Pregen previews over at ENWorld!


Prerelease Discussion

451 to 500 of 799 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In PF1e you had to decide between having a shield and using LoHs mid battle. The choice was forced due to the mechanics. Thankfully the designers saw that and created a feat that didn't force the choice any longer... Hence the Iconic Sword and Board Paladin is now functional. I may be a minority, but I have been waiting a long time to be able to have both. And it was my primary concern coming into the Playtest. Thanks guys...


Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Doesn't using a sword and a shield make it really difficult to actually use Lay On Hands in combat?
Warded Touch supposedly fixes that according to people who've played Seelah at demo games, allowing it to be used without these issues. Cyouni's theory as to why seems quite likely.

I can see it for the actual casting of the spell, but I don't see where it removes the need to, you know, actually lay your hands on the person getting healed.

I imagine that the Paladin is using his shield hand to LoHs. It's not too hard to imagine, especially if he can cast somatic spell with the same hand...


Back to Kyra for a sec... I noticed that the Cleric blog specifically mentions that Clerics use their spell for their touch attacks. I'd go with that over the pregens or the GCP Podcast. So unless we have proof from elsewhere, spell casters use their spell rolls for Touch Attacks.

Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Back to Kyra for a sec... I noticed that the Cleric blog specifically mentions that Clerics use their spell for their touch attacks. I'd go with that over the pregens or the GCP Podcast. So unless we have proof from elsewhere, spell casters use their spell rolls for Touch Attacks.

However, that's not what the cleric blog says. It says your proficiency with spells applies to both attack rolls using spells and to spell rolls, but the ability score modifier isn't the same.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Doesn't using a sword and a shield make it really difficult to actually use Lay On Hands in combat?
Warded Touch supposedly fixes that according to people who've played Seelah at demo games, allowing it to be used without these issues. Cyouni's theory as to why seems quite likely.

I can see it for the actual casting of the spell, but I don't see where it removes the need to, you know, actually lay your hands on the person getting healed.

Assuming that touch attacks do not need to make skin to skin contact has been a long standing tradition. Otherwise the paladin would be sheathing the sword and taking off a gauntlet, which would make it difficult to do in combat, and is more of a Hollywood effect than a necessary mechanic. Apparently, with warded touch lets you cast the spell without having to move your fingers or drop what you are holding so it seems feasible that the spell can be delivered with a fist bump or elbow tap.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Merisiel the rogue is up now.

Edit: Dex-to-damage confirmed for rogues with Finesse Striker class feature.

The Disarm weapon feature seems unfun. It indicates you otherwise need a free hand to attempt a disarm.


Barathos wrote:

Merisiel the rogue is up now.

Edit: Dex-to-damage confirmed for rogues with Finesse Striker class feature.

It's interesting that, because it can work with non-finesse agile weapons you can have str to hit and dex to damage.

I like that rapiers are good for goofy film disarming style.


Barathos wrote:

Merisiel the rogue is up now.

Edit: Dex-to-damage confirmed for rogues with Finesse Striker class feature.

The Disarm weapon feature seems unfun. It indicates you otherwise need a free hand to attempt a disarm.

They might have changed that since then. Judging by what done people have said about the glass cannon podcasts


Sneak Attack works on ranged weapons and doesn't specify a range limit. Sniper rogues!!!

Also Nimble Dodge has prerequisite "Not encumbered". So I guess heavy and maybe medium armor lets you always count as encumbered. Otherwise a strong rogue might nimble dodge in heavy armor?

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

She appears to have 10 + Int Trained Skills. Damn. That's just, y'know, a lot, not that I'm complaining mind you...

I'm now even more interested how multiclassing works so as to know how a Fighter might get Finesse Striker.

Liberty's Edge

Captain Morgan wrote:
Voss wrote:
Right... so. They can either attack him, and he can use shield things, or they can move away and take an AoO. That actually works together. Seelah doesn't have those pieces to work together.
Alternatively: They guarded step >stride away from Valeros and go after another target.

So instead of making three attacks, you just got an enemy to waste two actions to get away from you, and only have one left to make an attack? And they can't even use any multi-action abilities?

Sounds like a win to me.

Quote:
And unlike Seelah, Valeros has nothing specific to offer once the enemy's closed on an ally.

Sure he does: he has Sudden Charge so he can move in, flank with the ally the enemy went after, and still be able to make two attacks (twice as many as the enemy was able to make, if you'll recall).


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I am curious as to how Merisiel gets enemies to become flat-footed, though I imagine that was covered in the Glass Cannon podcast. Does flaking an enemy impose the flat-footed condition on them?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
First World Bard wrote:
I am curious as to how Merisiel gets enemies to become flat-footed, though I imagine that was covered in the Glass Cannon podcast. Does flaking an enemy impose the flat-footed condition on them?

Yes, see the rogue blog.

You can also learn to make frightened foes flat-footed (intimidate -> Sneak Attack! even at range!) or reduce the requirement to have an ally be adjacent to the foe with no need for flanking.

Also, rogues (and as far as we know only rogues) can treat anyone who has not yet acted in the first round as flat-footed.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Several other things probably make people flat-footed in PF2 as well. We already know that being prone now makes you flat-footed instead of its previous effects, for example.


Oh, that's interesting. It's possible to have Str to hit, Dex to damage with any weapon that's agile but not finesse.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Brock Landers wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Several other things probably make people flat-footed in PF2 as well. We already know that being prone now makes you flat-footed instead of its previous effects, for example.
Yeah, I really like how they have implemented Flat-Footed AC in this edition, I wish they would do something similar with TAC (I would prefer not to have two AC types, have not really liked it since 2000).

I'm cool with having TAC. Two AC scores is workable, it's when you get much more than that, that issues tend to crop up.


QuidEst wrote:
Oh, that's interesting. It's possible to have Str to hit, Dex to damage with any weapon that's agile but not finesse.

I've read that a few times now, I just wonder - why would you ever want to? Is there a use case I am unaware that would make it interesting to use two different stats for hitting and damage?

And, Finesse Training is a Class Ability - not a feat. So it's Rogue or bust, and it's Level One. So all Dex Fighter builds can simply include a rogue dip now, which is - not terrible? I really don't know, but it seems like a strange place for such a powerful ability.


Brock Landers wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Brock Landers wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Several other things probably make people flat-footed in PF2 as well. We already know that being prone now makes you flat-footed instead of its previous effects, for example.
Yeah, I really like how they have implemented Flat-Footed AC in this edition, I wish they would do something similar with TAC (I would prefer not to have two AC types, have not really liked it since 2000).
I'm cool with having TAC. Two AC scores is workable, it's when you get much more than that, that issues tend to crop up.
It's workable, but I think there could be a more elegant solution, might as well have 1, if you are cutting it down from 3, and 3 is actually a great game number.

Technically, there are more than 3 AC numbers in Pathfinder: flat-footed touch, touch, flat-footed incorporeal touch, incorporeal touch, flat-footed AC, AC and CMD and (in theory) flat-footed CMD. Nouveau Pathfinder is trimming down to 2 AC numbers while shifting the rest over to modifiers and either opposed checks or different targets (not clear on the maneuvers at the moment).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Most of this is good, but Experienced Smuggler is quite disappointing and representative of a bigger problem with skill feats. The third sentence is just unnecessarily making it even more extremely situational than it already is. At least it's not competing with with combat feats for slots, but I think skill feats in general could be made substantially more broad and powerful.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Mad Comrade wrote:
(not clear on the maneuvers at the moment).

They target Saves +10. Disarm is an attack vs. their Reflex Save Bonus +10, for example.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
DerNils wrote:
So all Dex Fighter builds can simply include a rogue dip now, which is - not terrible? I really don't know, but it seems like a strange place for such a powerful ability.

You are assuming that multi-classing will stay the same as it is in PF1, and that one-level "dips" are still possible.


First World Bard wrote:
DerNils wrote:
So all Dex Fighter builds can simply include a rogue dip now, which is - not terrible? I really don't know, but it seems like a strange place for such a powerful ability.
You are assuming that multi-classing will stay the same as it is in PF1, and that one-level "dips" are still possible.

It's a pretty reasonable assumption, given what we've heard so far.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My concern is that dex to damage is a very loved and powerful option and it is Rogues only. I am not exactly sure how I feel about it. Thematically, there is no reason why this shouldn't be an option for Fighters, Rangers or Monks as well - this is a pure balancing mechanic and as such always feels off to me.

But I do agree that we need to see how multiclassing will finally work to see the effects.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ugh... Finesse Striker just had to be a "Feature" didn't it. I wonder if any of the martials can acquire it without multiclassing (for building 'duelists' and 'swashbucklers').


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Dat skill list tho.

Am I missing something, or shouldn't she have a dagger in her melee strikes? Seems pretty relevant for dual wielding iterative attacks, no?

JRutterbush wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Voss wrote:
Right... so. They can either attack him, and he can use shield things, or they can move away and take an AoO. That actually works together. Seelah doesn't have those pieces to work together.
Alternatively: They guarded step >stride away from Valeros and go after another target.

So instead of making three attacks, you just got an enemy to waste two actions to get away from you, and only have one left to make an attack? And they can't even use any multi-action abilities?

Sounds like a win to me.

Quote:
And unlike Seelah, Valeros has nothing specific to offer once the enemy's closed on an ally.
Sure he does: he has Sudden Charge so he can move in, flank with the ally the enemy went after, and still be able to make two attacks (twice as many as the enemy was able to make, if you'll recall).

I'm not sure how much of the thread you read, but my point wasn't that Valeros was bad, just that Seelah isn't vastly inferior. An enemy losing an action to guarded step away is very good. As is the enemy losing an action to move out of Seelah's threat range, or the enemy wasting an attack against either PC's shield block rather than squishier allies.

I think Retributive Strike is a better reaction than Attack of Opportunity because it can negate and attack, debuff, and good positioning can make it impossible to avoid in melee. (It is much harder to make AoO, basically depending on 10 foot hallway choke points and once the enemy Valeros can just close and strike like any other character.)

Valeros DOES have other stuff going for him though, and as I noted in the thread AoO has good synergy with Sudden Charge.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
DerNils wrote:

My concern is that dex to damage is a very loved and powerful option and it is Rogues only. I am not exactly sure how I feel about it. Thematically, there is no reason why this shouldn't be an option for Fighters, Rangers or Monks as well - this is a pure balancing mechanic and as such always feels off to me.

But I do agree that we need to see how multiclassing will finally work to see the effects.

Nah, thematically it definitely fits the Rogue most. They already have the "well placed blade where it hurts most" which speaks to them attacking surgical precision and dexterity over raw brute force. As a combination of mechanics and theme, the rogue is also supposed to be a polymath, which tends to call for being pretty MAD, so removing strength from that equation makes it easier to afford high charisma for example. Finally, they have decided to make Sneak Attack locked to finesse and agile weapons, so the Rogue kind of needs a damage booster to compensate.

I don't have a huge dog in the fight over whether other classes get it. But there's a solid case for it as a rogue exclusive. And considering how generous ability boosts are I'm not especially worried about it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brock Landers wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
The Mad Comrade wrote:
(not clear on the maneuvers at the moment).
They target Saves +10. Disarm is an attack vs. their Reflex Save Bonus +10, for example.
I though +11 is better for this, like Saves as Defence in 3rd Ed UA?

+10 is lots simpler, and Saves are more likely to have an item bonus than the skills used to maneuver. It makes maneuvers a potentially good call for those focused on them, but that's not a bad thing.

Liberty's Edge

Brock Landers wrote:
Cool, but disarm is not a manoeuvre, just an attack roll, right? I am wary of tying Grappling to Athletics, but that is due to 5th Ed's handling of it...

Disarm is a maneuver and uses Athletics.

The real issue in 5E is that there's a bit of weirdness with Expertise breaking the game's normal math. PF2 has consistent math across skills, attacks, AC, and Saves, for the most part anyway.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Brock Landers wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
DerNils wrote:

My concern is that dex to damage is a very loved and powerful option and it is Rogues only. I am not exactly sure how I feel about it. Thematically, there is no reason why this shouldn't be an option for Fighters, Rangers or Monks as well - this is a pure balancing mechanic and as such always feels off to me.

But I do agree that we need to see how multiclassing will finally work to see the effects.

Nah, thematically it definitely fits the Rogue most.
I could see it for the Monk, too, would support the featherweight, wizened little old monk dude that kicks serious heiny.

Monk would be the second most fitting, yeah, though one could argue it is a distant second.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

I'm not sure how much of the thread you read, but my point wasn't that Valeros was bad, just that Seelah isn't vastly inferior. An enemy losing an action to guarded step away is very good. As is the enemy losing an action to move out of Seelah's threat range, or the enemy wasting an attack against either PC's shield block rather than squishier allies.

See, I don't think giving up the third attack (and its big penalty) is a big deal at all. So losing an action doesn't strike me as a problem for monsters. It can be a big deal for PCs, but that comes from a need to contribute and an action economy that naturally skews in the favor of numerous enemies.

Quote:
I think Retributive Strike is a better reaction than Attack of Opportunity because it can negate and attack, debuff, and good positioning can make it impossible to avoid in melee. (It is much harder to make AoO, basically depending on 10 foot hallway choke points and once the enemy Valeros can just close and strike like any other character.)

Ah. I think I see some of the disconnect. I've never had a 10' hallway fight, unless its been a single enemy like a gelatinous cube. Fights tend to be in bigger rooms/caves or outside, and given the nature of D&D, the party are the home invaders and tend to charge in.

Part of it too is the meta of fights. Enemies often go for whoever's closest, divide up so its 'fair,' are assigned randomly, or there is a 'gentleman's agreement' and they tend to focus on fighter types and avoid the squishies. For most of those scenarios, this kind of reactive protection doesn't matter.

----
So, rogue. Definitely a useful party member. Curious how easy it would be to steal the nimble dodge feat, as I really like it. Feels more thematically appropriate for a lot of characters than shield use.

The pregen could use a summary of what makes an enemy flat footed. As is, gives no indication if sneak attack will happen often or rarely.


Dex to damage should not be a problem, really. With the way ability score are determined and raised, having a half decent strength of about 16 at high levels should be easy to accomplish. Dex should go up to 24 at the most so we're talking about +4 damage at level 20 when you're probably dealing 16d6 of damage (+5 weapon plus sneak attack).

The smaller weapon die compared to a fighter's likely weapon of choice means the +4 will on average barely close the gap in average damage.

With the damage focus shifting from numerical bonuses to more dice, adding dex or damage won't matter much.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Monk would be the second most fitting, yeah, though one could argue it is a distant second.

Don't Monks even get to pick Dex or Str as their primary attribute (or was that Fighters).

Either way I hope anyone can acquire something like the Rogues's Finesse Striker without Multiclassing Rogue. I agree that Rogues should get it for free, and I'm glad they don't have to wait til 3rd level and pick particular weapons. But I don't like the idea of that ability being a Class Exclusive Feature.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
Don't Monks even get to pick Dex or Str as their primary attribute (or was that Fighters).

Monks do indeed get to do this. Fighters may, but we don't actually know.

Scarab Sages

What makes a rapier have more damaging crits or better at disarming than any other sword? The disarm property is extra annoying because it implies you can't disarm with a weapon (the safest and most common way to disarm an armed combatant, esp. with swords) unless it has the property and rapier has it for no good reason.


redpandamage wrote:
The disarm property is extra annoying because it implies you can't disarm with a weapon (the safest and most common way to disarm an armed combatant, esp. with swords) unless it has the property and rapier has it for no good reason.

I don't think it implies that at all. Some weapons have the disarm property in PF1. All it does is give a +2 to disarm attempts with that weapon. It is not a prereq for making disarm attempts. I really see no reason this would change in PF2 (probably only a +1 though).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
redpandamage wrote:
The disarm property is extra annoying because it implies you can't disarm with a weapon (the safest and most common way to disarm an armed combatant, esp. with swords) unless it has the property and rapier has it for no good reason.
I don't think it implies that at all. Some weapons have the disarm property in PF1. All it does is give a +2 to disarm attempts with that weapon. It is not a prereq for making disarm attempts. I really see no reason this would change in PF2 (probably only a +1 though).

The rogue character sheet lists the disarm property:

"Disarm you can use this weapon to Disarm with the Athletics skill even if you don't have a free hand. If you critically fail a check to Disarm using the weapon you can drop the weapon to treat it as a normal failure. On a critical success you still need a free hand if you want to take the item."

So it sure sounds like you cannot disarm with a weapon that doesnt have the disarming property.

Liberty's Edge

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
redpandamage wrote:
The disarm property is extra annoying because it implies you can't disarm with a weapon (the safest and most common way to disarm an armed combatant, esp. with swords) unless it has the property and rapier has it for no good reason.
I don't think it implies that at all. Some weapons have the disarm property in PF1. All it does is give a +2 to disarm attempts with that weapon. It is not a prereq for making disarm attempts. I really see no reason this would change in PF2 (probably only a +1 though).

The disarm property for PF2 is listed on Merisiel's sheet, and implies that you normally need a free hand to disarm.

EDIT: Ninja'd. Ah, well.


Bardarok wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
redpandamage wrote:
The disarm property is extra annoying because it implies you can't disarm with a weapon (the safest and most common way to disarm an armed combatant, esp. with swords) unless it has the property and rapier has it for no good reason.
I don't think it implies that at all. Some weapons have the disarm property in PF1. All it does is give a +2 to disarm attempts with that weapon. It is not a prereq for making disarm attempts. I really see no reason this would change in PF2 (probably only a +1 though).

The rogue character sheet lists the disarm property:

"Disarm you can use this weapon to Disarm with the Athletics skill even if you don't have a free hand. If you critically fail a check to Disarm using the weapon you can drop the weapon to treat it as a normal failure. On a critical success you still need a free hand if you want to take the item."

So it sure sounds like you cannot disarm with a weapon that doesnt have the disarming property.

Ah, didn't realize it was spelled out on the sheet, I thought it was just present as a tag. My bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bardarok wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
redpandamage wrote:
The disarm property is extra annoying because it implies you can't disarm with a weapon (the safest and most common way to disarm an armed combatant, esp. with swords) unless it has the property and rapier has it for no good reason.
I don't think it implies that at all. Some weapons have the disarm property in PF1. All it does is give a +2 to disarm attempts with that weapon. It is not a prereq for making disarm attempts. I really see no reason this would change in PF2 (probably only a +1 though).

The rogue character sheet lists the disarm property:

"Disarm you can use this weapon to Disarm with the Athletics skill even if you don't have a free hand. If you critically fail a check to Disarm using the weapon you can drop the weapon to treat it as a normal failure. On a critical success you still need a free hand if you want to take the item."

So it sure sounds like you cannot disarm with a weapon that doesnt have the disarming property.

"EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE A FREE HAND." You can disarm with any weapon as long as you have a free hand. Presumably you block/bind weapon to weapon and use your free hand to twist their weapon away.

The rapier has disarm because movie tropes (e.g. The Princess Bride) show rapiers being used to twist/finesse weapons out of other people's hands.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
Don't Monks even get to pick Dex or Str as their primary attribute (or was that Fighters).
Monks do indeed get to do this. Fighters may, but we don't actually know.

I think the primary attribute only matters if you have access to spell powers (to set their DCs and your pool of points) and the Fighter doesn't.


Xenocrat wrote:

"EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE A FREE HAND." You can disarm with any weapon as long as you have a free hand. Presumably you block/bind weapon to weapon and use your free hand to twist their weapon away.

The rapier has disarm because movie tropes (e.g. The Princess Bride) show rapiers being used to twist/finesse weapons out of other people's hands.

So you think it takes a regular weapon plus a free hand or a disarm property weapon? What about attempting to disarm while unarmed? Two hands?

451 to 500 of 799 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Pregen previews over at ENWorld! All Messageboards