|
mixitwithblop posted:I'm not saying that the GSL is unreasonable, especially in the context of copyright issues in the pre WoTC days... But leaving the OGL for the GSL is like getting married to that hot chick that already used to give up the goods everyday. It's all cool at first cause man, YOU BAGGED HER YEAH, but then she's all "you can never look at porn again" and one day, it's "Oh, by the way, no more blowjobs, ever." This is probably the dumbest analogy I've ever seen, hth
|
# ¿ Mar 1, 2010 23:07 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 30, 2024 03:16 |
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:
I just love this part, because most of the stuff you're saying Pathfinder "fixed" was actually fixed better in 4e, and all the skills are actually useful in 4e. It's laughable to say that stat modifiers overriding skill ranks in 4e didn't happen in 3.5e as well, and especially laughable in the specific example you mentioned because the wizard could just take Craft if he wanted; thanks to skill points being Intelligence based he could have a giant pile and no real need for them. As far as disrupting spells by standing adjacent... how do you stand next to the flying invisible wizard raining spells on you from the air?
|
# ¿ Mar 21, 2010 16:50 |
|
Note that all of these problems become infinitely worse when you remember about things like wands and scrolls which only wizards and some rogues can really use effectively. Also druids and clerics which are even better than wizards and sorcerers because they have the same awesome destructive power, better hit dice and saves, better armor, healing spells, and insane special abilities (wild shape or domains/divine feats) Zarick fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Mar 22, 2010 |
# ¿ Mar 22, 2010 07:29 |
|
It sort of depends on how much magic you want. You need at least the dedication and basic spellcasting to have any non-cantrips at all. That would only get you one cast each of 1st/2nd/3rd-level spells. If you're just looking for a little dip, that might be enough for you. This probably won't be very good if you want to use any spells that affect enemies, however, since your proficiency will stay at trained. The most you can get is dedication/basic/expert/master/breadth, which is five feats, but gets you two casts each of levels 1-8. This might be a hard sell, because champion feats are generally pretty good in my opinion. I'd say if you're going to bother at all you should at least get dedication/basic/breadth, which gives you two casts of 1st-3rd. This means you can use them for buff/utility spells. If you want to be a full on spellcaster/martial hybrid, go for the full package. You may even want to pick up Bespell Weapon (which makes you do a bit of extra elemental damage when you cast a non-cantrip spell), but this again might be tough because the champion feats are pretty good. If you want to be more caster and less champion you might consider going the other way (a sorcerer who gets the champion dedication). With just the dedication this makes you a full spellcaster who can wear heavy armor. However, you won't be terribly good at fighting in this case; this would be best if you have another way of getting trained or higher in a decent weapon (like some racial feats that give you access to weapons).
|
# ¿ Nov 30, 2019 19:13 |
|
Ryuujin posted:Well trying to look on the Paizo forums for some discussion of the book, came across a build thread. And it came out Investigator Assassin. Just laying in wait, watching a target, and every round while setting up your Assassinate, you Devise a Strategem until you get a 20. Then use that 20 for a crit. Maybe I'm reading this wrong but this doesn't really seem to work. You could fish for a crit which would make the initial attack hurt a lot, but the bonus damage and death effect are linked to the enemy making a separate basic Fortitude save. So you getting a 20 can't cause them to critically fail that.
|
# ¿ Jul 31, 2020 23:21 |
|
It seems like dhampir wasn't thought out that well. It definitely seems like they're intended to still be treated as living creatures -- it doesn't say you lose that trait, just that you're damaged by positive and healed by negative. This creates a lot of weird rules interactions. For instance, I haven't been able to find any language that you can fail a save on purpose. So if your ally wants to cast massacre on you, you as far as I can tell must attempt a save. If you're a fighter, you might succeed and thus critically succeed, and so take no damage. Similarly if you drink a healing potion on accident for whatever reason there's no attempt to reduce the damage or anything like there most likely would be if it were a normally harmful item. However, with the interpretation floated above it seems way too powerful. You lose out on positive healing, sure, but there are several other non-negative means of healing that you don't get excluded from (soothe, treat wounds, elixir of life). In addition to this, and the biggest one that makes this seem way too strong, is chill touch. You still count as a living creature, so you can heal yourself for 1d4+mod per spell level at-will at any time. Sure, if you critically fail you'll be enfeebled for a round, but that's a small price to pay for the strongest unlimited healing there is. For a quick comparison, starting bare at level 1 here are non-consumable sources of healing: quote:
You'll notice I listed the healing per ten minutes. That's because Chill Touch puts these all directly in the garbage in terms of sustaining your undead party. 1d4+4 (avg 6.5) hp every 6 seconds adds up to 650 hp per 10 minutes. Now, this assumes you fail all of the saves, but even every save being a success only reduces it to 325, which is still over 4x more than the cleric expending an entire day's worth of heal (or harm) spells. All of the above things scale, but so does chill touch. Out-of-combat healing is pretty readily available, but this means a party of dhampir who have access to one member with chill touch can probably heal all of their party's wounds in a minute, not ten, while expending no resources other than keeping their spellcasting attribute high which they'd want to do anyway. My first gut reaction was to just say that dhampir count as undead, which seems like it honestly nips most of the weird stuff in the bud, but there are a few spells that only work on living creatures currently that seem like it'd be weird to make them immune to: hideous laughter, status, touch of idiocy. It also makes it so you basically can't resurrect them, I think, but I'm not sure how I feel about that anyway. Even ignoring the low-level chill touch problem, treating them as living creates weird problems with vampiric touch/exsanguination (so they get healed, but does the caster get healed? does it do a Final Fantasy-style reverse healing damage?) and some other similar spells. It also just seems way stronger than any other ancestry benefit. You give up a few normal healing methods, unlock a few more (one of which is way too effective), and in exchange you get healed by any attacks that do negative damage. You don't gain any actual vulnerability to positive damage, so even if enemies use healing spells on you they are most likely less effective than damage spells of their level. You don't actually count as undead, so effects that really roast undead (divine spells like searing ray) don't affect you any more strongly than they do your living allies. This is more words than I'd intended, so I'm glad my player who was going to play a dhampir decided not to, because I feel like after examining them at this point I just wouldn't allow my players to be one.
|
# ¿ Nov 24, 2020 01:12 |
|
Well, that does unravel a lot of that and make it a lot more reasonable. However, it's extremely dumb that this rule is explained in the Bestiary 2 of all places, since a lot of creatures in the first bestiary have it (I had to look it up on Archives of Nethys). Looking at the release schedule, Bestiary 2 came out right before APG, so it almost feels like they realized this would cause weird stuff and added a clarification, when in the past it was intended to work the other way.
|
# ¿ Nov 24, 2020 01:50 |
|
Red Metal posted:or maybe paizo consciously chose to break from the 1st edition rules, and simply forgot to include the updated description in the bestiary? not everything has to be a conspiracy What? If anything my guess (I'm not sure how "it almost feels like" is speaking authoritatively) feels more charitable to Paizo, since they realized there was a problem when they started making a player race with negative healing. Your explanation means that they always intended it to be different and printed a whole book full of monsters with that ability without explaining that, which would be poor editing instead of realizing they wanted to change something and putting it in a book at that point. Especially since the rules text goes against a) established precedent in their previous game and its sources of inspiration and b) an intuitive deduction of what "negative healing" means, aka you get healed by negative.
|
# ¿ Nov 24, 2020 02:09 |
|
Cyouni posted:A healing potion also doesn't damage them. It heals them as normal. Cyouni posted:That said, it's still a lot more trouble than you'd think. In-combat healing is a lot rougher on them, for example, since you need to prep Harm (or a negative font). Either way, that makes it harder for both you and the rest of the party to be healed at once, because any Heal is hard to use at 3-action without damaging you, and people prepping Harm means it's only really useful on you. While this isn't a problem for something like an all-dhampir party with a negative font cleric, you don't get that many additional benefits compared to a standard party. But yeah, it doesn't have the crazy benefits I thought it does because I wasn't aware of the definition of this ability tucked away in the Bestiary 2. Now I am, and I think this way makes it more consistent, even if I also think it's a little unintuitive if you didn't know that in the first place. It still feels a little stronger than the other racial benefits; after all, you're still immune to negative damage, it just doesn't necessarily heal you.
|
# ¿ Nov 24, 2020 13:57 |
|
Epi Lepi posted:A VTT question. My group will be starting Age of Ashes soon. We did Plaguestone in roll20 because it had a plug and play module available and it was okay. There is no such module for roll20. Should I go Foundry or Fantasy Grounds or something else going forward? What are the pros and cons? I don’t think I care overly about macros, the only automation I did in roll20 was health and initiative tracking. I and half my party roll real dice and the rest just did /roll in chat. We used hangouts video calling for voice so that’s not a priority too. If you have the official PDFs from Paizo of the Age of Ashes modules, there's a FoundryVTT module that will essentially import all of the assets into the program for you. You still have to set up the positions of the monsters, but it does most of the pain in the rear end map work for you, which was the part I found the most difficult. https://foundryvtt.com/ Normally it's $50 but it's on sale for $37.50 right now, and only one person needs to buy it. You do have to host locally (or pay for external hosting), but I've found that easy enough. The PF2e system for Foundry works really well in my experience (with a few bugs here and there). https://foundryvtt.com/packages/pdftofoundry/ This is the module that will import the assets. If you don't have the PDFs it might be a bit tougher, but even without them nearly all of the feats/spells/classes/items/monsters are in the system so you can mostly drag and drop things.
|
# ¿ Nov 26, 2020 18:59 |
|
Epi Lepi posted:I don't know about about directly converting from Roll20 but if you have the pdf of the adventure the module to import pdfs to foundry works pretty well, you just need to see how supported that particular adventure is. I'm halfway through book 3, and while it's mostly good on the walls, there are a few places where it's worth double-checking them. You may have already seen this near the end of book one in the cave with Voz and skeletons, where the walls aren't set up right so the players can easily see around them from far away. It's still insanely helpful though.
|
# ¿ Dec 5, 2020 04:44 |
|
Is the divine spell list in 2e just really bad? From what I can tell it has ~60 less spells than the second-lowest spell list. Basically all of their offensive spells are situational, and their buffs don't seem considerably better than the others. Basically the only unique thing it gets is resurrection, which to be fair is not nothing, but it's also something that is again situational. It feels like I can't recommend the divine spell list to anyone except specifically someone doing a very undead-heavy campaign OR as an evil cleric in an evil campaign (since you're less likely to fight undead and can just use tons of negative spells). Can't even necessarily recommend it for fiend-heavy, since most of the holy spells also do fire damage, which is a frequent resistance/immunity for them. It also feels like the warpriest cleric gives up legendary proficiency in spellcasting and doesn't get much in return. They do get expert proficiency earlier, but not considerably. They get martial weapon proficiency, but that may be worthless in the end, since a) you get Deadly Simplicity, which can make many simple weapons roughly equal to martial ones and b) as either cleric, you get expert proficiency in your deity's favored weapon, martial or not. I understand that obviously getting these things earlier does make the warpriest better at fighting for a while, but it feels very wrong that the cloistered cleric and the warpriest top out at the same martial capability (and not even very late, at 11th level). It feels like the warpriest should be getting master proficiency in their deity's favored weapon, obviously not at 13 when martials get it, but maybe at 15 (keeping them two levels behind martials, like with expert) or 19 (when they get master spellcasting much later than other spellcasters). This does seem pretty powerful because this is what martials top out at, but clerics are limited to only using a single weapon type and don't have a bunch of special martial attacks to make. I'm curious how others feel. I do like that thanks to the Medicine skill, divine healing isn't always necessary (though many conditions can't be removed by mundane medicine), but it does almost feel that's all the cleric is really good at.
|
# ¿ Dec 26, 2020 15:52 |
|
The main issue I've found with lacking a magical healer is actually removing some of the worse conditions with long/unlimited durations. This tends to be more of an issue at higher levels than low, but some stuff like paralyzed, blinded, and petrified can be applied with infinite duration and mostly only removed with magic. For pure HP healing, Medicine is definitely enough, which is one of my favorite things in this system.
|
# ¿ Feb 22, 2021 14:15 |
|
I don't think it would be overpowered at all to have Evil Eye just automatically work at the Frightened 1 level. Dirge of Doom is admittedly a higher level bard feat, but bards can spend 1 action to give the entire party a +1 bonus (effectively the same as a -1 penalty to enemies) and does so in an area. Hell, I'm not certain it'd be overpowered to make Evil Eye just 1/turn, no immunity, frightened 1 with no save. It definitely seems like the Witch really gets the short end of the stick though. They get 6 hp/level, which previously only Sorcerer and Wizard got, but Sorcerer and Wizard also get more spells than all of the other spellcasters (through Sorcerer's just getting more and Wizard's school specialization or generalist bonded item recall). They get the same crappy save and no additional class features distribution as Sor/Wiz (max expert in anything, only gets master Will at 17 and only one "evasion", which most classes get two of, except Sor/Wiz, the most powerful spellcasters). They get to choose their tradition, but so does Sorcerer. I never really played 1e Pathfinder so I don't know much about the Witch class from there. But in my opinion it should basically be the "offensive" version of the bard. Bump them up to 8 hp/level, give them some extra goodies when levelling (bard gets master will at 9th and legendary will at 17th, plus is slightly better than the "full" casters at fighting). Make their hexes better as things that are one-action abilities that automatically apply minor penalties to all enemies in range. Non-specific to Witch, spellcasters also can feel a little worse than melee because you only get one "big" action a turn, the spell you cast, and while spells are frequently a bit less binary than melee attacks, a) not all of them are and b) you get a limited number of them. Also, while I do think having non-straight attack actions is a strong point of the system (like demoralize, feint, etc, and the multiple attack penalty incentivizing them), I also think they're super heavily weighted into Charisma. All Intelligence really gets is Recall Knowledge, and even then they don't get all of it, and it only gives you really good info on a critical success. (Wisdom would have a similar problem if it weren't for Medicine, probably objectively the best skill to have in PF2e, even if its combat use is pretty strictly limited.) My group is actually starting the final book of Age of Ashes next, and we've had a good time with it. But I think at bare minimum I'll wait a while for a few more books to run this game again because I do feel like it needs more options and more sanding around the edges to make it a really good game instead of just a good one. EDIT: struck incorrect info about Witch being penalized overly for familiar loss, which was wrong
|
# ¿ Feb 22, 2021 16:08 |
|
sugar free jazz posted:Witch in 1E is a very high power full progression spellcaster that is on the level of a Wizard, and is generally much stronger than most Sorcerers due to 1E mechanics. Remaking them to be more similar to a Bard would be a really big change for the Witch class. I don't really want them to be thematically like a Bard, but right now they are pretty much like a Bard mechanically... just worse. Basically I just mean they should get more features than Sor/Wiz (like Bard does, since it doesn't get the 4 spells/level), and that hexes should be 1-action minor offensive effects that always work, like Bard songs (even the offensive one). Evil Eye is definitely just flat out worse than any of the Bard songs which are also 1-action effects, the first of which every Bard gets for free: Inspire Courage, which gives +1 attack/damage and +1 to saves vs fear for every ally within 60'. (Bard gets a better version of Evil Eye as a level 8 feat, Dirge of Doom, that applies frightened 1 and the "can't reduce below 1" to every enemy within 30'.)
|
# ¿ Feb 22, 2021 16:59 |
|
Also, totally unprompted since I have some experience now and am reaching the end of a full adventure path, here's what I feel are the pros/cons of PF2e for me: Pros:
Cons:
Here's some Age of Ashes specific ones, that I'll put in spoiler tags: Pros:
Cons:
This is already super long so I won't add any more to it. We've had a lot of fun with this and I do think it is a pretty good game. I like it better than 5e, but there are a lot of ways that I feel like it could be better.
|
# ¿ Feb 22, 2021 17:07 |
|
ZenMasterBullshit posted:Fighters are way way more dynamic than wizards while being the martial equivalent of them. Give a fighter a day and he's coming back with a whole new set of skills and tactics and several new weapons with unique was to gently caress you up. It's very odd that the way in which you picked fighters being better than wizards is the thing wizard is explicitly good at? A wizard can change literally his entire toolset, top to bottom, every day (assuming his pockets and/or spellbook are deep enough). Fighters get one flexible feat at 9th level, another at 14th, and another at 20th if you take a feat (and 20th level feats are valuable). There's five general "feat chains" fighters have: weapon and shield, weapon and open hand, two-handed weapon, two weapon, and ranged weapon. Most of these don't play nice together. Fighters don't get Quick Draw. I really like the idea of the flexible fighter, and I don't think that the wizard is better because of flavor. Some of the martials do have good and flavorful options (I think monk, swashbuckler, and barbarian are probably the best in this regard). I looked through the fighter feats in the PHB from 20 down to find one that does something that isn't giving extra attacks, slightly more effective attacks, or defense bonuses. It takes getting down to level 14, so no feats in the top three tiers of feat that don't just basically add more attacks. At least monks can turn ethereal and do a death fist attack, and barbarians can cause earthquakes or turn into a dragon.
|
# ¿ Feb 24, 2021 04:08 |
|
Toshimo posted:No lie, this is one of my biggest concerns. Foundry is the newest shiniest thing, but if they are so heavily leaning on community labor, what happens when the next new shiny thing comes out? How many modules lose support when their devs wander off to their new bauble? Someone else picks it up? This can easily also happen with Roll20 or FG. Roll20 has definitely started on features and abandoned them in the past.
|
# ¿ Feb 24, 2021 04:19 |
|
If you want to focus more on the bird I'd suggest going ranger with the Sentinel dedication. This gets you heavy armor, and you can focus on the pet more. The bird is one of the better animal companions for its support benefit, which is Dazzled on any enemy you hit. You can go with a two-handed hammer and the precision ranger, or two one-handed ones (or a one-handed one and a shield w/ shield boss) for dual wielding/flurry ranger. It works pretty well.
|
# ¿ Mar 23, 2021 05:23 |
|
Mark me down as another person who played PF2e in Foundry and had it work great, especially compared to Roll20.
|
# ¿ Apr 22, 2021 12:56 |
|
Toshimo posted:But, again, for all it's warts (and they are numerous), one of the things R20 got right, and imo Foundry should have learned from, is that 90% of the buttons that you need to push and numbers you need to reference are on the first page (and spell page for casters). Like I mentioned, that's a big deal for speeding up play, especially for new players. You could throw out all the big piles of ~fancy afornment~ of the Foundry sheet and just give me a compact first page with Saves/AC/Skills/Attacks/Common Actions on it and I'd leap at it. That's really what I want from a VTT character sheet. I'm going to strongly disagree with this -- one of my players has had trouble in the past with parsing parts of character sheets and had no issues, and I personally find that having the different bits segmented into different pages makes it easy to quickly access what you need. The utility menu addon that someone else mentioned makes this even faster. quote:I mean, I'm playing in a weekly game in Foundry, and doing my best to work within its limitations, and help the other players. I don't have an objection to people preferring Foundry or recommending it. I just get very annoyed that there's a lot of misinformation about both of the big VTTs and how to use them and when they might be a better option for players. Foundry definitely has a lot of nice features, and I like a lot of things about it, but it does feel, even from the player side, that it offloads a lot more on the GM and requires a lot more time and energy invested to get a working product out. Sure, if your GM pours themselves into it, it's got a world of features that do a lot of cool things, but that's a bar above which a lot of folks are likely to bounce off. As someone who just finished running Age of Ashes in Foundry, I can't disagree more with this statement. Just the PDF importer (which is admittedly a third-party module) saved me so much time it's incredible, and having basically everything in the compendiums saved me tons of time setting things up. I'm also not sure what's so complicated about Treat Wounds, and I'm echoing what the other poster said about the utility belt macro working well. But even before that I don't remember having issues.
|
# ¿ Apr 24, 2021 14:41 |
|
boxen posted:What's the basic process for bringing in a published Pathfinder adventure (say, one book of an adventure path) into Foundry VTT? I installed it to check it out, started a world, got PDF to foundry and maps look like they came in, but do all the tokens need to be placed and that sort of thing? Or is there a better/more complete import tool I should be using? The tokens do need to placed -- probably because the books don't typically tell you exactly where to put them (I think there's a technical reason also, but this is the reason I thought it might be).
|
# ¿ Apr 25, 2021 12:27 |
|
I like PF2e but I definitely wouldn't describe it as 4.5e. There are definitely some things that do imitate 4e, like the keywords. But one of the most important things in 4e they definitely do not do, which is parity of options between classes, particularly spellcasters/martials.
|
# ¿ May 22, 2021 15:48 |
|
Megazver posted:I haven't had the chance to play it at a high level yet, but from what I hear, they're pretty balanced for the most part. All the classes don't develop along the exact same structure like pre-Essentials 4e, but to me having variety in that is a plus. In terms of damage effectiveness the martials definitely do really well, so that's not my problem, just many of the martial classes' high level options are really boring. Also, a lot is made by the PF2e community about how the attack penalty forces you to do things other than just attack and how just attacking is ineffective, but my party's martial characters had better luck with just attacking repeatedly (especially since most of the extra combat options that aren't attacking are Charisma-based).
|
# ¿ May 22, 2021 16:12 |
|
HidaO-Win posted:It depends, there are funky high level options in there, fighters getting an extra reaction on every creatures turn sorta sounds boring, but it’s actually incredible and just lets you punish the opposition. Monks get to go Super Saiyan, Rangers get six attacks, Barbarians can stomp for earthquakes. They all play into the power fantasy of the class. Two of those big powers are just "attack more". Monks and barbarians do make out better in interesting powers than other martials, I will admit that.
|
# ¿ May 22, 2021 16:47 |
|
I'd also recommend with the Free Archetype letting people ignore the "you must take x feats before moving on", mostly because it makes some archetypes a lot harder to take at all: there are a few with a level 2 feat then the next one is later. Though you'll definitely want to do what the Free Archetype thing says about keeping a restriction on the feats that give you extra HP from the "fighting" classes.
|
# ¿ Jun 3, 2021 13:58 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 30, 2024 03:16 |
|
CaptainPsyko posted:It’s a perfectly good and usable core class in 1e; Honestly I feel like it kind of works for the bomber because the admixtures you can do with bombs are pretty good, but there's nothing comparable for the other builds, at least not past one or two feats that interact well. I think if there were more of that it could work. Where you use a lower level item and add a special effect.
|
# ¿ Jun 8, 2021 02:19 |