Matthew Downie wrote:
that depends on your GM style really. Or on the flow. You could describe said action while someone else is figuring out the game mechanics or you could move to the next player's turn while making it clear that ther might be wriggle room, depending on the outcome of whatever is looked up right now. point is: you don't have to take a break from gaming everytime something has to be looked up
I... uh... I'm...Did we just agree on something?
just hand the book to a player to look it up while you continue to GM and keep the flow..uh..flowing
Pathfinder = too many books, too many rules
it's called 'options' and 'variety', it makes characters diverse. that's a good thing
and too many people who play for system-mastery.
in the end, the only people that matter are you and your group of friends around the table. who cares how others play the game?
5th Edition D&D = streamlined rules (advantage/disadvantage is a game changer)
and what a game changer it is. simplifying to the extrem, sucking the joy out of everyone who ever looked at a RPG book with interest. seriously, though. the advantage system is one of the biggest minuses in my book for 5th E
and brings new people to the hobby.
on this we can agree.
Hmm...waking up to this, I like how Power Attack and Sudden Charge sounds, not too fond of making AoO and Charge something that has to be learned. I like the variety of shield stuff.
Ask me again after my second coffee though and depending on if I had enough Resonance for the coffee to work my mood might change
One does not hack with Katanas. One slices. Never hack. That's what European swords are for.(That's the short, abridged and nicer version of a very long, earnest speech my old Sensei would have given you only for implicating Katanas are used the same way)
Matthew Downie wrote:
let's say the average household consists of four people. a CLW wand with 50 charges that heals 50 minor to major injuries like broken bones or flesh wounds probably lasts at least half a life time for them. and the 750 GP are way beyond what Farmer Joe and his family earn in three generations. So I don't see a huge market there.
Nobles can afford them, but their lives might be not as dangerous as the lives of the peasants (except maybe hubting incidents or a taste for dangerous sports), so, again, one wand per noble house is probably enough for a decade or so.
The market for CLW consists mostly of mercenary groups with a rich sponsor or Adventurers. And I don't think Adventurers are as common as some believe. The characters are special for a reason.
So, we are talking about a very small niche here, with not much demand outside of the PCs and a handful of NPCs who can afford it.
If you're playing a character, as noted above, that's culturally rooted elsewhere and not pseudo-Europe, please, for all purposes, just change what defines exotic weapon for them. If the character grew up with Katanas but not broadswords, treat the Katana as the standard martial weapon and the broadsword as exotic.It's common sense, basically, even though never explicitly stated in any rule book. We do that since the very first days of 3.0. The exotic weapon proficiency just means you have to lear new techniques to wield weapons that are wielded differently than the ones you are culturally accustomed, especially if they share enough similarity to be mistreated
ocēlōtl: A jaguar themed martial shifter class that gain their power with divine help, be it from Tezcatlipoca (or whatever the Golarion/Arcadia equivalent of Tezcatlipoca is) or from other gods (in which case the jaguar theme might change to a theme more appropriate to those other gods)
sure. a paragraph or two about encounter design would be nice for new GMs. but does those paragraphs missing really justify the inclusion of a clumsy system with all the negatives it brings? or are there easier ways to address that without changing the whole dynamic of the game itself?
Milo v3 wrote:
usually when I have characters at my table that qualify as Non-pseudo-European, yes I treat the cultural appropiate weapons as not exotic and the European weapons as exotic. (I mean, a dagger is still a dagger and clubs are pretty universal too, but I guess you get what I mean)
If you define NPC exclusively as the baker, bartender or innkeeper, sure. But the Lvl 7 mercenary who was hired by the evil sorceress to stand guard at the ritual, the Lvl 8 Half-Orc Barbarian who works as a bouncer for the local crimelord, and yes, both the Sorceress and the Crimelord too count as NPC per my definition and I just don't see why I should NOT build them by the same rules as the PCs if an encounter is preplanned in my story.
Also, and I can't stretch that enough, some NPCs have from time to time in the past become new PCs if they were the only ones around in the dungeon or castle or wherever that were neither the PCs nor monsters and one of the PCs died a tragic death. So then they would have to be rebuild as PCs anyway. Better use the same rules in the beginning and it saves you time later on
Hopefully they see that their players are getting bored and will talk to them. The players, experienced as they are will provide feedback and help and the GMs will learn. That's usually how the cookie crumbles in those situations. And to learn something is nothing one should be ashamed of. But again, maybe that's just me. Maybe I'm just oldfashioned that way, communicating with the players and relying on feedback and stuff
well, to be fair, try to swing a Katana like a European sword of about the same size, use the same fighting technique and it won't do you any good. And vice versa actually. I had training in the past with both types of swords and it DOES make sense that they are treated differently. Granted, that was a long time ago, in my early 20s, but I still remember how different those techniques were.
I find it hard to believe that adventure authors after a decade of Pathfinder don't take into account that the PCs don't have means to heal themselves after encounters. especiall after reading and GMing encounters that are clearly designed to pull resources, I really do think the authors are smarter than you give them credit for
couldn't agree more. sadly it seems Paizo is hell bent on creating NPCs with different rules than PCs now
Rincewind would absolutely panicedit: oops, ninja'd twice, sorry
The lack of opposed rolls makes things very different. To the point where I understand less about what's going on. It's really hard to determine if this is good or bad.
I think I gave up on understanding any of this days ago. For something more streamiled I'm actually surprised how that makes head spin. I guess I'll just wait for the playtest pdf and give that section a couple of reads then
There is a thought that grew bigger and bigger in my mind over the last couple of days. A lot of the reactions that are positive about the changes that the new edition will bring are about problems that will be solved with the new mechanics. most of those problems I never witnessed or didn't perceive them as problems, but, it looks like those problems seem to be most noticable in organized play.
- 'wand spamming' wascalled out as one problem, and yes, I can see how in organized play, wher it can't be ensured that dedicated healers are in the group every week, this could be seen as a viable solution to the lack of otherhealing options.
- 'forcing players into the dedicated healer role': this is something that I only read about, since I cannot understand how, in a home game, where you play with your friends, someone would be forced or bullied into a role he or she doesn't feel comfortable with. so I have to assume that this again is a problem more often encountered in organized play
- 'Cha 7 dump stat characters', seems to me to be a byproduct of the point buy system, which again, is a necessity of organized play, I assume. I understand the reasons behind point buy when one has to guarantee that all characters that drop in and out of the game any given week and can be played at any PFS table are largely build around the same guidelines. I'm not sure how popular point buy outside of PFS society is (I did notice however, it seems popular on these boards), but I've never seen it used in home games. so the perceived necessity to build Cha 7 characters might not be as strong in home games as it is when you play with your own circle of friends.
- 'streamlined action economy': as I understand it, PFS games follow a time limit and the modules have to be finished after a certain amount of hours, so time is more of a factor there than it is at home games, where a lot of time is spend on ordering chinese food or pizza or just chatting about what happend last week inthe lives of your friends and where the players might actively use the time they're out of turn to look something up or whatever players do. If the fight scene turns out too long somehow, well, one can always end the session 30 minutes later or cut right there, make a quick picture of the battle map and drop right back into action next session. time is not as important as it might be in PFS.
- 'oversimplifications of the XP mechanics': I had a little "Aha!" momen of enlightment yesterday evening, where I thought "So THAT'S why!", but I honestly can't remember what it was. I just remember that I thought that therewas good reason to believe that it would make life for organized play GMs easier than it was before. (If I somehow remember while I can still edit the post, of course I will)
- there might also be a case made for simpler monster creation rules, but I haven't yet figured out why, since I don't think GMs in PFS are encouraged to create their own monsters. Maybe someone smarter than me might explain it to me.
- I'm pretty sure, I'm forgetting a lot of things
So, long post short, my question here is: Is PF2 more of a reaction of the needs and faults of organized play than it is of the needs of home games? How big is the influence of organized play on the design of the new system?
And please, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to blame somebody and I DO understand how something like the PFS is needed for those who can't find or organize RPG groups otherwise. I just try to understand where design choices that are far away of my perception of how the game is played might come from and why and where there seems to be a need for it
You know, I don't get that either. It is about 5 minutes in time investement to make a NPC. Yes, making a monster from scratch is a bit more complicated, but how often does one create a monster from scratch? Paizo's adventure authors probably do that more often, but that's part of their profession. The average GM is usually fine with just reskinning an existent monster ftom one of the Bestiaries or adding templates. And even if his idea is so original that those easy steps won't work, creating a monster is just a seven step process (and some of the steps are redundant anyway)
I like that idea, that's pretty elegant
then again, resonance seems to be Paizo's answer to problems, my group and I just don't have:
-I personally don't get the absurd hatred for body slots
so, I admit, I don't really GET the so-called problems, Resonance tries to fix, so whatever my ideas are to connect CHA mechanically to magic items, feel free to ignore them
the thread is called 'IF NOT RESONANCE, WHAT WOULD YOU GIVE CHARISMA?', and as I wrote, I'd still connect it mechanically to magic items, just not in that way.suggestion: CHA modifier + 1/2 level as amount of magic items you can use or wear, would still tie it to magic items and would not fundentally change the way the game is played. it is, to me, more a question of HOW then WHAT. I'm almost fine with WHAT, it is, to me, the HOW that needs improvement.
I don't think connecting CHA and magic items (or the ability to use them) is the worst idea ever per se, it's the way HOW resonance connects them that doesn't feel right.
W E Ray wrote:
I wouldn't be against it. there is still uncharted territory to fill, especially the farther away one gets from eurocentrism
W E Ray wrote:
well, if they abandon the rule side of PF to make PF2 a thing, setting material and adventures are what would be left. making setting books rule neutral or rule agnostic is not hard, it's harder with adventures, for various reasons, but not exactly impossible to publish conversions
Idk, we seldom use wands of CLW and I wouldn't call our games 'hard mode' either. It's still possible. Then again, we have dedictaed healers and players who love playing dedicated healers, so what do I know.Thing is, if you don't want to play 'easy mode', don't play 'easy mode'. ESPECIALLY if that means it will get harder
Mark Seifter wrote:
I think due to the lack of context from the GAMA game, there's some misunderstandings here. There's not a game term designation of "boss" or "mook" that changes anything about a creature. Rather, a powerful hard-hitting creature that's significantly higher level than you (aka, a boss unless your GM is particularly cruel) is going to make it harder to recover from dying than getting hit by a weakling. If a weakling with tepid attack hits you for 3 damage with a shuriken, it doesn't matter if the GM calls it a "boss," it's still going to be easier to recover than from a powerful creature. It's not a narrativist mechanic like a death card where the GM just decides to make it harder to recover; it's mathematical. Now it does end up having a beneficial side effect that you're much more likely to die to a boss fight than an easy random encounter with weak enemies, but that's not due to handwavium.
no misunderstanding, I figured that out just fine. I t still doesn't make a lot of sense to tie the DC for stabilzing/recovering to the enemy and not to the amount of damage/power of the hit you recieve.