Gold Dragon

Lucas Yew's page

243 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 243 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

No idea on others, but 3. is a fabulous one, indeed. No item dependency for heroics!


They must limit monster proficiency to match those of non-monsters, really.
No "Super Legendary (Level + 4)" proficiency and/or such horrors...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RangerWickett wrote:
Is there a way for PC Goblins to get this?

This. A good way to satisfy Trasparency-supporters AND overworked GMs would be making this an Uncommon Goblin 1 feat.


If square reeks too much of 4E, how about pace?


Do you get retroactive trained skills if you up your INT in the Playtest?


I was going to ask why one-hand even exists when it practically ain't worth its salt when S&B exists...

Yeah, somatic components. The other bane of believable sorcerers...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's also there to make 0-Level class-able humanoid creatures possible.


Really wish that they ditched the "dumb muscle warrior" image, it's a loathsome discrimination! Real "dumb muscles" cannot survive in their field for so long to make names for themselves anyway.

So more skill points for non-casters, please. Actually, it would be best to have more to less skill points in the order of...

Rogue (10)
Fighter (9)
Barbarian / Monk (8)
Paladin / Ranger (7)
Bard (6)
Sorcerer (5)
Cleric / Druid (4)
Alchemist (3)
Wizard (2)


They should add unique non-combat features on the odd levels of Martial classes that enhances their narrative capabilities significantly.

And of course, more starting/signature skills for Martials than Casters (on the latter, if it stays in the final book anyway).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The last two posts sum up excellently what I rambled on with non-native English.

No "Super Legendary" proficiency or the likes of such horrors, unless special feats are explained at the stat blocks' bottom for justification. Better yet, the devs should release said special feats to the players as Uncommon and rarer feats (a perfect opportunity for abusing the Rarity system), and/or give them further prerequisites like "working only within 1km ("Hah!") of your team's base or something similar.


Seeing how they brutally penalized Kineticists for just being able to use Constitution offensively, I doubt if such goodness can ever happen...


Yes, the system itself is generally agreeable, just the lackluster individual skills/feats and unequal NPCs are my only major berserk buttons.

So it's my job to persuade the devs hard good enough so I can get my 2nd printing hardcover CRB/Bestiary as good as I can... (absolute faith in 1st printing erratas' existence)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

When they say stuff like "PCs and NPCs using the same rules" it should mean something on a scale such as...

"BAB scaling consistently based on number and size of Hit Dice for every single creature in game" (PF1),

...in stark contrast to...

"PC attack bonus scales based on {(1/2 of level) / (1+ number of HD/4 rounded up)}, while NPCs and monsters based on {(full level) / (CR/4 rounded up, minimum 2)}" (4E / 5E).

For them (including me), the latter is either an utter disaster or an unelegant artifact of pre-d20 System clunkiness, etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Short Answer:

YES OF COURSE

----

Long Answer:

At least the barebone rules work somewhat same for both parties, like proficiency bonuses' + Level part. But seeing arbitrary +'s tacked on (even minor ones), especially for the "playable", "NPC-able" ones (like commoners, goblins, orcs(-in-the-future), etc.) absolutely crushes my heart...
If a PC-race NPC can get to do something, so should a PC with similar ancestry/background/class composition. Hey, they now have Rarity for feats/spells/etc.; just perfect for handling this NPC-pseudo-exclusive techs.

By the way, as PCs and monsters at least share Levels now, I've become more lenient on this doing with totally-non-playable monsters. Who cares if True Dragons have some unexplained +10 on their attack rolls? Although, it would be greatly appreciated if some rules element written on the bottom of their stat block explains properly why they get this extra bonus...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Speaking of the Titular "races", can it be said that the Elf-Human-Orc relations are some sort of ring species?


Have high enough STR ignore all those unrealistically borked armor penalties, and everyone (except melee martial haters, that is) will be happy!
Even 5E managed to do that, despite its clunky failings on many places...


Uh, I suppose Spontaneous Heightening? That seems the only logical answer.

And they only learn 2 proper 10th LV spells. A true shame, really.
They should learn more spells (At least 1 more per spell LV) to make up for being stuck on their list...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

What, 10th-level reality warpers, useless? Am I hearing things or what?
The old musings on how "Greed has no limits" was true after all...

Give non(or lesser)-spellcasters more skill ranks AND better/unique noncombat stuff; THEN this topic's title becomes valid at all...


Less than 20 minutes, and I get to click on that golem over the top-left of this page...!


About 80 minutes left!


Ugh, no blog today? And I have to wait until Friday in my time zone?!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So long, dipping.


thaX wrote:
Because the default was to set the challenge to the level of the characters. A lock wasn't determined by what type of lock was used, but by how high of level the character was. The same lock that was simple at level one became fort knox at level 30. This was an example IN THE BOOK.

That was the reason how I ended up abandoning 4E, despite it being my introduction to the roleplaying game hobby. It was anathema for my instinctual preferences (for rational verisimilitude).

thaX wrote:
Making clear from the get go that the challenge of the skill is set by the environment and setting around the character instead of having it set by what level the character actually is, this is very much different than anything in 4th.

...Did they? If so, why did I get the knee-jerk reaction to make that rant of a post (against what seemed to be those ugly "scaling DCs" again) earlier in this thread?

thaX wrote:
I do not see Paizo making the same mistakes that was made in the past, and repeating those vague nuances that killed 4th edition.

Hope that won't never creep up when PF2 launches proper. For now, I'll see if the playtest documents give satisfactory examples on how to assign levels for recurring challenges proper per check.


Just as expected, and thankfully acceptable. Now I just want other half-human feats + full Orcs in the final CRB...


There was a leak that big? Ouch, how did I miss that...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, and why must I have to declare "Give fighters more skills!" in the middle of the Druid preview?! It's so depressing...

Anyway, it's good to see that wild shapers need to invest some growth on Strength.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brock Landers wrote:
Mats Öhrman wrote:
IconicCatparent wrote:


I am asking you! It seems like your proposed solution and the actual 4e rules aren't too far apart, and I'm genuinely curious about what went so wrong in 4e's skill DC system.

The argument that absolutely everything in 4e was bad just isn't enough for me. I need to know what about it was bad.

Skill Challenges.

Once your skill roll was part of a skill challenge, the DC always ended up being the ”level appropriate” one no matter what you tried to do narratically.

We never got the narration to fit the mechanic either. Either we got trapped in a Schrödinger’s Cat situation: ”Ok, I rolled 39 on my stealth. Do I manage to sneak up on him?” - ”I’ll tell you after we’ve all rolled 13 more rolls.” or out-of-sync between mechanic and narration: ”What to you mean ’we’ failed to cross the gorge? Two of us managed all our climb rolls, and you said we succeeded in our climbs. Do we have a split party now?” - ”Um....” (Examples intended as quick few-sentence illustrations only)

Finally the GM wrote his own skill challenge system to fix mechanical issues, but we never got rid of the threadmill level appropriate skill DCs or the Schrödinger’s Cat problem.

(Played a full campaign in 4E, level 1-26, using a conversion of Rise of the Runelords)

Yes, it often gives the feeling of the world conveniently levelling with you, the justification seems to be that things like doors are suddenly all made of adamantine or what-have-you once you encounter them past a certain level. Removing the +1/2 level from everything vastly improved my 4th Ed experience.

This one I'm not worried about, as it actually has an in-universe justification saying material A is stronger than B wise.

What I'm really worried about is that...

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I like these rules/guidelines fine, and think comparing them to 4E is more than a bit off. 4E's problem in this regard is that climbing a tree often (depending on DM) got higher DC as you went up in level. That's explicitly made not the case here (as may well have been the intent in 4E, but not so much the reality).

I don't really have much else to say.

...such atrocities against verisimilitude will frequent whether intentional or not. It's especially bad when your home country has around only 10000 active roleplaying gamers, with capable GMs less than a quarter of that...


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Something that looks awfully similar to "treadmill DCs", which means more power to the GM... This, is quite worrying (I am extremely cautious against anything that seems too authoritarian)... And I'm not even counting non-rigid, amorphous physics in the game's universe...

In a nutshell, I prefer those crazy tables in PF1 that defined every nook and cranny for each skills' DCs, however cumbersome they may have been. This, though, looks like it's in some uncomfortable space between 3.Xe and 5e...


Not that surprised PF2!Bard being an Occult full-caster, especially when the old Mesmerist's iconic is Lem's evil brother by birth...

Now I just want to know every single alternatives each casting class has for the spell component actions (like holy symbols, instruments, magical blood, and so forth).


As long as LFQW is fixed enough and PC-NPC Transparency stays enough (hint: slightly more than 5E, at the very least; on this I treat GURPS scale as an ideal top while Starfinder and 4E scale or below as totally unacceptable), it seems my PF1 library is doomed to be dusted...


QuidEst wrote:
We have some information on how occult casting works! It’s still verbal and somatic components, but individual classes can (as with other lists) make substitutions. Bard can provide verbal components with instruments, for instance.

Really? That's a shame (I strongly wanted Thought/Emotion). Where's the source of this, please?


As someone spoke of guns here, I wish to see them at least in the final PF2 CRB (as for the playtest the ship seems to have had sailed), at the very least the earlier ones even as an uncommon rarity.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Overall, it's very satisfying. Some thoughts rolling out below;

The Best
- Pick your own spell list with your bloodline
- Still spontaneous and Charisma based

The Flaw
- Cannot heighten any spell you know automatically, but only two per day
- Overwhelming Spell is a bit too weak for a supposed "blaster"

The Hope
- Occult spells get to use Thought and Emotion components (instant Psychic for core)
- Will get to know more spells than your number of total spell slots (5E failed spectacularly and ended up with a horrible incarnation of the class)


If the old Reincarnation spell is to account, and assuming that the half races get 1 fixed bonus and one floating one, I think Half-Elves will end up with DEX and Half-Orcs with STR as the fixed bonus. Not mental stats (very likely never), since tampering with them (especially penalties) always open a can of worms...


Anything I was going to say about this article was incinerated by that Armageddon Orb...

Now the only thing I wonder about is how the text will change in the new (assumed) PRD, on which catchy phrases the associated 3 gods' names will be replaced with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just hoping that PF2's Ranger actually ends up with both a firm identity and a functional mechanism...


Ancestral Longevity? Huh, maybe not all elves get to enjoy centuries worth of lifespan this time. Or, (personally) better yet, all playable humanoids have a similar base lifespan, then further augmented by either ancestral feats or class ones (such as the Druid and Monk's Timeless Body feat(ure), if it still exists).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was at first disappointed with Vorpal at first sight once again, then realized it was no more treated as a "death effect" at all. Finally, I may be able to decapitate Cthulhu at my whim...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For a guy who grew up reading actual wuxia stories, I'd say Ki(or qi, or whatever else that pronounces as appropriate) abilities should be core, specifically Timeless Body and Perfect Self. Living long and healthy for centuries, then being elevated into the celestial bureaucracy by becoming a xiānrén is a classic goal, or rather a common by-product of a protagonist's training coupled with their incredible talent in-story.

----

An unrelated note; Japanese wuxia equivalents, "Chanbara", as far as I'm informed, do not mention or make use of the Ki trope (despite the word's chosen pronunciation being Japanese), preferring relatively realistic samurai gorn for its plot.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

These whole new rules might take some time to learn properly...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If multiclassing is indeed a polished VMC, how can you make (mechanically-wise) characters like Fighters with spell slots? That it was impossible in the original VMC was why I just ignored the system without hesitation; what's the point of multiclassing into wizard if you don't progress in learning spells, anyway?


I know it's probably too late for the playtest, but it is a question that's really bugging me (regarding in-game balance between spell schools).

Specifically regarding Conjuration and Transformation, the two classically overpowered schools (for they can easily creep on the niches of other spell schools, or also often, entire classes just by themselves). How would you split and pilfer spells from these two to create (a) new school(s) of magic spells?

Also, reorganizing spells into other (new or old) schools that fit them better is already a thing (as healing spells properly sorted into Necromancy in PF2), so such suggestions are also welcome.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Only semi-expected to have archetypes absorb prestige classes complete, yet here they are. And now I don't have to give up my current main class' core features, sweet...


On the Monk's weapon proficiency; even heroes of "realistic" wuxia stories preferred swords first, staves and other "monk-ish weapons seconded, and unarmed fighting only as a functional last resort. It's quite contrary to its portrayal in the 3.X derivatives for a long time.

At least 5E acknowledged this and gave them all simple weapons and shortswords from the get go... ...and made a foolish mistake in making their own FoB's extra attack only work with unarmed strikes RAW. What a bummer.

As others pointed out, it would be best to give at least the "trained" proficiency to said weapons, then keep that Monastic Training feat help with further scaling on proficiency and magical/material benefits, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As the four magic types for full-casters confirmed/existed in PF lore is somewhat like...

Cleric: Spiritual/Vital
Druid: Material/Vital
Wizard: Material/Mental
Psychic (?): Mental/Spiritual...,

...what kind of "new" magic types can the two leftover combos be?

<A>: Material/Spiritual
<B>: Mental/Vital

----

And another thing, would it be better if Sorcerers be the catch-all class for all kinds of innate full-caster class for all 6(?) types of magic?
Including Oracles, Arcanists, and other spontaneous full-casters, without the spell level (better change this word fast, realy) delay, of course, in that regard...

And as such, no need for V and S components?
Well, it's "innate" so, and many other creatures get to cast spells without a visible hand equivalent nor a mouth...


Now I only need to see when and how for PF2 Monks will Timeless Body and Perfect Self kicks in...!


As long as they're not too graphic, I'd at least appreciate to see at least the price tags for those, um, "(questionable) services", as their raw nature makes the in-game world look more realistic and believable (= more verisimilitude) for me. Then further details will be ironed out by each individual groups, as usual (if they seriously want to explore this part of the world, that is).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Clearing up the conditions is legitimately a good idea. Stacking codified, even better.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Good to hear I no longer need to count leftover rage rounds. More thematic, at-will raging, fits better for a non-spellcaster's schtick.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

First impression; "...thanks goodness scaling feats still exist."

And stuff with legendary skill feats mentioned... So falling from orbit unscathed, some sort of a makeshift xenoglossy, effectively regenerating lost eyeballs, or a war-ending speech does look good somewhat, though others will have to wait for evaluation later if it's worth the action.

Anyways, if I get to run a PF2 game ever, I'l always allow legendary feats, because non-magicals must have nice things too to be fair game with spells (and try houseruling them with more skill ranks/feats); an adjusted choice between a lot of "less sure at-will" VS few dozens of "much sure limited-per-day" in-universe functions.

1 to 50 of 243 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>