Know Direction 201 Revelations.


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 145 of 145 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kyrone wrote:
Had a question about changes in animal companion, the answer was that was mostly like 1.6 version of the playtest but they polished the different types of animal companion (like cats, bear and etc).

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...


Are there any details on what the cantrips are? Or is this only from the playtest?

People only seem to talk about damaging cantrips and how they scale (as a way of saying that wizards no longer need to resort to crossbows)

I assume these aren't the only ones.
I didn't really play the playtest and only read some part initially (and not all the spells!)

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Evidence suggests cantrip scaling has improved a lot from the playtest, but the evidence isn't definitive.

Thus, we really don't know how that works in the final version.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

If you can ignore the flavor of the spellbook, a wizard with a familiar feels preeeetty close. Cantrips and Focus powers come pretty close to approximating the spammable nature of Hexes, especially if we get some debuff focused options.

The spellbook vs familiar thing is significant, but mechanically is likely to never actually matter.

Yeah if I would homebrew the witch I would totally use the Wizard chassis, Occult list instead of Arcane, Familiar instead of Schools of Magic that give the extra spell slot and one hex that use focus point specific to that patron.

I just don't know what Witch can have in the place of Thesis... but about cantrips it could be like an inverse bard, like instead of Inspire Courage be something like Weakening Hex that takes out -1 to hit from enemies in the 30 but area around the Witch but like the bard it have to renew it every round.


But are/were they only damaging ones? I assume not?

*

What was the 1.6 animal companion issue? I vaguely recall something about sharing actions? Are they much more limited than in 1E? I am not sure it was ever really fair to get a pseudo second character as druid and summoner. But the reaction sounds like the correction might have gone too far in the other direction?


Thinking if you want to make a witch, the occult sorcerer or wizard with a familiar would be the Wayne but perhaps take the alchemist dedication, reflavoring the achemical items into things like fetishes and whatnot. Would certainly be unique, though again, no hexes.

Though if Bards can debuff... do that with alchemist...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Have witch Patron in place of wizard Thesis perhaps.

Also don't forget the athame variant for witch but that is a somewhat different familiar.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Lanathar wrote:

But are/were they only damaging ones? I assume not?

*

What was the 1.6 animal companion issue? I vaguely recall something about sharing actions? Are they much more limited than in 1E? I am not sure it was ever really fair to get a pseudo second character as druid and summoner. But the reaction sounds like the correction might have gone too far in the other direction?

Your mystically well trained animal companion has less intelligence than my idiot king charles.

Specifically they may or may not stand their doing absolutely nothing if not constantly directed, and when directed still act as fast as a zombie.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lanathar wrote:

There was a mention on the new episode (202) about approximating the witch until it comes out

I am not sure if the primal fey sorcerer for Morgana was really a serious attempt as it was more about making a literary character than a “witch”

So I wonder what avenues could be used to approximate a witch in the meantime? There are obviously no hexes so it will never truly like the 1E witch .

I would say it would have to start with sorcerer as a spell book will never feel right for a witch . Perhaps druid. Or perhaps one of the bard muses will be more deceptive ?

Just a point of clarification. I listened to this episode and did not think the mention of the witch, and the generalized character creation of the Morgana le Fay idea was connected at all.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:

But are/were they only damaging ones? I assume not?

*

What was the 1.6 animal companion issue? I vaguely recall something about sharing actions? Are they much more limited than in 1E? I am not sure it was ever really fair to get a pseudo second character as druid and summoner. But the reaction sounds like the correction might have gone too far in the other direction?

It really doesn't, it brings the companion nicely in line while keeping it useful, a lot of people have complaints about how you have to spend an action to command them (which gives them two actions to use) to do anything besides defend themselves in combat.

Except for certain animal-focused builds which actually give the companion an action even if you don't spend one.

Basically they're balanced for use in combat but it causes a couple of things in the dynamic some people don't like (though frankly there have been plenty of good explanations given for how it could be this way), and a lot of people apply those complaints to out of combat scenarios even though the action setup is a combat-only thing.


Elorebaen wrote:
Lanathar wrote:

There was a mention on the new episode (202) about approximating the witch until it comes out

I am not sure if the primal fey sorcerer for Morgana was really a serious attempt as it was more about making a literary character than a “witch”

So I wonder what avenues could be used to approximate a witch in the meantime? There are obviously no hexes so it will never truly like the 1E witch .

I would say it would have to start with sorcerer as a spell book will never feel right for a witch . Perhaps druid. Or perhaps one of the bard muses will be more deceptive ?

Just a point of clarification. I listened to this episode and did not think the mention of the witch, and the generalized character creation of the Morgana le Fay idea was connected at all.

Same here which is why I brought it up here. Perhaps I didn’t make it particularly clear

It seemed like the KD guys could have nailed them down to trying to prove the witch statement that Jason made. But they had pre decided they wanted to make Morgana and so it deviated

I also got the impression Jason didn’t sound too enthusiastic when they said “oh let’s try and do it now then”. So maybe bringing up Morgana was very quick reading of the situations ? Or maybe I misinterpreted tone completely (equally if not more likely )


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I am reminded of when a big computer game is nearing release, the fans know the content coming in it, and the fans start poking and prodding about the first Expansion Pack when and what will it have.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lanathar wrote:
Elorebaen wrote:
Lanathar wrote:

There was a mention on the new episode (202) about approximating the witch until it comes out

I am not sure if the primal fey sorcerer for Morgana was really a serious attempt as it was more about making a literary character than a “witch”

So I wonder what avenues could be used to approximate a witch in the meantime? There are obviously no hexes so it will never truly like the 1E witch .

I would say it would have to start with sorcerer as a spell book will never feel right for a witch . Perhaps druid. Or perhaps one of the bard muses will be more deceptive ?

Just a point of clarification. I listened to this episode and did not think the mention of the witch, and the generalized character creation of the Morgana le Fay idea was connected at all.

Same here which is why I brought it up here. Perhaps I didn’t make it particularly clear

It seemed like the KD guys could have nailed them down to trying to prove the witch statement that Jason made. But they had pre decided they wanted to make Morgana and so it deviated

I also got the impression Jason didn’t sound too enthusiastic when they said “oh let’s try and do it now then”. So maybe bringing up Morgana was very quick reading of the situations ? Or maybe I misinterpreted tone completely (equally if not more likely )

The KD guys said, explicitly, that they had come up with Morgana prior to the show, in order to approach a "magic using" character from public domain. The witch comment, and Morgana had nothing to do with each other in the context of the show, at least from what I can tell. I'm not sure why you keep trying to make the two part of the same decision process. *chuckles* Now you are making me think I need to watch it again. =P

I didn't necessarily get that off of Jason, but I didn't really pay much attention to his initial response. What I can say is that they both did provide a cool character build based on the Morgana concept within the parameters they were given.


I will admit to listening to it in the background

I just thought the segued very quickly from the comment of "you can make something close to a witch" to "lets try that now then". But then you are right they quickly said we want to make a spellcaster and ditched the witch concept

(Aside from if you interpret Morgana to be "witchy" in the sense of a different type of Witch tradition not the 1E class sense)

It was all within a period of about 2 minutes on the show so I have clearly got it scrambled up.

And what they came up with was interesting albeit less detailed than the one they did for the gnome barbarian (less specific details of powers were revealed and I don't recall a half elf feat being picked unless that doesn't happen at first level)

*

So separate to all that I took away the comment about trying to make a witch with what we think we have because I am interested.
(I also have a witch player in my home game so an extra level of interest. Even thought that will almost certainly not be converted)


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I hear ya Lan I usually have on in the background, though this one I was actually watching.

I am also hoping for some of the non-core classes sooner rather then later.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Wait... how is a witch with a spellbook a huge stretch? I've gotta be able to name a dozen witches from popular culture with spellbooks...


WatersLethe wrote:
Wait... how is a witch with a spellbook a huge stretch? I've gotta be able to name a dozen witches from popular culture with spellbooks...

Well I am getting jumbled up between pop culture and pathfinder interpretation of a witch (patron bonded )

So you are quite right.
But on the flip side - to what extent are those female spellcasters with books in pop culture simply female Wizards in the pathfinder sense ?

Could go either way.
I guess not many fit the background of spending years in towers studying books ...

I am talking myself in circles a little bit !


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
Wait... how is a witch with a spellbook a huge stretch? I've gotta be able to name a dozen witches from popular culture with spellbooks...

Because when we discuss witches we mean the Pathfinder witch, which very pointedly didn't use a a spellbook.

There are lots of wizards in fiction who don't use spellbooks. That doesn't make it not weird for a Pathfinder wizard to not use a spellbook.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ohhh that make sense. Nevermind. I got confused with the subsequent talk about making other witch characters.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

One of the main characters in my home game is a Witch, and converting it with Playtest material into a Wizard-Bard cross has worked adequately.

Using Wizard with Occult spells as a base and adding composition-like effects to represent hexes -- one that works really well without any real conversion is Lingering Composition to emulate the Cackle hex.

I'm also giving the familiar extra bonuses, but that's just something I added personally. My imagining is that Witch familiars are more versatile. Other casters can gain familiars, but if you want the BEST familiar, mechanically, you go Witch.

When the full ruleset comes out, I'm sure it will be much easier to convert things more flavorfully. I suspect with the increased volume of material it'll be easier to do interesting things with patrons and familiars and stuff like that. I imagine it'll work well enough for us until the class is officially released.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Gaulin wrote:
It probably won't happen, but I think it would be really cool to have a feat or some such to allow a character to refocus in combat. Like maybe a full turn of spending all actions to refocus.

That's not very likely, especially because you could then use it out of combat to spam focus spells every other round. There's quite a bunch that would cause major detrimental cascading effects if they were basically cantrips (which is why they are focus spells) based on their duration or the rate of gain of out of combat benefits.

You could potential have options that let you do that once a day or something like that though!

There could be other ways to limit that:

You could recharge it by sacrificing a spell slot or health (or maximum health for the day perhaps).

Alternately, you could could have a feat that works with a short list of specific (attack focused) focus abilities so that you can regain a focus point but only if you use the special recharge action on the turn after you used one of those specific attack abilities. Alternatively to that alternative, maybe there is a certain full round action you can do that lets you activate certain focus abilities for free on your next turn.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Listening to Mark and Linda's recent Know Direction. Will listen to their Arcane Mark follow up later.

Forager is SIGNIFICANTLY improved. You still feed yourself on a failure/crit failure. But on a success you feed 4 more creatures, and on a crit success you feed 8. And each proficiency tier upgrade doubles the amount of creatures you feed, up to 32 at legendary.

Being able to feed your entire party at trained was the right baseline that feat needed to start at, IMO.


Thinking about it a little more, Forager would also be better if it let you feed your party during travel or other adventuring day shenanigans, rather than simply Subsisting as a downtime activity. But that would probably be a better change to implement as a trained use of the skill rather than requiring a feat. Have we seen that activity yet? I am pretty sure we saw it was renamed, but I don't remember details. Gonna dig around. Seems like it would work well as an exploration tactic.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Lie to Me now lets you use Deception instead of Perception to see if someone is lying-- utilize your own web of lies to trick them into admitting something. Neat!

Charming Words, the Enchantment school power, now takes 1 action and has its effects Buffed.

An 18th level wizard feat has allows you to regain a spell slot with 10 minutes study.

Focus Points are indeed capped at 3. Check out 1 hour and 4 minutes into the latest Arcane Mark to get the quote.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Focus Points are indeed capped at 3.

I dislike this, but the nature of the ruleset is that we can always print new rules that make exceptions to other rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Lie to Me now lets you use Deception instead of Perception to see if someone is lying-- utilize your own web of lies to trick them into admitting something. Neat!

I like this change. From a mechanical side, I like now it no longer relies on a totally separate skill from the skill feat line it’s based on. From an RP perceptive, it makes sense for someone who knows how to lie to be able to use said knowledge to notice when being lied to, and turn the tables on them. From a gameplay standpoint, it gives the ‘face’ classes (namely the sorcerer and bard classes, though any class that does not get max prof in perception, or max out Wis) a better way to notice lies, something you would want the person doing a lot of social interactions to notice.

Oh, and thanks Captain Morgan for the info.


Captain Morgan wrote:

Lie to Me now lets you use Deception instead of Perception to see if someone is lying-- utilize your own web of lies to trick them into admitting something. Neat!

This is so thematic and I'm honestly surprised you don't see this kind of thing more often. I really want to see how this would play out at the table.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Siro wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Lie to Me now lets you use Deception instead of Perception to see if someone is lying-- utilize your own web of lies to trick them into admitting something. Neat!

I like this change. From a mechanical side, I like now it no longer relies on a totally separate skill from the skill feat line it’s based on. From an RP perceptive, it makes sense for someone who knows how to lie to be able to use said knowledge to notice when being lied to, and turn the tables on them. From a gameplay standpoint, it gives the ‘face’ classes (namely the sorcerer and bard classes, though any class that does not get max prof in perception, or max out Wis) a better way to notice lies, something you would want the person doing a lot of social interactions to notice.

Oh, and thanks Captain Morgan for the info.

Coldermoss wrote:
This is so thematic and I'm honestly surprised you don't see this kind of thing more often. I really want to see how this would play out at the table.

Fully agreed; this is really cool and a great way to give charisma a nice thematic trick. You can probably get it on a background, too. PF1 usually had good liars be particularly gullible.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Focus Points are indeed capped at 3.
I dislike this, but the nature of the ruleset is that we can always print new rules that make exceptions to other rules.

We've actually already been shown how this can be handled- familiars can take an ability to 1/day refresh one point of focus for two actions (meaning the master spends one action). So you can get up to three to spend freely, after which you'll start spending actions on various refresh abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just getting back to the Sorcerors have the Advantage of not needing to do anything specific to regain Focus - is that really an interesting ability? I have a hard time coming up with incidents where that is really cahnging anything. 90% of the time it will be all of the Party is hanging out to regain Focus, the sorcerer just hangs out without doing any fluffy praying/reading whatever.
In the borderscenario where only the sorcerer has spent Focus, everybody else wants to go on, you have saved a grant total of 10minutes time versus any other class. That will be relevant - in some very specific chase Scenes, I guess? I just can't get excited over this "Advantage".


4 people marked this as a favorite.
DerNils wrote:

Just getting back to the Sorcerors have the Advantage of not needing to do anything specific to regain Focus - is that really an interesting ability? I have a hard time coming up with incidents where that is really cahnging anything. 90% of the time it will be all of the Party is hanging out to regain Focus, the sorcerer just hangs out without doing any fluffy praying/reading whatever.

In the borderscenario where only the sorcerer has spent Focus, everybody else wants to go on, you have saved a grant total of 10minutes time versus any other class. That will be relevant - in some very specific chase Scenes, I guess? I just can't get excited over this "Advantage".

It does also mean that they can do stuff like treat wounds or identify items while others Refocus.

Also it means that if you're stuck going from place to place or fight to fight and don't have time to stop for 10 minutes, the Sorcerer will recover Focus in there somewhere anyway while the others don't.

Nothing Earth-shattering, but a couple nice perks.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe I am speaking out of turn here but it is kind of like the 3.5 “perk” of sorcerers not needing a book to prepare spells

For all the days in any campaign where a wizard may be caught short without a spell book and need either spell mastery or be screwed there were probably hundreds where it didn’t make a difference.

Yet this + the overvaluation of spontaneous casting meant that sorcerers were “balanced” by an incredibly small pool of known spells and delayed casting progression (when we all know that was never really a justifiable decision and is now gone I assume)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thank you for recording what you found from the stream!

What a terrible thing to have focus capped like that. Especially with all the feats that say to increase your focus pool with no indication of a cap. I can see that easily leading to a lot of confusion.

In terms of the cap itself I think it's a really ugly rule that encourages retaining.


citricking wrote:

Thank you for recording what you found from the stream!

What a terrible thing to have focus capped like that. Especially with all the feats that say to increase your focus pool with no indication of a cap. I can see that easily leading to a lot of confusion.

In terms of the cap itself I think it's a really ugly rule that encourages retaining.

I would assume the cap is detailed wherever focus is first mentioned and they haven’t reprinted it in every single feat

Just like how the multi-class dedications for spellcasters have a fixed set of rules about how spells are gained that are written once and not repeated all the time

And as to the complaints about the cap of 3 - this seems premature as no one has played the game enough to know whether this will be onerous or not . Abilities that use focus will be one of many things people can do with each action. So I am going to reserve my judgement

And as to the feats that increase the cap - do we know for certain you can pick up enough so as to theoretically take you above 3 ?


Well it’s a trade off. Give you bigger pools and weaker powers or smaller pools and stronger powers. Given Mark went over that focus blasting spell I’m guessing there is a valid reason to not have huge focus pools. It seemed a very strong power, stronger than most spells.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Three makes a lot of sense as a cap. That way, unless you’re using a focus-restoring ability mid-combat, you’ll usually need to spend at least one turn doing something other than casting a focus spell, while still letting you spend most of a combat casting focus spells if you’ve got a full maxed pool.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Limit of three seems good to me. Otherwise I can see just dumping rechargeable powers every combat and essentially not having limits.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing that would be cool (assuming it hasn't changed from the playtest) is 10 minute long focus powers. For example at spell level 7 dragon wings lasts 10 minutes; that means sorcs basically get permanent flight if they don't use focus for other powers in that 10 minutes period.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Gaulin wrote:
One thing that would be cool (assuming it hasn't changed from the playtest) is 10 minute long focus powers. For example at spell level 7 dragon wings lasts 10 minutes; that means sorcs basically get permanent flight if they don't use focus for other powers in that 10 minutes period.

Well they have to land for 2s every ten minutes but still very cool.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Gaulin wrote:
One thing that would be cool (assuming it hasn't changed from the playtest) is 10 minute long focus powers. For example at spell level 7 dragon wings lasts 10 minutes; that means sorcs basically get permanent flight if they don't use focus for other powers in that 10 minutes period.
Well they have to land for 2s every ten minutes but still very cool.

Why? Can't they just cast a new one right before the old one wears off? This leaves them down two Focus for 6 seconds or so every ten minutes but should allow continuous flight.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

^ If it works like that, it sounds like good solution to alot of gripes about things like long term utility wildshape etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Card Game, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Quandary wrote:
^ If it works like that, it sounds like good solution to alot of gripes about things like long term utility wildshape etc.

That benefit is specific to Sorcerors with their needing to not do anything in particular to get their Focus back.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
First World Bard wrote:
Quandary wrote:
^ If it works like that, it sounds like good solution to alot of gripes about things like long term utility wildshape etc.
That benefit is specific to Sorcerors with their needing to not do anything in particular to get their Focus back.

Depends on how Druids get their Focus back. “Being in animal form” might be how they do it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
First World Bard wrote:
Quandary wrote:
^ If it works like that, it sounds like good solution to alot of gripes about things like long term utility wildshape etc.
That benefit is specific to Sorcerors with their needing to not do anything in particular to get their Focus back.
Depends on how Druids get their Focus back. “Being in animal form” might be how they do it.

An Animal Order druid should get Focus back by spending 10 minutes giving bellyrubs to their animal companion.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
masda_gib wrote:
Rysky wrote:
First World Bard wrote:
Quandary wrote:
^ If it works like that, it sounds like good solution to alot of gripes about things like long term utility wildshape etc.
That benefit is specific to Sorcerors with their needing to not do anything in particular to get their Focus back.
Depends on how Druids get their Focus back. “Being in animal form” might be how they do it.
An Animal Order druid should get Focus back by spending 10 minutes giving bellyrubs to their animal companion.

Also this.


masda_gib wrote:
Rysky wrote:
First World Bard wrote:
Quandary wrote:
^ If it works like that, it sounds like good solution to alot of gripes about things like long term utility wildshape etc.
That benefit is specific to Sorcerors with their needing to not do anything in particular to get their Focus back.
Depends on how Druids get their Focus back. “Being in animal form” might be how they do it.
An Animal Order druid should get Focus back by spending 10 minutes giving bellyrubs to their animal companion.

This.

101 to 145 of 145 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Know Direction 201 Revelations. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.