Elleth's page

519 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


1 to 50 of 519 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Colette Brunel wrote:
shroudb wrote:
we can now make "wild monks"

Twin Takedown requires you to be wielding two melee weapons, each in a different hand, and the attack is made with "one with each of the required weapons."

You would have to take Monastic Weaponry and use a temple sword in one hand and a kama in the other.

Hunt Target is not actually offsetting your multiple attack penalty, either.

I mean I think the 10th level Ranger-Monk could be funny to see, simply because flurry + twin takedown. For what, -0,-3,-6,-6,-6 in following turns with agile weapons.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am in love with the diadem of intellect, because I am in love with how Hypercognition works.
1 action, 1 point, for 10 knowledge checks is the sort of thing I get greedy about. Even if I can only functionally use like 3 per target, it's still fun.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
WhiteMagus2000 wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
Simon Dragonar wrote:
I don't see how you can admit such interpretations or readings are valid and in the same breath advocate for ignoring the accompanying results. It happened at certain tables which have already been admitted to abide by RAW. It didn't happen at others. So what is the issue? What is with the hostility?

They did not "admit" to playing by RAW, the CLAIMED to play by RAW.

Out of the 6 game sessions I've played (Finished Chapters 1-3) we only had 1 PC die in that ENTIRE time, and the GM was very much playing by the RAW, even when it was a detriment to the safety of the party.

I would bet ANY number of dice from my personal collection that the 11/11 TPK claims are at LEAST partially fraudulent, if not wholesale lies to bash the system. Please bear in mind this my opinion only, but I simply don't see this as being anything more than hyperbole, exaggeration, intentional misreading of the RAW and trolling.

You have to wonder. All of the GMs I've seen on this forum that claim full TPKs on every chapter are also ones that if you look at their post history were overly unhappy and negative of the system as soon as it was announced. It really can't be a coincidence.

I think it matters a vast amount just how the GM plays. We have not had any TPKs, but I don't try to kill my players. I don't generally focus fire on one player, don't play the monsters as expert tacticians, and remind them they still have a hero point when they hit dying 3. If I GMed more aggressively, but still within the rules, I certainly could have killed them.

Also, does anyone actually use the secret rolls? The system already seems stacked against them, it feel mean spirited to just pretend to roll some dice and declare they they break their lockpicks and trigger the trap.

I do use secret rolls. Not for anything they can get physical feedback on such as lockpicking or athletics, but for in combat knowledge checks and for perception in a lot of cases.

Part 2 perception spoiler:
When they decided to go looking for secret doors. Good thing too, as they reasoned from the map shape that there had to be a hidden room and kept spamming checks, and knowing their outcome would likely have massively altered how they played.

Data Lore wrote:
I grouped similar creatures and didnt get a bunch of TPKs. But, at the end of the day, the dice are the dice.

I group similar monsters. We'll see if it becomes more lethal when I start part 3.

Thaboe wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

Not to mention that it is a trivial effort to take one hand off your bow and punch someone.

And by trivial you mean 1 action to change grip, 1 action to punch and 1 action to change grip again.

Dropping a hand from an item is a free action.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blood Magic, Sorcerer feat 8, page 132 wrote:

Anytime you cast a noncantrip spell while you have persistent bleed damage, you can give yourself or any target affected by that spell temporary Hit Points equal to 1d6 + the spell’s level.

Possibly reading it wrong but I don't think the or is clear enough in this case as to whether it's one individual or not. I'm also not clear on how it interacts with long-lasting AOE spells like Field of Life.

Common sense or not, I actually would like this cleared up. It's a little awkward to look at the actual rules and come to the conclusion that being behind a wall equates to cover and unseen/sensed.

It came up in combat for me and with some needling from players I ended up deciding that some gnoll tents were made of thick fabric that could be shot through even through two walls of the tent, as it was the closest I could find to RAW.

I'd be happy to run it like that for e.g. a giant attacking through a brick wall, but I'd rather my players not simply stab through one.

Incidentally and on a similar subject. As object ACs aren't really brought up elsewhere, basing them off the Wall of X spells it would probably be:

  • AC 10.
  • TAC 6.
  • TAC is instead 8 for a slippery substance such as ice.

    EDIT: It came up because one of my players was a ranger with favoured aim, who knew the location of the target gnoll. RAW shooting through the tent was a perfectly valid tactic.

  • Cyrad wrote:
    The wizard is also frustrating in that they don't have anything beyond their limited amount of spells and spell powers. They don't have the skills and proficiencies of the bard, druid, and rogue.

    In the chance that you aren't currently aware: that got heavily tweaked in update 1.2. Sig skills have been ditched, and unless otherwise stated classes start trained in their primary skill and 4+int mod others (druid and cleric/paladin being trained in nature+order skill and religion+deity skill respectively and 3 other each, before int mod. In some cases the primary skill is chooseable). Bard gets occultism+performance+6+int mod, ranger survival+5+int mod, rogue (steath or thievery)+9+int mod.

    Because a standard wizard is starting with 16 or 18 int, they're starting with arcana+4+(3 or 4) skills, which is to say 8 or 9, 9 being on par with a 12-int Bard and only one skill behind a 14-int bard.
    It's true that a wizard's other proficiencies fall behind, but being int-based in the new skill layout is a considerable starting advantage. As of Monday, this might prove slightly more useful by virtue of skill DCs coming down slightly and untrained being a greater penalty (the TL;DR of which being that trained probably equates to what a +2 bonus at present would be, with untrained about the same as it is now in relative to the DCs).

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Leedwashere wrote:

    Joe M. wrote:
    Ranger: double slice is dropped for 2 feats: one makes you better with two weapon fighting, one makes you better with ranged (fire twice, if both hit add together)
    Okay. Ignoring for the moment that I just within the last couple days finally made up my mind on how I would prefer things relating to combat styles be handled. At least these work better with Hunt Target, I guess? I'm assuming that they'll be 2-actions each, which means that the Ranger is still has incentives to get as many attacks in a round as possible instead of skirmish and keep moving.

    Actually, as far as I could tell (actually went and listened this time) the ranged option works like Flurry of Blows. Unclear on the melee option as nothing really seemed to be said.

    Leedwashere wrote:
    Joe M. wrote:
    Proficiency: untrained is now (lvl - 4). Also, skill DCs are adjusted, and lowered overall. Net result: as you get better and better you get more and more certain of success. Every skill DC in Doomsday Dawn updated to reflect
    I don't really have much to say here. I don't think this would be necessary if the skill feats made more of a difference? I find the whole skill feats section a little narrow and underwhelming. You already need to be at least trained to do a lot of what skills let you do, so I'm not sure that making untrained worse is a better direction than making trained+ better.

    Numbers wise it sounds like it will pan out overall closer to a buff for trained and higher characters with untrained maybe playing about the same. Bulmahn (apologies to you Mr Dev if I've spelt your name wrong and you happen to be trawling through this) explicitly stated the DCs on the DCs table getting knocked down "a peg or 2", which I'd guess translates to 2 in a lot of cases, courtesy of that being the peg size for the closely spaced difficulties.

    Leedwashere wrote:
    Joe M. wrote:
    Mundane Healing: Medicine gets a new function: Treat Wounds. This removes Wounded and also heals damage. Cures (healer’s lvl) * (your con mod) hp. Makes out-of-combat mundane healing very possible, making magical healing more for in-combat, mundane healing for out-of-combat.
    Oh god, I really, really, really hope that they made mundane healing useful. All this will depend on one word: bolstered. If the "B" word shows up too quickly, then this will all be an exercise in futility. Please be good. Please be good. PLEASE.

    As best I could tell, bolstering was implied on a crit fail only. I wouldn't be too surprised if the DC scaled with the target though. Depending on how this all works out, Assurance(Medicine) might be a very good pick.

    In my own opinions, I really like how the dying tweaks sound. They sound terrifying. I had a pretty fun combat in 5e where a storm giant kept stomping on this poor sorcerer with the other players healed him to keep him from dying, in a similar situation with these the poor sorc would probably panic as he got a little closer to death's door each time he got downed. For me at least it's less about the actual lethality, and more about the looming consequences.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    RainOfSteel wrote:


    This description is one short sentence that gives a general overview but no details. The description does not even mention a duration.

    Spellwrack should probably be clearer, but I got the impression that unless otherwise stated it's permanent.

    This would also fit with how the majority of other curse spells work, like feeblemind, Mariner's Curse (by my reading of it), Outcast's Curse, Spiritual Epidemic. Geas is a weird case, but it's a ritual. Geas and Celestial Brand seem to be the only curses that don't directly work like this.

    In case it's relevant here:

    Appendix 1: Traits wrote:
    A curse is an effect that places some long-term affliction on a creature. Curses are always magic and are typically the result of a spell or trap.

    Emphasis mine.

    Overall Celestial Brand is a weird exception as it explicitly only lasts one round.

    Mathmuse wrote:
    I like the elegance of Flurry of Blows. The monk can make two Strikes at the cost of only one action slot, but both Strikes have to be unarmed.

    Talking of flurry, I really really like it and think it's a great example of a well-designed core feature, at least on paper. Simply because it opens up so much more of your turn to use freely. As an asides, I'm kind of curious as to how easy it will be to access if at all via the Monk Multiclass. For obvious reasons.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Rysky wrote:


    Speed is 40ft?

    Has a bunch of spells you would think a Ghost would have.

    Time to prep for knife-eye attack.

    Fuzzypaws wrote:
    Draco18s wrote:

    There's also a feat that turns any object you look at spend a minute drawing on into a permanent holy symbol that works only for you.

    A feat, that I might point out, that you'll use like once.

    That should definitely be a simple level 1 ritual rather than a feat. Just make the component cost the price of a nice holy symbol.

    Emblazon symbol is kinda cool for absurd plans (e.g prison breaks), but something like that could help out pallies with the "not enough hands" issue.

    ChibiNyan wrote:
    Yeah, I really liked how the big cats operate! Most of these abilities seem much more fun to use in play than what PCs get. A lot more fun edition for GMs this time around! Specially compared to 5E where the original bestiary only had meatbags with basic melee attack and nothing else.

    One thing that was interesting to run though in the PF playtest, is that the new action economy and weapons rules made it feel interesting for me to run even a bunch of mindless skeletons. Scimitar sweep encourages focusing on two players after all.

    5e has some monsters I like, but most of them are big high end monsters with legendary actions, so it's going to be fun actually enjoying running low level combat as the norm, rather than the exception.

    MerlinCross wrote:

    People keep saying how they like the new monsters and their abilities.

    I'm looking at the book going "What Abilities?"

    No really, I see people talking about the Abilities that monsters have but not talking about the Abilities monsters have but they're so awesome that no one is talking about.

    Elleth was kind enough to actually give me some names to look up but all my tests (Parts 1-2 of the Doomsday Dawn) playtest has not given me anything terribly awesome or interesting. Heck I'm looking at Part 3 now and that's all just Humanoid Undead for the most part which is "Wow this is interesting *Sarcasm*"

    Can I get some examples as to some of these "Awesome" abilities that others are seeing? Related question, just because it's awesome to USE a GM doesn't mean it's awesome to face in combat(Look, Earth Elemental's Crumble is pretty fitting and sounds like a good idea, but my players disliked playing what boiled down to Wack a Mole).

    I mean I'll happily give more detail. Some abilities I like:

    Drag. I just think this is fun because I can have some monsters play tug of war with somebody or drag a squishy off. I'm not expecting it to do too much, but I think it could cause a low level player to freak out when their wizard buddy starts getting pulled away by his ankles. Part 2 difficult terrain stopped me having as much fun with them as I hoped though.

    Beasts in general:
    I like that a lot of animals have abilities that you automatically think of when you think of the animal. E.g. crocodiles have a death roll, camels have an unpleasant spit, and great white sharks can leap out of the water and take a bite out of a low-flying enemy. This is doubly nice because, as mentioned many times, I'm coming from 5e. 5e Beasts are generally dull, sloggy, and weak. Here most of them have something (e.g. cats having both sneak attack and pounce) that makes them play different, and some like the smilodon are actually pretty horrifying.

    Demilich I like mostly because of how they can be swiftly tailored to a theme, and because I just really like the flavour of "lich imploded and absorbed their magic items into themselves. Now they're just a malicious little arcane nexus." E.g. I'm possibly tempted to run at some point a Transmuter demilich, with the appropriate staff rolled in (meaning that they could cast Humanoid Form and disguise themselves as themselves in life) and one of the eye gems being something like Monstrosity Form so they could turn into a purple worm and dig a tunnel or whatnot. I like how they awaken, but mostly it's all about how they interact with spells.

    I mostly like Saxra as the auras and knowledge stuff mean it's basically a living malicious storm that you go to for advice and try not to get too close. At a glance over the PF1 version though, it doesn't seem much different. So mostly I guess I'm glad it got included in the playtest.

    I like how much mileage they get out of different sorts of hitting people -AoO (sextuple opportunity), Defensive assault (esp the interactions it has), focused assault, sextuple strike.

    I like that they can shapeshift, move, and attack in one turn. Mostly I just think this is fun with the action economy, esp when they have other things at their disposal. Like the hyenas I think I'd like to use a quasit with more metaphorical bark than bite.

    green dragons:
    I like that the miasma obscures the dragon, so they can flood a location with noxious gas and then lurch out of the gloom to attack somebody else. I like the white dragon blizzard for similar reasons, but I think poison gas makes it thematically horrifying.

    Flaming gallop. I quite like flaming gallop.

    I'll agree that crumble sounds annoying, but I think the major earth elemental Spike Stones sounds interesting.

    MerlinCross wrote:

    The Strike makes sense I suppose but the Skill seems more flavorful or unused.

    I suppose due to Maneuvers being tied to Athletics you can get slapped if you try to do one.

    If you had players with access to flight you could potentially run a midair combat over water in a storm -midair maneuvers are acrobatics checks, swimming is an athletics check.

    I very much like the monsters. Demiliches, hyenas, and the saxra in particular have won my heart, and I very much appreciate that even low level mundane beasties like crocodiles have distinctive abilities.

    PossibleCabbage wrote:

    I have to be honest, I prefer rogues as "the good at skills" class to rogues as "the sneak attack/DPR" class.

    Like my favorite rogue archetype in PF1 was the Phantom Thief, one of the only archetypes (I think the 2nd is in Planar Adventures) to trade away Sneak Attack.

    Hard same. Thematically rogues are and always have been one of my favourite classes, but this is the first iteration of a rogue I've seen that I actually like. Like, really like. They feel clever, sneaky, and tricksy. While in 5e where I'm shifting from I detested them, because they felt to me like little more than high skill bonuses strapped to a high-end striker ladder. If I wanted to play a rogue in that game I played a warlock or a wizard. When I wanted to play something rogue-ish in PF1 I ended up more happy with an alchemist.

    While it's fun that high damage is possible, it's not why I love the PF2 class (and frankly if I wanted that I'd play a rogue-fighter, which is fun, but in its own way). Everything else is what I love about it, and I'd probably rather see damage ditched than relegate rogue to being a combat class first and foremost.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I feel like I'd just like them to codify a bit more 20s/1s shifting the outcome up or down by one.

    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    I absolutely love the skills tweaks. Basic training (such as a wizard having to know the Arcana underpinning their spells) makes much more sense to me that a cap anyhow. To be honest I'm also really happy that the int classes will tend to be good at skills as a result, feels less jarring, I think.

    Vic Ferrari wrote:
    Lyee wrote:
    The thing is, all the best role-playing and character-building moments I've seen were in games that didn't reward it. Because that stuff done well is a reward, and when you say there's also a reward of '5 happy story buttons' for it, that warps things. Because it's not 'normal' to have that rule, people see the '5 happy story buttons' as a reward and forget the story they're building as a reward, and the role-playing becomes a spreadsheet and loses its emotion and quality I often see from your average TTRPG group.
    Yes, some swear by Inspiration in 5th Ed, I never remember to hand it out, and people going out of their way to role-play their characters traits/ideals/bonds/flaws, in order to get a reward, can get pretty obnoxious.

    It's like, alright but not exceptional? I think I've mostly given it out for stuff like the barb swinging through and attacking Maegera the Flame Titan (landing by crashing through a window. At least, I think I gave it out for that), or an incredibly brave yet reckless plan paying off (splitting the party considerably via Dimension Door to save an imprisoned angel on the other side of an ambush). I actually used it more when it was co-opted into a daily resetting pseudo-ShadowrunEdge mechanic (inspiration number equal to prof mod, can get one daily back for normal reasons, can use inspiration for some other stuff and also after a roll) for in-game Reasons.

    For the most part though I don't really care for it, similar to how I'm not really a fan of Hero Points (though I like them slightly less because of the "do stuff for GM" aspect).

    Mark Seifter wrote:

    Neat playtest so far! I think allowing for creative solutions and diplomacy/intimidation is definitely in the spirit of the playtest where we included details on NPC motivations that would allow you as the GM to determine what the NPCs really want. When we played in-house, my paladin actually had nearly Diplomacied the manticore until Jason's barbarian got fed up and decided it was time for a fight (it's one reason why we included a diplomatic option in the survey, not that many others followed my crazy paladin's example).

    I would say only in Part 5 do you want to make absolutely sure that the PCs actually fight all the things, and I think they'd have trouble trying to Diplomacy some of those enemies.

    Kind of sounds like Darksol ran the 3rd encounter great, and I wish I'd ran it more like that. Unfortunately while my players did try and enter diplomacy, I effectively forced combat as I was worried about going off-rails altering the feedback.

    It's good to know some flexibility is allowed within the playtest, so thanks for that Mark!

    Rameth wrote:
    My biggest problem was that the Barbarian just wasn't doing enough damage. I believe they should make their + to damage a little higher as right now it's a little underwhelming it seems. Again this may not be true as I haven't seen them in play so much.

    Just curious, but at what level was the damage not enough? At level 1 at least the party barbarian was a terrifying force of death that sudden charged out of nowhere to murder and maim. This apparently inexorable elf lopping heads off left right and centre, propped up by 3 rounds being a really long time at level 1.

    Hi, thanks for clarifying your precise issues.

    I'm in a bit of a rush right now so I'll just TL;DR some of my points:

  • I think the primary thing restricting the creativity right now is simply that I (and many other GMs here) happen to be following a prewritten adventure as precisely as possible to enable good mechanical feedback. So combats are more forced than I think they would otherwise be.
  • Because the elementals aren't immediately hostile, the example you gave sounds 100% possible in the playtest rules. E.g. spend a minute to make an impression to make the elementals more amicable, then use an action to make a request, phrased appropriately. With investment, a specced social character could do this in less than the space of a turn, provided combat hadn't actually started.
  • Deception can very easily be used in combat if you're clever enough to pick something plausible. With some investment intimidation can be used well beyond just frightening folks, even in a moment.
  • Regarding adjusting odds. A lot of things are relatively minor, sure. But there are a lot of ways to do so. Taking cover produces a more significant +4 to AC, and for an extreme example hiding can give enemies a 50% miss chance even if they know the space you're in. As has been noted, you can combine hiding with spells like obscuring mist and blur. The adjustments from a successful performance are explicitly up to the GM.
  • Teamwork is important, and is a pretty common way of getting the aforementioned bonuses.
  • Action economy. Action economy is a massive situation changer. Combined with the global reduction in attack of opportunity, players who don't just charge into combat have plenty of ways to alter the situation.
  • Maths. As noted, some of the numbers might need changing.

  • avr wrote:

    Part of it's GMs who have their enemies use solid tactics apparently - goblins who remember they carry shortbows for one thing, and then use them to focus fire on one PC at a time.

    Then there's rigid use of rules vs. keeping the game going (& Rule of Cool!), the former's more likely to result in TPKs.

    Last there's bad luck. Crits can be more common in some situations than in PF1 but even if the BBEG is up to a 25% chance of a crit on their first attack that's no guarantee of it actually happening. If it does happen, repeatedly, you can get a TPK which no one could prevent or avert, and while it's more likely than in PF1 it's still only a minority of parties in the same situation who'd get that bad luck.

    Solid tactics are fair, but it depends on the monster. I've just tried to adhere to the bit in the book that insisted on running creatures as how they'd act. So mindless monsters with worse tactics and whatnot.

    Skeletons are mindless, so while they were in a nasty position (poor barb was flanked) and I played them reasonably efficiently, small clusters basically just locked on to different people to bully and left unmoving downed folk alone, instead of systematically killing individuals. The centipedes swarmed, but while 3 did go for one guy, another just went for a free bit of space to bite at. Most centipedes got one shotted, the one that didn't tried to scamper off. Quasits went for scary looking tactics, while the goblins actually did all focus on the paladin in response to him closing in.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Belisar wrote:
    The rulebook states that you get XP for combat and social encounters. What's about potential encounters the group managed to avoid? Will those also add up to the XP for an adventure? Or are only killed monsters awarded with XP? This would be a little letdown because it would prevent the group from seeking alternative solutions. Am I missing anything here?

    If players managed to outwit or escape something in a reasonable manner then it's probably fair to treat it as normal, else consider using the accomplishments table on page 339.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    JoelF847 wrote:
    Except that scars burn just as well as other flesh or skin. There's no such thing as burning yourself enough to develop a resistance to burning - it's not like poison where you can actually build up immunity over time.

    Fuzzy-wuzzy has my point.

    Lek wrote:

    Signature skills are a good thing, if the player picks them at character generation (identifies which skills, of all the skills, are Signature for them - perhaps space for a bigger role for Intelligence?). That helps keep a consistent character theme and preserves identity. I never did like the "I picked 'this' this level, and went from untrained to a genius at this skill".

    Going the way of the Dodo? You mean eliminated due to irresponsible newcomers? (different view on the dodo thing - they were fine until people happened by and imposed new environmental 'rules')...

    I mean you can only max out 3 skills unless rogue (in which case 6), so even if you could go from untrained straight to genius then it's a pretty bad plan and unlikely.

    I liked that sig skills gave a pretty little thematic block, but nothing else about them.

    More skills? This news gets better and better.

    Clearly it's time to play a certain ritualist and crafting fighter:

    Elleth wrote:
    ExcaliburProxy wrote:
    I already really want to build a really high intelligence fighter with all the arcane specializations who can't cast any spells but still insists that he is the greatest magical scholar of his generation.

    You can cast rituals though. You know.

    Proper magic.
    None of that wussy handwavy mumbo jumbo. None of of that lazy shooting fire when a good old sword and some alchemical dabbling are technique enough.
    No, grand magic. The sort where you stand in a circle with your best friends and bind the horrors of the planes. And if something goes wrong? Then by Gorum you will fix it with good old fashioned sweat and blood.

    Githzilla wrote:
    Survey data for Chapter 1 was coming in at 6% character deaths and so far on Chapter 2 it was about the same so it doesn't sound like there is a huge TPK problem.


    With the number of TPKs reported I began to think I'd ran everything wrong in part one and couldn't find where I'd botched up.

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    The Once and Future Kai wrote:
    I want the system to have a stronger influence on the narrative. Label it "rollplaying" if you want but it's a false dictomy to claim it's the opposite of "roleplaying". That really depends on the group. I've had great RP come out of rules heavy systems. Heck, I've had some great RP in games of Risk.

    Only time I've ever played a character for more than one or two sessions was in a year-long Shadowrun 5 campaign. Party tank, effectively minmaxed for one thing and one thing only... being a musically brilliant pop star. Even when it got to the point where I was rolling 42+ d6s for things I still had great fun playing her, from drinking a troll and dwarf under the table, to launching concerts as distractions and using the proceeds to buy nice gifts for party members.

    14 people marked this as a favorite.

    Not to be rude or anything, but "roleplay Vs rollplay" tends to really tick me off. Solid and specified combat mechanics, in my eyes at least, don't force a contradiction with playing your character as you want according to their personality. It annoys me on a similar level to the min-max or roleplay false dichotomy. Personally as a GM I feel like players should have a character they enjoy on both an RP and mechanical level, a lot of them are here for both, after all.

    By tradition, pathfinder playtest (like other games in its lineage) is heavily based around combat. In my experience so far, the playtest feels very, very tactical -something that makes a nice change after running D&D 5e for two years. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that tactical focus might make it fall flat for you. However. Enough things in the document have caught my eye that I'm writing reasonable parts of a rejigged setting to work with it, with the intent of creating an interesting sandbox world (once we finish the playtest adventures) for my players to explore, find goals, and triumph within. The monsters have abilities that to me at least are narratively fun, while I'm in love with how the highly flavourful IMO ritual system works. So overall I see plenty of fun roleplaying in my future, even between all the combat and trying to find the rules for everything.

    As a case in point, during the first mission of the playtest adventure, having completed a reasonable portion of the dungeon-crawly dungeon-crawl, my players had an absolute blast roleplaying an optional encounter, during which the evil party goblin buddy copped up with the goodie two-shoes paladin to solve it socially. And this was with me running everything as absolutely stringently and by the adventure book and hardline Rules-as-written as I could so as to ensure we gave viable feedback. The moment I get to start my next campaign and go off the rails then frankly I'd be surprised if we had any issues with roleplaying.

    Also, regarding the phrasing to the devs. They've been pretty clear I feel about feeling strongly about making this a good RPG, on both the game end, and on wanting people to have stories they love.

    TL;DR: It's probably fine. However, it sounds like you will probably find the specific sort of crunch off-putting.

    PossibleCabbage wrote:
    thflame wrote:
    Having potential spell backfires could also help.

    More I think about it, the more I like the following system:

    - Resonance counts up, not down
    - Each character has a threshold defined by their level and their ChaMod and some scalar.
    - If you surpass the threshold, the item works, but you have to roll a save against a flat (and scaling) DC where if you fail it you have to roll on some synthesis of the "potion miscibility" and "primal magic events" table.

    So drinking too many potions can make you temporarily blind, or turn blue, or feel sick, or hallucinate, or tired, or emit bubbles from your skin, but you're not going to die from it.

    Or something like "high difficulty DC of level [previous number of uses], subtracting Cha mod from the DC"? Not sure if I'd actually like that, but it could possibly be pulled into other mechanics. Probably a bad idea though.

    I think I'd possibly be more interested in Fatigued or something than random effects, but that is in part a distaste for 5e wild magic table goofiness.

    james014Aura wrote:
    thorin001 wrote:

    Monster creation rules:

    Select what abilities you want your beastie to have.
    Figure out what the best modifier for a PC of that level is for each ability the monster has that the PCs wil interact with (AC, saves, skills, etc.)
    Determine what numbers you want the monster/PCs to have to roll to succeed.
    Add that number to the value of the maxed PC.
    Now you have the relevent numbers for your critter.

    This is how all of the monsters's stats were derrived. This is why a level 0 goblin with a 14 dex has a +6 to hit and a level 4 barghest has a +10 perception with a 12 wis.

    I sincerely hope that in the full version, monsters are not purely arbitrary. Arbitrary abilities that are in theme, sure. Arbitrary stats for fantasy creatures, also sure. But I sincerely hope that there is a way to reverse-engineer the monsters purely from their level and their stats.

    Reasons: Monster advancement (especially adding class levels), templates (I only saw Vampire as a true monster-changing template in the bestiary, despite there being werewolf), variant monsters (changing feats and skills around).

    Yeah, some reasonably solid rules would be nice.

    I really like the monsters in the playtest rn, but I'd like to build loads quickly. I am curious as to if Elite or Weak are supposed to be able to stack with themselves repeatedly.

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    ikarinokami wrote:

    flat flooted is really strong in this edition. +2 change in AC is a big deal. at least it has appeared that way from the sessions we have played.

    It's good, but there are a lot of ways to get it and it's not super interesting as a crit effect for a weapon compared to pretty much all the others. You could accomplish something similar with an inverse of polearm or club -allowing you to make a Step for instance, which would be a reasonably cinematic version of sword fighting.

    Edit: Shroud is right, of course. I just think it could be fun if Sword were to feel like it shined for you as much as or more than for allies.

    I mean I feel like that aspect works fine, if it weren't a heritage feat -just assuming that goblins who survive repeatedly immolating themselves develop fire-resistant scarring.

    As a heritage feat though, fair.

    Fuzzypaws wrote:
    Consumable items like this should only be expended on a success, yes.

    That would be nice.

    I think poisons usually being wasted outside of rogue very much is one of the few things irking me rn.

    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    lordredraven wrote:
    They also announced that not in the next update but the update afterwards we are getting multiclass archetypes for the other 8 classes!

    Excuse me while I run around in circles in rampant celebration.

    Ludovicus wrote:
    Elleth wrote:
    I feel like sword is amazing if you want to buddy cop with an overly excitable rogue, but otherwise it feels lackluster. Axes, polearms, knives etc. all stand out I think. Swords, less so.
    Buddy cop with an overly excitable rogue, but for some reason not flank with the rogue.

    Yeah. The sort who runs across the battlefield and then remembers to actually attack the dude next to the fighter. Alas, they exist.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Wonderful. To all three, really.

    Chipping in for my players on the "probably rebuild or alter" front: Paladin.

    Grimcleaver wrote:
    Fuzzypaws wrote:
    I do actually love flavorful material components and spell foci too, despite my opposition to them having to be tracked and used for actual D&D style 2-4 second spellcasting...

    Yeah, there is a weird disconnect for me in that every illustration of magic in the artwork looks like Doctor Strange, with big glowing spellcircles floating in front of the spellcaster's hands as they float in the air, eyes blazing, hair whipped by an unseen wind--and then in the rules of the game it's like some kind of Japanese reality TV show, with the poor wizard having to eat spider eggs or smear bat guano on themselves while waving a feather around.

    I love the IDEA of arcane spell components. The actual listed components and how they get used have never really worked for me.

    I mean, it's non something I say often, but I think Shadowrun handled material reagents (material components) well. It notes that they vary by magical tradition but tend to be something relevant (so e.g. a psionic magician probably uses objects charged with emotional importance, the hermetic mage uses bits of rocks and actual chemicals, and the shaman uses sacred animal bones or whatever) and gave a couple of examples.

    Otherwise I like how the playtest has done it, cutting out specific items most of the time. I also sort of like how stuff like the new action economy, metamagic, and Magic Missile, Heal, and Harm sort of make the components feel more flavourful IMO as well as more tangible -if only because they feel less arbitrary to me. Also off topic but I sorta love the wizard arcane focus -being able to use my book or my shoe or sword as a magical battery actually sort of makes me want to play a wizard, and normally I don't care for them in the slightest.

    Grimcleaver wrote:

    Is it weird that I wouldn't hate to see scrolls rolled into this new system? That a scroll is basically a follow-along ritual with instructions on how to perform it that allows you a bonus on the arcana/religion/nature rolls such that someone with assurance could pull them off without rolling.

    Personally I think I'm worn out slightly with minor rituals, but I wouldn't necessarily care as much if they coexisted with playtest rituals.

    That said, I actually do really like the idea of that being what a scroll is.

    Yeah that sounds fun.

    Also seconding the "love how Magic Missile, Harm, and Heal work"

    I feel like sword is amazing if you want to buddy cop with an overly excitable rogue, but otherwise it feels lackluster. Axes, polearms, knives etc. all stand out I think. Swords, less so.

    Byron Zibeck wrote:
    I do not like that paladins only advance in Heavy Armor Proficiency. Since the goal is to create any character in your head, paladin's should not be penalized for going with a lightly-armored more mobile build.

    Yeah, I was hoping that a light armour pally would at least be reasonable.

    Pallies probably also need Emblazon Symbol, or for it to be somehow associated with Deific weapon (e.g. it being treated like how clerics treat their holy sumbol) -warded touch has been noted to not feel like a great pick, and the Domain feat means that a pally can end up in a situation where she can't actually use her domain power, thanks to hands being full.

    I feel like the new rituals are one of my favourite parts about the entire playtest. Minor rituals could be fine, but I would be really sad to see the new system poof away.

    I'm just enamoured with the new ones and after running a 5e campaign for 2 years they feel like a breath of fresh air. It feels like grand, dangerous magic and I love that.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    NemisCassander wrote:

    Something that I would like clarified is regarding spells. My understanding is that attacking with a spell (like a touch spell or a ray) requires using Dexterity, not the Caster stat of the item. Is this not true? If it is true, then the likelihood of casters doing stuff offensively just went down.

    As for the base '50%' chance to hit, if Paizo were to stay with the coinflip--and I am not necessarily disagreeing with the OP when they say it is better--then they need to simply scrap the Multiple Attack Penalty. 5E works quite well without it, IMO.

    If you can flip a coin and reliably reproduce the hit rate of a character rolling a d20... why are you rolling a d20? A d2 works just as well.

  • They do indeed use Dex.
  • I believe melee spell touch attacks are finesse so dex or str.
  • While I wouldn't necessarily object to a reduction of MAP, I think I prefer it being in the game in some form. I'm just wary about full attack becoming the optimal combat move tbh, while right now players will attack if desperate, but often try and work out something else to do (e.g. shield raise, a step, or a rogue feinting before one of their attacks to pull off a sneak attack). Hard choices and all that.
  • The "coin flip" as mentioned only applies against an even leveled target, and it can still easily vary by 5% either way depending on the exact situation. Lower levelled enemies very much aren't usually a coin flip, and neither are higher levelled -you can pulp a goblin pretty easy, but a dragon is gonna kick you across the room and probably crit.

  • 1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Bardarok wrote:
    Elleth wrote:
    Doktor Weasel wrote:

    Yeah, for something few are seen without, it seems to be both expensive and hard to come by for dwarven characters, and a rather sudden addition to the world considering I don't think they were ever mentioned in an PF1 source.

    There's also the question, just what are they like? They're piercing with versatile bludgeoning. How does that work? A heavy spike that can whack people with? The gemstone making for good pommel strikes? Does it even have a cutting edge, or is it more like an icepick?

    "Dagger" is just a fancy dwarven word for a special type of chisel
    A flesh chisel!

    Thank you, resident dwarf.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Tridus wrote:
    Elleth wrote:
    Personally I think that, for attack rolls at least, 50% on the first hit, 25% on the second, and 5% on the third for a same level challenge sounds like the right number -two attacks gives you a (1-0.5*0.75)*100% % chance of hitting, which sounds pretty good to me. I'll admit that it is potentially more of a problem with 2 action attack roll spells that miss on a fail.

    With three attacks at 50%/25%/5% hit chance, your odds of missing all three are 35.625%. That sounds good to you? It sounds awful to me. More than one third of the time, you will fail with all three attacks. And this is a well optimized character. Someone not as good at it might as well not bother.

    If you apply these odds to something that can critically fail, you would never take that third attempt at all and might not take the second one either.

    Frankly if you're fighting an on par creature in a highly dangerous fight that could go either way, that final hit should probably be used on trying to hit a minion, do something else like ready a shield or, if you think you can get away with it, move to lure the monster to a new position. This is for a do or die fight so yeah, I'm probably fine with it. If it isn't a do or die fight, you've probably got a large portion of the party trying to bully the big monster anyway after mopping up the weaklings. So yeah, I'd probably be fine with it -lower ac and more hp to make the challenge the same would probably sit worse with me as a regular thing.

    Edit: As specified, I care less about how the skill roll etc fulcrum gets shifted.

    Doktor Weasel wrote:

    Yeah, for something few are seen without, it seems to be both expensive and hard to come by for dwarven characters, and a rather sudden addition to the world considering I don't think they were ever mentioned in an PF1 source.

    There's also the question, just what are they like? They're piercing with versatile bludgeoning. How does that work? A heavy spike that can whack people with? The gemstone making for good pommel strikes? Does it even have a cutting edge, or is it more like an icepick?

    "Dagger" is just a fancy dwarven word for a special type of chisel

    1 to 50 of 519 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>