Tyrannosaurus

Jurassic Pratt's page

FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 1,223 posts (1,229 including aliases). 2 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 10 Organized Play characters. 3 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,223 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tayoyo wrote:
It's just that I'm still used to the PF1 setting where martials couldn't do cool things and were boring, so this stuff feels like it needs more of an explanation.

I'll just quote myself here.

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

Things PCs could do in PF1 without magic:

*Gain resistance to energy
*Deflect bullets with your hands
*Snatch bullets out of the air with your hands
*Smash spells out of the air
*Survive a fall of any distance
*Survive being immersed in lava
*Take no fall damage regardless of distance because you were next to a wall
*Jump humanly impossible distances
*Flying Kick around 90 degree corners or even 360 degrees in a circle.
*Punch so hard it bypasses all DR and Hardness
*Rip out multiple vital organs with your bare hands without killing someone
*Roar so loudly people take damage as if you punched them
*Have Daredevil style vision while blind
*Empower your fists with elemental damage
*Pin a creature regardless of it's size compared to your size.
*Learn up to 40 languages overnight
*Become a master at any profession overnight
*Become an expert in any subject overnight

Things NPCs could do in PF1 without magic:
*Literally become a god.

I don't think PF2 is really changing what kind of things are possible without magic in the setting.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
I had a huge success with Strength 20, Dex 18, Con 16, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 10. If I was a dwarf, I could have had Cha 8 and 18 in either Con or Wis, which would have been even better.

Mark, what would this monk's stats look like at first level and at what level did he achieve what you listed here out of curiosity?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Count me in as another seriously worried about the AC of the monk compared to other classes. If a level 1 dex based monk can't even match the AC of a rogue in a chain shirt then I'm struggling to see how a strength monk isn't just going to get destroyed.

Grand Lodge

If you enforce the 2 hour crafting time per potion and make them unsellable it's not that bad in my experience. But yeah, as written they're sellable which makes it silly.

Grand Lodge

I read it as the potions take 2 hours each as per brew potion but you could brew multiple in a day and they cost 0 gp. This turned out decently balanced in my game.

Grand Lodge

I think every party needs someone who can use a CLW wand for out of combat healing. Past that, a balanced party helps but isn't necessary.

Grand Lodge

I honestly don't mind the underwater combat rules of PF that much. You should have a harder time fighting underwater if you're not an aquatic creature.

That said, I would like to see swimming speed brought from 1/4 land speed to 1/2 land speed.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:
3. I don't like, the gonzo level of stuff presented in the Legendary feats blog. The fact that some of it may have existed in PF1 is immaterial because I didn't like it there, either. Despite the fact that it would be logical for that to be the case, and that an edition change would be an opportunity to adjust, these kind of arguments keep being presented.

The reason these kind of arguments were brought up repeatedly was because you were insisting that PF2 was essentially changing the setting and suddenly allowing these impossible things when it simply isn't true:

BPorter wrote:

And I think I've discovered the reason for the Gap in Starfinder. PF2 enabled all high-level adventurers to become demigods without an in-universe explanation and the resulting campaign-breaking paradox required Golarion to be retconned out of existence.

Booyah!

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Hell, giants may only exist because of millenia of exposure to magic which caused them to adapt to having this extra source of energy. In my setting, magical beasts are natural evolutions of creatures exposed to magic over generations.

Giants aren't magical beasts though. They're just humanoids. Also, there's nothing in the PF lore of giants even beginning to suggest that magic is what makes them big.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

BPorter, I highly suggest you take a look at my list of impossible things you can do without magic I made earlier on in this discussion.

Legendary Skill Feats (at least the ones we've seen) are not allowing PCs to do anything more impossible than what can already be done in PF1 without magic.

Now it's perfectly fine to want more realism in your game and to dislike them because of that. But it's simply not true that these legendary skill feats are suddenly making the impossible possible in the setting. The impossible in our world has been possible without magic throughout PF1.

Grand Lodge

18 people marked this as a favorite.

Things PCs could do in PF1 without magic:
*Gain resistance to energy
*Deflect bullets with your hands
*Snatch bullets out of the air with your hands
*Smash spells out of the air
*Survive a fall of any distance
*Survive being immersed in lava
*Take no fall damage regardless of distance because you were next to a wall
*Jump humanly impossible distances
*Flying Kick around 90 degree corners or even 360 degrees in a circle.
*Punch so hard it bypasses all DR and Hardness
*Rip out multiple vital organs with your bare hands without killing someone
*Roar so loudly people take damage as if you punched them
*Have Daredevil style vision while blind
*Empower your fists with elemental damage
*Pin a creature regardless of it's size compared to your size.
*Learn up to 40 languages overnight
*Become a master at any profession overnight
*Become an expert in any subject overnight

Things NPCs could do in PF1 without magic:
*Literally become a god.

I don't think PF2 is really changing what kind of things are possible without magic in the setting.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
BPorter wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
BPorter wrote:


I never said he did. I said he was the exception, not the rule.
Good thing the PC's are exceptions to the normal populace of lvl 1-5 commoners right?
Good thing they can eliminate the speed bump that was the Test of the Starstone, right?

Once again, you can do extraordinary things that don't make sense in our reality without needing the test of the starstone.

Also, if you have an issue with these legendary skill unlocks, you must've really hated rage powers in PF1. You know, the things that let you resist energy damage or even swallow people whole without using magic.

Weren’t some Su abilities? They used magic.

The two I mentioned are Ex. Completely mundane.

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
BPorter wrote:


I never said he did. I said he was the exception, not the rule.
Good thing the PC's are exceptions to the normal populace of lvl 1-5 commoners right?
Good thing they can eliminate the speed bump that was the Test of the Starstone, right?

Once again, you can do extraordinary things that don't make sense in our reality without needing the test of the starstone.

Also, if you have an issue with these legendary skill unlocks, you must've really hated rage powers in PF1. You know, the things that let you resist energy damage or even swallow people whole without using magic.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:


I never said he did. I said he was the exception, not the rule.

Good thing the PC's are exceptions to the normal populace of lvl 1-5 commoners right?

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:

For the "you could do it PF1 crowd", Irori is the exception not the rule. As was Iomedae and Cayden.

So, now we no longer need to pass the Test of the Starstone to achieve godhood, we just have to advance to legendary. Got it.

As noted previously, I also haven't read a Pathfinder Tales that emulated scenarios closer to Beowulf than Conan.

And I think I've discovered the reason for the Gap in Starfinder. PF2 enabled all high-level adventurers to become demigods without an in-universe explanation and the resulting campaign-breaking paradox required Golarion to be retconned out of existence.

Booyah!

Additionally, there are other games out there that have non-nerfed spellcasters interacting with heroic, but mortal martials. I sometimes play those games, but PF is my preference, it has more content, and is easier to find players to game with. So, the "take your ball and go home stuff" isn't really convincing or compelling.

Seriously, if anyone is gaga about Legendary stuff, good on ya. Just because some of us aren't, doesn't make us "wrong" and you "right".

You might wanna check your lore there.

Irori never took the test of the Starstone. He legit just became a god through determination and rigorous training. The exact things which allow you to eventually achieve legendary skill uses near the end of your adventuring career.

Grand Lodge

19 people marked this as a favorite.
NetoD20 wrote:
ENHenry wrote:
Imagine that, people don’t want martial characters to break physical laws in a world steeped in magic, where wizards and clerics can wave a hand and do the same thing. As a person whose favorite characters for decades have been clerics, I say Welcome to the martials! It’s time overdue.
Well, then at least give me a good in-world explanation for it. Not this determination, and hard training nonsense.

A man named Irori literally ascended to Godhood using that "nonsense" and has been part of the game and setting since it's launch.

Grand Lodge

10 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm really hoping that Assurance isn't replacing take 10/20.

If so, it'll essentially be a feat tax as who isn't going to take it? You'd otherwise risk failing at things your character should be perfectly adept at.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
- Animal companions calculate their modifiers, DCs, etc. like PCs, with one exception. The only item bonus they can benefit from is barding for +2 AC.

So does this mean animal companions can only have very minimal barding now? Because I'm going to miss my ranger riding in on his griffon companion with mithral full plate barding.

Grand Lodge

I haven't really had this experience in PF1. I can recall multiple times in published adventures where a creature could be negotiated with, but didn't speak common.

I can also recall many times when important notes, books, runes, etc, were in a language other than common.

Basically, knowing other languages has always seemed pretty important in PF1 to me, and I'd be satisfied with it staying around equally important in PF2.

Grand Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

As someone who has played several paladins and loves them as a class, this thread has now made me hate paladins.

Put me on the "remove LG requirement" train now.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
graystone wrote:
Weather Report wrote:

Again, wrong, more lies, and now yelling, great!

Anyway, Rule 0 still exists, unless PF1 got rid of; some things are auto-failures or auto-successes, like not being able to jump to the moon, that is an official part of the game, you should only really roll when the outcome is uncertain and there is a chance of failure, otherwise there is no point. The ruling is 100% by the rules, as per the designers.

#1 Again, you haven't said how I'm wrong. Or lying. The physics of your world changes based on intent: it's a FACT.

#2 I use caps for emphasis not yelling. It's MUCH easier than formating bolding.
#3 Rule 0 isn't part of the setting: it's houseruling your game and it doesn't retroactivly alter the basic setting everyone plays. You can say how it works in your game, NOT how it works for others games.
#4 auto-failures or auto-successes do exist. Lava isn't one of them. It CAN be houseruled in if you wish but it's not a pathfinder rule.

It would seem you are not using the system as intended (SAI), the Looney Toons approach is not the intended playstyle. I would need to be made aware of playing at such a table in advance, at least try and get an Acme rocket kit.

Oh, and instead of screaming at people, just bookcase the word with forward slashes, like /this/, not THIS.

Weird, I can't hear any screaming. Using caps for emphasis is very common. I'd be far more confused by someone using /this/. Just because you perceived it as screaming doesn't mean that's how it was intended; no point in continuing to harp on it when they've clarified their usage.

And someone not playing the game the same way you do doesn't mean they're not playing as intended. This is very close if not dead on "badwrongfun" territory.

To close out, a small sidenote. Calling people you're having a conversation/debate with liars is extremely poor etiquette.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know why people are upset about a legendary ability where you can scare someone to death in PF2 when in PF1 you can already do things like pin a creature 4 size categories larger than you like the Tarrasque.

We're already at that level of fantasy.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I remember a post by Jason saying that there was a decent sized part of the reason that Goblins are now core that he couldn't reveal yet. I'd wager that something happens in either Return of the Runelords or the final PF1 AP that will have this make a lot more sense.

My bets are either the final AP goes to another continent and we find tribes of goblins with a very different culture there, or that time travel in Return of the Runelords messes with some stuff.

Grand Lodge

Weather Report wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Classes define mechanics - Players define flavor. What mechanics are different between a witch and a wizard? How do those minor differences warrant a separate class, when the system can work better with them combined?

Uh...are you serious? The two Classes are both Int based prepared casters (so they have the same number of skill points, BAB, and HD). Both can have a Familiar.

I have just listed the entirety of their mechanical similarities. The Spell Lists are different, Witches store and gain spells differently, and the Witch's Class Features are entirely different.

Still looks and plays like a wizard variant, hexes and storage/gaining of spells are really not enough to hang a new class on, from what I see. I was gonna convert the PF1 Witch to 5th Ed, but it screams to be a subclass.

By your logic we should just have a "Spellcaster" class that covers every full caster and they can choose any of the class features of those classes.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like the poll probably should've included a "don't care either way" option.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We also aren't told that acid flasks and corrosive weapons are evil or dishonorable. Yet historically acid has repeatedly been used by evil groups in very dishonorable ways. Yet most players don't seeem to have an issue with using those or consider them dishonorable in Golarion.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Post is far too long to quote.

Nothing about Golarion suggests that poison is inherently dishonorable other than the fact that it had 1 line in the Paladin code in PF1. With that removed, there is now nothing in universe (as far as I know) to suggest poison is inherently dishonorable.

Other than the real world historical examples that keep being brought up which aren't automatically true in a fantasy game world unless we're explicitly told so by the setting.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Neuronin wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
See, the issue is you're using real world opinions on poisons to justify them being dishonorable in a fantasy game world.
This line of reasoning doesn't really hold water. 'It's a fantasy, therefore real world rules, history, and mores are irrelevant' falls apart when you look at the fact that this is a game where, for instance, gravity is real.

I'm afraid you've strawmanned me here, though I'll assume unintentionally. Realism vs fantasy has nothing to do with what I said, nor does the existence of gravity.

I was referring to the fact that your belief of poisons being dishonorable is based on IRL historical beliefs. Not laws of existence like gravity.

If we're doing saying poison has to be dishonorable because of IRL historical reasons, then paladins should be religiously intolerant and go on violent crusades where they murder innocents of other faiths for historical reasons.

And of course, corrosive weapons and acid flasks have to be seen as dishoable as well since acid attacks have been considered dishonorable in all of history.

And don't even think about trying to be a woman adventurer. Historically women were prohibited from taking combat roles in medieval times. Gotta get that authentic medieval sexism.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Neuronin wrote:
Those magical weapons are not famously wicked and commonly underhanded tools (nobody would call someone a 'filthy acid-sword', where as a 'slinking viper' is in common use). Much like the (to my mind, rather absurd) argument about the common availability of magic scrolls and devastating spells, it takes no skill or training to use poison. Spouses historically use it to quietly get rid of their unwanted counterparts, heirs to inherit from their ancestor quicker. They're not renowned for secretly using a scroll of cone of cold or a wand of lightning bolts to do it. It's a little more blatant, and it requires an uncommon level of training and skill to pull off.

See, the issue is you're using real world opinions on poisons to justify them being dishonorable in a fantasy game world.

Our world doesn't have magic, so we have absolutely no clue if we wouldn't view magical items in exactly the same light. Also, I could very easily see someone considering using a Corrosive weapon dirty and calling you a Black Dragon or something as an insult on par with Slinking Viper.

If poisons are dishonorable because they were seen that way IRL, I suppose paladins going on genocidal crusades against innocent people of different faiths should be fine for paladins since that's what they did historically.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll bring it up again, how are poisons different or worse than bane weapons or slaying arrows? Or hell, even Corrosive weapons?

They're all designed to make you more effective at fighting an opponent. In fact, poisons will actually have less impact on average than the others.

Poisons are not in any way more dishonorable than making your weapon "become slick with acid" or magic weapons specifically made to be more damaging/painful to creatures.

Grand Lodge

It can't really be that bad considering the Player's Guide recommend Paladins as a martial option, can it?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ah, I missed that line. Either way, you're pretty often in situations where you not striking first would result in innocents being harmed, so it's really no a big deal.

Grand Lodge

10 people marked this as a favorite.

If Bane and Slaying arrows aren't dishonorable then poison isn't always dishonorable either.

Grand Lodge

deuxhero wrote:
as would Shelyn but requiring the enemy strike first is a pain in most campaigns.

That's an anthema from a PF2 playtest blog. It's not a thing in PF1.

Grand Lodge

I'm not sure I get the objections to backgrounds I've been seeing. They literally seem to be the same thing as traits in that they're mechanical benefits with flavor attached.

Grand Lodge

I couldn't agree more that we need to go back to the original way! PF2 should clearly just be Chainmail in a new box.

Wait, scratch that. Better make it an old box.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Better solution than defining murder: Just remove the word murder from the code.

This way we don't have GMs wondering if each killing technically counts as murder and instead simply considering "was this evil?".

Grand Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Code wrote:
You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell.

I'm really not a fan of "murder" being included in the code as a thing that instantly makes you fall. Not because I want paladins to run around murdering people, but because I've seen the whole gamut of varying definitions of what constitutes "murder" in the various Paladin threads over the years.

Just on this website I've seen "murder is any killing that breaks the local laws", "murder is killing for vengeance", "murder is killing good people", and my personal favorite, "murder is any and all killing".

This bit of the code really needs to be removed or reworded/redefined or a large part of the paladin code issues will still be present in PF2.

Grand Lodge

17 people marked this as a favorite.

I really don't think needing to use 1 of your 3 actions to change your grip on a sword makes much sense. If I'm 2 handing a mace, it's pretty simple to drop it from one hand. Definitely shouldn't take 1/3 of my turn.

Surely this doesn't extend to dropping held items as well?

Grand Lodge

graystone wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Creating a mindless undead involves trapping a soul in a lobotomized horror that can do nothing but suffer and make others suffer.
You can make a case for the creation of undead being evil: Why are the mindless undead evil? How can you have - int and then make moral actions?

I think it's because they mindlessly just try to murder everything. Cuz being animated with negative energy makes you do that apparently.

Grand Lodge

Ilina Aniri wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
No.
you don't need attack penalties on additional attacks if you limit how high those bonuses scale relative to target numbers. which makes low level mooks a threat. because less difference between a low level attack bonus and a high level armor class.

Though I also am not a fan of what you were proposing, my response was actually to the OP's suggestion of making fumbles a core part of the game for attack rolls.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Toblakai wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
GM Red Box wrote:
The more I read the more I pray HeroLab is ready day one. I love the options but there are so many, as a GM, it will really help to have a program do some record keeping and math.

AS long as it's not HLO.

Classic? Sure. HLO no.

+100
Agreed

Disagree.

A clunky app that looks like the UI was designed in the 90's (which I use weekly) vs. a fresh interactive interface with a lot of potential features to manage party inventory/buffs/shared resources.. I will go with HLO.

I guess HLO is great if you don't mind continuing to have to pay for each expansion package while also now paying a monthly fee on top of it. And the fact that the resources put into giving it that beautiful UI could've been used to overhaul the regular HL UI.

To each their own I suppose.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And here I thinking from the title this thread would be about the British noblility eating children....

Grand Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Is it just me or is Shelyn's anathema to "striking first" a little weird?

So imagine your just rolled initiative vs a group of thugs that pull weapons on you. Your initiative turn is before theirs, so you hold back because you don't strike first even though the thugs intentions are clear. The thugs turn then comes up and they crit Fred the Fighter an he goes down.

Is it not ridiculous that even though you knew they were hostile and planning to try to kill you, a good god wouldn't allow you to strike first to stop them? Even to protect your allies?

I feel like it'd be better off worded as "initiate hostilities".

Grand Lodge

Catharsis wrote:

The duality of ability scores and bonuses is confusing for new players, and given that PF2 does away with ability damage, the death threshold and possibly even odd ability scores, I say we simply identify the ability with its bonus. Kyra has a +4 Wisdom, Halflings gain +1 Wisdom, Heal grants 1d8 + Wisdom hitpoints, etc.

So sing with me: Score, HUNH! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

Where did we learn they did away with ability damage and where was it suggested that they removed odd scores? Because I must have missed it.

Grand Lodge

Does anyone have this yet? How is it?

Grand Lodge

Ckorik wrote:
So it's not just a rumor.

Actually, the OP's mention of "a lot, if not all" 3rd party support being pulled is absolutely nothing more than a rumor mentioned by one of his gaming buddies.

One 3rd party pulling back support does not prove this in anyways, especially with it being FGG where there are reasons they might be pulling back other than PF2 as you even mentioned.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Source your claims mah dude. Your post is as real and meaningful as Gorbac's reply without a source.

Where did you "hear" this? Because right now it might as well be a rumor you just made up.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Quote:

Not sure where but James or Jason pointed out that you're not meant to have players ever be challenged by ow-level NPCs, and that city guards are not meant to automatically scale.

Given enough levels, the PCs reach a realm beyond the threat of city guards.

I'm just going to have to stop running urban campaigns then if characters are forced to automatically beat the perception of the people who have "Perception" as their profession.

This literally already happens in PF1. If a high level rogue is trying to sneak past city guards they're gonna succeed.

And if we're talking about guards who are equally high level for some reason, then we've already been told that you can build NPCs like PCs. So you could design them to be as good at perception as the rogue is stealth.

But a guards's "profession" isn't perception. It's a combination of combat capability, perception, knowledge of the laws, ability to follow orders, etc. So it makes decent sense that a guard isn't gonna have a perception matching or necessarily even close to matching a PC of equal level whose primary focus is stealth.

1 to 50 of 1,223 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>