Search results

PF2 is a bit of a special case because it's not that hard to build a character who is immune to falling damage at higher levels. (without magic)

I run it RAW. It's capped.

You could always do what Paizo did with Pathfinder 2E, and rename the class to something else. They picked Champion, which is pretty good.

No. When you want to enable some particular archetype, don't make spells to enable that archetype. Make a class to do it. Why? Because every time you create a new spell that new spell will be evaluated not in the context of the intended archetype, an Artificer or Spellsmith or whatever you want...

The point of having tags is that you don't have to read the entry. The point of the tags is to tell you something about the entry without requiring you to scour the entry for information.

Alignment is trash because alignment is fundamentally not something that can be defined accurately. What kind of problems could monster tags lead to?

Roles aren't rules, though. As such they cannot be bloat. If anything, templates are actually bloat since with templates you have to modify the stat block meaning that not only are they rules, but they are more work for the GM.

Instead of using roles you could also have a quick list of tags, something like these, perhaps. They should be listed where they can be easily seen Sturdy: This monster has an unusual amount of hit points Heavy-hitter: This hits hard in melee Mover: This monster can control the battlefield by...

Uhhh... When you say "everything" you can only mean every player option, because otherwise it wouldn't make sense, really. Accepting that premise I argue that if everything is OP then nothing is. In that context OP itself becomes irrelevant, unless you argue that the player characters were OP...

I am fairly sure that the 4E rules said something about it being possible to bypass the skill challenge if it could be easily circumvented though as I said earlier, it's been a long time since I read the 4E books.

Pathfinder 2E also avoids having things based on an encounter and instead has a limited resource, focus points, that recover after a short rest. I think this points to that part of the terminology in 4E being quite bad (since PF2 feels much 4E inspired in execution). It feels arbitrary to say...

I think they were overcompensating for earlier edition stat block bloat. I think there were two things they wanted to do with stat blocks. a) Make them smaller, and b) Make them less reliant on external info (like spells listed separately). I remember thinking that the presentation of monsters...

This is what I was getting at. When you price an ability you need to consider not just how powerful it is, but also how often you can use it. Sure it's nice to be able to use it an infinite amount of times, but how will that materialise in practice? In a short distance sprint endurance doesn't...

I pointed it out because it shows where the problem is, not what the solution is. It's like a mind trap: X and Y do almost the same thing but Y is more expensive so Y must be better. My point is simply that the cost of Y might not actually matter, and in that case think about that before making...

I'm going to add that I greatly appreciate this reply. Let's see if I agree with it ;) I want to point out that I intended the whole scenario as entirely hypothetical. It does not really make sense for there being a limit on it, but at the same time... There are already things that do not make...

It's worth noting that I'm not saying that those things I discuss in the opening post actually should be implemented. I'm lifting it as a possible solution to the problem at hand. A much better solution is to nerf spells in general and consider their utility without caring too much about them...

But the cost only matters if it actively hampers you. D&D is a drag race. It doesn't really matter how many times you can do X, because you can in general just long rest whenever you want and get all limited abilities back. There's no point in having an ultra-endurance engine that can race for...

With the exception of attacking, spells are pretty much superior. The only downside to spells is the cost, which is the point of the first post in this thread. Want to get across a chasm? Dimension Door, Teleport, Wall of Force, Wall of Stone Want to jump somewhere? Use the Jump spell (better...

Yes. 4E understood that it's difficult to mix free abilities with costly abilities since it's easy to get caught up in the idea that a free ability must be worse than a costly ability. Yes? I think, since wizards are already allowed to be better than pretty much all other classes at whatever...

Of course Knock is a bad spell, that doesn't make it a bad example. It doesn't matter if the spell I compare with is trash or not, I'm bringing Knock up because it has "guaranteed instant success" written all over it. Sure there are two downsides to it: You have to use a spell slot and there's a...