

You begin each battle with the ability to make one Spellstrike. And the rules for recharging during combat seem clear enough. Nothing awkward happens if you don't recharge it; you simply recharge whenever you'd like, which the game assumes you do by the time of the next battle. I'm not even sure you could refuse to recharge it outside of battle; it just happens.
Again, there's no time limit to charge it (or if you meant it the other direction, there's no time limit before using it).

"After you use Spellstrike, you can't do so again until you recharge your Spellstrike as a single action, which has the concentrate trait."

So Spellstrike once in an encounter and a month later just recharge the same spellstrike again?

That seems rather generous.

Sorry if this has been asked before. I didn't see it anywhere.

What's the time limit on recharging a spellstrike? Does it have to be your next action? Some time during that encounter? Up until your next daily preparation?

Thanks.

2e is now a couple years old, and has been really spoiling us with Ancestry options so far - but what’s missing? Are there any obvious holes or 1e favorites you’re hurting for?

I always thought something with a serpentine body like Captain Sarigar (https://alienlegion.com/roster.html) would be cool. I didn't play 1e so I don't know if it was ever an option there.

Define "effective."

The bard bores me.

I made one bard. He was a Mastro muse bard. He would talk to ghosts who taught him to sing, perform, and the like. He would go to local graveyards and could learn from the ghosts great tales that he used to inspire courage and the like. That was my concept.

But man, what a boring class. Every round composition cantrip. Harmonize, do two composition cantrips. The party loved him. He was powerful. But oh so boring to play. His actions were like a two-weapon fighter locked into dual slice almost every round.

I can't stand a locked in play-style that encourages the rest of the party to look at you side-eyed for not giving them their buffs. I like lots of useful options round to round that allow me to change things up. When your most useful action is preset from level 1 that sucks.

We had a bard in 3.5 whose player liked to 'zone out' and doodle on scrap paper when it wasn't her turn. It was a perfect match since all she did was inspire courage every round.

Me either. And not just in PF2e. I've never thought it was worthy of a class. But people like them, so...

My Secrets of Magic shipped last Friday but when I try to track it, UPS says tracking information is unavailable at this time. Seems like it should have updated by now.

I had this problem with Mwangi Expanse, too, but that was the first time so I figured it was a fluke.

Alchemists are the Nickleback of classes. It's popular to knock them.

I've had one alchemist in my group, but the player showed up once and never came back. Not sure if there's a connection.

This got me wondering why we're playtesting new classes but not new ancestries. I know they're not as impactful on character power levels but stuff like this could easily be avoided.

As far as appealing to collectors who are willing to spend absurd amounts of money on their gaming hobby to obtain limited edition items, I suspect the Life-Sized Goblin is an attempt to gauge how big that market is.

Not terribly useful at the gaming table though.

Has anyone else, after playing Pathfinder 2E, gone back to older games, such as Pathfinder 1E, Starfinder, or D&D 3/4/5? If so, what was it like for you?

I've had my head buried in 2E for what seems like two years now, and a friend just invited me to join his Starfinder campaign. I played a lot of Starfinder when it first released (as evidenced by my many characters), but now I find I'm struggling to re-remember rules and having to re-read the combat chapter to get reoriented again. It all seems so clunky now that I'm looking at them from a eye-opened 2E perspective.

Though I'm sure my brain will snap back into place and I'll once again grasp the rules in short order, I don't think it's ever going to feel the same again. It's like driving a Maserati, then going back to a Toyota for a pleasure cruise. It's just not the same after "the Maserati experience."

Have an of you experienced anything similar?

About to. I've been running PF2e for a little over a year now and in the next few weeks we're playing a high level 3.5 game. I'm having a hard time getting excited about it.

I'm GMing for my group and we're pretty laid back about following RAW. I've been running AoA and using milestone awards for leveling suggested in the books. Lately I've been curious as to how the more stringent rules work and I wanted to make sure I've got it right.

When designing an encounter I set the threat level, multiply the “Character Adjustment” by the number of PCs and spend that for creatures using the costs on Table 10-2.

For example: A moderate encounter for 7 6th level PCs would have a budget of 140xp.
You could have (for example) an encounter with a 6th level monster (40xp) and 5 4th level monsters (100xp).

Each PC that survives the encounter would then get 80xp if I'm reading page 508 correctly.

Sound about right?

In summation, what is the lenght of the solitary "rope" from the core rulebook?

My book says 50ft.

Thanks, guys. That's exactly what I expected but wanted to be sure.

I hope I'm posting this in the right forum.

I just want to make sure if I order a CRB from Paizo I'll get a copy of the 2nd printing.

Why would intelligent centaurs consider animal-intelligent horses invaders?

tuffnoogies wrote:

Just wondering if they'll put this in pdf format at some time?

You mean the Errata by itself? Because you can just go to Paizo and down load the rule book updated with the errata if you bought it.

That'll work. I didn't know the CRB had be updated.

Just wondering if they'll put this in pdf format at some time?

Both the Magus and Summoner get four spell slots, that upgrade as they level up without gaining additional ones. You will basically only have 2 slots of each of your two highest levels, before feat investment.

This is a new addition to the game that we haven't seen before. It seems to be a form of casting that is considered appropriate to ride along with major features-- Martial Weapon Proficiency, or the entirety of the Eidolon.

How do we feel about this system? I want to read discussion about this because I'm divided on it right now.

I'm having trouble understanding why they lose lower level slots. Do they forget how to cast easier spells when they learn the harder ones?

Regular edition has better cover art.

Grankless wrote:

Darkwood is wood. If you make something out of it, it is by default wood.

Darkwood can only be used to make items that are normally made of wood, which excludes all known armors so far.

Chapter 11: Crafting & Treasure / Armor / Precious Material Armor wrote:

Source Core Rulebook pg. 555 1.1

Suits of armor made of precious materials are more expensive and sometimes grant special effects. You can make leather armor out of dragonhide, wooden armor out of darkwood, and metal armor out of any precious materials except for darkwood. Because armor’s Bulk is reduced when the armor is worn, use its carried Bulk when determining its material Price. (Materials are on page 577.)

Maybe it's me, but I'm reading that as "If you want to make wooden armor, use darkwood."

LBHills wrote:

I'm pretty sure he meant multiple characters, not players.

I hope!

Ho, I thought it was connected to point 1:

And #2!

so they are going down that profit over fun route? damn that is sad, i guess its capitalism then, there is nothing that can be done about

I don't think that's fair. If they were really worried about profit they wouldn't make absolutely everything open content.

What's keeping you from publishing your own "fun" content?

Can a character or creature choose to take the Stride action and not leave their square? The GM is telling me that the target of my agitate spell is spending the action, but opting not to move from his square. That way, it takes no damage, remains in melee with me, and can ignore most of the effects of my spell.

Stride doesn't mention a minimum, but I would counter that if you're not moving then you're not Striding.

I'm old school though, where RAI or What's Fun is more important that RAW.

Nice!

This is pretty cool, but now I'm really curious about spellcasting.

tuffnoogies wrote:

ChibiNyan wrote:

There's more to the game than just attacking, I'd like to think... Combat can be more interesting than tank and spank, actual tactics! Don't let the clouds of PF1 boring fighter gameplay blind you to the possibilities.

Fine. Example?

Raising your shield leaps to mind. That gets you +2 AC and one-use DR as a Reaction...but it costs an action. That'd be almost never worth it if it replaced an attack at full bonus, but is usually worth it if replacing a -5 attack, and basically always worth it replacing a -10 one.

That's a neat and tactically interesting option that would descend into obscurity without the penalty.

Hmm. I think it's a stretch to say "raising your shield" is either neat or tactically interesting. If you have a shield and you're not surprised I'd say it's probably a given that it's raised. But I say the same about having your weapon out and ready. At least under normal adventuring conditions.

What if you you're fighting with a 2-handed sword or great axe? What if it's already the second round of combat and you raised it last round. Do you have to raise it every round? That's *definitely* not neat or interesting.

Seriously, if you're already adjacent to your target, what could you spend your actions on that would be more in keeping with your role as fighter than taking another swing at your enemy?

How come only attack actions are penalized for getting used more than once? If you move for all three actions, do you lose distance traveled for each action?

There's more to the game than just attacking, I'd like to think... Combat can be more interesting than tank and spank, actual tactics! Don't let the clouds of PF1 boring fighter gameplay blind you to the possibilities.

Fine. Example?

The purpose of the iterative attack penalties in the new rules appears to be to provide some incentive to do something other than stand still and repeatedly attack the enemy, so I doubt that they will ever completely eliminate those penalties. Reducing the penalties or providing bonus attacks as part of an action might be possible though.

What could a fighter-type do that would be more in keeping with their role than another attack? If fighting is what they do, why penalize them for doing it as well as they can.

Hopefully you're right and there's some way to reduce the penalties. But I still think it's a raw deal.

I mean it's possible to cast two spells (as I understand it). Will wizards be at a penalty to hit with the second spell. Will the target(s) get a bonus on their saves for the second spell?

Seems like a really harsh penalty to lay on the melee type characters.

Am I the only one who thinks there shouldn't be a penalty to hit for multiple attack actions? It's more than likely the melee characters doing that and they have a hard enough time keeping up with spell-casters in the damage dealing department.

Suppose my character is an 6th level fighter and I take the full attack option.

One my first attack, I make a regular attack with my weapon. On my second, I attempt a combat manuever (assume I have the right feat to avoid provoking an AoO).

Is my combat manuever bonus reduced by 5 because I attempted the manuever on my iterative attack? Or, is it still at the normal CMB???

Thanks in advance!!

Why *wouldn't* it be reduced by 5?

A) It's already printed and on a boat back to us.

What's the street date?

Great sheet, but Spellcraft isn't usable untrained.

I personally really preferred the 2E method of doing things over the 3.X Prestige Class concept. In 2E (as I'm sure many of you will remember) you still chose your base class normally and then applied subkits. You could be a fighter > cavalier or a cleric > shaman for example. You didn't have to wait to get into the PrC, you started off at 1st level as that subkit. I don't know why its not still done that way, as the entire concept seemed "cleaner" to me.

1) Choose a class.
2) [Optionally] Choose a sub-class.
3) Done.

Neat.

As opposed to:

1) Choose a class.
2) Make sure you have all of the attribute requirements you might later need to get into the PrC you really want to play.
3) Make sure you choose the right feats and skills so that you don't have to wait even longer to get the PrC you really want to play.
4) Advance several levels, not playing the character you really want to play.
5) Choose the Prestige Class you really wanted to play.
6) Advance in that class a few levels and then realize your spell progression blows.
7) Drop the PrC.
8) Done!

Ugh.

How about:

1) Choose a class.
2) Role-play the subclass?

That way there's no unbalanced kits/PrCs to worry about. Of course, there's no filler for future gaming supplements either.

Standard iteration vs. new iteration:
1st - 5th level: same
6th - 10th level: 0/-5 vs. -2/-2
11th - 15th level: 0/-5/-10 vs -1/-1
16th+ level: 0/-5/-10/-15 vs 0/0

Well, I guess you are shocked. My guys like it. Less dice and on average more damage per turn. They are happy and I am happy.

-- david
Papa.DRB

I kinda like it, too. I think I'd use -3, -2, -1 for the penalties though.

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

My first language is French, and what you just said sounds like something very dirty.

I bet it would sound even more dirty to someone speaking Kelish... :P

I don't speak French OR Kelesh and it still looks dirty to me!

LOL. And thanks, James. I'm pretty new to PF and haven't read anything on the setting. What you quoted sounds pretty good.

You might want to check out "Into the Darklands," then. There's a pretty healthy amount of info about the duergar in there, and while we can't use kuo-toa at all (as mentioned by the previous poster, the kuo-toa are WotC only), we CAN use the skum. They fill the role in the underground realms that the kuo-toa used to fill really rather well.

Can you call them something else? "Skum" is a stupid name for a race of monsters. Unless they're oozes of course.

I find it hard to believe they would waste two pages for art (or even one). No other PF product has art between chapters, plus Jason's comments indicates they jammed just about every page they could with information. I could see a chart or charts, but not sure what.

Heights, weights, starting ages?

You may be right. I just think it's strange that humans would get 3 pages when they arguably need the least space out of all the races.

Something I noticed is that it appears that each race gets an entire page write up. I like that. (Edit: Except Humans who get three pages.)

How do you know humans get 3 pages?

it's up! 2 pages of the race chapter and the table on contents in pdf

Link?

Well some here don't think 4e as D&D . I for one do not to much lost, but if you don't want to use the system then by all means use another you like better and have a blast with it

A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet. 4e is D&D. You may not like all the changes (I don't either) but that doesn't change the facts.

I don't generally care if my players select an alignment or not. I save "real" alignments for evil or good outsiders, or evil undead, and pretty much ignore it for everyone else.

[sarcasm]

alignment is a very clear part of D&D, and is a tool not a straight jacket. But as was said before me don't use it if you don't like it

Those arguments might sway me if 4e had alignments too. Obviously the game doesn't need them as much as you say. I'm all for tradition but it's way past time this sacred cow became steakburger.

And I can guarantee you that alignment isn't going away; they stated so rather emphatically.

Hmm. Did they decide to keep it because it's so craptacular? I guess I'll have to de-alignment it myself. Or just stick with IH, where, you know, actions define the character rather than some stupid two-letter notation on the character sheet.

Do we have any idea of the changes that will be made from Beta to the final product?

::crosses fingers hoping that alignment is done away with::