|
Also, I'm obligated to mention that two people trying to out-charop each other is one of the most unfun things possible and you should probably just talk things out. I mean, everyone's still going to help you make a cool warforged because that's just good fun, but you should still talk to him about it.
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
Arivia posted:I just buffed the monk when someone asked to play one (and the ninja too) and called it good! You know what's a pain in the rear end? Having to buff core classes with houserules so they're not hot garbage. Also, playing in a group that's either not experienced enough or not confident enough to buff the classes that severely need buffing. (Also, although I agree that Pathfinder is best used as a casual thing to just gently caress around with with friends, you probably shouldn't have said that Paizo is making a bunch of cool feats on the same page as the feat that just gives every divine class one of the Paladin's main class features with a really low barrier to entry. That's not cool, that just devalues the Paladin.)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Speaking as a casual semi-fan of Pathfinder, there's a few reasons I can think of to dislike the Swashbuckler. -Their deeds are cool and much better implemented than the Gunslinger's, but they're not "only use twice a day unless you get lucky and crit/kill something" cool. Sure, their early Improved Critical access helps, but you still need to confirm the crit and it's still luck-based and your damage die is going to be relatively small so you won't kill things as easily as, say, a barbarian and it's just not a super great way to refill your panache. -They're pretty MAD. They need Dex for their hit chance and otherwise-measly AC, they need Strength for better damage, they need Con for HP, and they need Cha to have any panache worth noting. More stats than one character should reasonably have to deal with raising, in any case. -Related to the last point, they get three feats tailored for them to apply dex to damage and reduce how MAD they are. Two of them only apply it to a single slashing weapon when the entire class flavor is otherwise about piercing weapons, the third is only for rapiers, and they're all pointlessly restrictive. (Also Paizo took a long time to make the third one, so there's a lot of ill will because of the months where the only way to make a non-MAD swashbuckler was to not use a rapier.) -The one handed weapon plus buckler/open hand combat style just doesn't have any feat support that isn't better served by using different weapons. Sword and board people get better AC and shield-focused feats. Dual wielders get more attacks to do crit-fishing with. Two-handers get big damage dice and the Power Attack/Vital Strike lines to boost their damage. Swashbucklers get... what they get from their class and not much else. In any case, the Swashbuckler is a really easy class to dislike. Lurks With Wolves fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Mar 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Kilo147 posted:Unfortunately WWII Web Gear isn't something that you could find easily on the Isle of Kortos I don't know, Wayne Reynolds' style is pretty big on pointless pouches and belts. It seems like it'd fit in fine if you don't paint it tan.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Also, you might as well ask if they'd be alright with you retiring your first character and making a new one if your class isn't grabbing you. There's a lot less pressure to pick the best class possible for what you want to do if it's not a hassle to try another class. As for classes, assuming you want to stick with the eleven core classes, I'd look at paladin and barbarian if you want to play someone with a big sword. They both basically boil down to "full attack, or full attack while using smite/rage", but they're both effective at melee without having to deal with spell slots and buffs too much, and they have enough actual abilities that you won't be completely out of your depth if you decide to try a more complex class. (If you ask me, one of the problems with the fighter as an intro class is that they don't have any active class features, so you A) never get the chance to try out active abilities in the first place, and B) don't get a good idea of how much complexity you'd want from a class because all you know is the class with the least complexity possible.) EDIT: Just to be clear, there are more complicated melee classes out there. It's just that they're classes like clerics where you're using a bunch of buffs to go from being pretty good at melee to being great and it's a pain to manage, or they're classes like the brawler where you really need to understand the feat system to take advantage of it's class features, or they're classes like Dreamscarred Press' Path of War stuff where you get a bunch of specific abilities that let you do cool martial things similar to spells but they're third party. Lurks With Wolves fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Sep 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Can someone give me the lowdown on Dreamscarred Press's Akashic Mysteries? What is it, and why should I be interested? Do you remember Incarnum from D&D 3.5? It's a magic-esque subsystem from late in 3.5's lifetime where you conjure up special pieces of gear and invest a shifting pool of points into them for special effects instead of casting spells, if you haven't heard of it. It was honestly an interesting concept which never got much playtime because two thirds of the Incarnum classes just utterly sucked. Now it's been eleven years since Magic of Incarnum was released and Dreamscarred Press is almost ready to make their own version of it with the serial numbers filed off. Since Dreamscarred Press has already made really good versions of 3.5 psionics and Book of 9 Swords for Pathfinder, people are understandably excited. Is it actually any good? I don't know, I'm not subscribed and I don't like learning mechanics from an srd. But the reviews on what they've released so far seems positive and they have a good track record.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
TalonDemonKing posted:What should I know about Ebberon? I could say a lot of things I love about Eberron as a setting, but instead I'm just going to link the ten essential points listed in the intro of every Eberron setting guide. You'll have to check out a wiki or something to get any actual info on Eberron's various factions, but knowing the general pulpy post-war tone of the setting is the most important part. Also, if your GM's giving everyone a dragonmark I recommend focusing on the dragonmarked houses first. They're essentially a bunch of fantasy megacorporations because of the various economic uses of dragonmarks, and they're cool enough and potentially central enough to your game's concept that I'd talk about them all day if this was the Eberron thread instead of the Pathfinder thread.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
TalonDemonKing posted:Do we have one? I didn't see one with a quick browse. There used to be one, but it's fallen into archives. You could dig it up if you want to, but good luck finding it. Also, I'd be more willing to call Eberron the 1920s but with magic and significantly more room for adventuring. On one hand, no one's happy with the way the Last War ended and everyone's bounced back enough to start eyeing up their neighbors again and big business is only getting bigger. On the other hand, there's ancient ruins to plunder and a gnollish criminal organization is moving in on your neighborhood and the trains run on bound elementals and lightning stones instead of steam and rails and there is just so much stuff in the setting that's made to be played with. (Note: The 1920s metaphor isn't one to one. It's a tone thing, not a "Karrnath is literally Germany under the Weimar Republic" thing. Just to be clear.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
It may be worth seeing if anyone else in the party would want to control your barbarian cohort in fights. Summoners already have a real problem with dominating fights because they can summon a billion things and each of those things gets it's own turn. Letting other people do the turn-to-turn decision making for your Leadership-granted minions should take some of that pressure off of you.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Arivia posted:It's my understanding that the shifter isn't an unusually bad or underdeveloped class by Pathfinder standards, but people got all in a tizzy about it and expected a lot of things that Paizo had never said it would be. There's often friction in product discussion threads on their forums from people expecting particular ideas or content that they've thought up, and then they are disappointed by Paizo not exactly matching their ideas or being too conservative for them. It seems to have taken fire this time, is all. I know you're calling it a bad thing, but I honestly can't blame anyone for having expectations for the Shifter. (Not trying to start an argument, just using your post as a springboard so I can talk about something I'm thinking about.) A lot of Ultimate __ classes are mediocre, but at least they do things Pathfinder hasn't done before. The Vigilante's not great, but you couldn't be a fantasy superhero and have it be mechanically represented before so it's still really cool. The occult classes are meh, but you couldn't quite be a Victorian psychic before it came out so it at least has a niche. The Shifter is an animalistic melee fighter, and we've had multiple ways to do that since the corebook. From day one the Shifter needed to be more animalistic than a barbarian and better at turning into animals and mauling things than a druid, and those are huge shoes to fill just because barbarians have been growing natural weapons and druids have been turning into bears for the better part of a decade.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
ChrisAsmadi posted:No, no, my point is that why is the bonus stuff just for Paladins and not, say, a Warpriest or Inquisitor of Iomedae (or any other warrior follower of Iomedae, like a Cavalier, for that matter)? If I had to guess? Because paladins are the premiere lawful good evil-fighting holy warriors in the core book and most people are going to go for the obvious option from the core book when they start playing Wrath of the Righteous, and also because most bonuses you'd give a paladin could be adapted for any other particularly holy fighting class without much hassle. Also like half of Wrath of the Righteous came out before the ACG, so they really only had Paladins, Clerics/Oracles (which they can't acknowledge as being just as fighty as paladins or that whole class would suddenly feel pointless) and Inquisitors (which are conceptually a lot more morally grey) to think about as far as character rewards go.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The oozemorph was designed by a True Genius who wanted being an ooze to be a drawback you had to work around, rather then being an ooze being the cool part of the class. Honestly, it's kind of a neat idea. The Shifter is about changing from a weaker form to a stronger one, and having the weak form be the weird inhuman one is a nice twist. It's just that the stronger form in this case is basically just a Warrior with dr/slashing that can't attune to magic items and your main class feature's entirely about how being an ooze sucks instead of being a cool thing you can do. (Also being an ooze is cool and no one's coming to an archetype like this so they can be an ooze that's worse than being a regular person, but everyone else already talked about that.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:what are crit cards? Paizo made a deck of cards with bonus crit effects which you can find here. You draw one when you make a crit, you look at the slashing/bludgeoning/piercing/magic row on the card as appropriate, you add that effect to your crit. This is important because the only thing the Shifter does that matters is that it does slashing damage with it's claws and a Monk can just use kamas for slashing damage if they really wanted to. EDIT: Also the Menhir Guardian archetype that started this conversation gets shifter claws anyway so there literally isn't any difference unless some weird bit of Beast Shape makes crits absurdly lethal. Lurks With Wolves fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Dec 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
I ride bikes all day posted:So I ended up playing a cleric of Iomedae for the Wrath of the Righteous game I'm a part of. Having not played PF before, or 3.5 for 15 years, my min-max game is way behind the rest of the table. I'm in danger of slipping into healbot territory as of level 5. Bless and Communal Protection from Evil have been my go-to's so far. I took War(Tactics) and Glory(Heroism) domains. Get enough wands of Cure Light Wounds* to handle all the between-fight healing and avoid healing mid-fight unless someone's dying because any spell weaker than Heal isn't going to recover enough HP to have a meaningful effect on the fight. If you do that, you're basically playing a cleric as well as you could be. There's probably better buffs for you to be looking at, and some spells like Hold Person that are just incredibly good in general, but I'll let someone who knows the cleric spell list better than I do explain it. *I'm pretty sure there's a spell that heals more than Cure Light Wounds over a longer period of time that'd be more efficient as a between-fight heal, but it's the same principle.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
SweetBro posted:As your GM if he will allow you to retrain your Domains and swap one or both for either Luck or Chaos domain. Chaos is super neat if you have save/suck spells in the party, but is basically the ultimate "gently caress you" to any enemy with an effective turn value greater than a PC. I remember fondly the fun times my Chaos Cleric and Void Wizard party member fun by giving enemies like -6 and "disadvantage" on all rolls. Luck blessing is just super useful in general. I believe there's also a feat at higher levels that can convert these to swift actions. It's worth mentioning that a cleric of Iomedae can't take either of those domains. Out of the domains Iomedae can give, I honestly don't think there are many you'd want more than the ones you have. Sun(Light) has a good ability at low levels, but the domain spells are less useful and it gets significantly less useful when hit dice start increasing faster than level. Good and Law (plus the Archon sub-domain) would both be useful since Wrath of the Righteous is blatantly about fighting a bunch of demons, but the only thing from them that'd help your accuracy problem is Divine Favor from Archon.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
SweetBro posted:My math for enhancement was for a 10th level character who crafts the item with Hedge Mage, Eldritch Smith, and restricts it by class/skill. The final formula is 128k*0.4*0.6 = 30,720 which is less than half of the WBL for a level 10 character. Hedge Magician, not Hedge Mage. Also you can't take both because you can't have more than one trait of the same type at once and they're both Magic. Anyway, this whole situation is massively unintentional and requires two PCs to be at least partially built around it (since you're never going to just coincidentally run into a dwarf runesmith hedge mage who's going to make whatever absurdly undercosted gear you want) and hinges on you taking a Brawler archetype and never being a Brawler ever again, so it's safe to say that it sucks except in extremely niche situations where you're just using it to make incredibly big monk weapons using weird mechanical interactions that probably weren't intended.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
Also I just want to say that GMing is a skillset and paying someone to do it who's better at it than you is fine in theory, and we're mostly harping on it because we're all coming off of an weird, nitpicky mechanics argument that was frustrating for everyone involved. You should take it personally but not that personally, is what I'm saying.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
Yeah. I'd honestly just double down on the ki power and style strike portions of the Unchained Monk, because those are what makes monks actually feel like the weird mystical martial artists they should be. Maybe rejigger when you get what so there isn't a level where you have a ki pool but nothing to spend it on but making your punches go through dr/magic. I know there's only so much you can do with that in Pathfinder without just making Path of War, but you'd have to remake Pathfinder entirely to fix that. Oh, also make Flurry of Blows not a full-round action, because being mobile is a cool part of being a monk and it actively conflicts, but that's kind of Monk Fixing 101. Lurks With Wolves fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Dec 15, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
Roadie posted:Arcane casters: So, serious question. Is your goal to make characters for one single campaign, or are you trying to show your players all the interestingly weird options in Pathfinder's mid-tiers? If this is just about character creation, making your own independently curated fork of Pathfinder is kind of overkill. You should still give them all the advice you'd be telling them in your guide, don't get me wrong. It would just be significantly less writing to just listen to your group's character concepts and guide them through character creation until they have a reasonable tier 3-4 character, and it's probably going to be easier to teach them that way then with a whole pretyped pocket guide to mid-tier Pathfinder. However, if you're trying to get your group to try some of the fun, weird options in Pathfinder instead of just latching onto wizard because it's the smart spellcaster in the core book, you're pretty much fine? It probably isn't going to be the best way to teach character creation, but you're clearly interested in them avoiding all of Pathfinder's traps so you should be able to compensate. Maybe just put a note that you can guide them through character creation with the base game if they want to play a generic priest or spellslinger because clerics and wizards can be stupidly overpowered in this game, since making a single balanced sorcerer or oracle is probably going to be easier than finding a full class that fits those concepts without being OP.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
Olesh posted:Remember that animal companions and summons are not PCs and the PCs do not have direct control over them. Animal companions are controlled via the use of Handle Animal, and without any commands summons simply attack the caster's enemies as best they are able. If the caster can communicate with the summoned creature (via a shared language), they will obey specific directions but as the GM, it is your job to remember that while speaking is normally a free action, the caster still has to actually communicate their orders. If the druid doesn't know the language of the elemental he's summoning, he can't order it to do anything. If the player spends thirty seconds relaying orders over the course of a single combat round, it isn't unreasonable to point out that a combat round is only six seconds and their orders need to be concise and brief enough to fit within that time frame. Most summons don't inherently know what their summoner intends, and even trained animals require an action to give them commands they're trained to perform. Under normal circumstances, a druid in animal form can't speak and thus can't give commands to summoned creatures. I just want to mention that, if the problem is that the summoner druid is taking too much time on their turns, putting a bigger emphasis on the idiosyncrasies of ordering summons around probably won't help that much. It helps make having fifty elementals running around less useful, but it also puts that much more spotlight on what the druid's doing each round. Anyway, in addition to what Olesh said and just asking the player to please summon one big elemental instead of a dozen small ones so each round doesn't last forever, throwing AoEs around that wouldn't be resisted by whatever elementals are summoned should help cut through the chaff without also being able to focus fire any one PC down instantly.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
Selachian posted:Can you expand on this? My group is planning to use ABP in our next campaign because the DM is tired of everyone focusing obsessively on the Big Six. Judging by my vague skim of the ABP rules, probably because you get mental stat bonuses a level before physical stat bonuses and you don't get a bonus to more than one stat in either category when most casters really just need their one spellcasting stat to be high and anything else is nice while most noncasters are going to want at minimum two or three physical stats as high as possible and get very little out of increased mental stats. EDIT: Olesh said this while I was posting, read that post instead.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
Andrast posted:A sorcerer also doesn’t actually have many more spells than you daily when you consider that you advance spell levels faster and have bonus spells from your specialization It doesn't help that wizards get Pearls of Power to up their number of prepared spells in the core book but sorcerers don't get an equivalent item at a higher item level until the Advanced Class Guide.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Was the playtesting pretty light for the first edition since it was basically just D&D patch 3.6? Obviously they were more concerned about alienating 3.5 loyalists at the time, since that was their whole reason for existing, so I guess that could explain how the total lack of balance between classes survived that round of playtesting. The playtesting was pretty light because Paizo generally doesn't pay that much attention to playtest feedback. So, I'm not getting my hopes up for this playtest. Elysiume posted:Didn't playtesters say that shifter sucked and then they released it and it sucked? Paizo doesn't seem to trust their playtesters much. The Shifter didn't go through open playtesting, everyone just complained about it when subscribers got their early copies.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2018 01:32
|
|
|
Arthil posted:I think I read that certain spells have different action requirements. Some require one, others two and others still all three of your actions. If I'm remembering the faq right, it's based on how many kinds of components it uses. If it only uses verbal components it takes one action, if it has verbal and somatic it takes two, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2018 01:09
|
|
|
Also, everyone, we're not getting any concrete info until the con builds inevitably leak and if nothing comes out of Garycon we won't get any real rules until Paizocon in May. Let's all just keep our poo poo together and not get into lovely edition arguments, because we won't be getting much for months.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
Eh, I'd say it works well enough if you're in a group of friends that are trying to just have a good time. It's not the best game in the world, but it's good enough to get you there. Pathfinder Society can't guarantee that (and in fact you're probably going to run into some real weird assholes out there, let's be real), so I can't suggest it if you're not going in with friends already.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2018 04:24
|
|
|
kingcom posted:I mean yeah these are all good and legit points and actually going out and saying the wizard fighter crazyness is bad and that fighters should be doing the impossible at higher levels are all good calls and things I agree with. I'm not sure if they are going to pull it off or if their definition is of the impossible is the same as mine but having actual analysis of game problems is genuinely a good thing. Even if they can't pull it off in the core book, this at least sounds like a framework they could use to make a better stab at it later on in the line. I mean, the Brawler was a pretty good attempt at a martial class in Pathfinder 1e's framework. Imagine how good it could have been if that base framework was actually made with martials doing cool things in mind.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2018 23:55
|
|
|
I'm torn. On one hand, giving "consumable" items X uses per day lets them cost them appropriately and cuts down immensely on the busywork that makes me hate consumable items in Pathfinder. No more having to count your gold and buying twelve-packs of CLW wands, you just have a healing potion you can use five times a day. (Of course, this assumes they make the X/day uses actually do something big and meaningful and it runs into the same problem 4e dailies have when you aren't doing 3-5 encounters a day, but I'm being positive.) On the other hand, having every X/day magic item power feed from the same pool seems like a massive pain in the rear end and, assuming your magic healing items that are almost certainly necessary for prolonged adventuring use these charges, means we're just back to the healer being unable to do cool things because they need to save all their resources for healing. I'm not surprised that they're doing it this way, since they made the same exact mistake with resolve points in Starfinder, but I still hate it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2018 18:42
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:Gonna disagree with you hard on that one - the concept of vendor trash may be unintuitive, but World of Warcraft, Skyrim, Mass Effect 1, and other games are all a lot more popular than D&D or Pathfinder and all teach you that concept. Yeah, but everything isn't vendor trash. Gemstones are vendor trash. Ornate paintings with no mechanical significance are vendor trash. The bodyguards' +1 swords are vendor trash when you have a +2 sword already. Those goggles of darkvision that seem really cool but are barely ever going to come up and aren't half as useful as the armor upgrade you could afford if you sold them aren't vendor trash, because they do something interesting and would theoretically expand your capabilities in a fun way if you kept them. The fact that we're even talking about interesting-but-suboptimal magic items the same way we talk about our fiftieth steel longsword in Skyrim is kind of the problem. VVV EDIT: Yeah, that's fair. Lurks With Wolves fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Mar 18, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
Still, let's not forget the reason 4e Rogues got brought up in the first place. The level 14 feat Paizo mentioned in that preview is a perfectly fine ability, but it feels like the fluff to a utility power a 4e Rogue would get at level 6, not something you'd get 3/4 of the way through the campaign. Which is fine, assuming there's feats with more interesting fluff behind them, but it's still not what I'd go for in a preview.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:Perfectly fine? It's a level 14 ability which lets them access their core combat feature, which is terrible. And at level 6 they can already use it 99% of the time anyway (thanks to Gang Up). It's an ability that lets them access their core combat feature in the rare periods when they don't have access to flanking, which is still really easy to get in an actual fight when most of the party is going to be good at melee. (Admittedly it's going to be significantly harder to get combat advantage on ranged attacks, but that's always been a problem with the mechanic.) EDIT: Just to be clear, I mean that fighters seem to be refocused as The Melee Class and clerics have always been partially viewed as secondary melee fighters who end up being primary melee fighters because buffs are that good. There's a lot of melee fighting in the default Pathfinder party, is what I'm saying. Also, it sounding like a really basic power rogues/thieves got in 4e is kind of my point. Lurks With Wolves fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Mar 28, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2018 21:55
|
|
|
NachtSieger posted:Also, all the mysterious critical success effects are spells, besides the +4 as circumstance bonus, that's just a critical aid another. Hey now, one of them could be what happens when you critically fail against a regular earthquake instead of a magic one. Anyway, I wouldn't say that this is proof that all spells are going to Save And Suck since the only spell example they used in that blog post is the one that's always been save-for-half anyway. Still, this system can get real wonky if saves differ as much as they could in Pathfinder 1e. If they still think it's fine for a fighter to have a +4 Will save at level 8 the save-or-dies will be just as save-or-die for large portions of the party.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2018 05:47
|
|
|
On one hand, the interesting racial feats being lame could be fine if they're silo'd off and all the racial feats are on a similarly lame level. (I mean, the crafting feat would be competing with the fire feat, but +1 to fire damage, be still my heart.) On the other hand, feats really should be more interesting than this by now.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:So, some friends had an in-progress Starfinder game going, and because I enjoy playing with my friends even if they're playing with game systems I am not the biggest fan of, I'm in it now. Playing an Operator, and having some trouble deciding on feats and exploits. I am rather annoyed at Shot on the Run requiring Mobility while Operators get to skip that requirement for Sidestep, when Uncanny Mobility nearly obviates the need for Mobility, for example; is Shot on the Run still worth getting Mobility for, or should I look elsewhere? Two things. One, there's a Starfinder thread over here that's probably a better place for this conversation in the future. Two, don't go into sniper rifles. The way sniper rifles and HP work mean that you're less being a cool sniper and more just slowly plinking away at someone's health for 2-5 turns until they can get close enough to fight you normally. That or you're just so far off the map you can't interact with the fight in any meaningful way besides your one small attack per round.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
Just checking, the rest of your party is cool with your new character showing up and murdering the poo poo out of your old character, right? Asking for two reasons. One, this would be really lovely to just spring on the rest of your group and expect them to accept the vigilante who just blew their friend's head off. Two, if you ask them they'd hopefully be cool with your character just cutscene murdering him and redistributing his wealth without actually having to deal with the fact that you made a boring character that's also stupidly hard to kill.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2018 00:48
|
|
|
I assume the boost/flaw system is so you're only interacting with stats in the +2/-2 sized chunks that actually do something in character creation. I guess they thought it'd look weird if they suddenly shifted to a purely bonus-based system? In any case, this is a change that's fine but kind of overcomplicated for what it's doing, and my one worry is how they're going to distribute additional stat boosts and flaws. They might do it in a way that cuts down on the minimum amount of char-op you need to do to make an effective character, they might do it in a way that means you're making the same weird character creation choice every time to make an effective build. Until we see more, all we know is that it's basically the old stat system but with more terms.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:I forgot if there's a real Starfinder thread or not. Starfinder thread's over here. Anyway, I'm pretty sure they're keeping Starfinder roughly as-is for a while, which makes the clumsy ways it stayed sorta-compatible with Pathfinder 1e more annoying.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
Cyouni posted:Yeah, around 2 months ago. Every list is completely separate, but general can also grab from skill. Prerequisites are level, proficiency, and any things that the feat directly improves (such as Smash from the Air requiring Cut from the Air). My main issue with not calling them class options is this: if general feats can only pull from general and skill feats why are your class/ancestry/etc feats called feats? They could call them literally anything else, and here they are willingly making a new class level/character level/spell level problem.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2018 01:39
|
|
|
moths posted:Aren't Backgrounds fixed at character creation? Eh, the retraining rules for Pathfinder 1e are pretty good. I'd hope that they would let the retraining rules work with backgrounds in 2e.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2018 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
ChrisAsmadi posted:I mean, I like it because it scratches the 3.5e character building puzzle itch. I'd like it better if there weren't so many redundant classes that could better be covered by other classes (and if those redundant classes didn't exist, it'd give the other base class more options). Like, Spell Sunder should be a possible choice for all fighting dudes, not just a specific tiny group of barbarians. I'm not going to say you're wrong, since Fantasycraft has feat chains for both raging and special bloodlines, but one of the strengths of a well made class system is that you have a bunch of thematic abilities bundled into one collection that you get automatically as part of being in that class' concept. You lose that when you can just pick and choose bits and pieces of them as feats. Again, you can make it work. You'd just need to do more work than Paizo would probably do to make sure the classes still gel as a whole.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2018 22:21
|
|