| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aid would be a "No" since an illusory creature doesn't have a reaction.
Search Posts
A good source for all things Pathfinder is the Pathfinderwiki.com
Other people use 'houserule' to mean 'something that changes the rules'. And often means 'if you are using houserules, then your logic doesn't apply here on the rules forum'. Solution, allow the unattended object to be an active part of the story which makes it fall within the creature definition. Other issues:
Is a chair a creature? It is if it's an animated object, even if it never moves.
The GM Core has the following Glossary entry for Creature (p328):
creature is whatever the GM's story considers an active participant. It can be an animate or inanimate. The example definition describes a sub-set of creatures "monsters, NPC, and PC" included as creatures, but not all things. A door blocking your path forward or any other object that is actively part of the story can be a creature. think of creatures as being the important things in the story vs the background things that PCs don't interact with.
One simple thing I try to do for every game I play is to thank the GM for running and tell them you enjoyed the game. When you depend on volunteers to GM is easy for players and/or V.O. to demotivate them with complaints or arguing rules. A "Thank you" or "Good game" goes a long way to help motivate volunteers.
I like the following rule the thread has come up with: level 1-9 max modifier is +4
It gets rid of the useless Partial stat tracking and keeps the same math balance for total stats.
It turns out the usefulness of OGL1.0(a) in 2e was discussed 10 months back on Reddit about how it was kept to make things easier for 3pp publishers. riddit- pathfinder2e - 3rd party products
Is Pathfinder 2e even dependent on the OGL from 3.0 or 3.5? Paizo has rewritten just about everything, renamed and redesigned monsters, spells, items, classes, and abilities that are not in the public domain.
It looks you are trying to swap Nimble Dodge (level 1) for Sidestep (level 8). Retraining - When retraining, you generally can’t make choices you couldn’t make when you selected the original option. For instance, you can’t exchange a 2nd-level skill feat for a 4th-level one, or for one that requires prerequisites you didn’t meet at the time you took the original feat.
Build a book golem.
The journey is more important than the destination. Once you enter the square with a wall of fire you are passing through the fire doesn't matter where you end up or if you stop there.
Another option is to have the attacking creature's death faked by falling into a deep pit, cliff, fire, lava, or even into thick bushes where a convenient body is hidden for the party to find.
If the adventure is long enough, then the PCs should also retain any XP they earn through overcoming traps/monster... possibly leveling up and being able to defeat an encounter that they were too weak to defeat before.
Yes, thanks for taking over as GM. I hope Redelia is doing better.
I'm fine with Zephyr the sylph druid.
I have a an 11 level neutral good halfling bard that loves to interrogate using puppets and performe comedy +29 that doubles as intemidate skill.
I was trying to decode the math behind table 10-2. The Easy column is pretty much (level + 7). Which would be equal to what a PC rolling a 12 in an untrained skill with a -1 stat adjustmet would need for an easy task of equal level. The Medium column follows what a PC rolling a 12, who is trained in a skill with a +1 stat boot every 5 levels would need to succeed. The hard column follows what a PC rolling a 10 would get for a skill where they have maxed the stat and skill training for their level. The Incredible column seemed to track about 10% more than hard. The Ultimate column seemed to track about 20% more than hard.
Thanks, GM Batpony for letting me join. Of the pregens remaining, I'll choose MERISIEL.
I like replay option 1, but it is conditioned on the number of yearly replays offered. Given that Paizo has produced about 30 PFS scenarios a year, I would be surprised if they offered more replays a year than that. Anything less than 6 replays a year would be "why bother". In my mind, a modest number of yearly replays would be about 12-24.
The issue with bow’s and strength made we think about another game where the strength limited what weapons one could use. Why not have damage dice of bows tied to the user’s strength? Str 8 = max 1d4
Note the bow would have to be crafted for the higher streanth score. So if you have a Str 16 bow a higher score would not help you. Could extend the rule to melee weapons as well. That way a 10 Str character would not be using a great sword. These type rules are not new, but I do find them intuitive and simple to use. Also, I believe bonus damage dice from magic should be a fixed size such as a d6. A potency rune on a great sword is the same as one as you find on a dagger, and both cost the same.
Add d6 damage dice based on proficiency.
Weapon Quality added to hit bonus
weapon Magic Bonus adds damage to each dice.
Normal dagger in untrained hands would be -4 1d4+0 Normal dagger in trained hands +0 1d4+1d6 Master dagger in expert hands +3 1d4+2d6 +2 Master dagger in expert hands +3 1d4+2d6+6 +2 Master dagger in legendary hands +4 1d4+4d6+10 +5 Legendary dagger in Legendary hands +6 1d4+4d6+25 Normal dagger in Legendary hands would be +3 1d4+4d6
The cost of consumable healing dosn’t really matter. If it cost too much then PCs will just take more full rest and parties will have to have a healer. If it cost too little then expect every encounter for the PCs to be at full health. PCs will always gravatate to using the lowest cost healing method. You could declare healing is based on the cost of the item or charge consumed. 5sp = 1 hp for all level of items. then PCs would use what ever item was most convenient. Why not just have a hitpoints jug of healing which you can drink as much as you need to top off your hitpoints. (Sounds a bit like the CLW wand.) As for the Yugo vs Lamborghini, both are made to get you from point A to point B. Is it ethical that one cost more for the same result? I do understand that a Lamborghini does have other attributes that make it desirable, but I willing to bet the cost per mile driven in the Lamborghini is a lot higher than the Yugo. Would it be more ethical for healing potions if the cheep potion is bitter, and the most expensive one taste like a fine wine?
I like the idea someone else suggested: 1) Make all consumable healing treated as temporary hitpoints until a full rest, at which point it converts to normal hitpoints.
4) Heals cast from a PC’s spells or spells or spell points are treated as normal hitpoints, with no effect on temporary hitpoints. Note there may be other sources of temporary hitpoints that can exceeded a PC’s max hitpoints, but they still don’t stack with temporary hitpoints and they usual expire without converting to normal hitpoints after a full rest. (Example: False life spell) If you want to keep Resonance, then treat any consumable healing boosted by resonance as normal hitpoints instead of temporary. (This would effectively limit a PC to have only a single consumable healing in effect at once time.)
Mine arrived today via US mail small town in north Alabama. In fair condition with a dent on the top edge of the back page, The box was loosely sealed, but not dented.
Is it my imagination or do only Fighters, Paladins, and archetype fighters gain the Attack of Opportunity reaction???
true, but between the two charts cost & hardness one has Expert quality and one doesn't, which is inconsistent with the other special material.
In the Playtest rule book the special material Darkwood chart (pg 355) for hardness has an Expert column , but there is no Expert row in the cost chart. All the other special materials have matching rows and columns between the cost and hardness charts. Missing cost for Expert Darkwood special material.
FYI, my inspiration for magic is alive theory of Resonance was from Discworld color of magic where the spells had their own addenda, from Harry Potter where wands have a preference for who uses them, and from Xanth Source of Magic where the demon’s presence is a source of magic. These and other literary sources suggest the idea that magic is a collection of living things.
Magic is actually an exotic life form that occupies several dimension some of which overlap with ours. Let's call them Essence elementals. While I can see the confusion at first glance, they are not similar in the least. Essences are not microscopic and don’t resided within the cells of all living organisms. Also, I would describe the relationship more as exploitive being more that they gain social standing within there own kind, and do not rely on the relationship for continued existence. I think of them more like very minor genies like whisp of energy in a different dimension.
In this thread, I am trying to interpret the resonance rules ... I agree that it would greatly help the with the acceptance of Resonace rules and have been following this thread and appreciate the ideas. Let me share a fun off the wall interpretation: Explaining Resonance and why Resonance is Chr based: Magic is actually an exotic life form that occupies several dimension some of which overlap with ours. Let's call them Essence elementals. Essences are difficult to communicate with, but they have learned to create magic effects in response to patterns, gestures, words, runes, mixtures, and thoughts in our world. These Essences have a complicated value system in their world where they earn a token which functions like baseball cards. They earn a Token every time they interact with a creature by performing magic in our world in response to a pattern. A token from a more renowned and charismatic creature in our world is in higher demand in their economy. As a creature in our world call upon more of these Essences via patterns within a single day they dilute the market for their Tokens. With too much supply for the demand the Essences may refuse to trade magic effects or may stop trading for the tokens completely. Lucky the Essences token market resets every day. In our world we call these Tokens Resonance.
9) Resonance as vital encumbrance.... While the example of potion resonating in the life force digestive system is reasonable, My mind cries out “but why doesn't the same spell cast from a PC, scroll or other source not bother the target’s resonating encumbrance?” For scrolls and spells, it could be reasoned that the resonating encumbrance is carried by the caster, and that they have some quantum entanglement with he target maintains the magical vibration. Of course, spells cast by PCs have their resonance built in. My mind: ”But what happens to ongoing magic when the resonance life force of the caster is snuffed out?”
Which reminds me what about the other type of potions, oils that are used on non living objects? Does the one who applies it pay the resonance?
I dusted off my old books to double check, but you are correct the CLW wand was from DnD 3.0. I believe, they chose to reduce the cost of healing potions to about 1gp to 2gp per point of healing for minor, lesser, moderate, and greater types of healing potions. The top two Major and True healing potions come out at 5gp and 17gp per point of healing. I'm not sure about the cost of CLW wands, but the level 3 staff of healing cost works out to about 2gp per hp and that is without recharging it. The point is that the healing items previewed are in the same ballpark as far as healing cost, so PCs will use a mixture of items.
Pre-Pathfinder the issue was 15 minute adventuring day. First few encounters result in Casters using most of their spells in the battle or on healing characters, causing the party to call it day after 15 minutes of game time. Pathfinder introduced cheap healing via Wand of Cure Light Wounds. Now the issue is after every fight the PC top off their hit points, resulting in the need to make every encounter that matters to be deadly enough to wipe out all the characters hit points. Pathfinder 2.0 is introducing resonance which effectively turns item use into a daily resource on par with spell casting. Its as if everyone is given a spell-like ability called “Activate Item”. Useable once per level + Chr Bonus per day. Resonance covers most all permanent items and consumables thereby doing dual service of limiting daily consumables and number of permanent magic items used & worn. Limiting consumables limits out of combat healing which hopefully reduced the full hitpoint for every encounter syndrome. Using Resonance to limit permanent items and to activate item powers that would otherwise be X daily use, seems to be reasonable, but for consumables such as wand/staffs with charges, Potions, and Scrolls the use of Resonance seems to break the suspension of disbelief revealing itself as a rule mechanism to limit daily item use. If the real problem is unlimited cheap healing then the fix should target that issue. Healing needs to have a daily limit mechanism. Resonance does that, but with an overly broad fix. For a more focused fix, look at Magical healing, it forces the body to heal quickly. It’s easy to imagine the process of forced healing causing stress to the body and that repeated forced healings within a day could have a negative effect. A more narrowly targeted mechanism at limiting healing could work by allowing a character to be healed a number of times per day equal to their Fortitude without penalty. The source (spell, potion, scroll …) or level of the healing doesn’t matter. Once they exceed their Fortitude value the PC would take the Fatigue condition equal to the overage until they get an overnight rest. If an element of luck is preferred, the overage mechanic from Resonance could be applied to healing overage to determine if you get fatigued (flat DC10 roll, with the DC modified by the overage.). In any case, healing would still work regardless of the roll. Resonance mechanic would still be used for permanent item limits and activate item powers, replacing the item slot mechanism and daily uses for individual item powers. Consumables would work without Resonance.
I had not caught that, GlennH. Is the general rule that a spontaneous caster can’t take non-Core spells without doing spell research or finding them somewhere? Do you (or does anyone else) happen to know where that rule is? Heck, I’m playing a level 1 oracle in a Shattered Star PbP campaign right now and have already violated it if that is a rule. Tusk, that is one of several prestige options in the Shattared Star Player’s Guide. While most of the Shattared Star is PFS legal , the Shattared star Player’s Guide is not listed as a PFS legal source, so it dosn’t apply to PFS play. As far as I can tell there is no restriction on the legal PFS source of spell lists other than owning a copy of the source. For Non-PFS games it would be up to you GM.
In the shattered Star Player’s guide one of the PFS options for spending prestige is:
A little expensive on a per spell base, but maybe access to a spell book of some previous Pathfinder. Simular idea for access to feats. Or market contacts for items. I wonder if items that are rare or uncommon In one setting would cost more than a setting where they were common?
Some thoughts on Resonance mechanic I’ve been collecting.
Resonance is a way to put magic item use on par with spell casting. You only have X number of spell to cast each day, and with Resonance you only can activate X number of magic items a day. Think of Resonance as a spell like ability “Activate Item” that everyone has. It requires a magic item as a material component. Useable once per level + Chr Bonus. The main difference between spell slots and Resonance is that spell slots generally become more powerful the higher level the character is, where a Resonance point is just as powerful at first level as it is at 20th. Wealth is the primary determination in how powerful a point of Resonance is. For example a suit of +5 Armor is much more powerful and costly than +1 Armor, but both only take one Resonance point to activate. Since magic spells and/or items are the primary way to alter the fabric of the alternate-reality in the game world, by putting a daily limit on both the adventures day will effectively end when they start to run low on one or both resources. What low means will vary based on the risk tolerance of the player, it could be at half a tank, a quarter, or empty. Because Resonance is item power agnostic, the most effective use will be for items that give the biggest bonus, effect, and/or duration. Players will favor expensive more effective expendables. Players will be looking at more expensive expendables, and it now becomes a choice of similar priced Permanent items or limited use expendables.
I kinda like the idea of resonance for powering permanent magic items and their powers, but not for consumables. I've been kicking around an optional idea since out of combat healing is the root concern.
Take the Hitpoint pool and split it into two. One pool can be healed by magic, the other pool can only be healed by rest. is applied to the healable HP pool first. is applied to the Non-healable HP pool first. Any overflow is then applied to the other HP pool and only when both pools are at zero is when the character takes on the dying condition. Consumable items scrolls, potions, and spell charges on wands and staffs no longer require resonance. Resonance for other items and powers works as planned.
Your asking me to defend my Bad Idea? I’ll give it a try. First, give too many choices makes it difficult to make a choice, therefor having only a choice between four scenarios makes it much easier to choice what to run, and being evergreen insures everyone can play it. (My be issues with tiers). Second As for the Sunset period, having it available for a limited duriation makes it a rare resource, If you don’t play these scenarios this month then they are gone forever! You can put off the beach trip with your significant other for another five years while you choose to play Pathfinder. Third, Paizo will make 2.0 fun to play too! Fourth, If you absolutely have to continue playing 1.0 then you join the shadow lodge that is the unofficial PFS where you have different set of characters using all the scenarios. Handing out their own chronical for play/GMing just without all that pesky reporting. Note Shadow PFS characters are not compatable with offical PFS.
If you have resonance, Do you have to use it to activate a potion, scroll or wand or can you save it for when you absolutely need that item to work? I can see a situation where you don't want to spend your last few points of resonance but would take a chance on failing an activation roll. For example, After a battle, you take a short break to use potions and wands to heal, but you want to save your resonance for the next battle.
How I’m thinking resonate investing should work. Magic items: swords, staffs, armor, and other wonderious items 1) Invest in magic items allow to use it for the day without spending more resonance. 2) Investing an item empowers it with X charges ( X = level ). No carryover of charges from previous day or user. 3) You can use the item standard and special powers without spending resonance, but special powers use zero, one, or more empowered charges per use depending on the power level. 4) Once all the empowered charges are used, you can still use the standard powers, but not the special powers that require charges. 5) You can re-empower the item by spending another resonate point (+X charges = level). 6) If you are out of resonate you can’t invest new items or re-empower invested items. 7) Invested and empowered items are usable only by the person spending the resonance. Limited use Potions, Trinkets, and Wands 1) can’t be invested and use 1 resonance per use. (Or successful roll for over use of resonance.) 2) Wands would have a max of 10 charges. Maybe they could be recharged by spending resonance ( 1rp = +1 charge )??? Scrolls 1) single use, but cost no resonance.
data points for nosig: I've played 95 scenarios not counting mods, Adv Path, and repeat plays via evergreen or replays. Having started playing in earnest during season 5, I got in with a group that played all of season 6 and half of season 7 as it came out. The rest of the scenarios scattered about the other seasons. Your close for season One count is: 5 games in Tier 1-7 Count by season / num in season
So, whenever I hear someone saying that Player A has played 50% and Player B has played 50% so that only leaves 25% left they can both play... I wonder. How much of those 50% are the SAME scenarios? If it were purely random I would say 50%, but I think that often this 50% will be pretty close to the exact same games. (IMHO) They may have a 90% match on games played - because often the same games are offered at the same time across many different venues. When taking in probabilities I assume a random independent distribution of scenarios for each player. It true that if there is a large overlap of scenarios played in a group of people then the number valid playable scenarios goes up. Also, I would think the distribution of scenarios played is not equally distributed just because some are better than others and there a bias towards having playing the lower tier scenarios over the higher ones.
The PFS group in my area usually will schedule two scenarios over the weekend at local game shops. There isn’t much attempt at sudoku, since the player can vary from week to week and the GMs want to have time to prep the scenario. Some weekends there are two playable game, sometimes only one is playable, and occasionally none. For me there is about a 33% of any one game being non-playable and a 10% chance of both games being non-playable. Currently It dosn’t take too many games played to start to run in to playability issues and sudoku would become a requirement once you hit the 50% mark of games played. I like that both options Second replay or Mix CORE & Classic play would reduce the incident of non-playable scheduled games, and extend the 50% mark from 150 games played to about 450 games played. The Second Replay would be my preference and likely the simplest change. A metered roll out of Second Replay over years would also work over time And is about equal in preference to me as Mixed Core & Classic.
I would think the only code change would be to remove the code that auto converts CORE characters to Standard. It would probably be best to remove the transition rules as well. Go with “Once CORE always CORE”. All games would then be reported as Standard and the Players would be responsible for keeping their character properly within the CORE rules as written. As for GMing there are many scenarios that have non-core NPCs and Monsters. Also, the PCs are allowed to purchase non-core items and spell which appear on the chronicle sheets. All that means is that running a CORE game dosn’t mean you woun’t have to learn about all those fiddle little rules from time to time. The earlier season low tier scenarios are usually easier to GM no matter the level of rule knowledge. Besides, I think one of the goals of PF2 is for it to be easier to run than CORE. The main point is that for the player example (above posts) someone who has already played 100 games and playiing 30 new games a year, mixing CORE and Classic PC would extend the example Player’s half-life from 2 years to 12 years, without changing the replay rules.
. I don’t recall if this was suggested earlier. Once PF2 is released after season 10 there will be about 300 PFS scenarios not counting modules and adventure paths. Currently I have played about 100 scenarios under Classic PFS, that means that I have a 67% chance of being able to play at a table with a randomly selected scenario under Classic PFS rules. Since I manage to play in about 30 scenarios a year. If I keep that rate up, in under two years I would have played 150 scenarios total and my playability chance for any table would be 50% I tend to think of the point where a player has played enough scenarios that they have a 50/50 chance of being able to play a scenario as a player’s half-life value. For Classic PFS after season 10 a player’s Half-life value will be about 150 games. The same is true for CORE. If you add CORE and Classic together then a player’s half-life is about 300 games.
Currently a game is ether all Classic or all CORE. The main reason for CORE is to have a game where the only rules needed to be known by GM and players is the CORE rule book. Once PF2 is released it will be a single rule book game initially, and probably the preferred game introduction path by Pazio displacing one of reasons for CORE. * If PFS changes the rules to allow mixed Classic and CORE play. IE. both Classic character and CORE character can play the at the same table / scenario that changes the Player’s half-life value to 450 games. That one change increases the number of games a player can play before reaching their half-life by 150 without increasing the maximum number scenario a player can play or adding any replay. This change would also make playing CORE more viable as any game is now CORE playable.
I’m curious how the Lore (knowledge) skill would work in giving what you know about the creature? For example:
What would you know if you critically succeed in identifying the Red Cap?
If +10 >= to hit is a critical, then what about different weapon do they all have an equal chance to crit now? Does a two-handed sword have the same crit chance as a scimitar, or will some weapons have a improved critical chance? Does a Scimitar needs a +8 >= tohit for a crit? (Seems to mess with the simple +10 crit rule.)
I don't think Pazio would update any PF1 scenarios due to opportunity cost, but I could see PFS members writing up scenario conversions much like there is the shared prep documents. It would be nice if the Home-Play mode rule could be applied to 1st edition scenarios and applied using a generic chronicle to 2nd edition. (IE. Play 1E scenario converted to 2E, with just gold and xp applied to 2e character. {pipe dream} )
1) I am curious how the Critical-Hits-and-Critical-Failures system will affect the new knowledge roll checks? What information do you get from each category for knowledge?
Crit-fail = Miss identifies creature (It's immune to fire?)
2) What happens to Take 10 and Take 20 rules? Some modified use in exploration mode? 3) On the auto 1 and 20, I find it helps me to think of it as increasing the severity of a fail or success by one level. That would take care of the %5 success on an impossible task (Still if something is impossible don't allow the check.) |
