Rat

Fuzzypaws's page

1,287 posts. Alias of Bug Underfoot.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,287 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Elleth wrote:
Subutai1 wrote:
Elleth wrote:
Unless I've missed something, I'm a little curious as to why an entry feat is needed for ki, rather than simply giving the pool for the first ki power you take (most of the others feat gated higher than ki strike).
They wanted to allow monks without any kind of magic/ki power to exist. So you could build a basic brawler without any kind of sparkles. And from the sounds on how the new archetypes will work, this could not be realized that way.

Ah sorry, I might have been unclear.

I meant being given the pool by the first ki power you take, but not mandating specific entry points. I understand why Ki is optional in general. I can see some cases for gating it by a feat (such as stopping people suddenly taking ki only for quivering palm) but it's a bit harder to see why that should be how it works below high levels, unless there's a balance point I'm unaware of. Maybe it's like pseudo spell progression? So level 1, level 2, level 3... but that would probably burn through your class feats too fast.

Here's what I'd like:

* You can take any basic low level Ki feat as your entry point.
* More powerful Ki feats have "1 Ki feat" as a prerequisite.
* Very powerful Ki feats, like Quivering Palm, have "2 Ki feats" or "3 Ki feats" as a prerequisite.
* Level can still be a prerequisite since that's a thing in this edition.

Cleans it up for me. That way there's multiple entry points, and you don't have someone's first or second Ki feat being kamehameha or one-punch.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
NielsenE wrote:
Since you're here Mark, can you comment on the wand w/ charges compared to resonance thing? A lot of us thought resonance was getting rid of tracking charges on things like wands. Did we misinterpret things, was the on-the-fly playtest conversion a little off? Something else? Or a wait and read?
Resonance is getting rid of pretty much the per-day tracking other than "Once per day" or "At will, as resonance allows." But consumables are still consumable. Just as casting 10 scrolls is going to cost 10 RP and use up the 10 scrolls, same with a wand (but cheaper than buying 10 scrolls).
If wands still have limited uses before burning out how does Resonance cut down on the tracking? It's double now since you have track uses and each person's individual Resonance?
Charges on a consumable are not a per-day situation. Things like boots of speed "10 rounds that need not be consecutive" or boots of teleportation "3 times per day" are some examples of per-day tracking.

So those still work the same in PF2 as in PF1? Is that a case where investing 1 resonance to attune the item lets you use those 10 rounds through the day? Or do you have to pay 1 resonance per activation or 1 per round or what? As much as I actually like the concept of resonance I'm worried about the implementation if it's this confusing and isn't actually changing anything.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:
I would hope not. Personally, it seems even sillier and less thematic than setting up camp after every few battles as was allegedly popular in PF1.

People do stop to eat and relax and recover their stamina, even when hiking or spelunking or performing field archeology.

To use another example, John McClain even takes short rests several times during Die Hard.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I would definitely prefer wands etc to be limited to a certain number of uses per day where a limit is needed, or have the resonance cost of using them increase by +1 each time they are used, rather than having actual charges that have to be tracked on top of inputting resonance into them.

I would definitely prefer to have casting modifier added to spell damage.


QuidEst wrote:
My character is going to claim to be divine, but with a definition for that that doesn’t really line up with actual deities.

Razmir is drinking his own koolaid and legitimately believes the things he can accomplish make him a deity. And tbh, he's not necessarily wrong, when compared with the power level of the feats ascribed to deities in the vast majority of real-world religions.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I like short rests. I do think they should take more time if you try to do them more than once. So maybe a 30 minute short rest the first time, 1 hour the second time, 2 hours the third time. After that you don't get any benefit and have to take a long rest.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
When you make a fourth attack then with agile, is the fourth attack also capped at -8 or is it -10?
It's pretty clearly -8. The point is that attacks after the third use the same penalty as the third, not that they cap at a specific penalty.

So a character with four attacks using both an agile and non agile weapon can exploit the system to do first attack with the heavy weapon at full bonus, second attack with agile at -4, third attack with agile at -8, and fourth attack with heavy weapon at -8?


QuidEst wrote:
Heh... so, looking at it, a third-level elf Monk with the ancestry feat for speed is moving 45 ft. per action and ignoring one square of difficult terrain. Dwarves and non-elves wearing medium armor need three moves to catch up to you. Even if they’ve got sudden charge, you’re making two or three attacks to their one.

Sounds like something to keep an eye on in the test, and another good argument for setting base speed for everyone back to 30. Speed 25 after armor vs a speed 50 opponent is at least doable, whereas speed 20 vs speed 45 means no attacks ever without special abilities or reach, yeah.


Bardarok wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:


So if you made two attacks on your turn, for a net iterative of -5, and then you use Attack of Opportunity (reaction attack at -2) does that mean your AoO is at a total penalty of -2 (full BAB -2)? -7 (current iterative -2)? -12 (add an iterative and -2)? -10 (as previous but capped by the universal -10 limit)?

And if you make another AoO due to having a bonus reaction, is the second one at -5 from the first one?

From Fighter Blog:

"First up is attacks of opportunity. This feature allows you to spend your reaction to strike a creature within your reach that tries to manipulate an object (like drinking a potion), make a ranged attack, or move away from you. This attack is made with a –2 penalty, but it doesn't take the multiple attack penalty from other strikes you attempt on your turn."

Thank you, missed or forgot that bit.


What day are the playtest books expected to be delivered to people who pre-ordered? I'm being dragged on a camping trip for which I have to leave on the morning of Thursday August 2, but if the books were to arrive on or before August 1 that would be awesome, and would give me something to read while away from data...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
The maximum penalty from iteratives is -10, no matter how many attacks you make. But it's not actually clear if agile makes that -8 or -9.
Actually, it is. We know that at PaizoCon they taled about the final attack with a short sword (which we know are Agile) as being -8. So that's how it works.

When you make a fourth attack then with agile, is the fourth attack also capped at -8 or is it -10?


The maximum penalty from iteratives is -10, no matter how many attacks you make. But it's not actually clear if agile makes that -8 or -9. All we know is that agile reduces the penalty from an iterative attack by 1, I don't know if it's actually been stated that the reduction is /cumulative/ so as to make the third attack -8.

Another thing that isn't clear to me is whether attacks made as reactions inherit and/or increase the iterative penalty. The redcap implies yes, other stuff implies no, and I don't actually know as a result.

So if you made two attacks on your turn, for a net iterative of -5, and then you use Attack of Opportunity (reaction attack at -2) does that mean your AoO is at a total penalty of -2 (full BAB -2)? -7 (current iterative -2)? -12 (add an iterative and -2)? -10 (as previous but capped by the universal -10 limit)?

And if you make another AoO due to having a bonus reaction, is the second one at -5 from the first one?


Alchemaic wrote:
Mewzard wrote:

Don't forget this revealed Monk ability from the previous blog:

"For instance, a 20th-level monk with Enduring Quickness is permanently quick, and can use the extra action to Stride, to Leap, or as part of a High Jump or Long Jump."

For people who want to move in attack, and leave, this can get you the three attacks with Flurry of Blows being one of your actions.

So at level 20, a Monk gets a single extra attack per round while moving around.

As I mentioned earlier, monks don't get a ton of bonus attacks at low levels in PF1 either. The fact that they only mentioned a "Flurry of Blows I" that lets you use one action per turn for this, does not mean that there isn't also a higher level "FoB II" or "FoB III" available (either as class features or selectable feats) to do it twice or three times per turn. We didn't get the complete class writeup.


I'm a little confused by the seeming desire of some posters for various groups in Golarion to map directly to various groups on Earth. Golarion, and for that matter almost all other fantasy settings, are not and should not just be "historical fantasy Earth." It's supposed to be its own thing. And so any given group is going to have elements not mapping to any particular Earthly culture, or will be a combination of two or more different Earthly cultures. That's fine, it's great actually, up to a point.

Obviously you shouldn't fuse together an entire continent or entire "race" (whatever the actual correct term for that is) into one group. At the point where you have one single "pan-Asian" culture that is all of China + Japan + Korea + Mongolia + etc etc etc as a single nation or ethnicity, yeah, that's kinda offensive. But on a smaller scale, it's a worthy goal to separate it from the real world, AND separate it from the sorts of baggage that come with the history of interactions between various groups in the real world.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
jim selzer wrote:

have been lucky to NEVER EVER had a player want to be a monk in any of my FRG campaigns in 40 years and OMG I hope to continue that streak. I find no room for the class in my world view and would love to keep it that way. (this includes a half hearted attempt to run an Oriental Adventures game but everyone wanted to be a ninja)

I have played in others games where Monks were played including the 3rd ed broken ones with vows of poverty to cheese up powers. They have their place in Eastern or pulp settings but they like all the Eastern classes seem to clash with High Fantasy archtypes

Boxing, wrestling and other martial arts in the Western world go back at least to ancient Greece and the ancient Middle East, dude.


Asgetrion wrote:

Mark, there's one thing that's been bugging me, and after seeing this preview I remembered what it was; namely, how armor gives you bonuses to TAC. I get that it was done to balance math, but I feel it weird that ghosts or ray spells, for example, need to "touch your skin" in order to do damage.

Personally, I'd probably just get rid of TAC and give some circumstance/conditional bonuses to attacks from incorporeal/energy sources. Or, preferably, implement 4E style passive defenses (REF, in this case) into the game. Or make all attacks that would target Touch AC simply Ref saves?

This is why I recommended elsewhere that Touch AC be renamed to Magic AC, or Supernatural AC, or some other such thing, rather than "Touch." Because your actual "Touch" AC would be 10 + your Reflex. Magic / etc AC would have an actual in-flavor justification vs Touch for armor being effective against touch spells, due to things like special materials, the usual lore of iron vs magic, runic engravings and all that sort of thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
What is there to actually say about humans though? We all seem to have a pretty good idea on how they will work, don't we?

I was hoping for humans to get an actual identity this time, and not just be the Generic Master Of Genericness like always. I know Varisian etc etc etc are things but they certainly won't be in the CRB.

Also, that same blog would be Half-Elf and Half-Orc, which people do want to know about. And could potentially be Surprise Aasimar Tiefling if those turn out to be ancestry feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bruno Mares wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
My suspicion is that such a monk will still have Dex second, so 18 Str/16 Dex at 1st level, 19/18 at 5th level, 20/19 at 10th level, and so on, meaning they're behind by 1 or 0 in AC at most levels. A monk like this will probably want Con third for sure. We'll see how it fares in playtest!
Please don't say that ability increases will be similar to Starfinder regarding 2 points to lower than 18 score and 1 point to higher... This is super confusing and not player-friendly...

Weeellllllllp. I guess Logan's comment does confirm our fears about the Starfinder "diminishing returns" ability increases returning, and means odd scores are still a thing. :|


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alchemaic wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:


I don't see why a monk would be less proficient at simple weapons than a commoner or a wizard though. Those are about as low a bar for weapon use as there is, and a monk as a martial character shouldn't be worse off with them. They would have picked up SOME minor training in a basic weapon or two before they became a monk.

I'm actually thinking Commoners and wizards WON'T get simple proficiency this time around. (To be fair, commoners were only proficient in one simple weapon in PF1. They really sucked.) Also might be worth keeping mind that the untrained penalty is only -2 this time, which admittedly sucks worse than a -2 did in PF1.

I DO think monks should get at least simple weapon proficiency by default, though.

Are the NPC classes (like Commoner) still a thing in PF2?
Maybe not? Can't see why you'd need them.
For that one GM (Rob) who constantly has session 0 as the party playing level 0 commoners.

Since racial HP finally stacks with level 1 HP, I assume a "level 0" character is just playing with the Ancestry and Background selections from the ABC, and doesn't get Class or the rest of their build until they actually become level 1.

EDIT: Ninjas, man...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, Friday? I'm thinking a 50/50 shot that we either get:

1. A blog going into detail on maneuvers and what's changed about them, since surprisingly this didn't come up today in the monk blog. We know they mostly use Athletics now, we have had a few random details like that some of them target 10 + Reflex or 10 + Fortitude, but this has all mostly been from scattered dev posts with limited detail. I don't know if they are actually going to devote a blog to this though with so few left. However, the odds may improve if the same blog also talks about other stuff you can do in combat with skills, like Feint.

or

2. A blog on the remaining ancestries, since the monk class has been thematically pretty closely tied to humans since forever.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Malthraz wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:


So a class that is supposed to be a dedicated frontliner can't actually stick around on the frontline. A'ight.

Who said monks are dedicated front liners?

Everything in the design points to them not doing this. Sure they can, but they are at higher risk than a Paladins or Fighters.

They can get +4 AC against ranged. This means that they should often be at range.

They even pick up a free action at high levels for movement.

I am not a big watcher of martial arts films, but of the few I have watched they are often jumping around and breaking distance. Not standing there and taking it.

Although there are characters that so a lot of blocking, these characters are generally a much higher level than their opponent, therefore a much higher AC.

I think I'm digging the style of monk that darts in and out of combat. Take some Acrobatics skill feats to avoid enemy reactions on move and you are pretty solid.

I'm absolutely game with this style of monk. I just don't want it to be the only style of monk. There are martial artists that are implacable wo/men who advance inexorably driving foes before them, or who stand firm and leverage power, whether in actual outright blows or in grapples and other maneuvers. That should be equally doable, not just the glass cannon.

SPEAKING OF. We didn't actually really see ANYTHING about maneuvers today, and I thought the monk blog was when that was going to come up. An actual discussion of stuff like grapple and trip and reposition. Are we not going to get a blog about that, or is that now looking like the Friday blog?


JRutterbush wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Maybe rather than charges per se it's uses per day? You still use resonance to activate, but can only do so a given number of times each day? To prevent stuff like a character using a wand of fireball 20 times a day every day, if that is considered a problem.
That still doesn't address the problem of having a dozen items with charges to keep track of each day, though.

I don't dig charges either and I thought resonance was supposed to replace that, I'm just guessing wildly. I would think that if the goal was to prevent spamming any single item, a better solution would be that every activation in a day after the first would cost +1 resonance.


Maybe rather than charges per se it's uses per day? You still use resonance to activate, but can only do so a given number of times each day? To prevent stuff like a character using a wand of fireball 20 times a day every day, if that is considered a problem.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

The whole point of simple weapons is that literally everyone should count as proficient in them, because they are SIMPLE... You should only need to actually take proficiency in a weapon group to gain access to martial weapons. If the monk is really not proficient in anything without burning a feat that is very weird to me.

I totally accept needing the feat to get to apply your unarmed powers to / channel them through even a simple monk weapon. But you should at least be able to swing a stick without a non-proficiency penalty.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
"Flurry of Blows" gives the monk ONE extra hit per round. That's not a flurry, that's one extra hit.

That's at low levels, and a low level PF1 monk didn't get a ton of extra attacks either. I expect there will be class abilities or feats at higher levels to flurry more than once per round. That's how TWF etc worked in unchained action economy, after all.

Temperans wrote:
What? So is the new AC higher or lower in the end? (compared to rogue in both editions)

Lower than the rogue in this edition. So, basically as bad as you can be at AC without being a wizard.

Quandary wrote:
Stunning Fist now uses STR/DEX for DC instead of WIS. That's alot more failed Saves.

You keep missing the part where you can't actually stun them unless you critically hit AND they critically fail their save. So sure, more failed saves, but unless the target is a caster (pretty rare) all you do is flat-foot them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Awesome. I'm glad monks aren't quite as MAD anymore!

Nonlethal in PF2 isn't actually tracked separately anymore, right? I think I remember reading that it is just determined by whatever hit is the one to bring the target to 0 HP.

I'm glad Flurry only takes 1 action. (Sort of how I had expected two weapon fighting to only take one action once per turn...) If you have a good attack bonus it's pretty powerful, especially in conjunction with extra actions, because as I understand things the iterative penalty doesn't actually go past -10 (-8 with agile) no matter how many attacks you make.

Save progression is customizeable, good. It was always kind of weird for them to be good at everything from the beginning to the end of their career, tbh.

I was hoping that armored monks could be a thing. :/ Vegeta and numerous other fictional martial artists wear some form of at least light armor. Oh well...

I expected Wis as an additional add-on to AC to disappear, but I kind of thought there might be a feat or feature where you could use your Wis in place of of your Dex if it was better. Well, who knows, maybe that is actually an available feat to help Str-based monks, and they just didn't go into it.

What used to be the "ki strike" progression is pretty much as expected.

Interesting that monk weapon access is feat gated, but fair enough I suppose. They do get all those defensive proficiencies, and the monk weapons do cut across multiple other weapon groups.

Stunning Fist is a little complicated and probably a little weak. To actually stun your target as the name of the feat implies, you have to critically hit the target and the target has to critically fail their save. I would think stun would just be the critical fail result period, with a critical hit just making their save one step lower than they actually rolled. Well, that's what playtesting is for I guess...

Most of the other feats look good, except Ghost Strike. I would expect that to be useful for, you know, attacking incorporeal targets, but instead it just works out to "give up an entire extra action for +1 to +2 to hit."

Glad to see fighting styles shared with the Fighter as I predicted. Hopefully these are the only two classes that get the style / stance / etc system. I don't want to see rangers also dipping this and making the whole thing less special, like that time in the 5E playtest where EVERYONE stole the Fighter's expertise die.

Ki Strike is a verbal free action component, eh? Good to see those are around, and that offers room for feats that interact with metamagic...

On the other hand, it sounds like you made Ki Strike the sole point of entry into the Ki power tree, just like Point Blank Shot in PF1 was the feat tax to be able to do anything else whatsoever as an archer. Not sure how I feel about that. It'd be better if there was at least two points of entry. I know there will be more options later down the line, but even the CRB shouldn't constrict things this much. All the other ki feats should have "Possesses ki" as their printed prerequisite rather than specifically "Ki Strike" to make this more future compatible.

Looks like there's nothing much to do with weapons other than the one monk weapon feat as mentioned, so we can't really use monk as our first year standin for the magus and other mystical warriors. Oh well...

Overall good despite some qualms. I feared some pretty heavy cuts so I'm glad it's in pretty good shape.


Lady Funnyhat wrote:

I don't think I'm a big fan of flat checks. I disliked miss chances in 1e as well. It adds additional dice rolls to a situation where a penalty would suffice for producing the same statistical spread.

In addition, changing miss chances from an extra roll to a flat penalty would create the additional effect that concealment increases the chance for critical failures, and reduces the chance for critical successes. That would also make sense for being unable to see clearly.

Agreed. I've always preferred penalties to miss chances, and you're right, a penalty makes even more sense than ever with PF2's >10< system.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Most of what used to be class features are now feats. Things that were previously Rogue Talents, extra abilities in your Domain from leveling up, and so on are all now feats. Even most of your racial abilities are feats. You can't really get rid of feats in this edition without breaking the entire system over your knee. o.O


I'm more curious about Friday, which is more up in the air to me. That could be Druid since it was already revealed but never got an official blog, was generally well liked and so shouldn't be too controversial, and would lead into Ranger the following Monday. Or it could finally be the remaining ancestries, since the Monk is identified with Human more than any other combination of race and class since Paladin in the old days.


They mentioned the monk by name in the last blog, and it was supposed to be this past Monday's blog until they changed it at the last second, so 99% Monk for Monday.


Also, this is kind of a double-edged sword but domains don't give multiple things in PF2 like they do in PF1, SF or 5E. They don't even give spell access. Taking a domain, or an advanced domain ability, only gives you one single ability and that's it. They aren't as important or defining (or to me, interesting) anymore.


Quandary wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:

Fighter:

10+Con HP
Aggressive Shield: Whenever you shield block, you push the enemy back 5 ft or make the enemy flat footed for 1 round. Enemies choice.
Enemy's choice is interesting change to norm of 3.x/PRPG. Wonder if this type of thing will be more common.

Considering how resistant Paizo is to letting you reposition enemies into danger zones or off cliff edges, this may be their compromise. Instead of having several extra lines of text in every forced movement ability telling the player not to have fun, they make it enemy's choice.

Usually someone will choose to become flat footed rather than fall off a ledge, but if they can mitigate falling and the alternative is a round of full attacks from the party circling around them, well. Falling may be preferable. Likewise they may choose to be moved back into a firepit if it won't actually faze them.

Quandary wrote:


Quote:
Quick I.D.: Nature, Divine, Arcane, identify items quickly. (Occult is missing, hmmm....)

Actually, this makes me think... Should constructs be Alchemical? Animated Objects?

I think that would establish strong role/ID for them & carve out niche for Alchemy. Everything else has enough without them.

I find it unlikely they would base monster identification on Craft. Instead, I think Occult was left off those playtest character sheets simply because that skill and spell list has not gotten any attention yet. The full ability as published will probably include occult. For creatures, constructs and aberrations will probably fall under its purview.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I personally think some of the classes could stand to be combined. There is no need to have both a swashbuckler and a gunslinger, when instead you can just have one panache/grit based class that has some common abilities and deeds and then some different deeds based on the character's signature weapon group. There is no need for summoner to be a separate class from the spiritualist. There is no need for a ninja or samurai when they can be archetypes or even just folded into the available feats for other classes.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Yolande d'Bar wrote:
I played the Delve at PaizoCon and noticed the "items at ready" on Merisiel's sheet as well. Logan Bonner was my DM and I pestered him with questions trying to figure out what difference the designation made. No I couldn't draw these weapons for free, or draw these weapons for free while moving, etc. It was odd and I gave up trying to figure out what it meant, but certain items were clearly designated that way on everyone's sheet.
Did you try drawing an item that wasn't ready? Does that cost 2 actions or something?

That's the only thing that makes sense to me. Like, a designation between readily accessible items in a sheath / bandolier / pocket, vs items stored in your backpack that have to be dug out.


Quandary wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:

Getting an AC penalty at Fatigued at all is itself bizarre, I'd expect that from Exhausted.

I'd expect that Exhausted doesn't exist, given Fatigued 1...N covers the same conceptual space as Fatigued->Exhausted.

I mean, they explained how Shaken/Panicked are collapsed to Frightened 1...N and present this all as coherent format, so...

See, I would think so too if the penalty didn't rack up so fast in a round and was persistent. But it resets every round to only a -1 penalty. So I'm thinking Exhausted is still separate, and is Fatigued Plus.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kaemy wrote:

Igwilly the "this stack, this doesn't" probably comes from the fact that in the very few examples given in the post, we already have two kinds of Quick that stack but don't really...

The Lv20 Monk Feat Enduring Quickness gives him permanent Quick... but is a "nerfed" Quick whose extra action can't be used to Strike or Step (I asume that last one should be in the list, since is a movement), so if he gets Quick on top of it, he doesn't gain any extra Actions (he stays at 4) but suddenly he can use that 4th Action to Strike.
Is not overly complicated, but it takes way longer to explain than "You get an extra Action" and seems to go against the simplification of the rules and how long it takes to explain them that PF2 is supposedly going after... So some people worry that before the game comes out we are already starting to have Move/Standard Actions **** all over again, with "This Feat gives you an Extra Action but can only be used for X, Y or Z". We could have expected that to come after a few books, but not in the Core Rulebook after "The Big Announcement" being that everything was now just 1 Action, easy and simple.

One of my suggestions in the surveys is almost certainly going to be tagging the various base actions with descriptors. So step, stride, leap, etc would all have the Movement tag. That way, there can be feats that do stuff like "Once per turn, when you drop an opponent to 0 HP you can take a bonus Movement action" rather than the needlessly wordy "Once per turn, when you drop an opponent to 0 HP you get Quick 1 but this bonus action can only be used for the Step, Stride, Leap, Climb, Swim, Fly, Crawl, and Withdraw actions."

Kaemy wrote:

Also, Fatigue seems to be quite weak to me (5 Hampered, -1 AC, and extra -1 AC for each extra Action you take while Fatigued).

So usually, at worst, the Barbarian is at -4 AC for one turn after acting normally (no penalties other than -5 movement/stride) before he gains Temporal Hit Points again, seems quite mild to me, and I find weird it doesn't affect the Strikes.

I'm okay with the root design of Fatigue in its worsening penalty but yes, only applying to AC is bizarre. Getting an AC penalty at Fatigued at all is itself bizarre, I'd expect that from Exhausted. So I guess we'll see when we eventually get to know what Exhausted does, but I'd go with:

Fatigued X: You are Hampered 5. You take a -X penalty on all attack rolls, skill checks and ability checks. X starts at 1, and resets to 1 at the start of your turn. After each action you take, X goes up by 1.

Exhausted X: You are Fatigued and Slowed 1, and your Exhausted counter is the same as your Fatigued counter. Additionally, you take a -X penalty to AC and saving throws.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
I am very pleased at the cutting down, I think Dazed and Dazzled can be rolled into one, while we're at it.

Because having problems to see because the light is too strong is parent of being unable to act?

Maybe not?

Yeah, that one didn't make sense to me either. I could see Dazed being rolled into either slowed or stunned though.

Or being a whole new thing entirely, like "Dazed 1: you lose one reaction. Dazed 2: you lose all reactions." I can't remember if more than one reactions per round is a thing, but it ought to be, and why not future proof against it if its not already a thing?

Dazzled fits well into blinded.

We already know that you can get more than one reaction per turn, yeah. Dazed could interact with that, or instead of Dazed maybe we get "Stunned 1" that removes reactions, and so on.

I also figured Dazzled would just be "Blinded 1."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Universal Paladin and Barbarian anathema: "If you don't tell the other players what to play and how to play it at least once per session, you lose your class features during your next session."


Jumping, climbing etc had better not require separate actions. If I have 40 ft of movement and can climb at half speed (20 ft), then I'd better be able to move 20 ft up to the base of a tree and then get 10 ft up that tree in a single move. If I can't, that will earn my wrath even harder and faster than did the cowardly design of the Class That Shall Not Be Named.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The vast majority of parties are mostly good and neutral, so it makes sense for the majority of creatures presented to be neutral and evil. However, I do wish there were more good aligned creatures presented. Perhaps with short blurbs of advice of how to present them as antagonists, so more GMs would be more inclined to use such creatures more often even in a non-evil campaign. Likewise, the occasional blurb of advice of how a neutral or evil creature can be presented as an ally even in a good campaign would also probably be helpful to a lot of people. Even experienced GMs sometimes get stuck in a rut.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:

I'm not a huge fan of "Quick" giving a list of acceptable actions that varies from source to source.

I'd much rather the monk ability be worded like 5e's Bonus Action. It's a freebie that you get one of per round that can be spent on anything that specifically mentions it.

Honestly, I know it might be broken, but for simplicity's sake, Quick should just be a flat extra action.

Maybe specify that the extra action granted by Quick cannot be used to cast a spell if you are worried about casters running amok.

It is definitely much easier if they define Quick in a universal way, and simply specify it can't be used for a spell. Then later, if they want a Wizard capstone feat or a monster ability to allow multicasting, the ability can simply remove that restriction from Quick, under the "specific trumps general" rule.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Do we really need 4 different ways to have an ability score penalized?

Since there's not ability damage or drain anymore, I would have thought there would actually be six such conditions: one for each ability score. The spell failure chance from stupefied should actually be part of the three mental conditions, applying to spells cast with that ability score.

That way, poison disease etc can just apply the relevant ability condition. And something like Feeblemind can just apply all three mental conditions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sinistrad wrote:
Yolande d'Bar wrote:
...it makes it harder for an attacker to roll miss chance, for instance, at the same time as an attack roll, unless there's two different colors of d20 that have been previously, verbally differentiated.

Absolutely agree with this. A flat DC 5 check is literally just a 20% miss chance. I always felt rolling d100 was a bit wonky, since 99.9% of the time probabilities increment by 5%, but the other side of that coin is that the vast majority of d% rolls are miss chance rolls being rolled in conjunction with an attack roll.

I think the only mitigating factor is that it sounds like people will get fewer total attacks, so it's a bit less onerous to have to roll two d20s for all of your attacks.

On the other hand, any ability which lets you pick up and reroll a d20 will now apply to a miss chance, or similar flat checks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Overall good. I like defining common positive effects as conditions, so they can just be referred to succinctly and save space.

Some conditions will and should undoubtedly stack / accumulate instead of simply using the best or worst one. I imagine these might get designated with an asterisk or the word cumulative, to make them easy to note?

Calling monk for Monday's blog. :3


2 people marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:

How about you can choose your anathema, and then get powers that relate to that anathema. Call the collection of powers something like a ‘totem’.

Seriously, adding options to each totem is much more headache than it is worth when the totem itself is a choice.

Or they could list all the anathema on one page, and then have under each totem something like

Allowed Anathema: Strength, Superstitious, Bravery, etc.

Allowing each totem to limit the anathema to a suitable list.

This is also a great option. Certain totems like Superstitious which are more powerful than others can have a Major Anathema as part of their writeup which is tailored as a counterbalance. Others just get the line entry, selecting from a main list of Minor Anathema.

Then in a later book, when adding more anathema, they can even say stuff like "Counts as Bravery." That way, it's always forwards and backwards compatible. New anathema added later can be used for earlier totems without having to remember to specify every applicable totem in the game, and new totems don't miss out on later anathema.


I anticipated this. It's why I keep saying moving twice should count as jogging and moving three times in a round should count as running, corresponding to the 2x jog and 3x run in previous editions. Those are options that come with a cost, at least in terms of how long you can do it if nothing else. Ideally though, full 3x run or 4x sprint should make you a bit vulnerable and disadvantage your actions until the end of your next turn.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to reiterate my earlier suggestion that I think it'd be great if, everywhere that anathema appear in the game, they offer two or three quite different examples as suggestions to choose from. Then the game can explicitly advise that you can use those as an idea springboard to come up with another option. But at least in PFS, and with GMs who aren't willing to entertain any customization at all, you still have several things to choose from instead of just one locked anathema that you may hate for the option you want, so it's much more likely you'll have something you can have fun with.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It would certainly help both players in Society, and players with narrow-minded GMs, if they specify clearly in the published book that anathema can and should be tweaked to fit each character. And maybe give two example anathema as a starting point to choose from in every place where anathema appear. So each totem would have two examples, and you could pick either of them or use them as a springboard for coming up with something comparable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Now if they just add kobolds, rat folk, kitsune / hengeyokai, orcs, and planetouched as well... :3


The way I've always houseruled retraining for years is:

* Got an ability which you've never had a chance to use? You can just swap it out for free at level up or after a day of downtime, no questions asked.

* Have you actually used the ability? You can still retrain it, but it takes a week of downtime and access to a sparring partner / debate partner / tutor.

I've never charged money for it, except for the token fee of "expert NPC services for 1 week" when the tutor is an NPC instead of a PC. Just like I don't charge money to get a familiar back when they die.

1 to 50 of 1,287 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>