Zoarth

Denim N Leather's page

Organized Play Member. 583 posts. 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 583 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Hello, please cancel my current subscription.

Thank you!


11 people marked this as a favorite.

I just wanted to pop into here and say, from my perspective, this discourse has overall been very insightful; or at least, it forced some insight on me in terms of how I'm running my own encounters.

It has made me think: Are my players stuck in a rotations, partially, because I'm not presenting them with opportunities to try anything else? Am I failing to 'lead by example' in having their opponents use their third action to do things that seem minor but will stack up later? Am I presenting them with enough dynamics in terms of terrain and variety of opponents to force creative party cohesion and synergies?


I have been using the past few sessions to run through the subsystems in the GMG with my group. They are currently Level 2, five players. We have had an Influence negotiation with a group of kobolds that had some of the party held hostage (went great), a simultaneous Research and Infiltration taking place over the course of several days (also went great) and a Run Away Chase through a faction headquarters in Kaer Maga that went ... well. The players loved it, I walked away from it feeling it could have been better. We just completed a boss battle against a Hazard and the end result of that is now the party is in an airship plummeting towards the Varisian mountains (Between Kaer Maga and Riddleport).

I am designing the airship encounter as a Beat The Clock chase and I have what I think will be a very tense and exciting encounter ...

HOWEVER -- There are two obstacles in the chase where if the party gets 6 successes they can short cut around the following obstacle. (For every obstacle they succeed at, the airship's descent is slowed and less damage accrued should it slam into the mountains).

MY QUESTION IS -- if you have run a lot of chases in PF2, how may times have you seen PCs critically succeed when the DC is set as Easy or Very Easy for a certain skill? I know part of this has to do with how well optimized a PC is, but assume the PC is at least semi-optimized for that skill roll.

Any experiences you can share would be great, there are only two obstacles that have the higher number of successes required/short cut, but this could mean the difference between PCs getting hurt (badly) on one side and a TPK on the other.

Thanks for reading


glass wrote:

I have enjoyed what I have done so far, which sadly is only about six sessions for various reasons.

Denim N Leather wrote:
SNAG 1. Not every player can use all 3 actions each round, which leads to 'lost actions'. I have implemented a rule which states that if you have an action remaining and make a successful skill check, you can use that knowledge to Aid a party member who hasn't acted yet

Out of curiosity, can you explain how your housrule differs from the normal rules for Aid another?

_
glass.

Sure, it's just a flat +2 bonus, not dependent on degree of success, and isn't a Reaction. Let's say there are 5 players and player 2 in the initiative order only uses 2 actions. They can then use their 3rd action to make any appropriate skill check to somehow assist the party. On a success, they can give that +2 to anyone who hasn't acted yet. So, it's not very different but not the same, either.


Sorry, I should have been more clear. I am not splitting XP, and I was using hyperbole. I should have been more clear in the OP.

Thanks for your insights!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

WIth the one-year anniversary quickly approaching for Second Edition and as I look at my 2e shelf which is quickly filling with new books, I thought now would be a good time to ask everyone how they are getting on with 2e.

My group spent the first 6 months after PF2's release doing nothing but playtesting builds and the new encounter (combat) design. Every session was a new level and the players could level up an existing PC or create a new one. This made for varying groups each session. I was grateful for the early release of the Monster Building rules as I adopted that very early on and was scaling encounters on a weekly basis.

Roughly 2 months ago we started our first campaign for PF2, starting in Kaer Maga. I wanted to wait for the release of the GMG before starting as I knew that would influence Session 0, and it did! We used the Deep Background optional rule and it worked a treat for this style of intrigue-heavy campaign. Having the PCs tied to one another in some fashion made the first session super easy to launch as I didn't have to roll in one PC at a time.

The party is just about to get to Level 2 and I'm enjoying the deep-dive through character options. Overall, my impression of 2e is favorable still and thanks to everything being so balanced, designing encounters is a snap.

We even had the opportunity for a hostage negotiation during the last session, which I ran using the Influence subsystem, which I ran on the fly, and it worked great! Running it like a combat encounter made it really tense as each side scored; loved it! It also made for some fun roleplay.

I've only run into 3 snags thus far in running PF2:

SNAG 1. Not every player can use all 3 actions each round, which leads to 'lost actions'. I have implemented a rule which states that if you have an action remaining and make a successful skill check, you can use that knowledge to Aid a party member who hasn't acted yet; this gives them a +2 bonus to one action during their turn. I am finding that the players are more carefully considering their turns now to take advantage of all 3 actions, but we still end up with unused actions now and then. Have any other GMs run into this? How are you handling it at your table?

SNAG 2. Even low-level threats, if they critically succeed enough, can drop a party if I'm not careful. I feel like I'm still working out the new action economy and combats tend to be quite lethal until the party can shift things to their advantage. This can make what should be mundane encounters drag on a bit and feel a bit grind-y. If any other GMs have encountered this and come up with a solution, I would love to hear it!

SNAG 3. Perhaps the biggest snag I've run across thus-far is the new advancement track/XP rewards for encounters. Overall, they seem low and I feel like the players are a little non-plussed after they fight for their lives to walk out with 15XP lol. The work around I've implemented for this is a bit video-gamey, but it was received with enthusiasm by my players, allows for much greater participation during a session, encourages spending Hero Points, and doesn't seem to be breaking game balance.

What I've done is put a reward system in place for things like spending a Hero Point. This XP reward goes to all of the players so they are encouraged to spend Hero Points. Then, even if the re-roll doesn't turn out as well as expected, there is still some sort of reward. This has also sped up combat encounters a LOT because now they aren't hording Hero Points for 'boss level' encounters. I am also awarding XP for successfully exploring new areas and creating synergies: If a player is able to create a synergy for another player to take advantage of, a small modifier is applied to the XP of that enemy; the more synergies that are stacked up in a round, the greater the multiplier. This has encouraged the players to think less in a self-contained bubble, but to think of how other players can use their character abilities in tandem with their own. This has allowed for a slightly faster XP accumulation.

How about your game? I would love to hear how other GMs (and players) are getting on with PF2.


Ed Reppert wrote:
I bought this. So far, works just fine. :-)

That looks perfect! Thanks! Does it hold all 400+ cards?!

EDIT: nevermind, I see that it will hold 600 index cards


Thanks, I really appreciate that! I really love the cards, one of the best accessory investments I have ever made.


Right before we were quarantined here in NYC, the battle cards made it to my FLGS. They are amazing! And huge! And heavy!

I am looking for something to store them in, I am not sure a sleeve approach will work since the card set complete is definitely Bulk 1.

I guess something like a recipe box that I can add tabs to?

I would love to know what you all are using to organize the cards. Also, what is the actual size of a single card?

Thanks!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I love, love, LOVE the new monster build rules! Being able to scale threats up and down with ease has literally opened up the ENTIRE Bestiary for play at any level.


Okay, after a bunch of reading, I've decided to go with Kaer Maga. Bought the PDF and have started reading it through. It's a great setting, thanks for the recommendation!


Thanks so much for all those great locations! Time to do some research ...


I hope this is the correct forum.

I have begun planning my next campaign and it's going to be Braunstein*-inspired. I think PF2 will be the perfect game system to run this in due to the robust Exploration and Downtime modes. Also, Lost Omens has so many great locations to choose from for starting in, as well as ready-made factions.

My first thought was "Absalom, obvs" since it's centrally located and has all those factions already at its fingertips. However, I think it may be a bit TOO big/hard to handle, cosmopolitan, and too centrally located.

So, what places are a bit more isolated, with harsher conditions?

Galt intrigues me because ... well, intrigue!

The Five Kings Mountains can also be a fun place to base the campaign around.

My second pick would probably be someplace waaay up north in the Saga Lands, where slow decisions could cost you your life..

Numera would be fun, also.

Or perhaps a high court in Qadira?

Curse you, James Jacobs, for your awesome world!! I can't decide!!

So, I ask you, gentle readers --
If you were going to start a Braunstein*-inspired campaign in the Lost Omens setting, a) where would you set it and b)why?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

* In case you don't know what I mean by Braunstein-inspired:
We base the campaign around a large town/small city. The PCs all have functions within the town and their own set of objectives. XP is earned through completing objectives, not necessarily combat (thought that may be a factor). The players do not know who the the other players at the table will portray until the campaign is underway; some may have goals aligned with you or against you. A catalyst event occurs to set things in motion and then the players shape the world around their actions. Diplomacy/intrigue heavy; combat ranges from individual duels to outright war.


Thanks for getting this out to us so quickly. Question: will the PDF be updated to reflect this errata?


Some great ideas here! Thanks!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

After giving this some thought, I'm now thinking about making the ACTUAL MUSIC the monster; the skeletons are playing instruments that keep it on the material plane; so something like a summoned/elemental creature.


Kyrone, we are definitely thinking along the same lines! Thanks for your input!


Super stoked to pour through the monster creation guidelines for PF2! As I am currently running a playtest of the rules for the next few sessions, I am in need of a boss level encounter for our next session.

The party is Level 2, 6-7 PCs. I am looking to design an encounter with a being called the THRENODY OF FATE, based off of this image from Gustave Dore's Rime of the Ancient Mariner, https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lrq7YBDBGLMSl35F9_AaL927y4jao2id

I am thinking it will be a 100(ish) XP encounter; somewhere between 100-120XP. It will comprise of three skeleton-based creatures (I've already introduced them to a few low-level skeletons); two of them will play musical instruments that will buff the third one, who will be melee-based, and it will also debuff the PCs; kinda like the Demoralize effect of the Skeleton's skull toss, but more effective.

So, here's the scene: the party enters a large chamber and, after appropriate clues have been dropped (such as a room with dead adventurers that have pierced their own eardrums), come face to face with the Threnody of Fate standing upon a dais. The room seems to darken and fill with a chill air as two of the skeletons begin playing a violent, madness-inducing tune. The third draws a bastard sword from its scabbard and charges the party ...

How would you design this triple-threat using the guidelines in the PDF?

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!


Darksyde wrote:
Any tips for folks looking to run their first PF2 session?

Yes, I have a few. EDIT: These are things that worked for me; YMMV.

Personally, I think it's probably harder for an experienced Pathfinder GM to just port over to PF2 than someone who's only run another edition of D&D or a different rpg. A lot of things have the same names but behave differently, so my first tip is to read the CRB cover to cover; it took me about a month and a half, but I actually read it straight through, from the intro through the appendix. It really helped me get an overview to the design aesthetic, particularly how magic and magic items fit into the new edition.

Second tip, run simulations. I made purposely OP/min-max'd PCs to test encounters; almost all of the builds used flaws and had max'd out key Ability scores. I took time, especially, to study the reactions for each class and tested how they synergize with other classes; an unwary GM will get his or her clock cleaned if you aren't watching the PCs, especially when they start using the Delay action to set up synergies. EDIT: To Paizo's credit, they've actually made it REALLY difficult to make broken characters with this edition.

Third tip, the monsters have lots of fun, quirky abilities in this edition. Try to use all of them, it keeps the players guessing what else they have up their sleeves and will definitely invite caution on the part of the PCs.

Fourth tip, have a good look at your player's choice in weapons for their characters -- the traits of weapons can be used to set up synergies as well, so be aware of who's got what: trip, fatal, reach, forceful, etc, and what those traits mean.

Final tip, don't deny the players these opportunities to synergize; this edition of Pathfinder, even moreso than first edition, lets PCs do some bananas things -- embrace it and lose gracefully.

EDIT: REALLY final tip -- get the GM screen! It's a life saver!

I hope you find these helpful!


LOL, yeah! Gotta up the ante! The players want an arms race, I'll give em an arms race lol.


Ravingdork wrote:
One must wonder though, why was there a need to glide over the gorge in the first place?

Ah, therein lies the hook. :)

They had three options: (1) walk through the gorge, which has a mineral mine, and is in three sections; this would require a caravan and constant watch for the gnoll raiders who have been poaching the mine for slaves; (2) walk through the Osirion desert with all of its inherent dangers; (3) Take the express route via glider. Due to an anomaly in the way the gorge was cut, there are strong thermal gusts which form from the heat of the ground above colliding with the cooler gorge and mine entrances. Even more curious, the thermal flows' direction changes depending on the phase of the moon, kinda like a wind-tide. The PCs waited until the last 3 days of the current phase of the moon to ride the thermals out, allowing them 28 days to fly back to the outpost if need be.

They are investigating one of the sky pyramids which has crashed; that's a whole other big map/terain piece that I made for the rest of this playtest. :p


Excaliburproxy wrote:

That is a really neat encounter, man.

Do you find that the game scales up to 7 players well? I am running a game with just 5 players and I already feel like combat rounds tend to take a little while.

I'm used to running large groups, and compared to first edition, this flowed really quick. I don't usually plan on encounters taking X amount of minutes to run; for PFS I could see this being a concern, but for a home-brew game if the combat takes an hour, it takes an hour. It didn't feel like a slog at any point, though.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Sounds amazing! So how does the Stride action work when you're stuck to the confines of a little glider?

Abstraction. :)

You have to move a minimum of 5 ft, or the glider starts to fall. After two rounds, the glider falls to the gorge floor, 75 feet below — you probably don’t want to do that. That made healing a primary concern.

Maximum movement is 30 feet. You are suspended in a harness, so once you are within reach, you can attack as normal. I also had areas with loose rock and shale that the PCs could pick up and drop on opponents or knock loose to fall on an opponent chasing them.

This is what it looked like, in-game:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/3L9sJzYQ61gKTZb77


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Wow, glider battle over a massive gorge against river drakes is a really epic first encounter to start on a high note!

Well, thanks to you, Mark and the other designers, for keeping true to what Pathfinder means to so many of us and making a game that allows epic, crazy ideas to be brought to life with a robust rules set that doesn't pander to the lowest common denominator!

(It was a lot of fun to run! I tend to plan encounters around terrain ideas; I think of a cool set piece to build, and then the encounter kinda springs out of that. I've been playing for four decades now so I tend to think in term of, 'hmm, what have I not seen happen yet?')


15 people marked this as a favorite.

I had seven players sit in on my inaugural session of PF2 this past Saturday. We played for four hours and had two encounters. The party was Level 1.

A bit of background - I finished my last Pathfinder campaign about a year ago; it ran from levels 12-20, plus one Mythic Tier. It was epic and over the top in every way that only high level Pathfinder can be. If you've played high level Pathfinder, then you know of which I speak. It was a glorious mess, indeed!

My campaign coincidentally ended just as the 2e playtest began and we eagerly dug into the playtest .... but I ran out of steam about 3/4 of the way through and we left the rest of the playtest and further development to the good people of Paizo. I did get to participate in most of the surveys, though. At that point I was pretty down on 2e.

The playtest finishes and as the hype starts for 2e I find myself getting more and more excited by what I am hearing. When the game dropped, I picked up the CRB, GM screen, Bestiary; and preordered that Lost Omens guides, as well as the as-then-very-incomplete Fantasy Grounds ruleset.

Flash forward two months, and after reading the rules cover to cover, felt ready to start play testing the various systems to see how they feel.

Here are my impressions:

The party consisted of a sword and board fighter; bard; monk (stances, no ki), ranger; elementalist sorcerer; cleric, and storm druid.

I am VERY PLEASED to announce that the session went GREAT! We had to refer to the rules a few times throughout the session, but by and large, the information in the GM screen was enough to keep the session rolling with virtually no pauses.

The first encounter was against two River Drakes while they were in gliders traveling through a massive gorge. The second encounter was against a handful of skeletons.

My take aways thus far:

1 - it still feels like Pathfinder! I was secretly dreading that PF2 would end up feeling like 5e with it's veneer of awesome but in fact leading to the most monotonous combats. The 3 action economy really created natural drama and the players quickly learned that the third action is not something to be squandered .

2 - it's a very intuitive ruleset; just about everything I thought felt balanced, really was, without having to check a bunch of math first.

3 - the players absolutely loved feeling like they could do multiple things during an encounter, besides fighting; it didn't take long for them to start utilizing the Delay action to set up synergies within the party based on certain triggers.

4 - as much as I loved the critical failure/success mechanic on paper, it paled compared to the way it played at the table. It created so much drama and excitement, it adds a nice little gambling mechanic to every roll.

Overall, the session went super-smooth, even with such a large party, and never dragged once. I'm really looking forward to exploring the rules some more at the next session!


That sounds right, but I don't know if there is a 'zero' level for encounter building; without the GMG, there's nothing explaining that yet.

I'm having the same problem building level 1 encounters by the numbers, there are no -2 threats in the Bestiary.

You could start with 2, and if they are getting shellacked, have one retreat, or if they are doing well, bring in a 3rd as a reinforcement.


See the spell, Dragon Form. It says you can take the Manipulate action only, and gain a breath weapon and some other things; nothing about speaking or casting spells.


I subscribed, really like what I've seen so far!


Thanks for the insights, NumenorKing!


Thanks for the replies! I suspect this has something to do with PFS play, but I guess the first errata will show us what the actual intent was/is.


When using a staff, the CRB clearly states:

"You can Cast a Spell from a staff only if you have that spell on your spell list, are able to cast spells of the appropriate level, and expend a number of charges from the staff equal to the spell’s level." (page 592)

However, for scrolls, it says:

"To Cast a Spell from a scroll, the spell must appear on your spell list." (page 564)

Nothing about having the appropriate level to cast the spell on the scroll. Was this intentional, or an oversight? If intentional, does that mean that a caster can cast a higher level spell from a scroll just because it appears on their spell list (Arcane, Divine, Occult, Primal)?


When using a staff, the CRB clearly states:

"You can Cast a Spell from a staff only if you have that spell on your spell list, are able to cast spells of the appropriate level, and expend a number of charges from the staff equal to the spell’s level." (page 592)

However, for scrolls, it says:

"To Cast a Spell from a scroll, the spell must appear on your spell list." (page 564)

Nothing about having the appropriate level to cast the spell on the scroll. Was this intentional, or an oversight? If intentional, does that mean that a caster can cast a higher level spell from a scroll just because it appears on their spell list (Arcane, Divine, Occult, Primal)?

Any thoughts on this? Thanks!


Thanks! I am loving what I'm seeing from 2e thus far but it definitely feels like it has some major holes to be filled before I can run a campaign with it.


I was hoping this would have been in the Lost Omens World Guide, but I am wondering if there is going to be a chart released that shows what the maximum crafter level for a given population is for formulas, rune etching, etc.

I guess this is going to be with the GMG?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Denim N Leather wrote:
Good thing it's Uncommon, then, and has the Gnome trait. Easily dealt with if you're using GM Fiat for Uncommon items, especially those that should have the associated heritage Weapon Familiarity feat. I would say that this weapon is not one seen by most people and if by some chance a player of mine really wanted it, I would have them find it at some point and use it untrained until they found a Gnome fighter that's an Expert or above to train them in how to use it. I would probably use it as an extended Downtime quest/activity in lieu of crafting or earning a living.

Except, now I see the Unconventional Weaponry feat! Doh!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good thing it's Uncommon, then, and has the Gnome trait. Easily dealt with if you're using GM Fiat for Uncommon items, especially those that should have the associated heritage Weapon Familiarity feat. I would say that this weapon is not one seen by most people and if by some chance a player of mine really wanted it, I would have them find it at some point and use it untrained until they found a Gnome fighter that's an Expert or above to train them in how to use it. I would probably use it as an extended Downtime quest/activity in lieu of crafting or earning a living.


Great work, thanks for this! I'm doing the same thing on Fantasy Grounds, but working from the bottom up, level-wise.


Mine came out great as well. I use 24lb paper and printed them in greyscale; looks fine!


Thanks, Wheldrake! It may be vestigial, as well... Just want to make sure I'm not short-changing my players!


@Nicolas Paradise, vision goes under SENSES on Page 1.


Thanks for replying!

That was my guess, too; but the CRB doesn't specify, from what I can see.

Maybe this was just future-proofing by Paizo?


Hi there, can someone please explain what the SPECIAL 1st feat is on the character sheet under ANCESTRY, and when you apply it? I can't seem to find a reference to it anywhere.

(Apologies is this double posts, my threads don't seem to be appearing on the forum)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I sure hope it was! Since the gaming world has changed so drastically in the past 10 years, I hope Paizo was able to parlay that into satisfactory numbers. The Core Rulebook and Bestiary are definitely quality products!


Okay, thanks for the info!


Just curiosity, as I have already preordered the core rulebook and the bestiary from my FLGS.

Will Paizo be providing PDF copies of the CRB as well when you purchase a hard copy? Or is that for subs only?

Thanks!


Thanks so much, guys! This really puts my mind at ease (seriously).

I am a grog (1e is my main jam, actually) and these sorts of things really get under my skin lol. It's not the streamlining, per se; more the continual watering down of the game to a diluted, washed out version of its former self. 5e is not the only victim of this but I will cut the rant here lest I upset some folks.

I was going to preorder Pathfinder 2e and was holding off pending the answer to this question. Going to pull the trigger on the preorder now, however! I was not a huge fan of the Playtest version of 2e (we played roughly half of the playtest but it got pretty ridiculous at high level) but am cautiously optimistic, leaning towards optimistic, about 2e, after the recent Know Direction episode. (In AD&D speak, it would be CO (O))

I will refrain from 5e bashing here because it's not good form, but let's just say it's not the game for me. :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.

After a two-year hiatus from 5e during which I ran a long Pathfinder campaign (set in the Dragon Empires, yeah!), I ran three sessions of 5e for Free RPG Day on Saturday at my FLGS (shout out to Brooklyn Strategist!). I was dismayed to learn that Smite can be used against any creature regardless of alignment (something that really annoyed me about 5e, I had repressed, and then was re-really annoyed with yesterday).

First thing yesterday morning I cracked open my Playtest rulebook and was relieved/pleased to see the word evil in the descriptor for the Paladin smite feat.

My question: Will Paizo be retaining Smite vs EVIL? Or is it going to be genericized like 5e? Please tell me it's the former! :)

Thanks in advance!


Thanks, Fuzzy-Fuzzy; I shall do that!

1 to 50 of 583 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>