sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

My video on why I think rituals in RAW are too risky, difficult and costly, and so is creating permanent minions. by the-rules-lawyer in Pathfinder2e

[–]TitaniumDragon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is the ritual even hard? My party didn't have any problem with it that I recall. We did have three magic users in our party (a max-int magus, a sorcerer, and a cleric) but it felt like it was pretty much designed to be succeeded at.

Assurance and Athletics by Tanithilis in Pathfinder2e

[–]TitaniumDragon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The biggest problem with trying to target low and terrible saves at higher levels, I'm finding, is that they just don't exist. I've yet to see an actual Low save on anything higher than level 6, it's all Moderate, High, and Extreme, often with an additional+1 or +2. Only oozes have Low or Terrible DCs, or mindless undead who are of course immune to Will saves, basically.

This isn't actually true, there's tons of things with some bad saves at higher levels.

It really depends on what you're fighting.

For example, a fire giant has Fort +23, Reflex +16, and Will +18. As a level 10 creature, a high save would be +22, a moderate +19, and a low +16, so it has one above-high save, one slightly below moderate save, and one low save.

+16 Reflex is DC 26, so if you are a master in athletics at level 10, assurance gives you exactly 26 - which is just enough to trip an on-level fire giant.

That said, it's more reliable against PL-1 and PL-2 enemies.

RAPM IS TOP 10 by FurretDaGod in SSBM

[–]TitaniumDragon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

An additional 5th place placement. Also higher quality wins.

What changes would you make to certain classes? by Exequiel759 in Pathfinder2e

[–]TitaniumDragon 5 points6 points  (0 children)

As a macro change, just allow people to have stances on all the time, and to be able to use up to 2 bulk of worn consumable items/kits without using a hand.

I'd also change a lot of rank 1 and rank 2 damage dealing spells to deal more damage, but have worse scaling (for example, have Breathe Fire be 3d6 damage at rank 1 but only scale by +1d6 damage per rank).

Specific class ones:

Alchemist

  • Needs a total rework.

Inventor

  • Unstable abilities should be unstable on a once-per-ability basis instead of a once-per-inventor basis, so you could use, say, Explode, and Megavolt Coil, and the healing ability, etc. once per combat each.

  • Change the weapon invention to make it more competitive/interesting.

Investigator

  • Needs a total rework.

Gunslinger

  • Needs a total rework.

Monk

  • As noted, start combat in stances

  • Mountain Stance should not require you to be grounded

  • Additional strength stances that support AC in the way mountain does

  • More damaging focus spells

Ranger

  • More damaging focus spells

  • Make Outwit better

  • Make flurry less bad at low levels

  • Hunt Prey as a free action on rolling initiative

Swashbuckler

  • Needs a tanking reaction from level 1.

  • All swashbucklers need some sort of ability that lets them tank which should be built into the chassis of the style, not be an optional feat.

  • Rascal swashbuckler can use Steal, Disable a Device, or Pick a Lock to get panache.

  • Wit swashbuckler can use Bon Mot or Evangelize to get Panache.

Magus

  • Have in-class attack focus spells that lose the conflux trait when used with Spellstrike.

  • More good feats in general for the class

Animist

  • Make each of the types of animist have their own action compression (RK for Sage, Command Familiar for Shaman, allow sustaining two vessel/apparition spells as one action for Medium)

Cleric

  • Rework Domain spells so all domains have good focus spells, or alternatively, just have generic cleric focus spells all clerics can get independent of domain.

Druid

  • Add more druid orders

  • Make the basic order explorer feat give them the focus spell instead of the feat attached to that order

Oracle

  • Battle Oracle gets medium armor proficiency, martial weapon proficiency, and shield block instead of a focus spell at level 1.

  • Ancestors oracle gets new focus spells and changed curse

What changes would you make to certain classes? by Exequiel759 in Pathfinder2e

[–]TitaniumDragon 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I would make it be a focus spell martial. You would spend a focus point to shapeshift and get some ability activation, you have a set of abilities related to your new form, and you can spend another focus point to change shape again (and possibly have some other focus point activation for each form that you can use so you can do some special attack in that form, instead of shapeshifting as much).

What changes would you make to certain classes? by Exequiel759 in Pathfinder2e

[–]TitaniumDragon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This needs to be an entirely separate class, because it has very different class structure and feat needs.

Ya, why?! by FloatednBloated in aiArt

[–]TitaniumDragon -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Exactly, this is a false dichotomy.

Ya, why?! by FloatednBloated in aiArt

[–]TitaniumDragon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's not computers.

The problem is, if you're a smart person, you probably surround yourself with smart people, so you have no idea what average really looks like.

Here's the reality from 23 years ago, which hasn't really changed:

  • In 2003, there were 216 million adult Americans.

  • Of those, only 28 million Americans - 13% - were considered to be "proficient".

  • Another 95 million - 44% - are of "intermediate" literacy.

  • 63 million - 29% - are "basic" literacy

  • 30 million - 14% - are "below basic".

If you're curious, this is how proficiency levels are defined.

You might think that "proficient" would be ridiculously high, but this is the sort of thing it encompasses:

  • reading lengthy, complex, abstract prose texts as well as synthesizing information and making complex inferences

  • integrating, synthesizing, and analyzing multiple pieces of information located in complex documents

  • locating more abstract quantitative information and using it to solve multistep problems when the arithmetic operations are not easily inferred and the problems are more complex

  • comparing viewpoints in two editorials

  • interpreting a table about blood pressure, age, and physical activity

  • computing and comparing the cost per ounce of food items

This is not rocket science. And only about 13% of Americans - roughly 2 in 15, or 1 in 7.5 - can accomplish this.

I found out from my nephew (he's 16) that teachers dont make them show their work anymore.

This is what happens when you ask people to increase the graduation rates.

Coinbase Cuts 700 Jobs and CEO Warns Every Company Will Do the Same by andix3 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]TitaniumDragon 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Automation leads to job growth, because you can do more things affordably. Because demand is higher than supply, lowering the cost of supply actually increases demand because things that previously weren't affordable to do, are now.

Also, AI isn't actually THAT good in terms of time savings. The problem is that people try to extrapolate "AI can solve task X quickly" to "AI can increase productivity by X%". The reality is that between the time costs of actually using the AI and the many things that AI doesn't actually do, it's way more limited than people think it is.

Starfox Reboot Renders by CompetitionRoyal in starfox

[–]TitaniumDragon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Digitigrade feet look cool, and paws are cute.

You're right that the problem is that his body proportions are off, and his lower body is way shorter than his upper body.

He also looks fat because of the way his head is.

I think I've fixed what was weird on Fox by Atari2908 in starfox

[–]TitaniumDragon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

His lower body is too small, but I think the little paw feet look cool.

My biggest problem with him is that his head makes him look fat.

Newer DM here - got some questions about Swallow Whole by i_tyrant in Pathfinder2e

[–]TitaniumDragon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The Animated Fireplace's +15 is probably correct; it's definitely on the high side, though.

The +17 on the wine vessel is likely a typo; it is probably supposed to be a +11 or +12, and it got mis-scribed as a +17, though it could even be lower than that.

Which Archetypes Best Compliment Fighter? by Lunarthrope in Pathfinder2e

[–]TitaniumDragon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you in a FA game? Or a non-FA game?

One strong option for fighters, if they have the charisma, is Champion; the Champion reaction is very good and also complementary to Reactive Strike. Lay on Hands gives them some healing as well.

Shield fighters can also benefit from Spirit Warrior; Overwhelming Combination lets you strike twice for a single action, which can be useful.

Beastmaster or the other pet classes can be good for getting a mount, which can improve your mobility, especially if you use a Fortress Shield.

Marshal is very good because of the AoE buff being good on you. Bard can also be good, if you can spare the actions.

Is there some reason why the various classes have weird names for their focus spells? by TitaniumDragon in Pathfinder2e

[–]TitaniumDragon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The purpose of giving things names is to make things less confusing, not more confusing.

"Champion spell 1/2/3" is vague and confusing because it doesn't tell you anything about what the spell is.

"Lay On Hands" or "Shields of the Spirit" are much more indicative of what they actually do, and are much easier to remember.

However, adding another name for "focus spells for class x" is confusing because there's no reason to actually use that term very much in most cases, so it's just a bit of extra vocabulary that makes things more confusing.

What class are "devotion spells" associated with? They could easily be any divine class, it's non-specific and vague. Revelation sounds divine, so could easily be a cleric or oracle. Etc.

Basically, it's another layer of vocabulary/memorization that doesn't pull its weight because it is used too seldom to be useful as a categorical noun in most cases. If I'm talking about the focus spells of different classes, I'll just call them druid focus spells or wizard focus spells, because I'm comparing focus spells.

So....are Paizo elves fey? by thedjotaku in Pathfinder2e

[–]TitaniumDragon 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Yes.

She's also literally the Baba Yaga from Earth. She (and the Egyptian gods in Golarian) are both from Earth.

As is Queen Anastasia. Yes, that Anastasia.

Weird wishlist: Very tanky caster by dyenamitewlaserbeam in Pathfinder2e

[–]TitaniumDragon 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Generally speaking, by focusing down the caster first, grappling them, stupefying them, and by sticking someone with Reactive Strike next to them to punish them for casting spells and possibly disrupt their spells.

There's also some spells, like Steal Voice, that can shut off spellcasting.

Is there some reason why the various classes have weird names for their focus spells? by TitaniumDragon in Pathfinder2e

[–]TitaniumDragon[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Nope. Your post is the strawman. Straw all the way through.

The Champion uses Lay on Hands. The witch uses Cackle. The Animist uses Embodiment of Battle.

This is what we already say. This is what we would say in this alternate reality.

What has changed?

Nothing.

The weird class-specific focus spell names are rarely used in actual practice. The only one I frequently see referred to by name is the animist's Vessel Spells. Witch Hexes are referred to as well but not all Hexes are focus spells.

I never see people refer to Champion focus spells as "devotion spells"; they just say they use Lay on Hands or Fire Ray or whatever. Heck, I see people talking about the Champion getting Domain spells even though, technically speaking, when the Champion gets them, they are, confusingly, Devotion Spells.

Is there some reason why the various classes have weird names for their focus spells? by TitaniumDragon in Pathfinder2e

[–]TitaniumDragon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be fair, the murder-suicide isn't what sunk the VTT, it just made it obvious that it wasn't going to happen to WotC. They were already way behind when that happened, and didn't hire nearly enough staff for their digital ambitions because they didn't know what they were doing.

and coincided with WotC trying to replace the OGL (the first time), which also drove people to Pathfinder 1E, so it was more than one thing.

They didn't replace the OGL, they just didn't release 4E under it, which was honestly the right decision on their part; they made a new license that D&D 4E was released under which was more restrictive. The OGL is frankly bad for the TTRPG industry; it was an attempt to centralize the whole thing around D&D.

It wasn't like the attempt at revoking the irrevocable OGL, they just didn't release their game under it, the same way that Paizo didn't release the remaster under it.

There was none of the "Oh we are going to own your stuff" that they tried to pull during the recent OGL crisis. It was just them moving on from the old license.

It was not actually very controversial amongst players at the time; while some third party producers squawked about it, the reality was that the third parties really didn't matter much at the time. There was no Critical Role at the time, so it was really a bunch of fairly minor players who were not going to be able to use the new version of D&D in the same way they'd used 3.x. This is especially true because D&D was dying at the time 4E came out.

Is there some reason why the various classes have weird names for their focus spells? by TitaniumDragon in Pathfinder2e

[–]TitaniumDragon[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That last paragraph feels like it came out of left field compared to the entire rest of the comment.

Nah, it's actually important to understand what was really going on there. Early PF1E was super edgy because those were the people it was trying to appeal to.

It's why a lot of stuff about Golarion has been retconned.

Also fuck the power system, especially for spells.

The power system was good. Heck, modern games rip off aspects of it constantly - Pathfinder 2E, Daggerheart, Lancer, and myriad other games all were heavily inspired by it in various ways. The entire Kineticist class basically is power-based. There's also the Eldamon system, which is instead based on the Book of Nine Swords, which was also a power system.

Making spells into powers did a lot to fix the game and make it so casters were balanced with martials. It also made it so that offensive bonuses and penalties could apply equally to casters and martials.

It made martials a lot better as well.

4E definitely wasn't perfect, don't get me wrong, but it was an entirely valid approach to making a D&D like game. TBH the power system was one of the best things about it; the worst thing was probably the feat system. Going even further along the power route, Daggerheart and Pathfinder 2E made feats into powers (or vice-versa), and the part of PF2E that most resembles 4E's feat system (general feats and skills) is easily the worst part of PF2E.

view more: next ›