Ancient Void Dragon

CorvusMask's page

RPG Superstar 9 Season Marathon Voter. Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 2,484 posts (2,548 including aliases). 14 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 15 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,484 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Come to think about it, did the pictures of demodand and the demon introduced in bestiary of this book got accidentally swapped?

I mean, demon's picture looks closer to other demodands than the picture of the squamous demodand and demon's face also looks "toady" while the demon itself is described having dragon scales and squamous demondand's head in the picture looks reptilian kinda like dragon. Both of them are four armed creatures with scales and wings so I could see them easily being confused for each other

(that said squamous demodand's picture features bigger obviously to scale than demon's(I'm avoiding trying to spell that demon's name because hard to spell) since it features heads on pikes while demon's picture features nothing you can compare it with)

Dark Archive

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:
I don't know if this is more or less work than just reading "This is what allowed" by the DM.

You'd be surprised how many "Its in player companion book so of course it should be available even though flavor wise its in really specific country" or "well its allowed in pfs so clearly it can't be THAT rare" type of arguments and debates :P

This ruling is godsend to me to be honest, I'd be slightly hyped right now if I was super easily excitable <_<

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Steelfiredragon wrote:
Tarulata wrote:
*Reloads crossbow* "Dead."
ummmm they have to be killed in the abyss or the hells for them to stay dead you know

That is D&D, not how it works in Pathfinder

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

This is like third month in row were I'm way too hyped for the new AP book <_< This ap has been really great

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Crypt of the Everflame is really deadly yeah if you play it RAW as intended especially with class features available when it was released <_<

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Wow, this seems to be first class were majority are reacting to changes in positive manner rather than "meh" or "Aww I lost my favorite feature" ._.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

On side note, I'm kind of surprised that whenever it gets brought up with my players, they don't seem to mind idea of use of potions being limited by resonance ._. Not really sure why, but maybe I'll find out when playtest is out if they have misunderstood how it works or if they just don't mind the weirdness of spending resources to use one shot items

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I have to applaud your "wait before posting" strategy because I would have lost my patience long ago and just stop the thread <_< I'm really glad you continue answering questions even when people keep asking really frustrating questions

Anyway, my question this time: So modules and APs might be canon(as in "this has happened") in 2e(and PFS scenarios might be canon in broad strokes like "this is current leadership" and "Duke of Thunder got released from the artifact"), but stuff like bonus encounters in Unleashed campaign setting books or AP bonus articles aren't probably gonna be canon right?

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Never gonna have errata in a player companion book.

Though if you want to have really great shifter archetype, there is Adaptive Shifter in Distant Realms book

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I do have noticed that people have tendency to assume "We don't know for sure" means "Its perfect!" ._.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Hungry.

Rakshasa are about hedonism, power and taboos. So portraying them as someone bored looking for their next "fix" seems rather apt. So yeah, "hungry".

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
OmegaZ wrote:
Really dig the Charon art, would love to toss in a thanadaemon boatman that offers to "help" the players travel around...in exchange for a few years of their life, depending on where they need to go.

Book does actually have rules for how Thanadaemon ferrymen cost and how long travel on Styx to another plane takes

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MetaPidgeon wrote:

Hmm, the robot on the cover of this book reminds me a great deal of Bastion from the Iron Gods adventure Path.

In fact, the "experimental drive" inside the ship also reminds me of the Divinity Drive from the path.

Probably not, but it would be an awesome crossover.

That isn't robot, that is armor Aeon troopers wear.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Chest Rockwell wrote:
Let's not engage in gang-culture.

Umm. I literally have no idea what you are referring to. Nobody was ganging up on anyone I think?

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So was reading through Barzillai's proclamations(they are great) and started to think, is there anywhere similar list for stuff Ileosa has proclaimed? I'd really love to introduce players' example of stuff he has proclaimed :D

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Chest Rockwell wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
I'm just annoyed they apparently removed 4e monk's good parts in 5e because folks hated 4e that much xD
What parts are those?

Ki powers iirc what I heard

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ChibiNyan wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:

Just to note, in 1e wizards DO have to worry about strength: If they have sucky one, they need alternative way of being able to carry their gear whether that is prepping a spell or buying magic item that does it for them(especially if they are small. You'd be surprised how fast they hit encumbrance limits) :p They can't 100% ignore strength like fighter that doesn't care about intimidate or diplomacy can for charisma.

Thats the difference between dumb stat and "the" dumb stat. While wizard doesn't need strength, they still need something to compensate for lack of strength while in 1e if you don't use charisma skills or need charisma for class features, you can always dumb it for no effect.

This is why I always try to use the annoying encumbrance rules that every loves to ignore. It prevents Strength from becoming an useless stat on most characters.

However, GMing for a 7 STR Wizard has shown me they don't actually carry a lot of gear. Weapon+Armor is usually a significant amount, but Wjzards don't really have these. They usually carry scrolls with negligible weight and other magical clothing. Potions are the item with best odds are pushing them into encumbrance, but that becomes a non-issue with extradimensional storage.

Hey, I also GMed for level 7 STR and at higher level(or depending on campaign) they can actually go over encumbrance limit :D

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm just annoyed they apparently removed 4e monk's good parts in 5e because folks hated 4e that much xD

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Just to note, in 1e wizards DO have to worry about strength: If they have sucky one, they need alternative way of being able to carry their gear whether that is prepping a spell or buying magic item that does it for them(especially if they are small. You'd be surprised how fast they hit encumbrance limits) :p They can't 100% ignore strength like fighter that doesn't care about intimidate or diplomacy can for charisma.

Thats the difference between dumb stat and "the" dumb stat. While wizard doesn't need strength, they still need something to compensate for lack of strength while in 1e if you don't use charisma skills or need charisma for class features, you can always dumb it for no effect.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It is kind of rare to be able to use more than 1 potion at level 1 though because you don't have much money at level 1 and you level up really fast. But yeah, just because you might be rare type of player doesn't make it less annoying that your playstyle is harmed.

But yeah, I'm actually in the "If potion use should be restricted, they should do separate mechanic for it like Potion Miscibility table instead" because it always sounds weird that you have to use pool to use one if items that you consume. Like with scrolls at least I can understand it, but with potions it feels weird.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Eh, while I also get tired by the constant "This is bad" thing, its mostly because its usually connected to the "Company has betrayed us somehow" or "I have lost my faith in paizo, future and humanity" type of melodrama.

Like, it is possible to express opinion without being overly dramatic and it is possible to express opinion while understanding both sides. So all the "They are lying about new edition being needed because they just want money" is just overly spiteful. Like, sure, of course they want money, they are company in business for making money, but that doesn't eliminate possibility that game needs update or they want to do update. Either way, whether update should have been new product or "Same but little tweaks" is subjective opinion.

Anyway, back to those two lines: "This is bad" is tiring because it sounds like an objective fact based statement rather than stating an opinion. "I'm disappointed" itself isn't that bad, but if you see someone posting it every time new info come out, it starts getting tiring.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Is this "People pushing happiness" a cultural problem outside of Finland? Over here, nobody ever talks to strangers, everyone minds their own business and depression is national disease. Heck, I go to therapy because of depression, have major envy towards seemingly happy people and I still think that sounds too cynical attitude :D

Seriously though kidding aside etc, you described two things, a hype backlash(when something gets hyped so much it can't live up to the expectations) and what sounds to be reverse of "I hate this mechanic so you should too" in which case it doesn't really sound like positive attitude. Like, wouldn't overly positive person be "I love this mechanic, you hate this mechanic, it is okay to disagree!" because "You are wrong!" attitude is in itself a negative attitude.

Anyway, yeah, both of those things are annoying things and I'd imagine that people selfishly trying to make you happy because they think you should be happy would be annoying frustrating experience. However, I'd like to point out that idea behind positivity leading to more positivity is basically the "if you see someone smiling at you, humans have reflex for smiling themselves" aka it shouldn't be about someone trying to force you to be happy by being pushy but by them just being positive making you feel more positive.

Anyhoo, weird to think in month we will finally have access to playtest. It feels like its still so far away until 2e rules can be read :p

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Eh, that IS off topic, but I feel like commenting on that anyway. Anyhoo, yeah neutral is simplest way to go if your GM is type who says "What, you are chaotic neutral but you follow the rules" type of nonsense.

I mean alignments aren't really that complicated. Good is someone who helps even strangers in trouble regardless of whether it helps them or harms them, Evil is someone who prefers to hurt people or do bad things, Law and Chaos are just about whether you prefer Order or Freedom and Neutral is regular person who won't go out of their way to help strangers but won't harm people just because they can.

Soo yeah, tying that back to topic, someone mentioned earlier in the thread that NG and CG is basically the same thing, but I kind of disagree about that. I can see why that seems to be the case, but I think there is difference in nuance. Like, its not just "Both NG and CG would help you if you are in trouble from law", I think difference is that CG would help you if they think law is restricting your freedom(assuming whatever you did wasn't evil) while I think NG would help someone in trouble from Law only if they really needed help(like "How I'm going to feed my kids if I'm in jail? Its minor offence!" type thing)

That said, I think LG would also help someone in trouble from Law :P It would probably be through legal methods first and only illegal if LG believes Law to be wrongful. Only LN character would accept "We can't do anything because Law says so even if its wrong"

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeah, but that still wouldn't explain the box part, unless box is magically shrinking one hmmmmmmm yeah I could buy that xD

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think Charlemagne got mentioned because Paladin as term means(well it comes from similar latin word) "Servant, government official" as it was term Charlemagne's foremost warriors were referred as

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The Sideromancer wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:

?

Speaking of subject of topic, I'm still wondering how certain colossal dragon's teeth were made into crown for a human <_< Like, umm, wouldn't single teeth be larger than a human unless it has really tiny head to rest of the body?

Hollow it out and just wear it on your head.

Considering that the teeth were stuck into box because they were indestructible and picture of the crown has multiple teeths in it :'D I don't know, maybe they filed off the tip of the teeth somehow?

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I know this is bit off topic, but has anyone seriously ever been drained by positivity? :P I mean, seriously, you can say that can happen, but has that actually happened?

Psychology wise, people acting happy positive to each other is more likely going to make you feel positive. Though that doesn't really work in internet because people can't recognize other people as people in Internet according to brain chemistry stuff

^Anyway, to add to that, there are also several posters who show up in every post to say "I'm disappointed" without any elaboration. And some folks who show up to say something spiteful in every blog and if they can't find anything to complain about blog itself, they complain about writer or something

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Chest Rockwell wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:
Chest Rockwell wrote:
Franz Lunzer wrote:
I know that this creates other issues like in Starfinder (Why can't I buy that gun? I have the money!!)
Ha, wait, you can still technically buy it, it's just that the GM should make sure it's not available until a certain level, contrive reasons why no shop carries it until you hit X level, right?
That would be the ending of World Building in favor of game mechanics. And as much as I am a fan of tight mechanics, the world building aspect is THE most important thing for a PNP DM driven RPG that differentiate it from playing Diablo.
Oh, I agree, it is something that would seriously rub me the wrong way.

Considering that rule wise in 1e, if item is under city's basevalue limit, you have 75% chance of finding it per week(unless you are in metropolis where you can find everything under 8000 gp(as all minor items are available in metropolis) automatically) unless you get lucky with random items for the month that are always available. Considering this means you can find 16k+ magic items in large towns were nobody can afford them(and average base value is 2000 gp), don't you think that is also immersion breaking?

In setting it is pretty much someone trying to sell ring of wizardry in place where only farmers and such live :P

Basically, its not really much different, logic with magic items has always been(even with potions and scrolls if gms and writers wouldn't be nice enough to include npcs who specialize in selling them) that its random chance whether they are even available. So isn't it just narrative that until you are famous or rich enough, you don't get chance to track down better equipment?(whether its because your lower level contacts don't know were you can buy them, you aren't admitted to shop, someone else bought them first, etc etc you can think of many narrative reasons for it)

(that and pathfinder has always been game mechanic heavy and not simulation, so it would be just one more example of it)

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Point was that high level D&D inherently becomes "anime", because there aren't that many ways to interpret "Killing in giant in single word strike" besides hero apparently being over powered enough to make cut down giant in that one sword strike :p Unless you want to argue "Every giant kill was stabbing to the brain through eye" or something which is just as over the top. And thats not even getting into high level magics.

Its not about emulating "anime" in order to be "anime" nor about being "hardwired". Anime's style of action is over the top stylish stuff that doesn't need to make logically sense since it is more about cool factor. High level D&D naturally enters that when you take in account that each combat round is 6 seconds and high level characters can do things like four attacks in 6 seconds without magic as a baseline before mythics or class features are added. Intention of game developers doesn't matter for sake of comparison, you can't say "It isn't similar" when it clearly is.

There is also other mistake you are making: Lot of the over the top anime is inspired by Mythology, both eastern and western. Cú Chulainn's myth and Journey to the West are both stories that really fit modern anime style. So as result, most things that take inspiration from mythology end up being perceived as similar to "anime", so people who say "They don't want things to get too anime, fighters shouldn't be able to split the mountains(but giants are okay)" are complaining about wrong subject.

Anyway, could you not derail the topic further please?

Speaking of subject of topic, I'm still wondering how certain colossal dragon's teeth were made into crown for a human <_< Like, umm, wouldn't single teeth be larger than a human unless it has really tiny head to rest of the body?

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
Actually, why would you even bring up FINDING high level wands in when I commented about BUYING the weakest wand to spam?

My entire reason for posting was " I dunno whats best way to fix it, but yeah it is dumb that cure critical wound wands is worse than cure light wounds wand due to cost effectiveness."

IMO, it's not worse in every situation: that was it. *shrug* I've said my piece so take from it what you want. It was never an argument on the economics [which we ALL no was a trainwreck] but actual usefulness if you do have one.

Oh oki, misunderstood why you brought it up, that makes more sense

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jason S wrote:

I think they are trying to simplify things, not complicate things. In 200 Pathfinder sessions right now, I think I've seen the squeeze rules used once for monsters and once for PCs, it's not really common.

I'm more interested in monsters being able to do cool things, besides damage, because of their size (and training with that size). Things like sending the PCs flying onto their backs (trip), grapples, engulfing (grapple), stomping (prone and pinned?), pulls, pushes, etc. Makes the encounter more cinematic and dangerous without needing to do huge amounts of damage.

Umm, I'm not sure if you read whole post, but isn't that what I said in the end pretty much?

Like example I gave was that its silly giants can't do the cool thing of hurling people into horizons, but they sure can do that with rocks

Also I'm glad someone got what I meant with "D&D is already animu" comment :D

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeeeeep. That is why I'm in the "Wait, what do you mean you think ki energy beam shooting wuxia monks are too anime? D&D is already anime!" club(for those who don't believe, look at previous example at fighter being able to deal over 200 damage in 6 seconds with full attack and thats before you get fifth attack with haste and stuff) :P Though it then leads to questions like "So if you are unconscious, sword to the neck kills you, but if you are awake its twenty hits?". I guess rule of drama combined with anime logic are in full effect in D&D

That said, even with assuming people can survive few hits from giant club without dying, I still have no idea how someone can survive bite from dragon size of multiple houses without being swallowed whole into its stomach :D(bonus points if it critted)

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Arssanguinus wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:

Example 1: Lots of Large sized giants are described in bestiary text to be around 15 feet tall. Game mechanic wise they are 10x10 size square with 10 feet reach. While you can assume that 15 foot tall giant putting his arms up could be about 20 feet tall, rules for squeezing care only about creature's size category. This means that 15 feet tall giant in 10 feet tall hallway isn't squeezing by the rules.

Example 2: I'd post here Dragon size chart from dragonslayer's handbook, but I can't find it on google, so I'll settle for Vishap, a colossal dragon that is "70 feet from head to tail and weighs 60,000 pounds." from bestiary 5.

Colossal creatures take 30 x 30 feet square and have 30 feet reach, vishap specifically has 40 feet for its bite attack. Now while that isn't too unbelievable, same thing about it fitting into 30 x 30 feet cube without squeezing by rules applies to it as well. But ignoring that, Vishap is CR 19 creature, so level 20 fighter that is well equipped should be capable of slaying the dragon. Game mechanics wise this means that fighter will go next to dragon's legs(as it size means they have no way to reach their body from the ground) hits the leg four times for over 200 hp damage in six seconds and dragon dies from the leg wound.

Now back to the true dragons: Vishap doesn't have this problem, but great wyrm red dragon doesn't have swallow whole ability. So when this colossal beast bites 5 feet tall(or maybe 6 feet as that sized creature still fits one square) fighter, he survives and somehow doesn't get swallowed whole or die from it. Basically, why doesn't every creature with colossal size automatically have swallow whole to enough smaller creatures?

Side note 2: Same applies to grapple abilities. When Gargantuan Rune Giant(40 feet tall) grapples the fighter, rule wise fighter is still touching the ground, otherwise they would have to take falling damage whenever grapple is released. Rulewise rune giant also can't just lift the fighter and throw him

...

Well yeah, flavor wise characters don't get hit either, HP bar going to 0 reflects "Oh, now your luck run out and you got actual lethal wound"(though it get confusing with cure spells). I'm mostly expressing annoyance with idea that combat system simulates reality that lot of folk have when stuff like abstract units come up <_<

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

More like, you can be 7 feet tall dude but mechanically you still only take space of 5 feet box. So why should game mechanics refer to feets when flavor of the character doesn't connect with mechanics?

You can always in character refer to your size as 7 feet tall muscle guy, but out of game why should squares be referred as 5 feet tall squares if 7 feet tall medium character doesn't need to squeeze in one square sized box?

Anyway, I made the thread, so you can go to read there whats my pet peeve is xD

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Example 1: Lots of Large sized giants are described in bestiary text to be around 15 feet tall. Game mechanic wise they are 10x10 size square with 10 feet reach. While you can assume that 15 foot tall giant putting his arms up could be about 20 feet tall, rules for squeezing care only about creature's size category. This means that 15 feet tall giant in 10 feet tall hallway isn't squeezing by the rules.

Example 2: I'd post here Dragon size chart from dragonslayer's handbook, but I can't find it on google, so I'll settle for Vishap, a colossal dragon that is "70 feet from head to tail and weighs 60,000 pounds." from bestiary 5.

Colossal creatures take 30 x 30 feet square and have 30 feet reach, vishap specifically has 40 feet for its bite attack. Now while that isn't too unbelievable, same thing about it fitting into 30 x 30 feet cube without squeezing by rules applies to it as well. But ignoring that, Vishap is CR 19 creature, so level 20 fighter that is well equipped should be capable of slaying the dragon. Game mechanics wise this means that fighter will go next to dragon's legs(as it size means they have no way to reach their body from the ground) hits the leg four times for over 200 hp damage in six seconds and dragon dies from the leg wound.

Now back to the true dragons: Vishap doesn't have this problem, but great wyrm red dragon doesn't have swallow whole ability. So when this colossal beast bites 5 feet tall(or maybe 6 feet as that sized creature still fits one square) fighter, he survives and somehow doesn't get swallowed whole or die from it. Basically, why doesn't every creature with colossal size automatically have swallow whole to enough smaller creatures?

Side note 2: Same applies to grapple abilities. When Gargantuan Rune Giant(40 feet tall) grapples the fighter, rule wise fighter is still touching the ground, otherwise they would have to take falling damage whenever grapple is released. Rulewise rune giant also can't just lift the fighter and throw him into distance with combat maneuver as reposition combat maneuver forbids moving repositioned unit into dangerous locations or hurling them.

Okay, I'm now done with my explanation. I mostly did this because I'm little bit annoyed at folks who really don't want meters to get into the system while not wanting to let go of game mechanics referring to feets instead of abstract square units :D I wanted to make it clear that in 1e, flavor of creature's size doesn't matter game mechanics wise when it comes to common sense of what they can and can't do. So is there really a need for game mechanics to refer to feet instead of squares when 6 feet tall human is same size as a dwarf when it comes to game mechanical effects?

That said, not honestly if there is any "fix" for this besides making large enough creatures play by different rules, sort of like how Starfinder separates ship combat and normal combat. I always wondered how kaiju and other colossal creatures with massive special quality only make sense if they are fighting each other or regular colossal creatures at least. Because idea of mythic champion 10 fighter level 20 PC killing Golarion version of Godzilla by stabbing his toe is surreal.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well yeah, but as in out of game situation havnig it be squares wouldn't be that bad. And like I said, if its immersion breaking, you could still have gm describing how many foots or meters it is.

Like even if game mechanics worked in abstract terms it could still be something like "cube size of one square would be 5 ft/2 meters square".

That said, has anyone else thought about how weird it is that a lot of large sized giants are about 15 meters tall while they take space of 10 feet? Meaning that in 10 feet corridor they aren't squeezing even though they don't actually fit the room without crouching down.

Like, you can short of think creature's reach as their "true" size(like 15 giant who puts his arms up would take about 20 feet maybe) but squeezing rules don't care about reach at all. And that doesn't even take in account massive kaiju creatures which by logic should be too huge on the map but take about 6x6 squares and 30 feet reach.

So yeah, my point was that game mechanics of this game are already abstract and ignore common sense, so having game mechanics only mention abstract units while leaving flavor as completely non mechanical thing that only comes up when GM describes things wouldn't actually change anything.

Ya know, this thing actually bothers me enough that I'm gonna make a thread about it

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Would you really need to have character state out their height on most situations?

And even i you did, even if game mechanics use abstract terms doesn't mean characters need to. Like, in 1e just because character is 6 tall doesn't make them into large creature. Technically rules don't say they need to squeeze in 5 foot cube shaped hallway, but obviously thats how you would describe the situation when it happens, mechanically it won't have a mechanical effect(since making medium sized creature squeezing just because flavor wise they are that tall is kind of jerk move), but thats flavor of the situation

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

We were discussing wands though, not staff. And of course you can use wands if you find them, but considering what you find is completely up to GM-

Actually, why would you even bring up FINDING high level wands in when I commented about BUYING the weakest wand to spam?

Like, of course you use the better item if you get it for free, but problem is that if you have to buy them its better to get the cheapest version ._. And you wouldn't ever buy higher level wand for emergency situations, you'd plan around them somehow else. And I don't think there is item that if you get it for free you would ever refuse to use it.(unless its eeeeeevil)

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well yeah, it is possible test multiple solutions before deciding on one even with half year printing deadline. At least if its done smart and fast?

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Thing is, flavor wise majority of paladins in 1e had a deity, but rules wise 1e paladins didn't actually need a god despite being divine casters and all.

Like with ranger and druid it makes sense since they get their divine power from nature itself, but with paladins apparently they just got divine powers from being uber goody two shoes?

Anyway, yeah, I've always preferred "Warrior of deity" paladin to "I'm super knight of goodness" paladins. I do gotta admit that warpriest is bit weird in that it overlaps flavorwise a lot with clerics and such, like idea is that warpriest are militant priests, but clerics depending on build and domains can also be mainly melee characters instead of mainly wizard like "stay afar to cast spells" characters.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Oh yeah, because the playtest exists as physical book first and foremost? :/

Kind of forgot playtest physical book existed actually

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I do hope though that some of ideas on forums get in rather than them just removing resonance entirely if it turns out folks don't like it <_< Like I really love that magic items can be made to any slot idea you two discussed, even if resonance stays as is, I think that should get in core book.

That said, it would be nice if it was possible to playtest updated version of resonance system if it gets changed. Mainly because its new system, so would be nice to be able to test multiple iterations of it to get it right.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If you don't have unlimited time out of combat, folks usually use healing spells <_< I've never seen anyone in hurry to use wands outside of pfs really. And that is mostly because in pfs nobody might be able to use healing spells at all.

Either way, never seen anyone spend 20k on level 4 critical wounds healing wand. Thing is, high level wands are insanely expensive in 1e for consumables, folks prefer to spend that much money on permanent items since you can just use wands for healing and retreat if you really need to.(and if you are actually in hurry, you won't be doing much healing anyway)

So okay, because I have hard time seeing someone using 11k for serious wounds wand, at most they might use 4,500 for moderate wounds wand which is 2d8 + 3. If you are in emergency and need fast healing, you are probably gonna use your own spells and 2d8 + 10 is much safer emergency heal than wand that could on bad roll give you only 5 hp.

Basically, wands never eliminate need of good emergency healer in party, wands are mostly used for out of combat healing. If you don't have healer in party and are in emergency, well sucks to be you, you've just run out of your luck. So discussing "You might have bought higher level wands in 1e for emergencies" seems to be same as discussing hypothetical situation of high level party composed of ranger, fighter, barbarian and paladin where none of them have power attack or deadly aim: That is probably not going to happen in normal game

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I tend to avoid naming who had the idea originally when I quote other ideas because for all I know they heard the idea from someone else originally xD

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Resonance seems to be sweeping up the topic. Makes sense since its most radically new thing in 2e compared to 1e but still ._.

Anyway, saying that resonance forces you to ALWAYS use the most powerful big item you have comes with several problems:

1) We don't have full list of magic items in core rulebook so we won't know if there are obvious "Everyone has to have this" items there like resistance cloaks, ac buffs and stat belts/headbands were in 1e. So far all items have been type of items you pick if you really want them. Like, sure rogue would probably have higher bonus with cloak of elvenkind in the blog, but no reason why barbarian couldn't use it as well, especially if there are no items that clearly benefit only single class in 2e. (like how 1e had several items that give bonus only if you have right class)

(note that this also applies to monster design. Like sure at early levels that cloak of elvenkind was nice, but at higher levels you really want that cloak of resistance because without it you are most likely going to fail a save and high level monsters all had rather horrible effects on failed saves. So depending no how monsters are designed and how high dcs are, it would change how must have resistance items are. Heck even class features or feats could affect this if they give you more ways to counter failed saves)

2) Item levels seem to be replacement for Caster Levels for items, but because we haven't seen full context of them yet, we don't know if higher level items are straight up better than lower ones(with exclusion of "This is greater version of lesser magic items" in which case bigger is obviously better). Like, if these is level 10 item that gives you ability to make holes in walls, is it automatically worse than level 20 item that lets make you classic!superman jumps. Or will it be more of apples vs oranges thing(that said, at level 20 you could have 20+ magic items potentially if you want to invest them all) In 1e CL were kind of random item quality wise, so it might be similar in 2e where items themselves aren't "more powerful" but it is more like "You won't get availability to items that let you fly before level 7"

3) We don't know all the alternatives to healing and how effective they are, so its questionable whether you should always save one resonance for healing items.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

To give a hint to the poster if they want to make amends and edit or delete post before getting deleted by mods, you shouldn't use that as insult because doing that is offensive and against rules :P

Anyhoo, noticed on another thread that someone had idea of "What if slot type is just example for most common type and item could be in any slot" and I'm wondering "Wait, so why that isn't the case if purpose of resonance is to get rid of magic item slots"?

I'm at least hoping that becomes the case as 1e already had "Special variant of another item that is in this slot instead" items, making that norm would be simpler

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm at least under impression myself that problem wasn't "full heal between encounters" but "CLW for all twenty levels and never reason to buy the better ones". Like, I'm under impression that 2e should have enough different healing methods that you can get to full hp anyway, but I guess we won't really know that for sure until the playtest.

While you can have opinion about whether you should have full heal between encounters all the time(I myself as both gm and player prefer full heal, but I wouldn't want it to be automatic because if I play as healer, I'd actually like being useful out of combat :P Yes it is possible to like healers), you can't really say its good thing that cheap worse item is better than expensive item that is supposed to be better. I dunno whats best way to fix it, but yeah it is dumb that cure critical wound wands is worse than cure light wounds wand due to cost effectiveness. Maybe lower level wands should have had less charges than higher level wands or something?

Either way, I wouldn't mind the whole "Remove wands being spells in can and make them more unique" as solution. Because honestly, spells in can ARE bit boring items, they never really feel mystic and feel more mundane stuff as if you bought them for supermarket

And yeah, I think making it so that items can be any item type would be cool. Considering 1e already has "Ah this is special necklace of resistance unique to this loot pile" or "this is special ring of resistance because using cloaks underwater is silly and merfolks need it", it would make sense especially with resonance liming items instead of slot type.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeaaah, Golarion is more in renaissance in general than medieval. Also silk hats exist.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
No, kytons predate Zon-Kuthon.
Sounds likely, but how do you know?

Pretty much every source regarding Kytons, but Planar Adventures and Book of the Damned for example. Kytons were original inhabitants of kytons before they went on exodus to shadowplane when devils took it over. Only reason why kytons ally with Zon-Kuthon is because they share ideals, but otherwise they have no direct connection

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

No, kytons predate Zon-Kuthon.

1 to 50 of 2,484 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>