Remove ads

Dungeons and Dragons Megathread

Reader mode
The Narrator said:
The irony is that 5E is heavily influenced by AD&D nostalgia. Magic items have no prices. Feats are optional and only gained rarely. Skills nominally exist but have almost no rules for how they work and you get very few. Character customization is minimal: after you choose your kit (subclass), you don't make many choices. Martials don't do much besides move next to the enemy and make basic attacks over and over again. AC is largely static.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I feel that it took all the wrong lessons from every prior edition. Martials should have been given more powers, especially. And you get far fewer skills than in 2e. Most classes started with 4 and got a new one every 3rd level. So that's 10 by 20th, with optional rules to add even more based on Intelligence, and with most Kits adding bonus free ones.
 
Arawn_Emrys said:
I feel that it took all the wrong lessons from every prior edition.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They really did. 5E basically discarded all the things that I actually liked about 4E (special moves for all classes, encounter powers, level-based bonus to AC and damage) and kept all the things that I hated about 4E (limited customization options withing each class, combat that's a slog of repeatedly getting beaten down and healed back up). They threw away the strengths of 3E (a massive amount of customization options, unique character builds) and kept the weaknesses (balance issues, martial/caster divide, OP spells).
 
So, I have a question about pathfinder 2e (we're using the remastered rules).

I'm thinking of making a Magus and of course I don't understand Spellstrike, especially since it apparently got errata'd and now people contradict each other everywhere.

Can I load a save or suck effect on my strike to have it be dependant on my roll instead of a resist if it's the main effect of the spell? For exemple, say I load Enfeeble, and I hit the target. Would it need to roll Fortitude, or would it be enfeebled 1?

The text says that secondary effects are saved against as normal, but the lessened spellslots and risk of being in melee feel like a lot if the only interest of spellstrike is just a lower MAP and some action economy for a blasting spell.

Also, does the spell stay loaded if I miss my attack, or is it just lost?
 
Renu said:
So, I have a question about pathfinder 2e (we're using the remastered rules).

I'm thinking of making a Magus and of course I don't understand Spellstrike, especially since it apparently got errata'd and now people contradict each other everywhere.

Can I load a save or suck effect on my strike to have it be dependant on my roll instead of a resist if it's the main effect of the spell? For exemple, say I load Enfeeble, and I hit the target. Would it need to roll Fortitude, or would it be enfeebled 1?

The text says that secondary effects are saved against as normal, but the lessened spellslots and risk of being in melee feel like a lot if the only interest of spellstrike is just a lower MAP and some action economy for a blasting spell.

Also, does the spell stay loaded if I miss my attack, or is it just lost?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Searching Magus here gives the relevant errata for the remaster; https://paizo.com/pathfinder/faq

If you use a spell that requires a spell attack roll like Gouging Claw and miss then you lose the spell.

If you use a spell that requires a saving throw like Enfeeble and miss they avoid the strike, but are still affected by the spell. If you critically miss then the strike misses and they are not affected by the spell. You lose the spell in that case. The enemy still rolls a fortitude save like normal in order to determine the effect of the spell.

As a Magus you're still going to want to focus on attacks that use spell attack rolls with spell strike. You'll have better accuracy with them. With save based spells the main benefit of spell strike is that you're doing in two actions something that would require three actions if you used each part separately.
 
Queshire said:
Searching Magus here gives the relevant errata for the remaster; https://paizo.com/pathfinder/faq

If you use a spell that requires a spell attack roll like Gouging Claw and miss then you lose the spell.

If you use a spell that requires a saving throw like Enfeeble and miss they avoid the strike, but are still affected by the spell. If you critically miss then the strike misses and they are not affected by the spell. You lose the spell in that case. The enemy still rolls a fortitude save like normal in order to determine the effect of the spell.

As a Magus you're still going to want to focus on attacks that use spell attack rolls with spell strike. You'll have better accuracy with them. With save based spells the main benefit of spell strike is that you're doing in two actions something that would require three actions if you used each part separately.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Thanks. I'll have to see if a support-y Magus is possible or if I should go for something else since it doesn't sound as good as a debuffer if there's still a save for the effects.
 
Renu said:
The text says that secondary effects are saved against as normal, but the lessened spellslots and risk of being in melee feel like a lot if the only interest of spellstrike is just a lower MAP and some action economy for a blasting spell.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The magus doesn't have less spellslots because it has Spellstrike. The magus has less spell slots because it has all the basic fighting prowess of a martial class. Martial weapons, medium armor, weapon expertise at 5th level, weapon specialization at 7th level, etc.

The magus isn't a caster that also fights, it's a martial that can also use some spells. They're great at dishing out big burst damage by stacking an attack and a damaging spell plus the bonus damage from Arcane Cascade, but their action economy cost is high.


I don't have firsthand experience with the 2E magus, but from what I've read online, you don't generally want to use saving throw spells as a magus. Because INT isn't their best stat, their save DCs aren't as good as other casters. People generally suggest using the spell slots for buffs and utility, and damage-dealing cantrips for spellstrike. If you do use a debuff, maybe don't use it for Spellstrike (no advantage there except action economy savings) but instead as a way to enter Arcane Cascade stance and get the bonuses when you Spellstrike the next round.
 
If there's one thing that Pathfinder YouTube has taught me it's that if you want to be a martial debuffer then grab your lucha mask and wrestle that there dragon.
 
The Narrator said:
The magus doesn't have less spellslots because it has Spellstrike. The magus has less spell slots because it has all the basic fighting prowess of a martial class. Martial weapons, medium armor, weapon expertise at 5th level, weapon specialization at 7th level, etc.

The magus isn't a caster that also fights, it's a martial that can also use some spells. They're great at dishing out big burst damage by stacking an attack and a damaging spell plus the bonus damage from Arcane Cascade, but their action economy cost is high.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That makes sense, but counterpoint: the name starts with "mag" so who can say who's wrong or right?

But yeah, them being a martial without a level 1 feat makes way more sense.
 
If you have access to War of Immortals then maybe take a look at the Battle Herald class archetype for Cleric? Worse spell casting than base cleric, better with weapons and instead of a cleric's free heal spells they get free aura spells that can buff allies or debuff enemies. (Also the Aura spells last a minute regardless of whether you sustain them or not. Sustaining just increases the size of the aura.)
 
Jensaarai said:
the components for Forcecage aren't consumed?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ser_Serendipity said:
1, even if the components were consumed, which they aren't, 1500 gp is chump change for a 14th or higher level party, 2, Martials never get a once per day "I want this enemy to stop existing for this fight unless they have magical transportation and even then they have to make a save to see if it works" ability, which is kinda the crux of the balance dispute, and 3, yes, a DM that throws enemies at the party that will cast Forcecage on them without first giving them access to Forcebreaker Weapons (which got added to cover this particularly nasty situation) is being a dick, but it's also damaging to the verisimilitude of a lot of games to hand players obvious lock/key solutions like that rather than giving them combat puzzles they can create dynamic solutions to, so it's troublesome design regardless.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
TBF, that's specifically a change from 5e to 2024e. The components from Force Cage weren't consumed in the former, but the latter nerfed the spell by changing it so that the components were in fact consumed, so if @Arawn_Emrys is referring to 2024e, he's actually totally correct on that count.
 
Queshire said:
If you have access to War of Immortals then maybe take a look at the Battle Herald class archetype for Cleric? Worse spell casting than base cleric, better with weapons and instead of a cleric's free heal spells they get free aura spells that can buff allies or debuff enemies. (Also the Aura spells last a minute regardless of whether you sustain them or not. Sustaining just increases the size of the aura.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Note that Warpriest Clerics also hit Master Proficiency with their Deities Favored Weapon, though much later (19th rather than 13th level).
The proficiency differences between Warpriest and Battle Herald are:
  • Battle Herald only has the same amount of spell slots as the Magus
  • Battle Herald replaces their Divine Font with Aura Spells, rather than Heal/Harm (=Bless/Bane, Benediction/Malediction)
  • Battle Herald gets no Spellcasting Proficiency Progression beyond Expert
  • Battle Herald does get Legendary Class Proficiency (relevant for critical hits and some feats, as well as their auras)
  • Battle Herald get Master Armor Proficiency at 19th level (rather than capping out at Expert at 13th), but do not get Heavy Armor without investing into it and do not get Shield Block
  • Battle Herald gets Master Proficiency in their Deities Favored Weapon at 13th level, rather than at 19th level
  • Battle Herald does get free Reactive Strike at 9th level
  • Battle Herald only gets Master in Will Saves at 15th level, but does get Master in Fortitude at 13th level (Warpriest gets that at 13th)

So basically, if you pick a Battle Herald, you pick it because you really wanna cast the relevant Aura Spells (=Bless/Bane, Benediction/Malediction).
A Warpriest is a good Healer, or a really good Smiter if they pick Harm for their Divine Font.
A Battle Herald is a martial who spends most of their first turn turning on a support aura, and only casts the occasional support spell.

Really, check out Warpriest with Harmful Font and Channel Smite as an alternative to the Magus - you get worse weapon proficiency for most of your career, but you go get a damage-dealing smite and a bunch of support spells.
 
Also wrestling (mostly) relies on skill proficiency instead of attack proficiency so Warpriest is decent there.
 
The aura look interesting, I'll have to check it. As for wrestling, I already did a wrestle paladin before and if I go with Magus I'll go with the wushia one with threads whose name I forgot but it has some support for manoeuvres since you always have a bladed scarf (that you can choose to use one handed).
 
Queshire said:
If there's one thing that Pathfinder YouTube has taught me it's that if you want to be a martial debuffer then grab your lucha mask and wrestle that there dragon.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Tripping someone is actually a great debuff. As long as they're prone, they're off-guard (formerly known as flatfooted), so -2 to AC and rogues can sneak attack, and have a -2 to attacks. And to stop being prone, they have to stand up, spending one of their three actions and triggering a reactive strike (formerly known as attack of opportunity) if you have that ability. I played a swashbuckler with rogue archetype who would trip people to get panache, then stab them while they were down for finisher and sneak attack damage.

Intimidate is also a great debuff, because being frightened is a penalty to everything, but you can only scare any particular enemy once per combat.
 
The Narrator said:
Intimidate is also a great debuff, because being frightened is a penalty to everything, but you can only scare any particular enemy once per combat.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Now there's a swashbuckler style that resets the cooldown each time you use a finisher (at level 9 or so iirc) so you can demoralise, get panache and spend it on your finisher every turn.

I just imagine the poor foe who gets shouted at then stabbed, terrorised...
 
Renu said:
Now there's a swashbuckler style that resets the cooldown each time you use a finisher (at level 9 or so iirc) so you can demoralise, get panache and spend it on your finisher every turn.

I just imagine the poor foe who gets shouted at then stabbed, terrorised...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, Swashbuckler is such a fun class. I wanna play one again next time I get a chance to be a player instead of the GM.

The levels before you get that ability would be tougher, but luckily any kind of swashbuckler can fall back on Tumble Through as a way to get panache. Take the Tumble Behind feat and you'll make them flatfooted off-guard, too!
 
I've been getting nostalgic for D&D 3.5 these days (it was the first tabletop RPG I ever played). But in the past, when I've suggested playing or running 3.5, some players have suggested we do Pathfinder 1e instead. I've played Pathfinder 1e before, and while I've enjoyed it, I'm not sure I quite have the vocabulary to describe why it doesn't quite scratch the same itch for me. I was wondering if someone with decent system mastery could run down some of these changes for me in a bit more detail (maybe with some examples):
Chloe Sullivan said:
They buffed the base class features of the already overpowered casters, giving them more hit points and class features, while the minor AC and maneuver bonuses the fighter got scale so slowly as to be basically negligible. Meanwhile, the Bard got nerfed, because they didn't understand how bardic music worked in 3.5.

They also nerfed almost every ally buff spell in the game, because Paizo hates friendship. Meanwhile, save or dies actually got a minor boost, encouraging people to play it as "selfish caster edition"

4e getting rid of save or loses was absolutely the right decision. Having classes whose whole shtick is Hitpoint Damage and then letting other classes have easly accessible insta-kill conditions destroys both player agency and any semblance of tactical maneuvering. Pathfinder actively increase the prevalence of instant death effects, because they also hate fun.

Pathfinder is an attempt to "fix" 3.5 by people who had no fucking idea what was wrong with it in the first place. Which might be excusable if there hadn't been expansive, well reasoned, math-backed analyses of 3.5 balance issues up on 339 for years before pathfinder even was a thing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
WhatIf said:
I've been getting nostalgic for D&D 3.5 these days (it was the first tabletop RPG I ever played). But in the past, when I've suggested playing or running 3.5, some players have suggested we do Pathfinder 1e instead. I've played Pathfinder 1e before, and while I've enjoyed it, I'm not sure I quite have the vocabulary to describe why it doesn't quite scratch the same itch for me. I was wondering if someone with decent system mastery could run down some of these changes for me in a bit more detail (maybe with some examples):
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I find that Pathfinder 1 is pretty fun these days because DDS's Spheres system is actually designed for the 3e/d20 engine rather being made up out of legacy code. Credit to 3rd party devs (Diamond Recreational Studios, Legendary, Lost Spheres and a few indies also did Spheres content alongside the original developer, Drop Dead Studios), not Paizo.

Although, to be fair to Paizo, PF 2 is supposedly fairly decent because they actually put real effort into serious devwork instead of repackaging bad old stuff with a new coat of paint (and a glaring lack of care for lessons learned).

But yeah, If you want to play PF1, pick up some of the indie stuff (The majority of it is freely available in wikis). Dreamscarred Press almost single-handedly revived interest in alternate magic systems in PF with their Psionics conversion (which still holds up fairly well). Additionally, Akashic Mysteries has also undergone multiple overhauls-rewrites by independent devs and is fairly functional and fun. Path of War is an update of Tome of Battle, which was always popular.

Its worth noting that several Paizo classes that were badly designed have been more-or-less back-fixed using the archetypes system. The Medium psychic class is hot garbage as originally printed, the Empath "archetype" for it is basically an entirely new class retaining only traces of the original but is excellent and worth using (and has a lot of sci-fi references for fans to spot and chuckle at - Worm included)
 
WhatIf said:
I've been getting nostalgic for D&D 3.5 these days (it was the first tabletop RPG I ever played). But in the past, when I've suggested playing or running 3.5, some players have suggested we do Pathfinder 1e instead. I've played Pathfinder 1e before, and while I've enjoyed it, I'm not sure I quite have the vocabulary to describe why it doesn't quite scratch the same itch for me. I was wondering if someone with decent system mastery could run down some of these changes for me in a bit more detail (maybe with some examples):
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, one thing I've seen with pathfinder is that it has a very different approach to classes. Going 1-20 in a base class is a lot more assumed, because Archetypes take up a lot of the room Prestige classes used to have. And you can still mix archetypes, though you have to make sure that they don't alter the same class features so it can be clunkier to do so unless DM's intervene. But it means that the mechanics of how a character might change over time can be complicated in some ways that aren't present in 3.5(though the reverse is also true).
 
Yeah, I've always thought that PF1E rewarded sticking with a single class over multiclassing and doing level dips of various ones more than 3E. In addition to the favored class letting you get an extra skill or hit point each level in one class of your choice, there were also more class abilities that would get stronger as you got more levels in the class.

Another difference from 3E was that most classes would have some kind of selectable class feature or option to make it more customizable. Barbarian would pick some rage powers, rogues would pick some rogue talents, sorcerors would pick bloodlines (which was basically a subclass before subclasses were a thing), etc.
 
It somewhat depends on the classes/ideal. Casters are definitely encouraged to remain single classed, and don't have many PRC class options. Non-casters are a bit more varied, because ultimately a lot of pathfinder 1e non-casters still have a most of the normal issues with being a non-caster in a 3.x system. Making the numbers really large is great and all, but that's basically all you're getting. And inflating numbers too high doesn't actually lead to good results at least in my experience.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top