|
sugar free jazz posted:booooo Do weapons with potency or striking runes work against golems?
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 02:18 |
|
|
Golem antimagic was terribly designed and worded really badly
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 17:29
|
|
|
Golem antimagic falls into the same category as monsters being immune to precision damage in that encounters that are designed to make a player's class useless are bad and feel bad
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 17:36
|
|
|
I found the golem fights we've had rather lame, not because Golem Anti-magic locked any characters out of participating, but because we had their weakness each time so there was no choices to make or interesting things to do besides casting the spell that damages them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 17:37
|
|
|
Chevy Slyme posted:Do weapons with potency or striking runes work against golems? personally i say no because it's more fun that way and kinda makes sense within the rules as they have the magical tag. my players have never not defeated a golem because of this, they've just had an additional problem to solve and they figure it out. however, as is normal within pf2e, ask your gm! gm adjudication is a core part of how pf2e is supposed to play. use it and don't think of it as a bad thing. considering it's a monster that the gm is either aware of before hand because it's an ap, or they're deciding to put into the game because they're the gm, the gm should just make a decision beforehand but also be flexible to the players like with literally everything else in a campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 17:57
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Golem antimagic was terribly designed and worded really badly 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 18:02
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Golem antimagic was terribly designed and worded really badly
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 18:55
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Golem antimagic was terribly designed and worded really badly Now they just need to address wisps
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 19:56
|
|
|
Mister Olympus posted:Now they just need to address wisps I'm running AV and other than corpselight wisps they pretty much all suck. Their damage is low, their AC is abnormally high, and the fights just devolve into the sorcerer casting magic missile until they die. They are rarely a threat, outside the secret boss encounter. Corpselight wisps are so cool though! Having a powerful short range cone attack that costs three actions makes them fun to play around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 21:13
|
|
|
Mister Olympus posted:Also, a mount is worse if you're stuck in melee, since mount and rider share MAP and you can only use the free action to Strike or Stride, compared to a separate companion having independent MAP and being able to flank with you. Gang Up from Rogue or Side by Side from Ranger/Druid/Beastmaster are pretty handy for this, it means you basically get perma-flanking while mounted. That's especially nasty for a Rogue that then gets Sneak Attack enabled forever without needing to waste any actions doing so, on top of the free companion-speed Stride every round. It's also worth noting that you get cover while mounted, but the wording on that is a little vague as to when it would apply. When would your mount be 'in the way'? When would it not be? Is it anything that doesn't come from directly above? CRB p. 478 posted:Because your mount is larger than you and you share its space, you have lesser cover against attacks targeting you when you’re mounted if the mount would be in the way. It's pretty drat strong, it's just difficult to properly weight how much of an issue piloting a Large creature base around will be in your campaign. I feel like the free Stride is still the biggest advantage though, 3-action abilities like Impossible Flurry or Whirlwind/Avalanche Strike become massively more practical and effective if you don't need to spend one of your 3 actions to position yourself. Magus would probably benefit from it a lot more too to pull off Spellstrike + Recharge turns more often.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 04:33
|
|
|
Vanguard Warden posted:I feel like the free Stride is still the biggest advantage though, 3-action abilities like Impossible Flurry or Whirlwind/Avalanche Strike become massively more practical and effective if you don't need to spend one of your 3 actions to position yourself. Magus would probably benefit from it a lot more too to pull off Spellstrike + Recharge turns more often.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 06:37
|
|
|
depends on which kind of magus too. archer magus doesn't really need to stride as often, and laughing shadow has the same problem as paladin where its important movement abilities specify you move. two-hander and staff magus also lose the benefits of using reach weapons, and staff doesn't need to stride all the time either, when spellstriking using a spell slot. i'm pretty firm in my earlier conclusion that the feat investment of a mount is possibly the biggest concern outside of free archetype games, as much as i'd like free archetype to be the default. Mister Olympus fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Jan 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 06:39
|
|
|
Honestly, I have no idea what feats people take if they aren't dipping into archetypes, whenever I look through a class's feat list I never see more than ~5 or so that really stand out. Not even just in terms of min-max char-op stuff, strictly on flavor-terms I'd rather spend a few feats to have a cool animal buddy I can use as a battle-scooter than having a few more different ways of hitting someone to deal damage. After looking through Sorcerer class feats I wound up just taking full Bard and Oracle archetype spellcasting instead to nearly double my spells per day, the bloodline spells are usually some silly melee thing that doesn't make any sense with a full spellcaster. A full animal companion isn't too bad on feats anyway, it's just 4: Beastmaster/Cavalier Dedication at 2nd, Mature Companion at 4th, Incredible Companion at 8th, and Specialized Companion at 14th. 2nd-level and 4th-level class feats usually aren't anything particularly exciting (if you're not a Monk), so only two of those are going to compete with anything rough to miss out on on. You normally can only get 10 feats total outside of 1st-level ones, but If you're doing this on a Fighter then the extra class feats you get at 9th and 15th largely make up for that. If you dip Human ancestry at all via Adopted Ancestry or otherwise you can get an extra 1st-level class feat and an extra multi-class dedication feat at 9th via archetype feats, so that can help fit some pieces together too. The mounted reach penalty is unfortunate, I hadn't actually noticed that little clause before. You wouldn't be able to benefit from things like Side by Side or Gang Up if your companion wasn't in range of the target too anyway though, so you'd already want to be using non-reach weaponry to get the most out of the mounted situation. The mount is a great fit if you were already planning to go for dual dogslicers or Stumbling Stance, although I'm incapable of picturing someone using Stumbling Stance to punch people from atop a saddle despite it being rules-legal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 10:06
|
|
|
It seems like there are some strong and fun situations where you can use mounts to do interesting things, but they're still not universally good and require a bit of investment to be viable, which all seems like exactly how any feature should work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 15:20
|
|
|
Vanguard Warden posted:Honestly, I have no idea what feats people take if they aren't dipping into archetypes, whenever I look through a class's feat list I never see more than ~5 or so that really stand out. Not even just in terms of min-max char-op stuff, strictly on flavor-terms I don't relate to this at all. I would have agreed a year ago with the swashbuckler, but having played one their feats are deceptively important to the point where they don't function as a class without them. I find with most classes I wish I had more feats. Those I haven't played, where I'm just playing pathbuilder and not pathfinder, they can seem more superfluous because I don't fully understand how the class runs outside a white room dpr testing, but in actual play I've found picking between feats really important and challenging.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 22:32
|
|
|
Vanguard Warden posted:Honestly, I have no idea what feats people take if they aren't dipping into archetypes, whenever I look through a class's feat list I never see more than ~5 or so that really stand out. Not even just in terms of min-max char-op stuff, strictly on flavor-terms I'd rather spend a few feats to have a cool animal buddy I can use as a battle-scooter than having a few more different ways of hitting someone to deal damage. After looking through Sorcerer class feats I wound up just taking full Bard and Oracle archetype spellcasting instead to nearly double my spells per day, the bloodline spells are usually some silly melee thing that doesn't make any sense with a full spellcaster. There's a lot of situations. For instance, in my Remastered Warpriest, I don't take anything archetype past level 12 (at most). Even then, it's mainly Bastion stuff around level 6-12 that I'm just getting to pick up Quick Shield Block and maybe some other enhancers. My Swashbuckler and Gunslinger only took class feats - the swash because you really want swash feats there, and the gunslinger for a similar reason. Having checked through Sorc focus spells, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about with being melee things - that's only ever true with the first one (glutton's jaws being the standout example), with the others being a burst with 120ft range and a 60 ft cone. They also have a ton of good feats, so I don't know where you're getting the idea that it'd be worth giving up all of this for more spells (which you have tons of as a sorc anyways). For instance, you'd have to give up on Greater Crossblood Evolution and an additional 10th level spell for starters to get those lower level slots (two 6th, one 7th, one 8th for each class), which I don't personally think is worth it when you have four 8th, four 9th, and at least one 10th already and can poach from other traditions to use in those slots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2024 22:35
|
|
|
Vanguard Warden posted:
 A horse could reasonably provide some cover against people directly in front. Especially against a small race like goblins or halflings where the angle of attack will mostly go through the horse. But it probably makes more sense for a mount like a dragon or a war elephant. Or something fluffy a griffin. The whole thing breaks down for me in that if you are using a living creature for cover a strike that misses because of the +1 from that cover ought to have a chance to hit the cover creature. And that would be awful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 00:59
|
|
|
Yeah, but are you then saying that I need to declare my character's facing in PF2 to determine cover as if I'm playing Battletech or something?Cyouni posted:My Swashbuckler and Gunslinger only took class feats - the swash because you really want swash feats there, and the gunslinger for a similar reason. It depends on your subclass for Swashbuckler too. You're Next (1st) and Antagonize (2nd) on a braggart Swashbuckler are super core, worth even archetyping into Swashbuckler for on like a Champion or something to give yourself an actual 'taunt' effect. Combination Finisher (6th) is a raw attack bonus so it's a must-have and Perfect Finisher (14th) is pretty much the best finisher you can get (True Strike effect on both your most damaging and usually highest-MAP attack every round). Deadly Grace (16th) is a flat damage increase so you can't go wrong with that. Beyond those, eh, maybe Reflexive Riposte (10th) because free reactions are usually pretty good? Other than those feats, the last time I planned out a Swashbuckler I just took Fighter and Monk feats from archetypes for Stumbling Stance, Monk's Flurry, and Combat Grab. Cyouni posted:Having checked through Sorc focus spells, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about with being melee things - that's only ever true with the first one (glutton's jaws being the standout example), with the others being a burst with 120ft range and a 60 ft cone. They also have a ton of good feats, so I don't know where you're getting the idea that it'd be worth giving up all of this for more spells (which you have tons of as a sorc anyways). For instance, you'd have to give up on Greater Crossblood Evolution and an additional 10th level spell for starters to get those lower level slots (two 6th, one 7th, one 8th for each class), which I don't personally think is worth it when you have four 8th, four 9th, and at least one 10th already and can poach from other traditions to use in those slots. I mean Crossblood Evolution is obviously less of a big deal if you have spells outside of your normal tradition from archetypes that bring their own spell slots too. I'd rather get Heal on an Arcane sorcerer from Oracle archetype with a big pile of slots across levels to cast it with than spend a feat, a repertoire slot, and my normal spell slots to use it. With the remaster making all spellcasting traditions use the same proficiency your archetype spells aren't even any weaker if they're still based on the same ability score. Mostly I'm just salty that Sorcerers don't get Conceal Spell. 
Vanguard Warden fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Jan 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 04:32
|
|
|
Vanguard Warden posted:It depends on your subclass for Swashbuckler too. You're Next (1st) and Antagonize (2nd) on a braggart Swashbuckler are super core, worth even archetyping into Swashbuckler for on like a Champion or something to give yourself an actual 'taunt' effect. Combination Finisher (6th) is a raw attack bonus so it's a must-have and Perfect Finisher (14th) is pretty much the best finisher you can get (True Strike effect on both your most damaging and usually highest-MAP attack every round). Deadly Grace (16th) is a flat damage increase so you can't go wrong with that. Beyond those, eh, maybe Reflexive Riposte (10th) because free reactions are usually pretty good? Other than those feats, the last time I planned out a Swashbuckler I just took Fighter and Monk feats from archetypes for Stumbling Stance, Monk's Flurry, and Combat Grab. I really don't like Combination, because it means you have to make a Finisher as a second attack or later, nuking your crit chance with the extra dice. Having tried Precise Finisher, it came up more often with my trash luck than I anticipated, but probably still not worth it compared to some of the other options. Vanguard Warden posted:I mean Crossblood Evolution is obviously less of a big deal if you have spells outside of your normal tradition from archetypes that bring their own spell slots too. I'd rather get Heal on an Arcane sorcerer from Oracle archetype with a big pile of slots across levels to cast it with than spend a feat, a repertoire slot, and my normal spell slots to use it. With the remaster making all spellcasting traditions use the same proficiency your archetype spells aren't even any weaker if they're still based on the same ability score. I mean it's fine, but you're giving up a lot. Let's say by level 12, that gives you two 1s, two 2s, a 3, and a 4. With that, you could have taken Dangerous Sorcery, Arcane Evolution, Crossblood Evolution, and Signature Spell Expansion, which would give you a lot more base power and versatility in your level 4-6 slots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 05:50
|
|
|
Cyouni posted:Well, for instance, you're passing up every defensive feat in the Swash line to make Riposte better, any of the Riposte enhancers, and Bleeding/Dual Finisher if you're in to that, both of which are incredibly good. Impaling Finisher is also hilariously efficient in any situation where it comes up. If you're expecting AoO, Vexing Tumble is incredibly good for not dying trying to do your thing. Cyouni posted:I really don't like Combination, because it means you have to make a Finisher as a second attack or later, nuking your crit chance with the extra dice. Having tried Precise Finisher, it came up more often with my trash luck than I anticipated, but probably still not worth it compared to some of the other options. I mean, there's a reason most finishers come with an 'on failure' effect, including the 'basekit' Confident Finisher. That's part of the reason I think that Perfect Finisher is so strong too, 'True Strike' effects that take the best of both rolls are more effective the lower your chance to hit/crit is (hit chance + hit chance * miss chance). Swashbucklers also get Keen Flair as a class feature at 15th for crits on a natural 19, and those effects obviously don't do anything if 19 plus your modifiers was already high enough to crit anyway. You can't perform any actions with the 'attack' trait after performing a finisher, so if you open with one your turn is done for doing anything hostile. Maybe that's fine because you were already planning to spend the rest of your actions to Stride/Raise Shield/drink a potion or something, but whenever I've done the math it's always been worth more to take a few normal strikes with a low-accuracy finisher at the end than to just drop a hard finisher with no follow up. If you can get either Flurry of Blows or Two-Weapon Flurry on a Swashbuckler or are under a Haste effect, that gap gets even wider. Cyouni posted:I mean it's fine, but you're giving up a lot. Let's say by level 12, that gives you two 1s, two 2s, a 3, and a 4. With that, you could have taken Dangerous Sorcery, Arcane Evolution, Crossblood Evolution, and Signature Spell Expansion, which would give you a lot more base power and versatility in your level 4-6 slots. Dangerous Sorcery is 1st level, so the first bit of my post covers that too. My build already took Arcane Evolution at 6th, because there's no 6th-level feat in the archetype spellcasting chain. Crossblooded Evolution replaces one spell in my repertoire with one from another tradition and Signature Spell Expansions grants two extra signature spells, but archetype spellcasting by 12th would give me six spells from outside of my tradition with extra slots per day to cast them with, two of those spell being signature spells for those slots as well. I'm not going to be able to cast any of those spells with my class's 6th-rank spell slots, but spells like Hideous Laughter or Augury and such that I'm gaining from those slots don't need max-rank spell slots which I'd rather save for Fireballs anyway. Your numbers also only account for a single spellcasting archetype too, when I was getting Bard Dedication at 9th via Multitalented and Basic Spellcasting at 10th for another set of spells/slots from Occult this time up to 3rd-rank. This was admittedly an older character and the second archetype for Bard was probably diminishing returns for the sake of doubling-down on the gimmick, but if you left that out then you'd have an open feat slot at 10th anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 07:37
|
|
|
I've played a couple sessions with a Winter Sleet kineticist and I dunno, I think it's kinda overhyped? The GM did modify it so that a creature doesn't take a second action to Balance, but just does the balance check as part of the move action. So far no monster has ever failed the check, haven't gotten a crit on anything to proc the Slow, and while the Off-Guard is nice I do have a melee ally who's basically in flanking position anyway (in case I lose the stance).
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 08:41
|
|
|
appropriatemetaphor posted:I've played a couple sessions with a Winter Sleet kineticist and I dunno, I think it's kinda overhyped? well yeah if they remove the element that makes it take a third of the turn it'll feel underwhelming when in use
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 10:23
|
|
|
except when you're against a monster with no acrobatics score and they just get owned
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 11:03
|
|
|
Kitfox88 posted:well yeah if they remove the element that makes it take a third of the turn it'll feel underwhelming when in use https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=28 You move as part of balancing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 15:36
|
|
|
sugar free jazz posted:https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=28 Balancing is its own action with the move tag. It isn't a free action to add to an existing move. It costs its own action to do, as denoted by the action pip next to its name. Edit: What you can do is move to the edge of uneven terrain, use a balance action to get across it, and then continue your original movement. Because you can specifically split a move action if the nested action is also movement. KPC_Mammon fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Jan 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 17:01
|
|
|
I think you’re both agreeing? It’s the same as climbing; you do the check, and then move according to the check. It’s still just one action and one check, and not two actions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 17:17
|
|
|
Proven posted:I think you’re both agreeing? It’s the same as climbing; you do the check, and then move according to the check. It’s still just one action and one check, and not two actions. To use your example, imagine being on top of a pillar and an enemy is 15' from the base of the pillar. The enemy would need to stride to the base of the pillar, which is one action, and then needs to spend a second action to climb if they want to reach you. Characters don't get to convert their remaining ground movement into a climb speed. Balance works the same way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 17:30
|
|
|
I should probably note that nethys hasn't been updated for the revision, so any rules referenced by myself or sugarfreejazz could be different in the new rulebook.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 17:42
|
|
|
Proven posted:I think you’re both agreeing? It’s the same as climbing; you do the check, and then move according to the check. It’s still just one action and one check, and not two actions. Right, I think we're talking within the context of Winter Sleet, though, where an enemy walks into an aura that requires a Balance check to continue moving. So that would effectively be two actions (because they're mid-move, then need to spend an action to Balance, then continue their move). The GM above is instead removing the need for the second action spend in that example.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 17:51
|
|
|
But taking a balance action gives you movement up to your speed. If you're already moving, should the balance action just be to see how the rest of your remaining speed is spent? This has me confused now, so let me talk it out. For example, a character has 25 feet of movement and moves 5 ft to get into a zone that requires balance. He has twenty feet of his original movement left and two actions left. Does he need to pass a balance check to use the rest of his movement, and the balance check is considered part of that original movement? Or is the balance check its own movement action that "caps" what you can do on the separate movement action? If the former, then if he passes the balance check with a critical success, he continues to move twenty feet and has two actions. If he succeeds, he can only move ten and has two actions. If he fails, he has to stop moving and he has two actions left. If he critically fails his turn ends. If the latter, then he spends an action on balance immediately upon entering the zone that requires the balance check. If he critically succeeds, he can move up to his speed of 25. But what about the 20 ft of speed he had left before entering the zone? Is he not allowed to use it because he wasn't 'balancing" when he was took that move action? If he succeeds, he can move up to his speed but treats it as difficult terrain. Does this mean the 20ft from before he entered the zone can "roll over" and help him cover up to his speed in ground? Or does the movement action mean he has up to 20 ft of movement left, and the balance check determines if he gets to use all 20, can only move 10 ft because of difficult terrain, or if he has to stop as soon as he enters the zone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 18:07
|
|
|
marshmallow creep posted:Or does the movement action mean he has up to 20 ft of movement left, and the balance check determines if he gets to use all 20, can only move 10 ft because of difficult terrain, or if he has to stop as soon as he enters the zone. This is how I'd want to play it, personally, but I'm not sure if that's the rules-as-written correct answer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 18:15
|
|
|
KPC_Mammon posted:Balancing is its own action with the move tag. It isn't a You can move a bit, balance across the surface, and then continue your move. It costs two actions. Terrain is supposed to be a big deal. Edit: I think you are thinking in terms of systems where you have movement and an action. In pf2e you have 3 actions, which can be used any number of ways. KPC_Mammon fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Jan 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 18:17
|
|
|
KPC_Mammon posted:Balance works the same way. Balance the four balls on the edge of the cliff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 18:35
|
|
|
Ok lets talk about falling. Can I catfall off a cliff and just keep moving if my effective fall is 0? I didn't know about the move split before, it's helpful. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Jan 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 23:32
|
|
|
KPC_Mammon posted:Balancing is its own action with the move tag. It isn't a free action to add to an existing move. It costs its own action to do, as denoted by the action pip next to its name. What you quoted isn't a rule, it's a suggestion for GMs in the GMG. I can't see any real merit in not running it that way, but some GMs may want to discourage players doing things in their turn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 23:58
|
|
|
I don't see anything in the rules about ending your current action if you fall, but I might be missing something. Since Stand has the move tag, you could, with GM permission, walk off a ledge with a Stride action, Stand from prone, and then continue your initial Stride. With Catfall you might not even have to Stand. With Rolling Landing you should be able to spend a reaction to get even more movement before continuing your initial Stride, since the movement granted by Rolling Landing also has the move tag. Evilgm posted:What you quoted isn't a rule, it's a suggestion for GMs in the GMG. I can't see any real merit in not running it that way, but some GMs may want to discourage players doing things in their turn. This is a good point. Ask your GM first, but it might help to reference the official suggestion when you do so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 23:58
|
|
|
marshmallow creep posted:But taking a balance action gives you movement up to your speed. If you're already moving, should the balance action just be to see how the rest of your remaining speed is spent? Note that you can only Balance if you started in a square that requires balancing. So yes, they would have to take a separate action to Balance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 02:41
|
|
|
Cyouni posted:Note that you can only Balance if you started in a square that requires balancing. So yes, they would have to take a separate action to Balance. this is true to the rules (including in the remaster) but also it's bonkers you're getting the kind of action denial athletics characters have to build around and spend actions on as a passive ability with just one level 4 feat, i definitely would not fault any gm who let monsters (or other party melee characters who would like to play the game) take the balance action outside the aura
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 03:52
|
|
|
I think it makes most sense to treat balance moves like tumble through if you aren't doing anything excessively complicated. You just move and take the check on the appropriate square. Edit- what even is that failure? What distance can I voluntarily fall at from the original square on a balance action?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 04:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 02:18 |
|
|
I know in 5e "falling" is basically teleporting to the bottom of whatever fall we're talking about (or at least that is the conclusion we came to), but I have no idea about Pathfinder.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 08:25
|
|