A Safe Space for Respectful Criticisms of PF2


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 532 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:

Nothing special. Order Magic requires Order Explorer and references that Order explicitly.

Order Explorer gets you a second Order.
The original Order you toook with Druid Dedication feat is just not relevant to this. In fact you can't get the first focus spell for this Order unless it is separately available in a feat. You can get the second one though with Advanced Elemental Spell eventually.

Its just weird.

You don't need Order Explorer/Order Magic. You can get the first focus spell with just one feat: Order Spell.

Quote:
You gain the initial order spell from your order. If you don’t already have one, you gain a focus pool of 1 Focus Point, which you can Refocus by being one with nature.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RexAliquid wrote:
Gortle wrote:

Nothing special. Order Magic requires Order Explorer and references that Order explicitly.

Order Explorer gets you a second Order.
The original Order you toook with Druid Dedication feat is just not relevant to this. In fact you can't get the first focus spell for this Order unless it is separately available in a feat. You can get the second one though with Advanced Elemental Spell eventually.

Its just weird.

You don't need Order Explorer/Order Magic. You can get the first focus spell with just one feat: Order Spell.

Quote:
You gain the initial order spell from your order. If you don’t already have one, you gain a focus pool of 1 Focus Point, which you can Refocus by being one with nature.

Sorry there was confusion with my post. I forgot to mention I was referring to when you pick the Bard/Druid dedication. Wasn't sure how I typed all of that and forgot the word dedication. I wasn't referring to when you pick them as the main class.

In general it is a lot worse to pick the order/muse you actually want when you first pick the dedication.

Druid Dedication>Basic Wilding (Order Explorer) is just better than Druid Dedication>Order spell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cylar Nann wrote:
RexAliquid wrote:
Gortle wrote:

Nothing special. Order Magic requires Order Explorer and references that Order explicitly.

Order Explorer gets you a second Order.
The original Order you toook with Druid Dedication feat is just not relevant to this. In fact you can't get the first focus spell for this Order unless it is separately available in a feat. You can get the second one though with Advanced Elemental Spell eventually.

Its just weird.

You don't need Order Explorer/Order Magic. You can get the first focus spell with just one feat: Order Spell.

Quote:
You gain the initial order spell from your order. If you don’t already have one, you gain a focus pool of 1 Focus Point, which you can Refocus by being one with nature.

Sorry there was confusion with my post. I forgot to mention I was referring to when you pick the Bard/Druid dedication. Wasn't sure how I typed all of that and forgot the word dedication. I wasn't referring to when you pick them as the main class.

In general it is a lot worse to pick the order/muse you actually want when you first pick the dedication.

Druid Dedication>Basic Wilding (Order Explorer) is just better than Druid Dedication>Order spell.

But Order Explorer gets you the feat but not the focus spell.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Cylar Nann wrote:
RexAliquid wrote:
Gortle wrote:

Nothing special. Order Magic requires Order Explorer and references that Order explicitly.

Order Explorer gets you a second Order.
The original Order you toook with Druid Dedication feat is just not relevant to this. In fact you can't get the first focus spell for this Order unless it is separately available in a feat. You can get the second one though with Advanced Elemental Spell eventually.

Its just weird.

You don't need Order Explorer/Order Magic. You can get the first focus spell with just one feat: Order Spell.

Quote:
You gain the initial order spell from your order. If you don’t already have one, you gain a focus pool of 1 Focus Point, which you can Refocus by being one with nature.

Sorry there was confusion with my post. I forgot to mention I was referring to when you pick the Bard/Druid dedication. Wasn't sure how I typed all of that and forgot the word dedication. I wasn't referring to when you pick them as the main class.

In general it is a lot worse to pick the order/muse you actually want when you first pick the dedication.

Druid Dedication>Basic Wilding (Order Explorer) is just better than Druid Dedication>Order spell.

But Order Explorer gets you the feat but not the focus spell.

Oops, my bad. I sure feel dumb. For some reason I thought you got the focus spell too from the feat. I was misremembering a discussion from a long time ago.

I still do find it awkward to go dedication > focus spell then have to backtrack at 6 to grab basic level 1/2 feat to qualify for the advanced level 4+ feat. With free archetype it doesnt feel as bad though.

I apologize for any confusion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RexAliquid wrote:


You don't need Order Explorer/Order Magic. You can get the first focus spell with just one feat: Order Spell.

Yeah my secondary comment was incorrect, you are right. For the Multiclass Druid Order Spell works. Still a bit of a mess as sometimes you want that first level feat as well.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:
I think the complaint is really less about the access issue and more about two halves of a book being completely disconnected, though that was the intent from Paizo, so it's just the way it is.
Yes, for myself it's less about the hoops you can jump through to do it and more that you have to jump through hoops in the first place.

Well, they could not make them common place though.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ferious Thune wrote:
I think the complaint is really less about the access issue and more about two halves of a book being completely disconnected, though that was the intent from Paizo, so it's just the way it is.

Yeah, I get it was slightly on purpose but it just feels... like a shame that the class that gets to play around with weapon properties doesn't get to experiment with any of the new traits in the same book.

Or that in general the class doesn't work super great with reload weapons even though crossbows and guns feel very thematic (part of that is just general issues with reload weapons, but still it was a huge part of the book and they could have given inventors some reload manipulation... or even just made devastating weaponry work with those weapons without causing any problems... I know a level 18 feat isn't super relevant for most players but it's still kind of a bummer that doesn't feel like it serves a balance purpose).

... To some extent though I think part of the problem is that the weapon inventor itself just feels a little unadventurous. Like almost half your level 1 options for a melee weapon inventor are based around the athletics skill... and a ranged invention is eligible for less than half of the level 1 choices (only three if you have a martial ranged weapon).

I mean mechanically it's fine and inventors are pretty decent but... your character is described as someone pushing the limits by customizing and modifying their equipment.

"My mace does 1 additional damage" or "I get to add my potency runes to shove" don't really feel like that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
Errenor wrote:
Order Spell

Nothing special. Order Magic requires Order Explorer and references that Order explicitly.

Order Explorer gets you a second Order.
The original Order you toook with Druid Dedication feat is just not relevant to this. In fact you can't get the first focus spell for this Order unless it is separately available in a feat. You can get the second one though with Advanced Elemental Spell eventually.

Its just weird.

Fortunately it's not. Please follow the link in my previous post. The Druid dedication has an additional feat which solves this non-existing problem and which you are missing. Sometimes the designers make such oversights but not in this case. :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
graystone wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:
I think the complaint is really less about the access issue and more about two halves of a book being completely disconnected, though that was the intent from Paizo, so it's just the way it is.
Yes, for myself it's less about the hoops you can jump through to do it and more that you have to jump through hoops in the first place.
Well, they could not make them common place though.

Why couldn't inventor give access to guns? What prevented them from doing so? You understand how to make and use giant animal robots and power armor but being able to figure out guns is too much somehow? Again, it feels off to me that the tech guy has to jump through hoops: it'd be like telling the wizard they need to be from a specific place or retrain to learn fire spells IMO or the same before elves can use a bow.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think they are not alone in this plight, but I just remembered the intent of the OP.

My sincere apologies for arguing your point, especially since I have great respect for both you and KC. I believe we can agree to disagree.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Why couldn't inventor give access to guns?

Well, the design principle was that both halves of Guns and Gears would be completely severable; so you could play an inventor in a game where guns don't exist or a Gunslinger in a game absolutely bereft of steampunk. Still, they could have had more ways to combine to two threads in that fifth chapter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

If the GM want someone to have access to something, they can just give them it.

Guns & Gears: Access Entries wrote:
As always, the GM has the final say on who can access uncommon or rarer options or whether to allow specific options in the game at all. They might decide that a character's upbringing or abilities make sense for a specific rules option and grant them access even if the character doesn't automatically qualify, or they might decide those same options can't be taken by anyone.

Giving inventors access to guns because they're inventors seems fair to me, but someone might want to play/allow the purely steampunk inventor. It's probably best that inventors and gunslingers are available in more settings because they don't demand overlap in this way. The division between 'Guns' and 'Gears' is one reason the book is split so cleanly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Well, the design principle was that both halves of Guns and Gears would be completely severable

*shrug* I don't see how access matter for this: if there are no firearms in the game you're playing, then access to them is meaningless no matter if it's from a background, place of origin or from the class. Just as being from Arcadia wouldn't get me guns when Dm has excluded them, so to would be having access from the class. I mean you can still play a gunslinger in a game without guns as it has crossbow options. To me, it's perfectly severable even if there are some options the Dm might exclude. I mean all they had to say is 'in games with firearms, inventors have access to firearms."

thewastedwalrus wrote:
If the GM want someone to have access to something, they can just give them it.

AGAIN, this is pretty meaningless to me: a DM can houserule whatever they wish. That being true has no bearing on my complaints [that I think that inventors SHOULD have access as it fits them IMO]. In more than 0% of the games I'll play in, I'd have to jump through hoops for my inventor to have guns and that seem more than there should be to me.

thewastedwalrus wrote:
Giving inventors access to guns because they're inventors seems fair to me, but someone might want to play/allow the purely steampunk inventor. It's probably best that inventors and gunslingers are available in more settings because they don't demand overlap in this way. The division between 'Guns' and 'Gears' is one reason the book is split so cleanly.

But by your own quote, "they might decide those same options can't be taken by anyone": so if you're using it as a reason to not have it, it works just as fine for me to use it as a reason it SHOULD be there as the DM can always say they don't have it and/or guns do not exist. When the dm can include or exclude what they want, IMO adding what makes sense should be what's done.

PS: I mean this isn't the biggest complaint ever, but it's irksome to me.

Verdant Wheel

3 people marked this as a favorite.
aobst128 wrote:
Animal instinct barbarian deer and frog awkwardly get a bonus plus bigger dice while the others only get the dice. Like deer is just better than snake past 7th level.

I'll echo this.

Missed opportunity to balance the animal instincts against eachother in an interesting way.
And not just with attacks!
Then again, this could be addressed by a future book that offered Instinct-specific feats...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
graystone wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:
I think the complaint is really less about the access issue and more about two halves of a book being completely disconnected, though that was the intent from Paizo, so it's just the way it is.
Yes, for myself it's less about the hoops you can jump through to do it and more that you have to jump through hoops in the first place.
Well, they could not make them common place though.
Why couldn't inventor give access to guns? What prevented them from doing so? You understand how to make and use giant animal robots and power armor but being able to figure out guns is too much somehow? Again, it feels off to me that the tech guy has to jump through hoops: it'd be like telling the wizard they need to be from a specific place or retrain to learn fire spells IMO or the same before elves can use a bow.

More like telling a wizard he needs to jump through hoops to learn divine magic.

Firearms aren’t tech on Golarian, or at least not the same kind of tech the inventor class specializes in. They’re an offshoot of alchemy or semi magical crafting.

Edit: thus isn’t to tell you not to be bothered by it, but the decision does make more sense to me than it seems to for you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Firearms aren’t tech on Golarian, or at least not the same kind of tech the inventor class specializes in. They’re an offshoot of alchemy or semi magical crafting.

Are they? What alchemy goes into Air Repeaters? Is air made with alchemy? It looks to me that you can craft a firearm 100% without alchemy or magic. Secondly, inventors DO have access to bombs, which are alchemy items... :P

I'm seeing much, much, much more in common with tech and firearms than divine and arcane magic.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

I’m not saying you have to agree with it, or see it yourself. I’m saying how it is in lore.

The cartridges specifically are alchemical. Perhaps creating air at that pressure requires either alchemy or magic (Arkadian Guns are the exception to the general rule that firearms are alchemy, as they can be magical instead).


5 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
thewastedwalrus wrote:
If the GM want someone to have access to something, they can just give them it.

AGAIN, this is pretty meaningless to me: a DM can houserule whatever they wish. That being true has no bearing on my complaints [that I think that inventors SHOULD have access as it fits them IMO]. In more than 0% of the games I'll play in, I'd have to jump through hoops for my inventor to have guns and that seem more than there should be to me.

thewastedwalrus wrote:
Giving inventors access to guns because they're inventors seems fair to me, but someone might want to play/allow the purely steampunk inventor. It's probably best that inventors and gunslingers are available in more settings because they don't demand overlap in this way. The division between 'Guns' and 'Gears' is one reason the book is split so cleanly.
But by your own quote, "they might decide those same options can't be taken by anyone": so if you're using it as a reason to not have it, it works just as fine for me to use it as a reason it SHOULD be there as the DM can always say they don't have it and/or guns do not exist. When the dm can include or exclude what they want, IMO adding what makes sense should be what's done.

If access is going to be “meaningless” either way it is by far better to err on the restrictive side. Socially, it is much easier to allow options than it is to disallow them. In this, Paizo did make the correct choice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:

I’m not saying you have to agree with it, or see it yourself. I’m saying how it is in lore.

The cartridges specifically are alchemical. Perhaps creating air at that pressure requires either alchemy or magic (Arkadian Guns are the exception to the general rule that firearms are alchemy, as they can be magical instead).

Can you point me to the lore that says all guns require alchemy/magic? I don't recall seeing the general rule you mention. IMO, it's quite important to know if getting an air repeater requires craft alchemy or magic to use. You'll note that things like Munitions Crafter and alchemical ammunition mention things like black powder but make no mention of "air".

GM OfAnything wrote:
If access is going to be “meaningless” either way it is by far better to err on the restrictive side. Socially, it is much easier to allow options than it is to disallow them. In this, Paizo did make the correct choice.

*shrug* I can't say I agree or that it even has to apply here: for instance, 'in games with firearms, inventors have access to firearms' seems to work for that while allowing DM to opt out of fireams.

PS: I'm not sure why I'm getting SO much pushback on me not liking inventors not getting access to firearms... I didn't know SO many people where invested on them not having them.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:

I’m not saying you have to agree with it, or see it yourself. I’m saying how it is in lore.

The cartridges specifically are alchemical. Perhaps creating air at that pressure requires either alchemy or magic (Arkadian Guns are the exception to the general rule that firearms are alchemy, as they can be magical instead).

Can you point me to the lore that says all guns require alchemy/magic? I don't recall seeing the general rule you mention. IMO, it's quite important to know if getting an air repeater requires craft alchemy or magic to use. You'll note that things like Munitions Crafter and alchemical ammunition mention things like black powder but make no mention of "air".

GM OfAnything wrote:
If access is going to be “meaningless” either way it is by far better to err on the restrictive side. Socially, it is much easier to allow options than it is to disallow them. In this, Paizo did make the correct choice.

*shrug* I can't say I agree or that it even has to apply here: for instance, 'in games with firearms, inventors have access to firearms' seems to work for that while allowing DM to opt out of fireams.

PS: I'm not sure why I'm getting SO much pushback on me not liking inventors not getting access to firearms... I didn't know SO many people where invested on them not having them.

The Gunslinger feat that lets you craft your own free ammunition gives you the alchemical crafting feat, and gun bullets specifically have the alchemical trait.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:

I’m not saying you have to agree with it, or see it yourself. I’m saying how it is in lore.

The cartridges specifically are alchemical. Perhaps creating air at that pressure requires either alchemy or magic (Arkadian Guns are the exception to the general rule that firearms are alchemy, as they can be magical instead).

Can you point me to the lore that says all guns require alchemy/magic? I don't recall seeing the general rule you mention. IMO, it's quite important to know if getting an air repeater requires craft alchemy or magic to use. You'll note that things like Munitions Crafter and alchemical ammunition mention things like black powder but make no mention of "air".

I feel confident you can find it yourself if you try, but it really doesn't matter. This is your own taste conflicting with established lore and flavor of the class and weapon group. I don't want to draw out an argument when there's not really a right or wrong answer here, especially in this of all threads.

Edit: but fine, if it is really that important to you, as air rifles are described as not using black powder and as scientific, I can see your gm allowing you to ignore the requirement that firearm ammunition be crafted using alchemical crafting. I don't see how this would mean inventors should have automatic access, as they are not very widely used, but again if it is that important to you, that should probably be an exception that your gm makes for you.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I honestly can't tell what this thread is for lately. Is it for arguments about Pathfinder firearms or something? It all seems incredibly off-topic and I can't even puzzle out where it originated. Please start a new thread.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
PS: I'm not sure why I'm getting SO much pushback on me not liking inventors not getting access to firearms... I didn't know SO many people where invested on them not having them.

You're surprised that people have strong opinions about firearms in their fantasy? That's... not particularly surprising.

As for pushback, you might get less if you started your own respectful criticism rather than chiming in on somebody else's. When you begin by arguing, it tends to attract argument.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The assumption of PF2 broadly is that if something is not for everybody or every game, it's better to mark it uncommon so GMs can say "yes" or "no" when asked, rather than expecting the GM to comb through every conceivable option to preemptively ban they ones they don't want to deal with.

When you play with completely random strangers as your GM this can get inconvenient, but for a GM "marking something like guns uncommon, and giving nobody access by default except for the gun class" is the easiest way to do it.

But top level choices, that you make at first level, are the easiest ones to do pre-clearance on anyway. I don't know about other people, but I make way more first level characters (and sketches of later level plans) than I ever get to play anyway.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I guess Paizo did not feel Inventor with a gun was such a widely ranging problem that they had to specifically tackle that.

They put it in the hands of the GM, just like so many other things in PF2.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Please start a new thread.

I wish I had a more subtle way to deflate all this, but honestly, I can't think of any new criticisms at the moment to change the subject with. It's a good game and I've already complained enough about Chaotic Good champion codes. That said, please just respect the whole point of this thread.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

The assumption of PF2 broadly is that if something is not for everybody or every game, it's better to mark it uncommon so GMs can say "yes" or "no" when asked, rather than expecting the GM to comb through every conceivable option to preemptively ban they ones they don't want to deal with.

When you play with completely random strangers as your GM this can get inconvenient, but for a GM "marking something like guns uncommon, and giving nobody access by default except for the gun class" is the easiest way to do it.

But top level choices, that you make at first level, are the easiest ones to do pre-clearance on anyway. I don't know about other people, but I make way more first level characters (and sketches of later level plans) than I ever get to play anyway.

That seems pretty at odds with Golarion's grab-bag theme park-style world where wuxia rubs shoulders with steampunk and fur-wearing barbarians.

Plus, the classic plate we picture knights wearing never existed in a time when firearms hadn't been invented. The fact that people have a shaky grasp of history and let that color their idea of high fantasy is something we should work to fix, not something to be expected and catered to.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In a book where half the content is literal firearms and new inventions it is extremely strange for 1 of the 2 classes to not have access to them. The "oh but GM can allow it" doesn't make sense when you consider firearms need permission for access in the first place. So making it so you cannot pick a firearm as part of the base design makes even less sense.

This becomes even stranger when you consider how many explosions the Inventor feats are built around. You know what else explodes? Gunpowder which is in the same book.

So rules wise it is an unneeded restriction on a class that would still not use it if the GM says no. While fluff wise it doesn't work because it cuts off an entire type of weapon that is more flavorful that any of the weird melee weapons (for the feats that Paizo themselves created).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

In a book where half the content is literal firearms and new inventions it is extremely strange for 1 of the 2 classes to not have access to them. The "oh but GM can allow it" doesn't make sense when you consider firearms need permission for access in the first place. So making it so you cannot pick a firearm as part of the base design makes even less sense.

This becomes even stranger when you consider how many explosions the Inventor feats are built around. You know what else explodes? Gunpowder which is in the same book.

So rules wise it is an unneeded restriction on a class that would still not use it if the GM says no. While fluff wise it doesn't work because it cuts off an entire type of weapon that is more flavorful that any of the weird melee weapons (for the feats that Paizo themselves created).

I can only imagine that the designers had their reasons for doing it the way they did.

OP wrote:
On the flip side, when trying to criticize, remember that a human being wrote whatever you're about to say you don't like--a human being who could very well see your post, since they're all on these forums to some extent. This is a thing they worked hard on, through a lot of adversity, and you're here to criticize things about it. That is going to hurt no matter how nice you intend to be. They get a lot of negativity in general on these forums, and by contrast, compliments are tragically uncommon. Consider sandwiching your criticisms in with praise, if you can. In general, be nice.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
GM OfAnything wrote:
I can only imagine that the designers had their reasons for doing it the way they did.

They very likely wanted to make both halves fully useable in campaigns where one or the other didn't fit the tone. There's no real harm in this but they were, as they have been in many things post-CRB, extremely cautious and left a lot of design space unused trying to color within the existing lines.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Norade wrote:
GM OfAnything wrote:
I can only imagine that the designers had their reasons for doing it the way they did.
They very likely wanted to make both halves fully useable in campaigns where one or the other didn't fit the tone. There's no real harm in this but they were, as they have been in many things post-CRB, extremely cautious and left a lot of design space unused trying to color within the existing lines.

That's the reason given in the book. Seems reasonable to me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
PS: I'm not sure why I'm getting SO much pushback on me not liking inventors not getting access to firearms... I didn't know SO many people where invested on them not having them.

Further to my comment above, I do want to apologize for the pushback I did create. As I said, it does make sense to me, so I felt compelled to explain why it did, but as I also said it’s ultimately about taste. And, frankly, I agree with you that inventors should have had firearm access, albeit for different reasons that you do.

Edit: I’ll move further comments to a different thread.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

Sssooo, getting back on track…

One of my favorite things in the game is the three-action economy system. It gets to interact in a pretty nifty way with a select few spells, and while I will take this opportunity to say that the more of them, the merrier, I want to actually point out that I’d love to have a more universal, maybe external way of interacting with spells in general. Oh, wait! We do have a way, metamagic options!

Yet, but, however and nevertheless, there is just so few metamagic options… I loved Secrets of Magic, but before what kind content it would have was announced, I was so hard under the impression that it’d have like, a bucket of metamagic feats, that when I found out that it’d barely have any kind of class feats — god, it kind of hit me hard hahaha!

And I mean sure, it’s also worthy pointing out that, generally and personally, I do feel like the caster class’ feats aren’t as exciting as everyone else’s. But, if it’s really an issue at all, my problem here is how wide the design space for metamagic feats seem to be for this edition, and how little explored it is still. :c

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are 75 feats and 3 focus spells with the Metamagic trait.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
There are 75 feats and 3 focus spells with the Metamagic trait.

We need more, MORE!!!

Seriously though, that does sound like a lot until you recall that many of those feats are spread out among multiple classes and archetypes. Really I think it'd be cool to have a Metamagician archetype that can grab feats from other classes at slightly higher levels and use them. That would fix any dearth of metamagic options for me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's a lot of meta magic out there but it's spread pretty thin and much of them are very specific.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
There are 75 feats and 3 focus spells with the Metamagic trait.

Still not impressed with the metamagic wizard! Even at level 20, they can only flex between 8 of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Regarding metamagic I heavily dislike that you can only use one even if you have the extra actions to apply more. Specially the fact that you cannot combine them with other activities (Ex: Spellstrike).

The fact that each class only gets a handful of them that are hyper specific (how they get away with having 75 but most of them being really memorable). Just makes it worse.

Prepared casters losing the ability to prepare spells with metamagic is just a nail in the coffin. Specially when you consider that it's a natural way to make spells weaker due to the spell level requirement.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Incidentally, I just thought of another good reason not to start arguments with people here. If you have something nice to say about something in Pathfinder, what's a better use for that something?

a) Start a potentially lengthy argument over it, which will likely be, at best, a neutral slog for the designer if they ever see it.

b) Start a new thread to talk about the thing you like, so the designer can see it and feel appreciated in a much less backhanded way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
There are 75 feats and 3 focus spells with the Metamagic trait.

What metamagic feats have the most bang for the buck in battle?

I use Reach Spell the most.

What metamagic feats do people use most often and in what context?


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Did I mention that I think Innate Spells should be based on a choice of Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma? I'll say it again. I think that would be a good way to make them useful to all kinds of characters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
Did I mention that I think Innate Spells should be based on a choice of Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma? I'll say it again. I think that would be a good way to make them useful to all kinds of characters.

Agreed. Innate magic could be expressed in a lot of different ways. Like elves are very knowledgeable of magic, why are their innate spells charisma based? It could just as easily be that you have studied a little bit of magic for int innate spells or channel a bit of primal or divine magic for wisdom.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
There are 75 feats and 3 focus spells with the Metamagic trait.

What metamagic feats have the most bang for the buck in battle?

I use Reach Spell the most.

What metamagic feats do people use most often and in what context?

Mostly reach, because it's available through natural ambition and it's pretty handy.

Expending lvl 2+ slots in metamagic, given the alternatives, is imo not appealing ( apart from the lvl 10 quickened casting).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I wish there was a metamagic like Widen Spell, but that worked for created objects like walls and defensive spheres and the like. Or perhaps Flexible/Malleable Spell that let you slightly increase or decrease the size, though that would be mostly for sphere options since you can make a wall as long as you want as long as it's below the maximum distance.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
There are 75 feats and 3 focus spells with the Metamagic trait.

Oh wow! I hope this doesn't come off as a little leading or anything like this because that's really not my intention, but despite having played a wizard from level 1 - 20 (before APG came out, tbh) and having GMed a good few short campaigns already...

I mean, if anyone had told me that there are only ten or fifteen metamagic feats in the game, I'd genuinely have shrugged and said something like "Sure, sounds about right". :/

I'm curious about what people thought's are about metamagic options, so I think, hmm... I think I'll create a new thread!

Also, here's another grievance that I have with the game, and this is actually something that I find a little, substantially (but respectfully), annoying: Recall Knowledge insta-locking after a failure. I mean, I get the idea behind this: A failure should mean something, narratively, and the resolution that you don't know anything more about the subject sure is something.

But at least when using it against foes and enemies... I mean, I dunno, I feel like it should an extra clause or something. Narratively, it's as easy as saying "The battlefield is always chaotic and interrupting, and a failure in using Recall Knowledge against foes during an encounter represents the character not being able to concentrate instead of not knowing anything else about the subject".

But, I'll concede that I'm not sure what are the repercussions for that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

ALSO! I just remembered something else, just after sending the post. But, hero points, man! It's horrible, to watch a player go from a pyrrhic failure to a crushing critical failure because bad luck dice. We've had a whole discussion about this, after a session. Very politely, of course. First, on how to earn them.

It's recommended that a hero point is awarded from thirty to thirty minutes, more or less. Yet, as one of my players themselves remarked, in a game about heroism — either only great heroic actions are the ones where the reward feels right, or the GM look for excuses to give out hero points constantly.

The first one feels the most right — to our group, at least — while the second feels a little... I don't know. Unrewarding? A player said something akin to "I like trying to gain hero points. If you'd just look for excuses to give them out, I feel like I wouldn't try to be awarded anymore, you know?".

The issue is that, independently, hero points don't... Feel particularly heroic, most of the time. I've been recommended the hero points deck for juice effects and what not, but ironically, I just entered a game with that anddddd the first time I decided to cash in my hero point for a hero card or whatever it's called, I got the ranged shot opportunity thing. With my melee sentinel rogue. :c

I wonder if upgrading a degree of sucess with a hero points sounds like, way too good. It does, right?

201 to 250 of 532 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / A Safe Space for Respectful Criticisms of PF2 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.