| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly have no idea why Paizo decided to make minotaurs a PC race. I mean, they are mostly evil. They are the minions of Baphomet. If minotaurs can be a PC race, I guess ogres and trolls can too, but surprisingly Paizo has no intention to make them PC races at all though. Also, I'm still not sure whether making a large race into a PC race is desirable or not.
That was not stated in Monster Core. Monster Core has a little more text to it than the Bestiary did. The above was also not stated in the Bestiary. I believe it comes from 1E and from reading the statements of the attack on Absalom in the 2E Absalom book as indicative of the entire ancestry rather than just those attackers.
The Minotaurs on Kortos are descendants of mercenaries are apparently outliers t the norms of Minotaur society. Unless they too were retconned in 2E.
In Howls of the Wild they're much more general in tone and their usual deities tend to be Irori or Nethys.
They haven't quite been given the 'Noble Tauren' treatment, but it's close. They're even mostly vegetarian - meat reserved for one monthly communal meal if a 'monster hunter' ordeal returns triumphant).
(That makes a good segue to something that does pop up: a Centaur dressed in 'Plains Indian' inspired style dress and hair. A possible hint that they want to do that next continent?)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I DO have the book, and the only rules contradictions against Player Core that I saw was HotW saying not to worry about increased costs for Large gear for Large ancestries--an explicit change from Player Core's rules on Larger gear.
15 foot reach on a D12 weapon is pretty broken, since the only other way to accomplish this would be a Deer Animal Instinct Barbarian with an Enlarge spell attached to them.It's 10'.
The correct answer is actually somewhere in between those two. Minotaur with the Stretching Reach feat, do have 10 foot reach, "technically." However, they're also Large (usually), and so their 10 foot reach covers many more squares than that of a Medium creature with 10 foot reach. In effect, large minotaur with Stretching Reach have "Reach+." Saying they "effectively" have 15 foot reach is not as far off the mark as one might think.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, reading the pros and cons. Minotaurs do appear to be on the strong side.
- The ability boosts are pretty nice, but not outrageously better than for example dwarves, what with how important wisdom is.
- Darkvision is nice to have, but with how cheap darkvision elixirs are, I don't think it's a big deal, for the few times when spamming a light cantrip by a party member isn't viable.
- The horns attack doesn't have any useful traits, except not needing a free hand. A bland d8 is about the quality of a free simple weapon. Yawn.
- Keen Nose feat isn't limited to buying at level 1, which would be the case for gnolls which also don't get the bonus to olfactory saves. Shiny.
- Stretching Reach as a level 5 feat was previously available to leshies as a level 1 feat, but I guess since it's level 5 it doesn't reduce the damage die size. It gives you your "reach" but it locks you into 2H weapons.
- Friendly Fling is actually pretty good, especially if your ally has composite armor & specialization effects.
Overall they have a bunch of things that are maybe slightly better than existing options, but not really enough to change the game.
The correct answer is actually somewhere in between those two. Minotaur with the Stretching Reach feat, do have 10 foot reach, "technically." However, they're also Large (usually), and so their 10 foot reach covers many more squares than that of a Medium creature with 10 foot reach. In effect, large minotaur with Stretching Reach have "Reach+." Saying they "effectively" have 15 foot reach is not as far off the mark as one might think.
Yeah, it depends on whether you see reach as "who can I hit without moving" or "who can I hit who can't hit me without moving".
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't have the book yet, so stop arguing about it.I imagine other people who have posted in this thread likewise don't have the book yet, and I am also not the only one to have made the conclusions I have made, so enough with the petty gatekeeping.
Nobody else is choosing it as their very silly hill to die on. It isn't gatekeeping to suggest maybe you should read the book before you critique the book. That's just common sense.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
We can look at Starfinder to get some idea of whether being large is good. Cuz it has large races with 5ft reach (awakened bear) and 10ft (dragonkin).
It's been a while since I've played Starfinder (waiting for the 2E..) but overall I've seen:
- Even when editors and writers say they're going to make dungeons sized for large creatures, that doesn't really always happen. It's worst at low level when most enemies are medium sized. Most of the time the dungeon is sized to accommodate the monsters, and at higher levels those tend to get bigger.
- Bigger PCs get targeted more. They draw more attention from the GM (noticeably so in SFS where the GM doesn't always already know the PCs). They also tend to just be more available as a target - at the front of the party, or not fully behind cover, etc. Also, many people that make bigger PCs also have a tendency to go into melee.
- You can control more area on the battlefield, if controlling area is a thing that you do. You threaten more enemies with reactions, and they have to work harder to wriggle out of your zone.
- You can block enemy paths more. If your goal is to shield the squishy casters in your back line, that's easier if you block off two lanes.
- Setting up flanks is harder, but PF2 does have a fair amount of other ways to get off-balance going. The new Gang Up could be pretty gross for a large PC.
- For maneuvers, being bigger is generally better. You can maneuver some big enemies that you otherwise couldn't, and you're sometimes too big to grab or swallow.
---
Overall I think being large can be a net positive if you build for it, and most people who make big PCs do so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Minotaurs break the game, but:
- They improve 2-hander Fighter, a build that I don't really want to see improved.
- They are the go-to choice for 2-hander martials using Strength (so most of them).
- They are the go-to choice for most Strength-based martials (Strength + Constitution - Charisma is awesome).
What I dislike is that we will see Minotaurs everywhere... And blocking them because of rarity will just increase their attractivity in games that allow them. So I expect parties mostly made of Minotaurs to come out soon. And because Minotaurs improve specific martials build more than other, I also expect parties mostly made of Reach-based martials. It'll be quite chaotic.
Are nuar and minotaur the same thing? It seemed like HotW hinted that they were, but I recall Starfinder indicating that they weren't.
My memory isn't great, so I just really have no idea what to believe.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are nuar and minotaur the same thing? It seemed like HotW hinted that they were, but I recall Starfinder indicating that they weren't.
My memory isn't great, so I just really have no idea what to believe.
They are explicitly named for Nuar Spiritskin, a Minotaur who lives in Absalom during Pathfinder time. From AON's page on Nuars:
Nuars are one of the many species that trace their origin to Golarion, as they bear a close resemblance to the minotaurs known to have developed on that world. Despite beginning the era after the Gap with no home world and living only in the Pact Worlds, the desire of nuars to build a place for themselves, coupled with a natural aptitude for complex patterns and structures, has led them to spread far and wide as explorers, colonists, troops, and engineers. Nuars prove quick to adapt to local customs, and many spend much of their adulthood far from any other members of their species.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the issue is that minotaurs are way too strong. They're overtuned, sure, but the problem--IMHO--is that previous, conceptually interesting ancestries weren't given the same power budget. Like, why didn't we get this wild when fleshwarps were introduced, y'know? I feel like the correct balance point should probably a nudge below minotaurs, but definitely higher than, like, hobgoblins.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the thing PF2 managed to get rid (mostly) was the obvious association between a build and a ra... an Ancestry. The only one I see is the assocation between Bouncy Goblin and Swashbuckler.
Now we have an obvious association between Minotaur and:
- 2-hander Fighter. One of the most efficient and common Fighter build. 10ft Reach + large size will guarantee tons of AoOs, there's no reason to play another Ancestry.
- Barbarian. Giant Stature without paying for the feat nor taking the Clumsy condition. Also, excellent stat spread. Most Barbarians will be Minotaurs from now on.
- Paladin. The stat spread is not as optimal as the 2 previous build, but Ranged Reprisal with a 10ft Reach Greatsword and Large size to attract attention on a tank is just golden.
- Guardian. So obvious I think most Guardians will be Minotaurs.
- Armor Inventor. The stat spread compensates the low hit points pool of the Inventor and extra reach is just bonus.
- Monk. Extra attention and excellent stat spread, it will be a classic.
Overall, there are 10% of the builds in this game that will be associated to Minotaur as other Ancestries will be far behind. That's a significant hit on build diversity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
- Barbarian. Giant Stature without paying for the feat nor taking the Clumsy condition. Also, excellent stat spread. Most Barbarians will be Minotaurs from now on.
I'm not sure about this. This is all preliminary since we haven't seen the Remastered Barbarian yet, but while the level 5 reach feat saves you from having to take Giant's Lunge at level 14, you're also prevented from taking Giant's Stature and thus Titan's Stature.
So you're going to max out at 10' of reach for a Giant Barbarian, but a smaller character (including the medium heritage for minotaurs) can get up to 20" by stacking the aforementioned feats.
The medium ancestry is a good choice though for a giant instinct barbarian since you do get the effect of the level 14 feat at 5th, and you have a built-in character concept of being annoyed that you were smaller than other Minotaurs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure about this. This is all preliminary since we haven't seen the Remastered Barbarian yet, but while the level 5 reach feat saves you from having to take Giant's Lunge at level 14, you're also prevented from taking Giant's Stature and thus Titan's Stature.
So you're going to max out at 10' of reach for a Giant Barbarian, but a smaller character (including the medium heritage for minotaurs) can get up to 20" by stacking the aforementioned feats.
The medium ancestry is a good choice though for a giant instinct barbarian since you do get the effect of the level 14 feat at 5th, and you have a built-in character concept of being annoyed that you were smaller than other Minotaurs.
From level 1 to 11 it's exactly the same size and reach, well, it's actually better at level 5. Also, at level 6 you can take Reactive Strike, 2 levels earlier than a Giant Barbarian. And you don't suffer from the Clumsy condition even if you have a slighly lower damage output (but you can go for Dragon Breath and other very nice things from other instincts as you basically combine 2 Instincts). Also, remember the action cost of Giant/Titan Stature and Giant Lunge, with these 2 actions you can do a lot of things, and you also start every fight large (which may be a good thing if you have your Reaction at the start of the fight). I don't think many people build for level 12+, and even at that level the Giant Instinct Barbarian is not really shining. In my opinion, it took a gigantic nail in the coffin.
And even if you decide to play a Giant Instinct Barbarian, you make a point with the smaller size Minotaur, so still and again a Minotaur. It's not really defeating my point: Barbarians will be mostly Minotaurs from now on. Actually, most Str-based characters will end up being Minotaurs as the builds will stand out greatly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the issue is that minotaurs are way too strong. They're overtuned, sure, but the problem--IMHO--is that previous, conceptually interesting ancestries weren't given the same power budget. Like, why didn't we get this wild when fleshwarps were introduced, y'know? I feel like the correct balance point should probably a nudge below minotaurs, but definitely higher than, like, hobgoblins.
While I agree with your general sentiment that ancestry design (especially base design) is a little conservative... to be clear though, the base ancestry sheet for the minotaur isn't really that different than what already exists though. The only really notable feature is that it's large, which is obviously pretty significant but somewhat of a mixed bag from a pure power perspective and campaign dependent.
What most of this thread comes down to is one specific feat that's probably going to be errata bait anyways (and a second feat that's also kind of weird but most people aren't talking about it anymore). A lot of the other stuff is just kind of there.
I think saying that minotaurs are OP because of a single feat is stretching IMO. The basic chassis of the ancestry is pretty much the same as orcs but being large, which effectively makes it worse than orcs, and I feel most of the feats being slightly above average in budget is to compensate for the fact that the class would be easier to target because of its size. Is this feat still too good? Absolutely, though a weaker version of that feat already existed with the leshy's Grasping Reach which is a lower level feat for a smaller ancestry. I think in terms of budget both feats even out when you take into account the advantages and disadvantes of each ancestry, even if in actual practice one feat is clearly better.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The basic chassis of the ancestry is pretty much the same as orcs but being large...
And a Reach+ option, the ability to boost a third physical attribute, and the inclusion of a natural attack.
That's like, twice the chasis the orc gets.
The basic chassis of the ancestry is pretty much the same as orcs but being large...And a Reach+ option, the ability to boost a third physical attribute, and the inclusion of a natural attack.
That's like, twice the chasis the orc gets.
Orcs have the options of modifying their 'fist' attack or getting a tusk finesse attack for a 1st level feat so a minotaurs plain 1d8 horn doesn't seem huge.
Reach plus is a push IMO: huge has as many minuses as pluses as more squares to reach into also means more squares you can be flanked from.
Third physical attribute is the biggest boon.
IMO, Orcs have better feats overall: for instance Ord Weapon Familiarity while Minotaur Weapon Familiarity doesn't. Orc monks can add shove and Shove and persistent bleed to their unarmed attacks. There is a list of Orc Ferocity feats. Minotaur has a reach feat...
So twice isn't what I'm seeing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect like there was a deliberate attempt in this book to make innate natural attacks more attractive. Like aren't there some archetypes about that?
Since I don't think I've seen a lot of characters based on natural attacks that their ancestry gives. Since it's easy enough for your Iruxi or Amurrun PC to just pick up a weapon like everybody else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It has generally felt to me like most unarmed attacks from ancestries feel calibrated to about the level of a simple weapon, so it has seemed a bit unsatisfying for a martial character to specialize in their own natural attacks.
To that end I've been wondering if really anything would break if I happened to say that all martial (or at least Monk) automatically increase their unarmed strikes from ancestry by a die size. Now seeing there being a few new ways to utilize natural weapons I'll have to reconsider this but it doesn't seem outrageous on the first glance
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nah, I'm fine with Minotaur as it is. But D8 horns are crazy, even if there's no upgrades to them since that usually takes a Heritage+feat.
D8 horns are D8 Free hands, better really since even with occupied hands you can still use them
Kashrishi have a d6 finesse horn you can upgrade to d8 for a 1st level feat and can add Trip and Grapple for a 5th.
Or Lizardfolk have a d4 finesse/agile claw and can pick up a 1d8 piercing bite and/or a d6 bludgeoning tail for a 1st level feat and they can take Iruxi Unarmed Cunning for unarmed critical specialization and/or Iruxi Spirit Strike to ghost touch their unarmed attacks.
A plain d8 isn't super exciting if you aren't already using unarmed as you have to rune up some handwraps for them in addition to whatever weapon you usually use. Without any backup feats, it's worse than a simple weapon [d8 simple melee weapons at least get a Trait]. Handsfree isn't really a bonus unless you're already using handsfree attacks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
5-foot hallway 5-foot smallway! The vast majority of Pathfinder combats take place in open rooms, or larger open areas, not long narrow corridors.
Reach plus is a push IMO: huge has as many minuses as pluses as more squares to reach into also means more squares you can be flanked from.
I don't get why people say getting flanked as a large creature is easier. It's not. The fact that you're bigger means enemies have to travel farther to get around to the other side.
Sure you can be flanked by more enemies, but that's a GOOD thing. If you're fighting 4+ enemies that can afford to ignore the rest of the party just to flank you, then in all likelihood they are all much weaker than you. Better to fight many weak enemies than one boss three levels above you any day!
Third physical attribute is the biggest boon.
Eh, I'd argue it's the darkvision. I know of no ancestry ability more coveted than darkvision.
IMO, Orcs have better feats overall: for instance Ord Weapon Familiarity while Minotaur Weapon Familiarity doesn't. Orc monks can add shove and Shove and persistent bleed to their unarmed attacks. There is a list of Orc Ferocity feats. Minotaur has a reach feat...
I'll grant you that possibility, but it makes sense; orcs are a core ancestry and have been around longer. As such, they would have more choices, and with more choices, comes a higher likelihood of finding better choices.
A plain d8 isn't super exciting...it's worse than a simple weapon [d8 simple melee weapons at least get a Trait].
What are you talking about? There is only one common simple weapon that does d8 damage and that has an additional trait in the game, and that's the longspear (which has the reach trait).
Those horns, by virtue of their higher damage and strength attribute bonus, are strictly better than the vast majority of simple melee weapons out there.
I don't get why people say getting flanked as a large creature is easier. It's not. The fact that you're bigger means enemies have to travel farther to get around to the other side.
You literally have more squares you can be flanked with, the same way you count reach as reach+. That means there are more angles of attack and that also means more large+ creatures can flank you. It takes a lot more work to get flanked by 4 large creatures as a normal sized PC vs a large one.
Eh, I'd argue it's the darkvision. I know of no ancestry ability more coveted than darkvision.
I meant boon over other ancestries: darkvison isn't particularly rare: 10 ancestries and 8 heritages and 9 versatile heritages that get you darkvision [NOT including minotaur]. Then there are ancestry feats that upgrade lowlight to darkvision.
I'll grant you that possibility, but it makes sense; orcs are a core ancestry and have been around longer. As such, they would have more choices, and with more choices, comes a higher likelihood of finding better choices.
Yep, that's why you'd pick one of the core races if you want darkvision: there are 3 common that get it at base so you can pick the heritage you want and have a much greater pick of feats.
What are you talking about? There is only one common simple weapon that does d8 damage and that has an additional trait in the game, and that's the longspear (which has the reach trait).
Those horns, by virtue of their higher damage and strength attribute bonus, are strictly better than the vast majority of simple melee weapons out there.
2 d8 simple weapons, you missed Thundermace. Both have 1 trait. Hands are meaningless as we're talking unarmed so comparing them to other d8 weapons seems apt as you're only rune-ing up one weapon at a time. A d8 attack isn't impressive unless it's equal to your main weapon and if unarmed is your main attack, Dragon Stance gets you a d10 and it's only a 1st level feat.
I didn't miss the thundermace. I explicitly stated "common simple weapon," which the thundermace is not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't miss the thundermace. I explicitly stated "common simple weapon," which the thundermace is not.
Shrug. I don't really see that common matters but ok. I mean minotaurs are uncommon too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
most players are going to pick ancestries based on the vision they have for their character and not a hypothetical optimized build
Stormwind fallacy spotted.
Players choose Ancestries based on the vision they have for their character and their mechanical effectiveness. You can't disregard one or the other.
And Minotaur Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Monk or Guardian is not exactly an unpleasant vision. I'm pretty sure many players will find it appealing enough to justify going for the optimized build. Especially when it's so obvious (Minotaurs being good melee martials is not really far-fetched).
If they put the Minotaur at 80 AcP in PFS, I expect to see nearly as many of them than I'm currently seeing Kineticists (25% of the new character base roughly at my tables, and I have more than a hundred PFS2 games).
Their horns are interesting.
Nice to have a piercing weapon at hand(or on head) whenever piercing is the kind of damage you need.
Stormwind fallacy spotted.
Players choose Ancestries based on the vision they have for their character and their mechanical effectiveness. You can't disregard one or the other.
And Minotaur Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Monk or Guardian is not exactly an unpleasant vision. I'm pretty sure many players will find it appealing enough to justify going for the optimized build. Especially when it's so obvious (Minotaurs being good melee martials is not really far-fetched).
I'm generally in agreement, certainly for one of my local groups. Minotaur is going to be popular and it is a small power increase. I don't think it will be as bad as all that though. It terms of power increases in expansions, PF2 is still very well balanced and in control.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Their horns are interesting.
Nice to have a piercing weapon at hand(or on head) whenever piercing is the kind of damage you need.
Piercing is the most common damage type for ancestry natural weapons [jaws/bites/horns/quills/spines], followed by slashing [claws] and then bludgeoning [tail/hoof/wing]. It's the opposite from the most common needed/wanted type of bludgeoning then slashing then piercing.
However, if you're focused on unarmed attacks and have slashing and bludgeoning taken care of, d8 piercing horns aren't bad.
A plain d8 isn't super exciting if you aren't already using unarmed as you have to rune up some handwraps for them in addition to whatever weapon you usually use. Without any backup feats, it's worse than a simple weapon [d8 simple melee weapons at least get a Trait]. Handsfree isn't really a bonus unless you're already using handsfree attacks.
I agree with you that hands free attacks with no traits aren't especially broken or even generally that good, but there are at least a couple builds that appreciate it. Mutagen focused alchemists spring to mind. Certain implement combos also dig it-- basically anything relying on passive abilities which could synergize with each other, like lantern + tome. Or heck, even just singular passive implementats like regalia.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Players choose Ancestries based on the vision they have for their character and their mechanical effectiveness. You can't disregard one or the other.
Yes, but also no. If option A is the most optimized option but option B is still optimal but the one that is the closest to your vision of the character then you are going to pick B. Minotaurs are, for a multitude of factors, an ancestry that a ton of people aren't going to consider taking even if it happened to be the strongest ancestry in the game. As an example, I myself have a hard time investing myself in playing a character that doesn't have at least some human or human-esque characteristics. I find stuff like leshies like funny comedic relief characters that I couldn't honestly relate to in a serious way, and minotaurs being a dude with a bull head does kinda fall in that category as well, though not as egregious as leshies, kobolds, poppets, or the other "cute" ancestries.
(weirdly enough, I'm totally fine with centaurs and would like to play one at some point. I also would be totally onboard with a medium sized poppet).
With I'm trying to say is, even if minotaurs are strong, your ol' average human is still good and fits literally in any build, so if you don't like minotaurs for whatever reason or just don't vibe with them even if it would be better for your build to take minotaur you are more likely going to take human or whatever ancestry fits with your concept. As another example, I have an air kineticist build that I haven't played yet because I don't know which ancestry use with it. Elf would be the most fitting since they start with a high movement speed and have stuff like Elf Step to make it even higher, but since I played like a bizillion elves and half-elves already I would want to try something else, and my current character is a human (changeling human but anyways) so playing yet another human in a row would be a little boring.
...pretending that Large size is always an advantage, rather than a disadvantage, is a bit disingenuous too...
I agree.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
* I don't think getting better reach at level 5 is game-breaking. There's a massive bunch of other things PCs can be doing at that level that are as, or more, awesome.
* Ravingdork makes a lot of good points about "Reach+" and the vagaries of flanking re: the Minotaur and its foes. I've always like Large characters, and I feel this is a fabulous addition to combat mechanics and tactics. I always maintain that the PF2 ruleset is elegant enough to cope with just about anything. And to me this is hardly even something.
* As for SuperBidi's point about the oncoming wave of Minotaur "builds" - all I can say to that is that people who choose ancestries for mechanics will choose ancestries for mechanics. It's....sometimes...sad. Who am I kidding? I mostly always find that completely irritating. But it makes sense too. There will be a draw to make big Guardians and Barbarians and 2-hand Fighters. Both in game and out. Minotaurs are (mostly) big. And they can hit hard. And they are built for being big fighters, and probably align with Barbarian themes. etc etc.
I'll be making a Large awakened Polar Bear. :) Which I had in my mind's eye well before Pullman's Dark Materials were an (admittedly awesome) thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As big and bad as they are, I have at least one friend who is totally psyched about playing a "minitaurtaur."
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The argument about Large being a hindrance because of frequent cramped quarters holds no water for me.
Because if it happens too often, either I will not play a Minotaur in such a campaign if forewarned or I will ask to ditch my PC and play another one.
Also being able to threaten more squares and in risk of being flanked more often are not of equal value.
Being always Large is thus quite valuable IMO simply because people will build to maximise its benefits and reduce its disadvantages as we almost always do.
So, yes getting this and all the rest feels too strong. It is not an avalanche of power bloat but it does sound like a pretty big pebble. So, I hope it will not become a future trend.
I find it also rather amusing that people point to the Medium Minotaur as a point of balance when it has the potential for the greatest reach for an Ancestry of their Size.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really buy darkvision being really that powerful. Have you seen the remastered light cantrip? It's available, it's flexible, it's powerful.
And for the rare situation that doesn't work (stealth mission?) you could use a darkvision elixir which is pretty cheap.
Darkvision is nice to have but the alternatives are so affordable, that it shouldn't be rated as a superpower.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being always Large is thus quite valuable IMO simply because people will build to maximise its benefits and reduce its disadvantages as we almost always do.
I'm glad somebody said it. This is something that I feel people are not really considering, or at least not addressing, as much as they should.
I don't really buy darkvision being really that powerful.
...
Darkvision is nice to have but the alternatives are so affordable, that it shouldn't be rated as a superpower.
It's not powerful. It's necessary. If you've ever been the one guy in the party without darkvision, then you know that any fight that takes place in the dark is one you basically can't participate in. A party of characters without attempting to fight enemies with darkvision are going to be sorely pressed. Darkvision is the single most evident balance divide between the haves and have nots in this game. So much so that many people on this forum wish that darkvision was done differently, or was not so prevalent among PC ancestries.
Sure you can bring a light source, but then any characters with darkvision are going to resent you for always alerting the enemy to the party's presence. Darkvision potions and similar options do become affordable and accessible after a while though, so I do admit that this is largely a low to mid-level problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the penalty for being large is mostly "you are going to be off-guard a whole lot because you are very easy to flank. This directly offsets "you can reach a great many squares" since it's basically "a great many squares can reach you." Minotaurs aren't a great choice for anything that doesn't want to make melee attacks, which is a whole lot of different characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have an ally on one side of a large creature you have 4 squares that will give flanking. Basically an L shape on the other side of the large creature
If an ally is on the other side of a medium creature there is only 1 square that gives flanking with that ally.
So 1 ally that is survivable enough can set up a flank for up to 4 characters against large targets.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have an ally on one side of a large creature you have 4 squares that will give flanking. Basically an L shape on the other side of the large creature
If an ally is on the other side of a medium creature there is only 1 square that gives flanking with that ally.So 1 ally that is survivable enough can set up a flank for up to 4 characters against large targets.
How exactly do you get four?
If you're sitting on a diagonal corner, then you only flank with someone at the opposite diagonal. In the diagram below, red flank with each other against the minotaur, but black does not flank with black or with red.
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⭕⬜
⬜⬜Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬜⬜
⬜⚫Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬜⬜
⬜⭕⚫⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
If you're on one of the broad faces, then you only flank for two others. Again, as shown below red flanks with red, but black flanks with no one.
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⭕Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⭕⬜
⬜⭕Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬜⬜
⬜⬜⚫⚫⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
How on Golarion did you get one guy setting up flanking for four others?
EDIT: Ah. Are two of your four flankers using reach weapons? That can get you four flankers with only one setting up, albeit with two having to deal with soft cover. Still, if you're fighting 5 enemies, all the individual enemies likely aren't that much of a threat to begin with. In the time it takes for them to set that up, you and your allies have likely already killed one or two of them.
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⭕⭕Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⭕⬜
⬜⭕⭕Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⚫⚫⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜