Tiefling

Elleth's page

154 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Mathmuse wrote:
Gorignak227 wrote:

Hmm, i'm curious how golarion lore is going to explain magic and culture with some of the charisma penalty races like dwarves and most 1st level monsters.

What's a good explanation as to why dwarves, or any race with a charisma penalty, make magical items when they can't use them?

Do merchants with magical wares just not go to dwarven or orcish towns?

Norse mythology ties dwarves to the forging of magic items, such as Thor's hammer Mjolnir and the Ring of the Nibelung. These were the most renowned of the dwarven smiths, which implies a level with more than a single resonance, despite a Charism penalty. Nevertheless, an impression that dwarves shun magic items will conflict with the mythology about dwarves.

Thorin Oakenshield had no trouble claiming the magic Elven sword Orcrist, the Goblin-cleaver, from the troll horde in The Hobbit. But weapons don't require resonance. Maybe that is the key: dwarves have affinity for magic items that don't require resonance, such as magic weapons. I wonder how that could be represented as a dwarven ancestral ability.

Maybe I'm mixing something up but aren't D&D legacy dwarves traditionally bad with magic, even though the mythical origins are good with it?


I looked up Blood Money thanks to this thread and I actually love the thematics, if not the mechanics.


Excaliburproxy wrote:

My favorite things:

Rarity
Resonance
Alchemists and alchemy rules

Based on Fumbus' sheet, I am loving the look of the new alchemist.

I also loved the alchemist in PF1, but I think this will probably fit what I think of when I hear of it better.


Deadmanwalking wrote:


Another possibility mentioned earlier is that Witch will go the Sorcerer route and pick a spell list based on Patron, which would work, but I personally consider that route a tad less likely. I do think it's more likely than the Witch getting any specific spell list other than Occult, though.

Also possible that the Witch patron grants cross-list spells like how the sorc blood does and cleric deity spells can.

I think I kind of like the standardised 4 spell lists with classes being able to mod their list.


JRutterbush wrote:
As has already been shown in the preview material, being at positive hit points doesn't wake you up anymore, you still have to make checks to regain consciousness. In addition, as Malk said, your dying levels also stay active even once you do wake up, so if you do down again, you're that much closer to dying.

Fun.


Shinigami02 wrote:
BryonD wrote:

If in the Lord of the Rings Frodo found a runestone and rubbed it onto Sting to make it do something else, then that would seem really stupid and non sequitur.

And this one is especially egregious. Power-Carrying Runestones and transference rituals happen all the time in various forms of media. Sure it's not gonna transfer the powers of Excalibur to a random kitchen knife, Excalibur's an Artifact, but a simple flaming sword or protective garment? That's easily within the realms of a high-magic setting.

Actually, thanks! I think I know how I want to handle runes now, and a non-artefact Excalibur-like would be "a resplendent sword of hallowed Orchalcum, bearer of a four-part name." ^_^


Shinigami02 wrote:


BryonD wrote:
If in Harry Potter you had a scene where Harry says a few words of fake latin, waved his wand, and nothing happened then Harry realizes that he used his magic cloak too many times that morning, then that would seem really stupid and non sequitur.
Not much to really argue here, other than that this wouldn't happen in PF2e either. A Potter Wizard's wand isn't the spell-battery most wands are in Pathfinder, it's more akin to the Wizard's Bonded Item. As such, the only way he'd be doing the components and nothing happen would be if he was out of spell slots. Which doesn't happen in Potterverse anyways, but that's a separate note.

I guess in PF2 it's sort of like lugging around a big fuel tank you use to top up your car or a generator.

Shinigami02 wrote:


ByronD wrote:
If in the Lord of the Rings Frodo found a runestone and rubbed it onto Sting to make it do something else, then that would seem really stupid and non sequitur.
And this one is especially egregious. Power-Carrying Runestones and transference rituals happen all the time in various forms of media. Sure it's not gonna transfer the powers of Excalibur to a random kitchen knife, Excalibur's an Artifact, but a simple flaming sword or protective garment? That's easily within the realms of a high-magic setting.

I forget, did the Holy Avenger have fixed effects? Because I think it did but I can't fully recall.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:

Yeah acquiring spell knowledge unbidden could be a neat plot... but it makes a pretty poor base-line justification for how all spontaneous spellcasters learn spells. Mostly because it removes all sense of free-agency from a huge subset ofbthe adventuring population... but also because it makes me question what sorcerers even get out of adventuring if they need neither spell-lore or an excuse to practice and hone their deadly talent.

Why not just stay home with some Nyquil and dream-up Fireball that much sooner?

It's said that somewhere in the universe, there is a mountain. A mountain so high that from there all places can be Seen. Upon this mountain sits a sorcerer, who Watches all things. Whenever a wizard develops and casts a new spell, the sorcerer Sees this and ponders, deep in meditation for 20 days and 20 nights. And on the 20th night, the sorcerer Understands.

Edit:
Then they write a forum post on how to minmax the latest splat book.


Dagesk Kingdomworthy wrote:

I would really love to see muticlassing done the way that the (pretty much unknown) Stargate d20 RPG did it. At first level in a class, you got a cluster of abilities that you only got if that was your first class level. So, a fighter might get heavy armor, martial weapon proficiency, and +2 Fort save as the 1st level only bundle. If you dip into it, you don't get those abilities, but you get the rest of what the class has to offer. That way, you don't have a ton of one level dips that can break characters. Also, it makes more sense that, if somebody has been training to get abilities for years and years prior to level one, a fight with a few goblins doesn't suddenly grant the same abilities as years of prior training.

In case anyone is interested: https://www.amazon.com/Stargate-SG-1-Role-Playing-Game/dp/1887953957

This sounds kind of like how 5e did it, which was alright, but gave you some objectively better starting points for particular build combos.


I really hope they do include those rules, though I might just homebrew it in if it isn't.
Maybe the rarity system could slot in here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It has occurred to me it might be fun to think of resonance use as (though this idea is ridiculously close to as implied by the idea in the first place) as using the body's innate magical fields to do things, often with context to itself.
Potions and elixirs use innate resonance to accelerate healing, or to alter biology in other potentially magic harnessing ways. Vorpal sword gives the equivalent of a massive adrenaline boost and temporary muscle enhancement in order to let you cleave effortlessly through bone. Armour you invest in taps into your nervous system to improve Will and Reflex saves. Other items just convert it straight into usable magic.
Past a point your body just simply can't give any more.


Do we actually know how many sessions the playtest is expected to last for?


Tbh I've only played PF1 for a couple of sessions. I quite liked it, but not enough to run my first proper campaign in it with a bunch of newbies. My campaign is slowly drawing to its end, and should hopefully finish a few months after the release of the playtest at the latest.

I'm definitely getting tired of 5e and I'd like to switch systems, and from what I've seen I'm in love with a lot of the design behind PF2, with the things I'm iffy on not being dealbreakers. Still, I suppose if I consider it to have gone horribly, horribly wrong when it drops I might be willing to run PF1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elleth wrote:
I think my secret for creating new spells (perhaps not as a player system but still) is going to be to take uncommon and rare spells and make some minor changes to them. E.g. different damage type and/or save, inflict a different but similar condition, etc. Maybe if I want to make it more subtle take a heightened version of a spell and then sub in something to be slightly nastier to keep it on par. E.g. sickened instead of frightened, or +1d6 damage.

So like, as an example using only what we know at present. This is probably poorly calibrated as I can't compare to most of the spells in the book, but I think it shows how PF2 spells could be quite modular once we have more parts to play with.

Elleth's Stomach Bugs:

Spell 5
Conjuration

Casting [[A]] Somatic Casting, [[A]] Verbal Casting
Range 120 feet; Targets one living creature
You fill the target's belly with squirming, biting vermin that it can feel, the squirming able to be seen beneath the skin. The effect of the spell is based on the outcome of the target's Fortitude saving throw.

Success The target is sickened 1.

Critical Success The target is unaffected.

Failure The target takes 10d6 piercing damage and is sickened 2.

Critical Failure The target takes 15d6 piercing damage and is sickened 4.

Heightened (+1) The damage on a failure increases by 2d6 and on a critical failure by 3d6.

RicoTheBold wrote:

For everyone asking "how does this work with divine spellcasters that have access to any spell on their spell list when they prepare?" the obvious answer of they won't have access to "any" spell anymore is actually correct.

At the banquet where Jason showed some pages, it included the first page of rules text for the Druid...

Thanks Rico! I like this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

Again, I'd be shocked if an optional system like creating new spells made it into a playtest document designed around having controlled parameters.

And once you remove the idea of simply creating your own spells, you get into some really wacky meta considerations for how spells work and why "researching" them doesn't make a lot of sense. Spells in Pathfinder have always been unrealistically precise and uniform. Every 5th level caster's fireball does the same damage over the same dimensions at the same range, minus very modifications that tend to be agnostic of the spell in question anyway. Asking "why can't I research this rare spell effect?" is bad question when we haven't even answered "Why can't I make a fireball that concentrates twice the damage into half the areas?"

There's an analogy for magic in Pathfinder that magic is part of the source code of the universe, and that spell caster are it's hackers. But while this analogy may be accurate for Pathfinder as a world, it definitely isn't true for Pathfinder as a game. See, once you hack into something and start rooting around in the code, you have a lot of freedom with what you can do with it. Hack into the source code of Skyrim and you can turn all the trees in the world to hands, turn dragons into Thomas the Tank Engine, grant yourself immortality, or just about anything else if you put your mind to it long enough.

In Pathfinder, we have a more limited set of pre-defined ways we can alter the world. In effect, spells are old school style cheat codes left into the developer. You input the right button combination and a very specific thing happens. Clerics get these codes directly from their gods. Sorcerers and wizards learn to punch them in themselves, with sorcerers being able to do it more intuitively than wizards. And fighters and other non-casters just spent their time learning to play the game better instead of learning complicated cheat codes. ;)

When your wizard "researches a spell" in actual play he's not actually creating...

I think my secret for creating new spells (perhaps not as a player system but still) is going to be to take uncommon and rare spells and make some minor changes to them. E.g. different damage type and/or save, inflict a different but similar condition, etc. Maybe if I want to make it more subtle take a heightened version of a spell and then sub in something to be slightly nastier to keep it on par. E.g. sickened instead of frightened, or +1d6 damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheFinish wrote:
Elleth wrote:

Real question.

Is there likely to be a Sweeping Agile weapon? For stupidly niche ranger builds.
Maybe the Handaxe? Or the Kukri? The first one because I recall axes getting Sweep too (in the What's your Weapon? Blog), the latter because the Scimitar gets Sweep and the Kukri was always the Scimitar's baby brother in PF1. And both are Light weapons, which would probably make them Agile.

Lol, if that's a thing then that's a hilariously great choice for the Iconic Ranger to be suddenly rocking two of.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Real question.
Is there likely to be a Sweeping Agile weapon? For stupidly niche ranger builds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

*walks into thread*

Hail travele...

Captain Morgan wrote:


*looks around*

We have many wares for sale, trave...

Captain Morgan wrote:


*walks out*

Safe travels, traveller!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:


Huh. My guess is that with all their features compared to Wizard (casting, armor proficiency, a martial weapon proficiency or upgrade to a simple weapon, a bunch of heal/harm spells, 8 hp, and a domain power), Cleric doesn’t get a class feat at first level. The feats still have level 1 as their requirement, because (as seen in Valeros) humans can get an extra class feat at first level.

Or it’s a sheet error.

Valeros has the same total number of class feats + features as Fumbus, so I don't think that extra feat is coming from human. Though maybe I'm wrong and that's what natural ambition does, which wouldn't be too surprising I guess. Kyra's ancestral feat is spent on a general feat (toughness) it would seem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:


Yet, the needed inclusion of "for your category" is still just more evidence of being subjective instead of objective.

If it is objective, I can compare results between the master and the legend. I can't do that with subjective results because the results don't scale between the two.

In game terms the master and the legend have different + bonuses on their attack rolls and can be enchanted to different degrees. This has been explicitly covered. The legend sword is flat out better than the master sword.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

If you can't produce 15 sufficiently different encounters for goblins (kobalds woukd be tok easy), thdn you need some serious practice.

But that wasn't my point anyway. My point was the issue of looking at mechanics, of looking at story.

I think past a point with some in setting logic, a lot of goblin encounters in certain areas will play out the same. In those cases there is no advantage to playing them out and you should glaze over them IMO. If they are planning traps or whatever experienced PCs are going to be aware of it most of the time in advance and so you can summarise it in a few lines of dialogue.

Sorry, I can't quite understand what you're trying to say there so I'm not going to respond to that second point.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
I was talking about being a combat game. I was not meaning physical objects.

OK, fair enough. I've usually heard "combat minis" to complain about more specific games like 4e that people perceive to restrict options to what can be done on a battlemap. 5e isn't too bad for this IMO, just a bit more rules sparse and flavour tied to FR than I'd like.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

It is part of how you look at it.

To me, though I know I'm a minority group here, the rules are like a language. We here are not concerned about the fact that we are having a discussion in english (aside from being able to understand each other). We know it so well that the english itself fades into the background and the actual topic of discussion is what we are focused on and thknking about, while the word choice, grammer, etc, are handled almost subconsciously both in writing and reading.

To me, the rules shoukd be like that. Going through the story, we shoukd be using the system nearly unconsciously to better communicate and understand what is going on.

This is fair enough and your opinion, you can enjoy whatever sorts of games you like. I do however still take issue with your earlier comment of "shun all the gamist nonsense" as, whether you intended it or not, it comes across as denigrating to anyone who actually enjoys the game elements. I'm not all about combat for instance (best moments when running have been when my players have circumvented combat or used a bunch of lore and setting logic I gave them to pull off ridiculous things) but plenty of my players enjoy it and so I owe it to them to give them some of the stuff they enjoy.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Would you apply this to any other artist?

I mean sure, as long as people like your art, awesome. But yet, there is so much more going on, and artists do indeed look at each other as being better or worse in various ways and not just successful vs unsuccessful.

Sure, on a personal level you want skill. Hell, I even like gloating. But in most cases your only audience as a DM are your players, and if your players enjoy it enough they tell their friends. Don't get me wrong, I think it's fair to strive for "objective DMing skill" if you have a big audience, like if you stream. But if you only run games for your friends your first priority is that they have a good time. Basically the difference between DMing and most other artforms is that you're explicitly performing for the pleasure of a small select group of people.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Elleth wrote:
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Quote:
So we went from GM Fiat to an actual rule. The GM can always choose to ignore the rule... but by providing an official rule for this, the GM can go "it's in the rules" and not have to worry about players whining about the GM being arbitrary and unfair.

And why do we need the rule?

If a player is complaining to me about the rules, then I simply tell them that they are not looking for what I provide and they can either sit back and watch everyone else till they figure out what it is I am providing, and take part in that, or they can buzz off and find some other GM.

I think the main use of this rule is that it shifts the conversation from "hi DM, can I take this?" to "hi DM, which items are common? Can I have some uncommon items?"

That might not sound like much, but if this rule is laid out somewhere clear where players can easily read (whether or not it will be I can't yet say) I suspect that it makes a big difference in expectations.
I can think of a couple of my players at least that would respond pretty happily to "hey guys, we're using different common items" and be interested in what that means for the world, while they'd be OK with me just saying "sorry guys, that isn't in my setting" but it's very hard to imagine that actually getting anyone excited.
As a DM it's my job to actually have players on board and interested, else what's the point.

Um, no.

It doesn't work like that.

Take a thorough readthrough of the 3rd ed dungeon master guide.

It actually tells the gm to change class abilities to better fit a player's character concept. Then there is rule 0, explicitly mentioned. And numerous other things detailed in various places that get completely ignored in favor of what "everybody knows."

Sure. I've changed class abilities before. In my 5e game I even gave a slight modification to the sorcerer that, without changing its power level massively upped flexibility in how bloodlines worked, with a thematic caveat. My players loved it enough that I'm actually considering porting the lore over when I switch to PF2.

I'm fully aware the DM has full control. I've used it before. But it doesn't change the fact that using it sometimes feels bad, like I'm quashing player options. I know at least one of my players would get annoyed if I were to selectively enforce PC options.

Even if this system plays out the same, it's a difference in framing, like how "Hi there, we've got strawberry doughnuts" is different from "Hey, we're all out of chocolate doughnuts but we've got some strawberry ones left". Framing makes things feel different.
I'd think that most players are aware of rule 0, but it doesn't change the fact that quite simply it's usually not what they signed up for. If someone signed up for a 5e game, I can imagine they'd be upset if I ruled out half the book, unless those bans were the explicit theme of it (e.g. a brutal no-magic dungeoncrawl one-shot).

Rarity based gating with an explicit rule that item rarity is recommended as something that should be shifted between campaigns and even locations within a campaign to match flavour means you can show the players the rarity list and it'll feel more like you're giving something than banning something, especially if some uncommon things become shifted to common.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:


The book actually tells you that players should face mostly low level encounters, with a few equal level encounters, with rare high level encounters that really tax the group.

To quote this article,
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2050/roleplaying-games/revisiting-encou nter-design

I feel like this is tangentially related at best, perhaps to illustrate some larger point about blind following of the rules that everyone assumes but are overwritten by advice or DM fiat. But sure, I'll bite.

I've had PCs mugged by CR 1/4 gangsters they can splat in a single round, while at level 6 I threw a CR23 elemental at them which killed upwards of 30 allies every round. By the end of the fight there was only one PC left standing, drained of resources, and the other 4 were unconscious. Their base of operations sank and generally we all had an amazing session.
I'm more than aware that what everyone assumes doesn't necessarily mean anything.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 agent of hydra wrote:

A lot of NPC's running around this thread. >.>

I can see that you are a great and noble hero oh mighty agent of hydra, I beseech you for help. My father has been kidnapped by the black dragon of Doomwood. Should you return with my father, perhaps he will see fit to reward you with heirlooms our family has held onto for generations, poor though we are.

Swift travels oh mighty agent of hydra, swift travels!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Energy drinks give me a headache but coffee works!

Is that like, normal coffee, or dwarven coffee?


Tholomyes wrote:

I think the main problem with poison is that it's asymmetrical. Poisons that affect PCs tend to be way more damaging than using them on NPCs, even if the effects are the same, and even if the NPC target wasn't immune. With the new approach to conditions, maybe this will be lessened, but if Poisons' effects last beyond a single fight, then using them in combat will always benefit NPCs (since they tend to only last one fight, while PCs have to deal with the repercussions). Outside of combat it's a little more even, but only if PCs are proactive (and sufficiently skilled as to use them effectively. Nothing like failing a stealth check trying to surreptitiously poison the evil king after already passing a Bluff check and a Knowledge(nobility) check to even get that close).

But if they manage to figure out the kinks in poisoning, then I could see it as a nice Alchemist trick, and probably also a rogue trick, and maybe even a poisoner archetype.

I definitely hope the poisons system ends up cool. If it's ironed out enough I hope one of my players plays an alchemist, so I can give out funky formulae as loot.

I already want to give some elven criminals a low level poison I'm dubbing "Hobbler's Oil" and it would be nice for the seedy underworld to have a ridiculous amount of dangerous stuff floating around.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
graystone wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
I like this, but I want to know what sorcerers have to do to add an uncommon spell to their spells known. Hear about it? See someone cast it? Please don't say "be taught it."

Of course he has to find it in that ancient ruin and study the scroll/book because, you know, it's an innate ability. ;)

Myself I'm not sure how I feel about it. I think it might end up being a bit arbitrary, especially if you aren't following the 'built in fluff'. Even gaming out of the box a little seems like it'd cause the categories to shift wildly.

A sorcerer has an innate ability to cast spells and an innate knowledge of his bloodline spells, but he hasn't an innate ability to invent spells from nothing.

To make a comparison, Earth people being transported in a fantasy world with magic is a common trope in Japanese web novels. Often they are able to create new electricity based spells with ease simply because they have prior knowledge of uses of electricity, while the native generally knows only lighting or the small sparks that you can get with an amber dot and wool.
It is extremely difficult to imagine a taser-like spell if you don't know that the right electrical shock can paralyze.

A sorcerer will be able to learn common spells because he has heard about them in tales, seen them cast and learned about them when learning the different skills. I think that his bloodline is enough to allow him to learn uncommon spells related to it too, plus uncommon spells related to his background.

Other uncommon spells, or rare and unique spells? He would need to find/develope them first, like a wizard.

I think repeated, staged, superhero origin type events could be an entertaining way of a sorcerer "researching" spells.

Less a coherent form of research and more following vague intuitions and impulses, culminating in him locking himself in chambers that he pays a less than scrupulous wizard to flood with dangerous magical fields and look the other way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
For example, if you took part in a swordmaking contest, and you took last place, if your check result was a 33 for making that sword, you still made a really nice masterwork sword that could be sold fof a ni e profit despite losing the contest. Yet if you won the contest with a 13, then your sword still sucks and might not sell at all.

PF2 can handle this situation fine from what we've seen. Even if they're rolling against the same or a similar DC, the trained, expert, master, and legendary smiths are rolling for their respective baselines provided the actual check given is "make a sword as you otherwise would". A legendary smith churns out a legendary sword with the same ease of a trained smith turning out a crummy but acceptable sword. A crit success means that you've made something exceptional for your category.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

To me, you should be going through a story, not a game world, and that means your enemies should be story appropriate, not game balanced. Players should find tactics and strategies based on the story not game mechanics.

If you travel through kobald territory, kobalds should be fighting you, regardless of your level.

Yes, kobolds should be fighting you if that's what they do and they're still there.

But if every single fight is easy enough, then pragmatically speaking most of them are going to play out the same way. I don't see the advantage of yet another goblin ambush over informing high-level players that they are travelling through goblin lands and confirming that they intend to fight off, kill, or knock out any goblin ambushers that would try. This does nothing to break believability of the setting but prevents boring repetitive encounters (which, unless there's a notable in story reason to actually make them fight against something they can splat faster than they can roll and list initiative) these encounters would be.
On the other end of the spectrum, I have absolutely no issue with overpowered encounters, but it puts the pressure on the DM to not simply stomp her players and to arrange the encounter such that the danger is palpable and appropriate in story but that the players can triumph at either some form of escape or narrow victory.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Wotc has already abandoned nearly everything aside from combat minis.

I'd rather not get snarky, so I'll try not to come across as rude, but this is absolutely false. 5e is ridiculously easy to run inside your head, and I'm generally too lazy to provide maps.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
But as has been happening more and more, players seem to be dividing into two camps, with a sad little third camp of outcasts. The freeform players who want the story and narrative but shun all the gamist nonsense by shunning systems entirely, and the gamist players who play combat minis with story sprinkles, and the third camp of all the little "other systems" games that have very small player bases.

Personally at least I believe that the mechanical system should be fun, it's how the players interact with the game. A badly thought out or clunky system is going to be unpleasant even if the players are invested in the story. I also think that the setting and events within it (i.e. "story") should be interesting for players, it's how they perceive the world and part of what they're here for. I don't think the two conflict. Hell, you can get in character even in video game RPGs and have a blast playing as your character would, I don't think I've ever played one without getting on some level invested in a bunch of NPCs that I know for a fact are reading preset dialogue and are randomly generated. If you're playing a game with a character, then I don't think it's a sliding scale between rules and RP. IMO it's a sliding scale between rules and no rules and RP gets paired up besides it.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
My concern is that 20 years from now, people like me will be so obscure, that the artform of great gming will be lost before ever being recognized for what it is.

You're a great GM if your players enjoy it. You're a better GM if all of you enjoy it. If you can work out what your people want, and blend it with what you want so you end up leaving the session all having had a blast, then you win.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Quote:
So we went from GM Fiat to an actual rule. The GM can always choose to ignore the rule... but by providing an official rule for this, the GM can go "it's in the rules" and not have to worry about players whining about the GM being arbitrary and unfair.

And why do we need the rule?

If a player is complaining to me about the rules, then I simply tell them that they are not looking for what I provide and they can either sit back and watch everyone else till they figure out what it is I am providing, and take part in that, or they can buzz off and find some other GM.

I think the main use of this rule is that it shifts the conversation from "hi DM, can I take this?" to "hi DM, which items are common? Can I have some uncommon items?"

That might not sound like much, but if this rule is laid out somewhere clear where players can easily read (whether or not it will be I can't yet say) I suspect that it makes a big difference in expectations.
I can think of a couple of my players at least that would respond pretty happily to "hey guys, we're using different common items" and be interested in what that means for the world, while they'd be OK with me just saying "sorry guys, that isn't in my setting" but it's very hard to imagine that actually getting anyone excited.
As a DM it's my job to actually have players on board and interested, else what's the point.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Count me among someone super happy about bulk. I can eyeball it and as a Brit it makes me happy to have an alternative to trying to get a feel for units I don't even touch outside of American RPGs.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

Wizard has 2-3 Rare spells.

What's his CR now?

The same. Rarity doesn't make something mechanically superior. Just rarer.

Rarer things that PCs go actively looking to acquire are probably mechanically good, but it sounds like rarity is irrelevant in terms of how powerful things are designed to be.

"You mean to tell me that a Rare spell I get at the end of a dungeon slog isn't going to be better than something I can pick up for a few gold from the local wise man?" - Irate player.

Why yes there is a difference between Rare because reasons(This Ice Spell is rare because it's the middle of the desert) and Rare because good(Hello Time Stop).

But forgive me if I don't expect some pretty clear power spells being locked into Rare. And since base game gives them a rarity and difficulty of getting, much like gear, I see no reason to not expect what spells a creature has fully effecting their CR now. Or whatever they go with(It's just levels now right?).

Uncommon and rare spells are not intended to be a power boost, no. There's not going to be like a "Logan's Awesomer Fireball" rare 3rd level fire spell that does twice as much damage as regular fireball. Common effects are powerful and efficient at what they do. Now, of course, whatever is uncommon in your game, even if you chose it by random dice rolling as an exercise when creating a new campaign setting (hmm, interesting creative exercise, might have to try that), the mere fact that something is harder to get makes it more meaningful in that setting, and the case could be made that it makes it more powerful because not everyone could get it, pretty much regardless of what the option is.

Here's an example: I'll pick something I don't think anyone would name on their list of "most powerful spells." Suppose that all magic that allows understanding languages is rare in your setting. This is not true in PF2, but let's say it is in your setting....

Honestly I expect to use this system mostly to explain away spells that would simply render coherent spellcasting in a setting hellish.

As an example. In my current 5e campaign there is some ridiculous power creep, to the extent where elite wizard troops with 7th level spells in a war zone isn't exactly unheard of, just rarish in their own right. But with the sheer number of people in something WW1 style, that's still a lot. Because of how much it affects the dynamic I've had to assume that the secrets of teleportation are remarkably rare, and that only a few tend to stumble upon them. E.g. PCs.

Using this kind of system teleportation wouldn't be calibrated as objectively stronger than common spells of the same level, but it can still be a setting disrupting level of important that gives PCs an edge for knowing it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Elleth wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:


What you're missing is that Assurance lets you ignore all penalties, not just ACP. Climbing in nonproficient heavy armor in the dark while cursed, sickened, encumbered, exhausted, and shaken (or equivalent...
Or trying to work out how to activate an obscure plane-shifting device while falling out of a plane. On fire. While blind. Into what suspiciously sounds and smells like the maw of a ravenous dragon. With a bad case of food poisoning and a hangover.
The unknown is when conditions are increases in the DC (Assurance doesn't help) or penalties to your check (Assurance helps).

Yeah, that's why I went with item activation as I figured that was one of the more likely things to have a fixed DC. I might be wrong though.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:


What you're missing is that Assurance lets you ignore all penalties, not just ACP. Climbing in nonproficient heavy armor in the dark while cursed, sickened, encumbered, exhausted, and shaken (or equivalent...

Or trying to work out how to activate an obscure plane-shifting device while falling out of a plane. On fire. While blind. Into what suspiciously sounds and smells like the maw of a ravenous dragon. With a bad case of food poisoning and a hangover.


GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Gavmania wrote:
It's a difficult one. On the one hand, the trope is that the hero(es) overcomes a series of scaling encounters culminating in the BBEG, on the other there is nothing as boring as facing easy encounter after easy encounter.

Lol! That is only true when playing a combat minis game, primarily because the combat itself is the focus.

But, in an rp, the combat is just a backdrop, not the focus.

I mean, it's not like the two conflict. As a DM I think it's important for players to be having fun in character and with regards to the rules. I don't think every session should be combat, but I think it's important for it to actually tangibly feel fun in a way that a series of easy encounters doesn't really hit.

From the few times I've been a player, the most fun I've had is when the rules and character intersect, and the encounters and fights are ones that actually let me show off and think outside the box.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Doom & Gloom forever! PF2 will destroy us all! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

Haha, joke's on you!

The sky already broke and fell in the setting I run.

If anything I relish having to work out how the sky can possibly fall twice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Gorignak227 wrote:

Ya, i don't have a problem with the array of numbers themselves ;)

Just that it is going to be tough to build a combat focused cleric without neglecting charisma and losing out on that class feature. Just like in PF1.

At least my dwarf combat cleric will still have 2 channels to work with and won't have issues with selective channeling, but will have issues with resonance.

But i still look at that alchemist stat array and get a little jealous...

Eh. Kyra has higher AC than the Alchemist (it's due to armor...but I bet Alchemists don't even get Medium Armor Proficiency), and does more damage to boot (Fumbus does about 2/3 of her damage absent flanking or the like), he has +1 to hit, but that's about it advantage-wise from stats.

TheFinish wrote:
In PF2, even with the rope, everyone without Assurance has to roll. There's no mechanic available for easily solving this kind of stuff.

This is actually not true. Mark Seifter has specifically stated that there's a 'Take X' mechanic even for people without the Assurance Feat.

It's less generous than Assurance is (which is why Assurance is good), but it exists, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it solves this problem for a lot of people (Untrained people may be in trouble...we really don't know).

Yeah, the main reason assurance is a thing is that it's always take X, even in horrendous situations.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Biztak wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
Biztak wrote:
Barathos wrote:
Biztak wrote:
I'm disappointed to see that slings need an action to reload ...
They also made them only get half STR mod to damage.
Yeah didnt notice at first, my guess is that they dont want it competing with composite bows, on that note why not make all bows composite from the beginning?
Because not all bows are composite?
I'd rather have all bows add str to damage from the get go, I doubt it will break level 1, I asume that the sling is a simple weapon and as such should be weaker than a bow which is why it has the reload property, Im just disapointed because I wanted to try an urban rogue that favored a sling not because I dont understand the design choice. That said I still think that most range weapons should add str to damage from the get go, slings included

Even Crossbows ?

STR 8 characters would not be amused

Personally I kinda hope crossbows have a flat damage mod, making them the ranged weapons of choice for the weak, with composite bows actually better for excessively rugged barbarians.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Yolande d'Bar wrote:
What does “3 bulk, 9 light” mean after bulk?

Bulk increases in tens. 10 "light" things give you 1 bulk. Past an amount based on your str bulk encumbers you. There's a max amount of bulk you can handle. Bulk is based off of size and weight. So little things like say, a vial or a dagger, would probably count as a light object.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:


What could lore: farming actually do for a character? Is taking a lore somehow mandatory?

AFAIK you always get at least one lore, from your background. Lore farming can be used as profession(farming) to earn some cash, or for knowledge checks regarding farming.


Looking at both sheets, so far I think I'd rather play Fumbus.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DerNils wrote:
And wow, are weapons complicated now. I understand that this is done to make them different from each other, but that Scimitar? YOu hit better if you attack different People but do more damage if you attack the same guy, one bonus scales, the other doesn't... That does not sound beginner friendly.

Note that forceful doesn't specify the same target there, it just gets stronger on each attack in a turn. It comes across simpler as "it does more damage each time it attacks. It's more accurate if you use your second attack on a different person."

DerNils wrote:


And bless is a "conditional" Bonus. Is that a new type I wasn't aware of? Does it stack?

Based on this I suspect that "conditional" mods are mostly reserved for spells and feats, while "circumstantial" mods are for what's physically going on. I don't think the same type of mod will stack with itself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Scimitars seem good for combat dancers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing I am curious about is how, assuming we can split Material into Fire, Earth, Water, and Wind, we can split the other three.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chest Rockwell wrote:
Elleth wrote:
Chest Rockwell wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
I think DEX-to-damage is worse than online image sharing communities (so pretty damn bad)
Ha, yeah, this is one of 5th Ed's egregious design errors, along with grappling being tied to Athletics (and Expertise).
Honestly I can't say that Athletics to grapple has ever annoyed me. It's a quick answer, relatively intuitive IMO, and makes it clear how you'd improvise similar actions
Inherently not bad, but the situation in 5th Ed, is a 9th-level Bard or Rogue with a good Str and Expertise in Athletics can go around pinning Pit Fiends to the ground with impunity.

Yeah that complaint is fair, but bar said situations I quite like athletics to grappling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chest Rockwell wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
I think DEX-to-damage is worse than online image sharing communities (so pretty damn bad)
Ha, yeah, this is one of 5th Ed's egregious design errors, along with grappling being tied to Athletics (and Expertise).

Honestly I can't say that Athletics to grapple has ever annoyed me. It's a quick answer, relatively intuitive IMO, and makes it clear how you'd improvise similar actions. It helps that for most other things bar swimming Athletics is competing against Acrobatics which runs off of Dex. I can see the expertise thing getting annoying though although I suspect part of me would be happy if my players tried it.

Also I feel like I should mention that I kind of like the name Fumbus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marc Radle wrote:

There’s a lot to like here, but I have to say ... I dislike those action icons a lot. They are completely unintuitive and I predict they will quickly become really cumbersom in play.

Very curious to hear what peaople think of them in actual play ...

I really hope Paizo drops them and goes back to using actual words.

While there's an issue for the partially sighted as has been brought up before, now that I've seen them I doubt I'll forget them, and looking at the sheet I can actually pick it up at a skim.

While I didn't have any opinions on this before, for me at least and looking at an actual example I think I'm less likely to glaze over the number of actions than if it used words (though I suppose it's possible that the 2 action variant might take a split second longer to recognise when skimming)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
I am probably most excited to play Alchemist. Has anyone heard if thrown weapons can attack with strength? I ask this for no particular reason.

Nope! But if I had to hunch it, it's only Dex. Because it really makes no sense for Str to be involved in lobbing a bomb. Throwing a javelin or handaxe perhaps, not a bomb.

But again that's just my opinion.

I believe Mark implied it was dex earlier with regards to giving Rogues and Rangers bombs.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Elleth wrote:

So either way we'll be seeing the Druid soon (yes I know it was on another thing, I haven't watched any podcasts).

Nope, check the intro on the ENWorld article to see which ones were in our early demo batch (Jason chose the perfect set that, matched alongside the demo he wrote, showed off lots of cool changes in some really elegant ways, like weakness and resist, shields, etc).

Eh, would have been weird to get it before the blog (which I am assuming is in a few mondays time) anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheFinish wrote:
Darkorin wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
Cantriped wrote:

It is pretty clear that as a Sorcerer, we can add whichever permutation of the spell we desire to our repertoire, but can only cast that specific permutation unless we select it with Spontaneous Heightening that day.

So you can learn "Chain Lightning" (as Lightning Bolt VI), and select it with spontaneous heightening when you need the extra ~8 Lightning Bolt IIIs doing so would let you cast. Same goes with "Delayed Blast Fireball" (Fireball VII) and "Fireball" (Fireball III) (except you get ~12 castings of Fireball III)... all of this is of course assuming you don't need those other slots for something else.

This is actually a weird one, because I don't think spontaneous heightening works backwards. It is, after all, Heightening, not Undercasting or whatever.

Especially since the blog says:

" That means that if you want your angelic sorcerer to be able to cast 1st-level heal, 2nd-level heal, and 3rd-level heal, you can choose your 1st-level heal spell with spontaneous heightening rather than needing to learn the spell in your spell repertoire at all three spell levels."

I think Spontaneous Heightening only allows you to go up, not down. If you get Fireball VII, then Spontaneous Heightening lets you get Fireball VIII and IX. If you get Lightning Bolt VI, then you also get VII, VIII, IX.

I mean, at least that's how I read it, since you can't Heighten downwards, only up.

If that's the case, it means that it pushes the sorcerer to always keep the base version of the spell and never to unlearn it... which is a big limitation since a lot of low level spells will fight for attention, and higher level spells will be a lot easier to choose, since you should almost never want to learn Heightened versions.
I agree, and there's always a good chance I'm wrong, but the fact that it's called Spontaneous Heightening and the specific wording of the blog leads me to think in that direction....

There's the alternative parsing as a shortened version of "Spontaneous [selection of the] Heightening [level of]" at present. So I don't think we can say much. Like. The way I'm reading this is more of "heightening" being a condition the spell is exposed to, rather than necessarily an increase. Still, we won't find out yet.


Mark Seifter wrote:
First World Bard wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
I know that I'm going to sound like a crank, but I'm really unhappy that the first pregen we see is the goblin alchemist throwing bombs. That image and the priorities it reflects does nothing to encourage me to look forward to PF2e.

I suspect the following:

1) Russ Morrisey of ENWorld decided in what order to do the previews.
2) He's doing them in alphabetical order, since he announced he'd be doing the Cleric tomorrow.
Alphabetical seems likely. The intro we gave is for all of them depending on how they wanted to set this up!

So either way we'll be seeing the Druid soon (yes I know it was on another thing, I haven't watched any podcasts).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Mad Comrade wrote:
Envall wrote:

Are buff spells visible?

Do the people with ten magic spells stacked on themselves just glow as hell?

Well, in PF1 abjuration spells are perceivable (DC 25 + spell level), with it being somewhat easier to notice those under the protection of 2 or more 24-hour+ duration abjurations (21 + spell level) according to a recently hashed-out discussion.

Kinda puts the kabosh on slathering under eleventy-million abjurations then trying to sneak around "undetectable" via mind blank. ;)

Unless addressed in the rules I may as well just add "magic things and spells glow in leylines" to my growing list of optional rules for leylines.


kaid wrote:
Elleth wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Elleth wrote:
Seriously though I really like how things like alchemist's fire should work against creatures weak to it. Weakness just seems really fun as an alchemist, and I kind of like how the elixir can be used to buff you even if healthy.
Exactly! That 1 persistent damage is really quite nasty if you're weak to fire. A party with an alchemist can be pretty powerful against frost giants and the like (arm your dextrous allies, like the rogue and the ranger, with bombs for added fun! they cost no resonance to use)

Wait. Does persistent damage stack/ping separately? Because that sounds horrifying.

I'm also assuming precision damage is used for either weakness or to proc certain abilities like those of the rogue?

That does seem to be the impression I get reading it that each persistent thing active is plinking separately. So you are really on fire or really burning alive via acid so on/so forth. But there may be other rules to cover that kind of stacking that we are not seeing.

I mean I'm cool with separate damage types plinking separately, woe be to trolls. I'm just not sure how to feel if it turns out an alchemist can abuse TEAMWORK! to cause 3+3*same_weakness at the end of each turn. Thematically it could go either way (are they burning the same spot or different spots)

1 to 50 of 154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>