Gladiator

Castilliano's page

Organized Play Member. 4,365 posts (4,367 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists. 19 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,365 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As Paizo mentioned re: Golarion's current named dragons, you can use the OGL monsters w/o referencing their species name at all. Which is to say all the ability sets are available, as long as you give them their own identity. Not that Paizo will lightly cross lines, but if the narrative would benefit (especially if based on previous individuals), that option's there.


Unicore wrote:
Don’t go walking up waterfalls. Stick to the rivers and lakes that you are used to.

So singeth the Children of Destiny!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do the creatures with lowered attack scores do the same damage?
Or has it increased to compensate, to keep expected damage the same?

Also I disagree with the premise that "easier" = "improved". I'm good as long as obstacles can be correctly measured (by GMs) and overcome (by players) with some level of challenge. Was it not so before?

And the ghoul was changed more for copyright reasons than balance, though being one of the TPK kings, especially in water, losing paralysis was probably necessary even if an iconic ability. Funny enough, one might argue they're less effective in water now depending on how one rules Stench works underwater.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My guess/hope is that the improved Rage integrates some feats as part of the class chassis, i.e. Fast Movement. As in Rage improves consistently throughout one's career with physical buffing so while the Fighter remains better at generic fighting/weapons/styles, the Barbarian gets a nudge in those aspects it already kind of owns thematically, yet isn't at the top of the curve like some of the other martials are in their niches.


Errenor wrote:
And if there are not enough spell slots cantrips and focus spells can always be used. It costs only a minute and is better than nothing.

If your GM lets you undercast them so they can go in the Spell Storing item (which I would BTW). At the time one can afford the Rune, one's focus/cantrips are too high to be placed in the Rune.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Evil God caused Golarion gods to have alter the fabric of the universe to prevent this evil god from destroying the world?

Close enough to the real world explanation.


SuperBidi wrote:
Confused condition removal through damage is silly anyway. When you see spells like Warp Mind, it's clear there's an RAI issue somewhere.

Pretty sure the RAI is to prevent the murder-loops one could (and in previous editions did) cause with Confusion, especially on a group. Watched fights where the enemies did most of the damage to each other.

Now it's comparable to Slow w/ extra effects, just not TOO many, though I can't say what the target balance point is/was/should be. Obviously there is an issue with the permanency of Warp Mind if one can bypass the difficult Counteract limits with a solid slap to the face instead. That seems like an oversight where somebody balanced one spell without regard to another (perhaps several others). Would 2 7th Rank spells (w/ failed saves) warrant locking two enemies (likely only at-level or lower) in a death spiral? Thinking about the inverse of two PCs getting tagged and that seems a bit severe though I'd have to run through comparable spells & effects to justify that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Nonlethal damage hurts just as much as lethal with the only exception being the final damage taking the target to zero hit points, and you're still knocking them out. "Just do nonlethal" is no consolation!

If anything, one sign of mastery is being able to control the amount of damage one does with a blow, as in sparring or most any media involving a master & disciple, much of which is fantasy and would be simulated with attack rolls. Saying a high-level PC can't spar w/ a 1st level character w/o knocking out the student EVERY SINGLE STRIKE (or worse) is absurd to both the genre and verisimilitude.

---
That said, it seems the easiest answer here seems to be to carry low-level alchemy to do 1 point of splash damage. :-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:

I'm sorry. The designers to have to write down that you can not use a character ability you have control over unless it's something like rage. You don't have to sneak attack if you don't want to. It's not like your rogue is mindlessly sneak attacking because they have no control over it.

Tabletop RPGs are not mindless games where the characters execute their abilities because they have them with no control.

If the rogue doesn't want to sneak attack and hit the vitals, they don't have to. I don't need the designers to write that down for me. Sneak Attack has always been optional.

I slap my chum on the back. "Good job!"

He explodes.
What?! Dang it. Forgot to turn off my Sneak Attack again!

That's in the silly "can't control new superhero powers" comedy realm, not high fantasy with a well-trained expert making precise, chosen motions. So yeah, one can absolutely "turn off" Sneak Attack by ya' know, just attacking (which if anything should be easier!).

As for reducing other damage, that falls into a gray zone IMO as many are tied to general competency or a weapon's firepower.


Roquepo, you've touched on why I think Rogues deserve such a powerful feat like Opportune Backstab; because as the lowest-defense martial they're at greater risk when they stand toe-to-toe. Opportune Backstab balances that with a good (potential) reward.
Heck, it's such a good feat it could earn its 16th level slot for many other martials w/ MCD Rogue (especially those with a poor selection of Reactions).

I'd prefer a skirmishing Rogue by default, but OB's so good that I lean toward Rogues that boost their defense to survive to use it. Nimble Strike re-balances skirmishing, and adds good defense/defensive positioning too so IMO it's better for a Rogue in a white room, but it's also quite costly (unless already attracted to the other feats). Yet as usual, we don't play in a white room so party composition & enemy composition alter the value of both.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Thing From Another World wrote:
Abadar or the less known Demi-God called Spencer.

Remember Luke & Danny too. Of the three, Danny's the only healer.

(Also it's Spenser, and he's the only one I recall with that spelling.)


pauljathome wrote:
The other limiting factor is that while the enemy aren't targetting the sneaker they're still targetting the rest of the group. So it's both kinda anti social and it forces the opponents to focus fire. Which may be worse for the group than spreading the damage around a bit more.

Yep, so hardly a GM issue if traveling in a typical party, yet game-changing if alone or in a party built for stealth (which uses lots of resources/power budget so should pay off like that even if an abnormal approach to a combat-focused game). Heck, one might want to filter all the damage toward say the Champion, but not only would they take more damage (which they can weather), but it'd extend the battle as the Rogue contributes less because they're using actions to keep hidden (and why not let the Champion use those great Reactions covering you?).

Also, there's severe risk when one is hidden from one's own allies, assuming the Rogue requires support. You'd better have your weaknesses covered, or maybe a telepathic link of some sort for if you do get teleported away so that your allies know it.


While my first thought was Erastil, since he's boring, I think (with hedged bets spread wide) that Torag is the most likely. Yes, there was the Dwarf AP action which highlighted him...which is exactly what you do before offing a character! (see most action/horror movies)

Add that James hates Dwarfs, yet they got an AP before the other races/Ancestries. Curious.

Killing Torag would be a great opportunity to revamp the Dwarf image as bigoted, stubborn oafs if a sociable deity became their figurehead. Torag had been problematic, yet his inception kinda arose from traditional fantasy Dwarf tropes. Paizo tempered/revised him, yet I could imagine Paizo cleaning house on the whole Ancestry. (Unless of course the AP already succeeded! Haven't read through.)

---
Separately, I wonder if the whole shakeup among the deities might see new ones, like from the Starstone adventures. As for Arazni, I'm not sure she's found her footing enough to promote, and it seems not long enough ago when James said it'd be awhile before they did more with her, and while it wouldn't be offscreen, they had no plans yet anyway.


Copy from other thread:

I think the default assumption is you have to read it. As mentioned, that's simply how scrolls work, so much so one wouldn't need to point it out in the rules. BUT take for example Inuyasha and other Asian fantasy media where priests often use scroll-like magic items, paper charms which hold written spells. Except they're typically activated with a prayer rather than by reading the spell, and often they're throwing the scroll as they activate it. So in a Tian-themed campaign, I'd likely allow it, opening the door to considering it in standard games too, though for now I wouldn't allow it in PFS games, expecting full support from the local officers.


I think the default assumption is you have to read it. As mentioned, that's simply how scrolls work, so much so one wouldn't need to point it out in the rules. BUT, take for example Inuyasha and other Asian fantasy media where priests often use scroll-like magic items, paper charms which hold written spells. Except they're typically activated with a prayer rather than by reading the spell, and often they're throwing the scroll as they activate it. So in a Tian-themed campaign, I'd likely allow it, opening the door to considering it in standard games too, though for now I wouldn't allow it in PFS games, expecting full support from the local officers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let's not confuse Strike with strike.
Even if you can't Strike an object (w/o some of the special abilities others listed above), you can still attack that object w/ a weapon with the intent to do damage. Nobody is saying you can't do that kind of strike, but it might be resolved via an Athletics check or w/ narrative re: how much time & weapon repair might be necessary to complete the task (if it's even reasonable). Or the GM might use actual Strike damage if they adjudicate that's the best method for resolving the action because the weapon fits the use.

Given the amount of abuse to settings and obstacles I've seen in 3.X/PF1, this is kinda necessary. And I say this as a fellow who often chose adamantine hammers/work tools for his martials because they simply were (too) effective at bypassing obstacles.

As for spells, there's a similar problem that the damage scales so much faster than the durability of the sets & set dressing (much less the props, macguffins, & other items which drive the narrative). Rather than limit one's adventuring environs, etc., Paizo (seems to) think it best to relegate that to a GM's call. Given that either direction stretches verisimilitude, I agree with this decision if only that trying to generate and enumerate materials for all levels would be a headache even while leaving so much uncovered.


Finoan wrote:
Easl wrote:
Arguably, if you are using assurance, you don't have a MAP.

It is arguable.

The opposing argument is that you do have the Multiple Attack Penalty even if the penalty isn't included in the dice calculation. But you being affected by the penalty is what is the prerequisite for the Press actions. Not having the dice roll (or dice non-roll) affected by the penalty.

Right. The PC has MAP, even if the maneuver they're using doesn't.

And while Assurance hardly works on at-level opponents (with exceptions for some plodding creatures like zombies), it can work with minions fairly often. And as 3rd attacks go, that's pretty good albeit situational, especially if you're a Dex-warrior anyway. (or even funnier, a low-Str caster just goofing off).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The funny thing is how much harmless encounters tap into the PCs' sense of paranoia and/or significance. Playing the consistently-besieged protagonists in what's often an epic tale where their choices have consequences, I too fall prey to this mindset when playing. Which is why I value harmless encounters as it gives a sense of perspective on the world, as well as verisimilitude. Some of these inconsequential moments have become important story beats.

That said, it can often be wiser to fast-forward, even if it's meta to do so, saying that the party gives due diligence to X (assuming time's not a factor!), finally determining it's harmless, they've extracted whatever lore or clues needed, and/or may proceed in confidence.

Also, if one can find the oldest of wandering monster tables, they list many harmless events, like spooky dungeon dressing or denizens that merely keep the fantasy ecosystems humming. Extending that to cities can be more difficult, but also more worthwhile if a recurring setting, especially if the tone impacts later developments, i.e. witnessing a display of authoritarian judgment or merchants talking of interrupted shipping.


SuperParkourio wrote:
But if the dragon uses Breath Weapon then crits to trigger Draconic Momentum, the cooldown is tossed, right?

What I find funny about this is it mitigates the crit a bit. Essentially it's saying that if the dragon does a lot of damage to one target, then it's not so bad for the dragon to spread out its damage next time (when focus fire on that one target would often be devastating...or easily solved with a targeted Heal...and crit + AoE=healer making a significant choice or appreciating the backup healing all the more).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's a whole season of PFS1 where PCs of lower levels participate in scenarios on the elemental planes, so yes, those settled, hospitable areas do exist. Note that the "average" citizen is hardly average which might make social obstacles vs. generic NPCs harder than one might expect.

--
Yeah, I suppose "infinite" (yes, a legacy of The Ring/Planescape) taps into logical conundrums that "immeasurable" avoids, though for practical purposes they're the same.

And speaking of Planescape, it too has many modules/scenarios for low-level PCs to make an impact among high-level factions, and to operate in hazardous territory one would typically think off-limits. If looking to build a planar campaign, it still IMO has the best resources.


Bluemagetim wrote:
Are the elemental planes element themed versions of the material plane that can be traveled to or are they completely just fire or water or air or whatever?

They are primarily composed of their main element, and in some places, yes, completely so. Yet some areas have chunks/oases of other elements. For example, there are dirt islands which float in the Plane of Air, and leaders might tie them together with cables & bridges. Of course water & fire have difficulty surviving in the opposite plane, and what use is a pocket of air on the Plane of Earth if it's hidden or has so little oxygen it depletes rapidly? (Plus dust, radiation, cave-ins, etc.)

Yet over the course of eons the residents have developed trade centers that can harbor visitors and gates which bring in supplies for said visitors to survive. Being infinite in nature though, the bulk of the elemental planes are inhospitable w/o magic to survive & navigate. So a GM's free to tune to visit to their tastes from teeming metropolis w/ bizarre citizens, struggling outposts, secluded lairs of researchers or outcasts, to outright hostile regions, i.e. solid ice in the Plane of Water, eternal tornadoes in the Plane of Air, etc.

IMO though, once one pops the cork on that bottle, it's hard to think of Golarion the same way. The infinite, civilized nature of the planes kinda diminishes the scale of one little planet struggling to develop (albeit the Prison of Rovagug & home of the Starstone). Taldan/Common begins to look more like a language Golarion appropriated rather than created and spread.


In a PF1 PFS adventure on that plane there were amulets that the mid-low level PCs were given temporarily due to PFS diplomatic ties so the adventure could proceed. They were considered valuable, had to be returned at the end of the adventure, and if I recall did not appear on the chronicle for purchase. A.k.a. purely plot devices to acclimate the PCs to the plane, but which notably did not confer fire resistance or other defenses one might think necessary to survive there.
If I recall, that was just to survive in the City of Brass outside of visitor areas.

I believe Planescape had similar plot devices, though those would often be rewards which again conferred little if any bonus other than the ability to traverse environments w/o necessarily aiding vs. unusual hazards or anywhere else, i.e. one item might be tuned to Hell's fires (and maybe only on a specific level), but wouldn't aid on the Plane of Fire or other fiery realms.

A temporary Ritual works too, of course, though might want to require some sort of key or rare component as well as the limits on the items above.


It seems others are focusing on whether the fluffier aspects of the riddle are (too) misleading or not. But IMO underneath the fluff it's a basic riddle for somebody into math. So difficulty depends on your table (like most if not all riddles do). As soon as I read "numerical" the words "prime" & "symmetry" sparked the answer instantly. From there one can reflect on how the other parts could apply too (albeit inconsistently). Again IMO those bits aren't misleading so as to give up on the correct answer (which would place the riddle in the "too difficult" category).
If anything I found it on the easy side, but since the answer wasn't obvious until the last line and required some double-checking, there's still a sense of accomplishment. And as a riddle, it's not like it has to be rigorous like some computer code, no more than crossword puzzle clues have to use strict definitions.
(I might change my mind if failure equals TPK!)


gesalt wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
I can't recall any edition of the game encouraging this much us of a single combat maneuver.
Was it 3.5 or pf1 (or both) that had the ultra tripper with spiked chain builds? Ironically, trip always felt like the big maneuver even if maneuvers weren't actually necessary with all the other things martials could get up to.

In 3.X trip was far worse. Trip=dead vs. a trip-build/Combat Reflexes, often without teamwork, but ridiculous with even a few generic martial allies alongside (since everybody had AoOs, plus many martials had Combat Reflexes). Strike them when you trip them, strike them again when they stand, add more strikes if it had been a full attack, and that feat that let you strike enemies when they hit the ground too (which many assumed didn't stack, yet nope, WoC said it did). So imbalanced, and far too large a penalty if you stayed prone as opposed to now when the penalty doesn't stack w/ similar conditions, multiple Reactions are rare, etc.

Had two mid-high level trip PCs fight together for the first time much to their delight as they kept triggering more attacks for each other. They killed multiple at-level enemies per round (if available). Three ninjas in module? Hah, tossed three ninjas per PC and a horde more off-camera shooting flights of arrows at anyone in the open courtyard (which was simple enough to avoid). Easy-peasy for the party (albeit fun due to the sheer spectacle).

Trip's viable, and as many have suggested, its power comes mainly from its synergy with teamwork. Teamwork's king, though yes, trip is probably the simplest form right after flanking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Calliope5431 wrote:
Dark_Schneider wrote:

It would be more credible with the condition “if you can grab”, I think about it like the typical brute pulling a chain to avoid the big dragon to move away. But if your hand cannot grab any part of the target to make the catch…

The use of tools should be required, the abstraction sometimes is excessive.

Meh, I disagree. I'm sure you can invent something. The alternative is the "guy at the gym" fallacy where the fighter is bogged down to within human limits but the wizard goes "lol but magic", and nobody wants that.

It's like asking how Gaston (in the original Beauty and the Beast) can essentially juggle refrigerators without all of his joints snapping. He's a literal cartoon, people! You can relax.

Yeah, at Legendary levels we're getting into anime/superhero levels. While many will veer toward cosmic/Dragonball terms (which intentionally break the curve much like One Punch Man), there are less cosmic ones like Demon Hunter or Inuyasha where "normal" humans can achieve legendary feats, often including tossing much larger/stronger enemies, leaping far higher than human joints & bones could handle, etc. Several kung fu/cultivator movies demonstrate this scope of fantasy in internally plausible ways; through mental focus, breath, hitting certain nerves, timing a tip perfectly, etc. Which is to say, legendary PCs aren't necessarily exerting legendary strength, but could be hitting the Achilles tendon so the beast spasms and crumples or slips right when it's adjusting its balance.

For those that balk, that's simply the nature of high fantasy extrapolated out to 20th level. Those wanting a Conan-level fantasy that's kinda barely possible, they'll have to cap levels or redesign the game...and as pointed out above, that'll favor the magic classes that laugh at such real-world constraints, meaning all the game would need reconstruction. Not an endeavor I'd envy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would like "One-Inch Punch" and similar single-Strike alternatives to be options that replace Flurry of Blows. I find it hard to warrant taking those options when Flurry of Blows is so good (and free), yet sometimes those options fit the PC's theme better.

To make a Monk w/ Legendary Unarmed you have to play a Fighter.
In essence you're exchanging your mobility and delaying your development (which of course is a serious issue in shorter campaigns). I've made several, but I always find it hard not to take advantage of the perks of a Fighter, which steers them away from mirroring a Monk. I don't think we'll see it on an actual Monk because it'd have to give up more than just AC defense since offense is valued more.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I genuinely would not be surprised to see imaginary weapon get errata that somehow prevents it being used at range via spellstrike and the like. The annoying thing about the starlit span magus using this is that it's better with the spell than the class it was designed for.

It wouldn't be hard either, done by adding a statement that since it's making a weapon (albeit imaginary) it doesn't function on top of other weapon attacks that carry spell effects. As in the arrow Strikes, the weapon forms as per the spell, but it's inert since there's nobody over there guiding it. Unfortunately that might suggest other spells which wouldn't work too, which is why Paizo might have to blatantly state it's because of balance. I can accept that.

If I see the combo coming, I'll likely discuss this w/ the player, as well as how the most climactic battles are often too cinematic to depend on 3-action routines w/ all the diverse actions required.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

"How did you know I was more than a simple servant?"
"Your cat rolled its eyes when you acted servile."
"Damn you, Mittens!"
"It's demeaning."

---
Honestly, I don't think it's that creative having seen similar attempts at seeming innocuousness decades ago. Of course I'd allow it with a Deception check (especially since the PC's invested in feats). That wouldn't save the cat from getting swatted offhandedly, and its survival of a token swat leading to the conclusion it's an at-level "cat".

Note if I were a fellow player I'd think it cheesy to try to avoid repercussions which the rest of the party has to bear.
"Hey, why aren't you attacking her?!" cries the just-as-vulnerable Wizard.
"Oh, she's a threat too?"
"Ummm..."

As for PFS servants, that's a bit of a conceit for the Society; fun perks + some opportunities to fill skill gaps/add breadth in randomized parties. It never struck me as indicative of typical play, nor as plausible even.
That said, Gygax & company often had enormous parties full of hirelings & henchmen...much like one might expect from wealthy travelers. Think guides, bearers, etc. All perpetually at risk, so left behind at first indication of danger by any scouts.


Bluemagetim wrote:

One thing to consider providing when a player is rolling RK on a creature is information about the creatures behavior. Is this type of creature territorial, cowardly when bloodied, does it eat its victims or save them for later, does it hunt in packs or is it a loner. I mean yeah they should also get information about saves, weaknesses, resistances but behavior will drive what players may attempt to do besides strike until its dead.

players might find more value in RK if it gives them information that inspires how they engage it, whether they kill it or try to get it to run, or weather it might have loot caches to look for afterward. So many benefits can come from RK but its more work for the GM to come up with it.

In PFS1 I'd often ask such questions like temperament (as in can we roll Diplomacy/Nature/etc. to parlay or just chuck food at it). This surprised GMs and seldom if ever getting a useful result. :(

So many creatures fight to the death if only for simplicity's sake. Heck, even classic dungeon crawls had more variance than that.
(Cannot speak to PF2's breadth of creature reactions, and alternate, non-combat solutions were getting more popular every season.)

That said, my players often regret not taking a chance to RK, but part of that is because it explicitly says the information will be useful so I make certain it's useful. Sure, one could try for specific information they think will be useful, and be wrong. With a collaborative GM it seems an open-ended inquiry should work better. In that vein, Int/RK/Lore builds could be worthwhile, but like Cha, if you don't back it up with skills, you aren't getting much out of it. And if your skills overlap with another PC's, it lessens your value.
Seems it'd be wise to have at least one PC each cover Dex/Int/Wis/Cha skills (or more if so capable, and with at least one athlete).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Many of my players would attack a hissing cat simply to remove the annoyance/insult, that is as long as doing so didn't undermine their overall combat plan. Some would do so out of paranoia, perhaps with somewhat sound reasoning that the cat should've run away. I doubt any would spend an action on RK too, unless they had abilities linked to it.

I remember when losing in a 007 finale trying to make sure to catch the BBEG's dog in the machine guy spray because dang it, I may not be able to win, but I'm gonna take something precious from that guy as I go down. (And it sprayed the more salient targets too.) GM nixed that, offended by my "heroic" agent's actions. But in PF2 where many of the opponents embody evil or spite, and perhaps also can tell they're going to lose anyway, I could see them trying to kill the unusually brave kitty that somebody in the party must love.
Of course, that tactic's organic; it would vary by each circumstance. And yeah, grabbing the cat seems more and more a legitimate tactic if you know it might get you safely away from murder-hobos.


pauljathome wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Players really hate being told they are not allowed to think for themselves though, so I get why INT can’t really be the mechanical attribute for coming up with good plans or problem solving.

GURPS has (or, at least, had the 20 or so years ago I last played it) a Tactics skill.

For a little while it became a real issue as players (with some justification) wanted to roll against their characters tactics skill (significantly higher than the players skill) to have the GM give them a good plan.

I (the GM) tried it for a session or two and then just killed the idea, telling the players they could have their points in tactics back if they wanted (there were still some game mechanical advantages to tactics but I forget what they were except they were fairly minor)

As a teen, I added a Tactics skill to the Hero System (Champions RPG) which proved popular among my players. It worked fine, but that's also a simpler combat system both for maneuvers & resources (even if PC/NPC creation was way more complex). Note it didn't aid with strategy, merely gave what would immediately be the best tactic.

I don't think that'd translate well into an Int-based PF2 skill though with all the extra variables & necessary teamwork. What's best for your PC to do depends a lot on what your peers will/do support.

Int itself is an awkward stat when paired with Wis. How can a dumb person be as wise as a deity? I try to think of Int as processing new data, rote knowledge, & conceptualizing with Wis more folksy and in-the-moment awareness. So in one's head vs. in one's space.
Except what the heck does that mean at the table?! Not much if the players are kinda expected to keep track of clues and pay attention to details; a.k.a. be both intelligent and wise (and persuasive too for some RPing preferences).
"Your PC can't do physical/magical task X," is straightforward as it's a limit on the character, but when you start placing mental limits on the PC, it also limits the players ability to well...play. Which implies the inverse, that feeding a smart PC better ideas is kinda playing the PC for the player.

Question for GMs to ponder: "Would my PC know better?"

Note that I have intentionally made low-Int PCs so I could justify a more casual playstyle. Not brash or unwise, but also not needing to dwell on every nuance as if I myself were there and in possible mortal danger meaning I should analyze everything every step of the possibly-trapped way. That became a headache long ago.

As for PF2, a 14 Int gives effectively two (low-level) feats; two Trained skills + two languages, as well as +2 in Int-based skills. If taking Int-based skills (some which the party kinda needs), that's pretty solid IMO, even if I'd prefer my skill feats support other skills (which should pose no issue). If one has a KAS in Dex/Con/Wis (& no secondary stat req of course) or wears heavy armor, there's some spare stat points for a good Int, especially if the party's covered Cha skills (or if one needs to shackle oneself from dominating RPing, something I've seen several players do).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Holding the familiar hostage is more interesting, RD. Unfortunately it leads to the idea of simply snatching it away. Much more severe than killing it, as it would not get replaced tomorrow, effectively neutralizing the Witch. Gulp! (And speaking of "Gulp!", I can imagine a hungry creature w/ Swallow Whole-small attacking the Tiny familiar if only because the party had all Medium targets. And then fleeing.)

That falls in the "stealing Iron Man's armor/Green Lantern's ring" territory, something the writers seldom do because that takes away what makes them special. Not that Iron Man wasn't badass when the Skrulls underestimated him w/o armor, but one of Iron Man's writers said a hard aspect was visibly damaging Tony w/o lessening his powers...a.k.a. his armor which keeps him from being damaged.
On the flip side, maybe it's more like Captain America's shield, which he's always losing, with it breaking quite often for something indestructible! He keeps tossing it away, so what does he expect?
Hmm.


I think in terms of the lead question, it's more in the sense of "when" than "if" NPCs should use RK. The consensus seems to be "out of combat" because that action costs too much (and generally they have effective options for each of their options, even minions).

For you, RD, the example of "just a hissing cat" IMO falls into the meta-knowledge category. Sure, a cat on Golarion could be far worse than the party, but until proven so, why would a combatant waste time on it?
Would a PC? Probably not, and they're among the most meta-savvy, right?

There's the caveat that if a monster has a spare action, and the cat happens to be nearby...squash. This is something that happened to one of my players when a new baddie entered the cavern from behind the party. It was obvious to everyone though, fingers were crossed, the baddie spotted the familiar, and smash. Same might happen with cat so close to the front lines. (Heck, that cat might even save the life of a PC if that spare attack might have been against the downed PC.)

And if the party gains a reputation, that cat might too, but seriously, it'd take an odd combat situation to make attacking the cat worthwhile even then. Yes, an archenemy might specifically target the kitty, much like it might target a spellbook (rarely). Except it is out in the open, and if somebody left their spellbook on the table while grabbing an ale from the bar, it'd be fair game too. Or starting tossing it like a hammer for an in-combat example. (My players routinely had spares, though what I'd like to see are fakes. "OH, NO! Not my spellbook!" screamed Briar Wizard.)


Finoan wrote:
I think this is veering way off topic and into dangerous territory.

I disagree, we're talking about generic knowledge in Golarion, and speculating on a subset of that, Religion, based on what data we have. Religion would be among the most important "things folk may or may not know w/o training" which would have an impact on NPC interactions & reactions, as well as for whether untrained PCs auto-know much about temples (which are common places for PCs to gather resources/info, and clergy one of the most common professions to interact with).

I think deities involved in rites of passage or the most popular fables should be recognizable, at least re: that topic, but making all 20 instantly recognizable w/ zero chance of error to even yokels seems a bit much. Strong odds that people simply adopt the deity of their family, likely based on profession or which clergy entertain or motivate them best. After that, adherence is likely on auto-pilot with focus on the activities/social dynamics more than learning.

If one goes back into more superstitious times, the amount of occult "knowledge" explodes, with all sorts of charms & odd materials/bodily liquids helping against a bevy of beasties. Or not. There's little rhyme or reason to these items & concoctions. I'd expect untrained people would clasp onto any stray (false) hope to ward against threats, and so have accumulated as much wrong knowledge as right. Or learn some mnemonic song that's errant simply because the writer wanted to rhyme.

Of course, in play what does this translate to?
Since (maybe) all of my prospective PCs has trained Religion (because yeah, I think it's important and typically have 14+ Wisdom), it's hard to imagine a party w/o it, but how much should I expect commoners to see my Holy Symbol and recognize it as actually holy? Or perhaps more importantly to know/suspect my Edicts & Anathema? (and vice versa)
DC 10? Would there even be an action w/ some deities?

As for Devils & Demons, I did have one PC simply write "Devils silver, Demons cold iron", but after encountering them. Who knows what misinformation he might have "learned" beforehand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Finoan wrote:

“This is the symbol of

Urgathoa, a goddess of disease, gluttony, and undeath.”
As a side note, I would not require a roll or even Religion proficiency to recognize the primary holy symbols of gods common in a character's home culture (which for most Pathfinder characters would be the "core 20"). That's the kind of thing that would be common knowledge. I would require it for more obscure symbols. Using Christianity as an example, I would not require a roll to identify a cross as the symbol. Something that's a cross variant (e.g. a Hospitaller cross, or a Saint Andrew's Cross) wouldn't require a check to recognize it as a Christian symbol, but could require one to know the specifics. And identifying a fish as a Christian symbol would definitely need a check.

That's generous, as IRL people who don't study religion have hardly any inkling of other religions, confuse practitioners for each other, and fail quizzes regarding even their own denomination & lore. What in game terms would be a Critical Failure is commonplace.

Even "trained+" theologians consistently err re: rival religions, unless specifically invested in studying comparative religion (though that might translate into having Lore for their own & not Religion itself as a skill). Of course doing so for simplicity has its own value, or one could argue people know the gods involved in life-rites or festivals since for those aspects everybody gets involved. Shrug.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
A bunch of cubical wall sections floating in air sounds more like playing Minecraft than Pathfinder. :)

Craftfinder?

Pathminer?


PF2 intentionally sidelined damaging items, hence the loss of Sunder & leaving AoE effects on terrain/objects up to the GM (with the default implied to be nothing unless there's a reason). As well as possibly losing important plot items accidentally, there's how valuable items are to a PC's power level. In a looser game, like early D&D, the ebb & flow of gaining/losing items mattered less than in the tight math of PF2 where you kinda have to key items at certain levels or the next.
Which is to say, these items need to be protected for balance reasons, and the disproportionate impact they'd have on the narrative too. It's too hard for the durability of every key item to match the escalation in damage (especially when factoring in bosses), and it often led to abuse in earlier editions or a "death through poverty" if an AoE hit a PC's corpse.
Plus there's too much wonkiness of what can effect what for the guides to list every combination, like clubs vs. ropes, swords vs. walls, etc. Best let the GM control the reins to suit their playstyle.

So yeah, items meant to be broken for story purposes can be broken, and if your GM stresses how dry the tomes are in the library abstain from Fireballs even if last session a Fireball couldn't ignite a candle sitting on the evil mayor's table. And it's doubtful you can target the staff the BBEG's using in the ritual or by sheer damage numbers tunnel around every obstacle through direct destruction/Strikes (which I saw often enough in PF1).

Note that you could always say "I (try to) hit that object w/ my weapon", it's just it may or may not be a Strike w/ the most likely alternative being an Athletics check.


Thank you. (I shoulda looked for that.)

Note (at least pre-Remaster at least) Hydraulic Push doesn't double on a crit, it increases from 3d6 to 6d6, meaning you add more dice to the roll rather than simply X2. That's an important difference when Heightened (5d6 base would crit to 8d6 at 2nd, and so on). Also perhaps matters vs. crit immune creatures since it doesn't technically double, which if interpreted that way makes it useful vs. oozes, which might be intended given the flavor.

Heals are typically better as a 2-action healing or 3-action AoE.
Using a 1-action version can be efficient for being one action, but spending the same actions as a 2-action spell and only getting the value of a weaker spell seems an instant loss. And often instead of using Spellstrike ammo one could use Strike & separately cast 2-action at range w/o relying on hitting. And if one is the sort of PC to carry Spellstrike ammo and has reliable enough shooting, there are significantly better spells out there for these purposes.

So yeah, I stand by Heal via Spellstrike ammo being a desperate & iffy choice. A situation for it certainly could occur if it's the only option for the range/target/resources available, but I would avoid building for.


What happens if you crit?
If damage vs. Undead, it would double. That seems wrong for healing.

Also, this seems like a poor tactic, only useful in desperation, and with iffy results even then.


Dark_Schneider wrote:
One note, while carrying bulk is considered with your whole body, in the case of holding (or lifting) a rope could be different as your arms could (usually) be the weaker link of the chain.

Except a rope centralizes the weight distribution, something which typically lowers Bulk (which factors in size as well as mass). Also, stepping on the rope or wrapping it around oneself would be viable choices too while "holding" it. The rope could as easily be hooked on to one's vest, using no hands, and the Bulk rules would work the same. Yet "how it's held" has long been moot too since we're dealing with abstractions, PF2 already having ditched detail with the rules change from weight to Bulk. Heck, it's so abstract one could just as easily say one carries all their unworn Bulk in their forearm-pack if they desire. While there's a tendency toward realism, or at least verisimilitude, the PF2 system is just as viable with fantastic, even cartoonish, interpretations.

But IMO narrative takes priority. If one wishes to haggle & wrangle with every hiccup of an obstacle, that's a choice, yet how much adventuring will that ultimately represent? PF2 advice suggests GMing otherwise, to only focus on the pivotal or consequential ones.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
OliveToad wrote:
Evilgm wrote:
Do you feel that climbing is so interesting that it requires more checks that can fail to drag the whole thing out? Is there a genuine benefit to adding an extra roll to the scenario?
The sass isn't needed.

I don't know Evilgm well enough to analyze if that's sass, but they are echoing a GMing principle albeit via questions. It's a principle I believe that PF2 advises too. That is if success/failure are not interesting to the narrative then don't make players roll; save rolls for when it matters, trivial rolls dampen pacing (even if realistic), etc.

Which is to say, as with the scene you've set, if there are no other pressures, simply describe the heroic exertion required and move past that (non-)obstacle. But, say if a monster's chasing the party or maybe the fall's treacherous enough, then sure, a basic Athletics check might fit in except "being encumbered" seems far too low a bar IMO. That merely slows a PC down, it doesn't threaten to topple them nor risk dropping what they're carrying.

So in answer to your question: neither DC. No check without extenuating circumstances, and never a check for just becoming encumbered from holding a rope.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

CR is accurate, but since it's a +2 higher CR than the party, they'll struggle if unprepared for such a fight. If they depend on melee attacks or energy that matches the breath, have low Fort saves, or if the terrain favors the dracolisk, the party will likely need to use all their resources to prevail. That's expected.
Meanwhile, a party will have a tough-but-reasonable time if filled with martials who can switch to ranged attacks (or specialize in them) & prepared casters who know what they're facing, perhaps to memorize AoEs so they can keep their eyes closed if Slowed. An opportunity to go shopping beforehand would also help. This is a pivotal encounter so likely shouldn't come up out of nowhere.

It's kind of expected somebody will get petrified, which is why dracolisk blood remedies that. If the party lacks the Recall Knowledge skills to recognize that (especially since it's an Uncommon, higher level creature), you might want to base the DC on a normal basilisk or give the party an information source that tells them.

If you still think your party will struggle (as perhaps they're mainly low-Dex melee w/ support), then you could give the dracolisk motivation to land, i.e. treasure to protect or it's starving (which might be why it's Weak). Or you could give your players a learning experience first facing other flying creatures, i.e. gargoyles or harpies w/ Reach weapons so they can recognize they need to patch that tactical gap.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Question: Is this for a thought experiment or to make a viable PC?
There's a big difference in answers.

Trouble with Barbarian is many of the best 1d4 weapons have Agile, which halves the Rage bonus to damage. Also, the MCD's just not worth it compared to Thaumaturge or Rogue MCDs. Of course, if we're going for silly, as RD often prefers, then you'd want all three MCDs!

Not sure why you dislike Spellstrike, RD, when it's just as hidden as any other ability before the Strike. And after the Strike, enemies will know it ain't just itty-bitty dagger damage. Same goes for Channel Smite (which gets access to a die bump too for a deity's weapon).

Which is to say that ultimately there are a lot of little damage bumps out there via MCDs, too many to take them all, but all being around the same damage bonus. I'd say either Swashbuckler or Rogue has the best chassis for adding a burst of damage to small-die weapons if excluding flashy magic. I think a Rogue adding lots of bleed damage plays to the concept, as that tiny weapon just inflicted a gushing wound, though Swashbuckler has similar effects available. Rogue also can add poison if that's subtle enough to count (as could Alchemist).

I think "You're Next" also plays into this concept, and both of those classes have it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The juxtaposed question to how much healing y'all have (plenty) is how much AoE firepower does the party have? Then factor which of the two would benefit from being a renewable resource; does healing/AoE blasting run low by the end of an adventuring day?
And as Raven Black mentioned, Wis matters. An 18 Wis does about 50% more damage than a 12 Wis due to saves (given standard saves for one's level, I believe more if a lower level as one might expect vs. groups).

Personally I think Flurry + 2-action Ki Blast is just too cool to pass over as a standard routine, while healing might only occur occasionally (and retreating/skirmishing might be better anyway if issues are so dire).


Unfortunately, while there's no rule saying you can't undercast, there's also no rule allowing it, which one kinda needs in games like PF2.

One example to note is that the Balor has Dimensional Dervish, so they can cast Dimension Door with one action. They cast Dim Door as a 5th level/rank spell, at will (or 10th, 1/day). If cast at 5th, the caster becomes immune to Dim Door for an hour, which would make Dimensional Dervish only usable 1/hour, which seems too discordant to be true (at least for a level 20 creature's ability).

Of course, the Balor entry's more likely a hiccup than a comment on undercasting, so it's not evidence so much as in need of GM adjudication for itself. Personally, I'd allow undercasting, especially due to weird interactions with Wild Shape, Light, etc., but note that there's been much argument about this with no consensus due to different GMing approaches.

As for the Shaukeen, it's not casting Magic Aura, so the spell's active as the Summoned entry describes only how casting interferes/ends the Summon. That said, I would disallow shenanigans that try to bypass the cap, such as giving the summoned creature all one's items to get the benefits as if having cast multiple similar level/rank spells.


Old school Darkvision, maybe as far back infravision, couldn't read (though I dimly recall a special ink that could be read). That would sometimes lead to some underground races having some lit areas. I think module A4, a finale for tournament play, even provided scrolls the party couldn't use until they secured a light source (them having started with nearly zero resources in a cave). But yeah, not sure "can't read" holds up in PF2 as it's dropped a lot of messy elements if they didn't have the flavor to warrant them.

Scroll is a term about text or writing, much like a book or tome would be. And nothing more, as in how many people would ask "Is it a written scroll I'd have to read to use?" when their PCs find a scroll in their loot?
I'd think zero, meaning it's straightforward except for the sake of inclusion or Rule of Cool. Which are noteworthy factors IMO. Adjustments for the former would depend on context. The latter would allow for alternate "scrolls" for different cultures, as long as they had the same mechanical access/cost in actions and hands/risk/etc. Any shenanigans though and that experiment would end.

I can't recall language being a factor with scrolls, even old school ones in plain writing (no Read Magic necessary, which many spells needed). That might have been because of Common being default, but Golarion uses alternate languages often so I'm pretty sure we would've seen "Elven scrolls" (et al) by now if those were a thing. In PF2 scrolls do seem written in a magical script that those familiar with any one of the spell's traditions can read. So kinda bizarre, and not how languages work.


As a Halfling, at 5th there's the Ancestry feat Cultural Adaptability which allows you to get Adopted Ancestry & a free 1st level feat. Take Human, use that to get Natural Ambition to get your Monastic Archer for what I'd say is much less; 4th level Class > 5th level Ancestry IMO.

You'll still have the issue of investing in the bow, but a bow several levels behind (fired in a Flurry by a max Dex martial w/ Stunning Fist) is way superior to nothing, a similar sling/crossbow, or a low-Proficiency Cantrip. And landing a Stun on a flying opponent often wrecks their attack pattern since they have to maintain flight too.
Note that Stand Still works well vs. a good portion of flying enemies, those that swoop, Strike, & retreat.

AA-Human also opens up Multitalented at 9th, one of the best Ancestry feats, to get some Cantrips via a caster MCD. Currently those would best be non-offensive (i.e. Shield + a timely utility to free up other casters' slots) because it seems like you don't have a Ki feat for your Proficiency to increase.


Yes, there's a gap there to fill, but Stand Still syncs well with Wolf Stance (assuming you're tripping), so replacing that for a backup ability is kinda costly. Heck, taking a 1st level feat with a 4th level slot is already a warning sign.

Trouble with advising you is that a lot of the advice depends on a larger context, i.e. in a party w/ casters & archers, the gap's covered; and Wild Winds Stance requires you already have a Ki feat which IMO is costly unless already interested in those (and Ki Blast). Is the campaign primarily outside fighting Fey who bombard from the air? In a city where it's more a matter of closing the gap (which you can do fine)? Or deep underground with tight spaces? Ancestry also plays a role, since some can get a ranged Cantrip or you might gain access to bows for instance.

Except are you then going to upgrade your bow to matter? I think in many ways that a Monk is themself a ranged weapon. They can cover good distance, Flurry, then retreat.* And they have feats to run up walls or across water, leap high, even kinda fly (though a Ki feat too, and at 10th it may be superfluous if you have other access to flight or the campaign's wrapping up.)

For now I'd put the worry on the backburner without committing either way. Note that my advice to a Str-based shield-user in heavy armor would be to address this ASAP, but a Monk's mobility changes the paradigm.

*Sometimes is worthwhile to do this in the first round rather than get into your Stance, Stride, & Flurry, ending your turn w/ all those enemies around you when you could waste their actions having them come to you (though this too depends on party tactics/terrain).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
You will also want to play with proficiency without level included. A big reason why Pathfinder characters feel super at higher levels is also because their level gives them such an advantage in terms of rolling against lower leveled opponents, or rather, against common NPCs, which OSR doesn't tend to do.

Yes, this evens out the whole system, meaning armies matter more (and can save well vs. the AoEs meant to destroy them). One might even keep DCs the same to avoid extraordinary feats or unrealistic Medicine. That's a major paradigm shift, yet that's also what the OP's requesting.


Level 6 cuts off those crazy Master level skill feats. Of course level 6 is also where some martials (Dragon Barbarian, Ki Monk) start getting explosive AoE powers which might feel unrealistic too.

One could argue there are superhuman aspects from the get-go (even beyond the spells), so I have to wonder what you even want from a "heroic fantasy RPG" when the fantasy portion feels too crazy. Yes, the later levels get into superhero/anime-power-fantasy levels, but it's a consistent power curve so it's kinda hard to draw a line when there's escalation immediately.

1 to 50 of 4,365 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>