Gold Dragon

Lucas Yew's page

134 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Speaking of narrative abilities, what would suit the fighter best and be relevant up to the epic levels? Like PF1's Paladins using Lay on Hands + Mercy let them act as pseudo-doctors OOC, rangers tracking like crazy on the wilderness (at least in theory), high level Monks acting as living translators for hypothetical intelligent creatures with completely unknown languages, etc. What could work well for fighters without breaking verisimilitude?

How about Sorcerers being the basic Psychic (/innate, or something else) caster? If the one of the two obscure spell lists do happen to be Psychic magic, I strongly feel it can finally get rid of that awkward V & S components from their (supposed to be) innate spellcasting.


P.S. By awkward, suppose a creature in-universe that can innately cast real spells (a.k.a. Sorcerer spells), but it has no elaborate appendages nor vocal organs. Yes, it's very awkward to simulate, and naturally it happens to be my greatest pet peeve with 3.Xe Sorcerers...

A thing I realized just a bit ago was why 5E got to use Neo-Vancian casting for prepared casters. Since the "caster levels" stack in 5E's multiclassing along with spell slot growth, you have a hard time which slot came from which class, and thus cannot allot individual slots to a single cast of spell each. As such, as a side effect, it finally saved Sorcerers from dented slot growth, too.

So I wonder, how will caster levels and Vancian magic function for PF2? I personally prefer Neo-Vancian, as it is super-tedious to prepare spells like individual bullets filled with different viruses, plus PF1 already has the Arcanist as an acceptably fine execution of a Neo-Vancian caster. And as we know that PF2 spells will also now require manual upcasting (plus downcasting, too? I don't have a clue about that), this actually might be what's really happening.

If Neo-Vancian for PF2 is true, I'd mostly be happy, but would also want it ensured to be like {prepared caster's daily prepared spells < spontaneous caster's full known spells}; the former can change spells completely each day on the fly, while the latter is stuck with its choices semipermanently, so a balance issue (5E failed miserably on this one).

So, my morning (UTC+9 here) ramble is finished now. Do you have any other thoughts about this topic?

^ Speaking of tanking, I remember 4E's two major tanking methods (marking, and the Defender's Aura). I personally believe the latter is more easy and intuitive to use, and would be happy to see a dedicated tanking ability working like that one...

Mark Seifter wrote:
We basically have a similar idea to what you suggest here, where we give examples of what tasks might be by level and elsewhere some suggested DCs for tasks of those levels (with several gradations within each level, to help GMs decide), but we go a step farther and have a significant discussion about the fact that you shouldn't scale...

Yeeessss... Climbing an oak tree in normal outside conditions should have a concrete DC, not scaling magically up by 10 (arbitrary number) just because your level is 10 higher. Well, it seems my greatest fear with PF2 is alleviated for good.


Edit: P.S. At first glance I thought the OP was bashing "concrete", fixed DCs away. Sorry for being mistaken, as it seems it was exactly the opposite!

Half level + Ability mod for untrained (no -2's, it seems too fiddly) (N/)PCs seems reasonable. And give the hypothetical NPC class(es) a class feature that let them gain mastery at earlier levels for "background skills" to simulate low level meisters of the trades.

And I really support the "sideways" growth for the new proficiency system which let me crack some laws of physics when I'm really focused here and there.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

As long as it does not have floating, treadmill DCs, which make the campaign world UNSTABLE and LACK VERISIMILITUDE, it will be fine. Both 4E and 5E (to a certain extent) suffer from this, making in-game stats have unstable values in interacting with the world.

As having concrete DC tables will also automatically fix NPC stat bonuses scaling differently (exceptions exist though; I'm looking at you, CR based proficiency bonus!), then all my biggest deal breakers will be exterminated.

thaX wrote:

I would like to see spells be remembered instead of having to prepare more than one copy for multiple castings.

The Arcanist should have been the way to go for prepared casters across the board.

This is one sacred cow that should have been slain in 3.0

Oh, yes. This. The Arcanist's castings feel more organic as a spellcaster than this bullet-like usage of old.

No wonder 5E did the exact same thing and waved old Vancian byebye going onto the way of the dodo...

I'm generally content about the new system. It seems that your skills now grow on two axes, the old Rank axis and the new(?) Functionality axis (which obviously came from skill unlocks). If coupled with concrete DCs and generously epic functions for Master/Legendary ranks, this seriously has great potential.


Milo v3 wrote:
First houserule I'll make will probably be changing Untrained from level-2 to level/2. That way it keeps Paizo's desire for characters to "keep up" while at least reducing the "Your character is forced to be amazing at everything" factor.
ChibiNyan wrote:
It would probably be a bit more reasonable if it was only 1/2 of your level added and doubling the bonus from the ranks. It makes the lv20 case not be so ridiculous, but they're still quite good at most tasks. It also increases the value of the ranks, which think are being considered too small right now. +10 bonus just from levels is not insurmountable by even lower-level-ish experts who are getting more from their investment.

Funny, everything I was going to insist was Ninja'd by someone better...! If using this variant, just in case of saves and other combat related numbers, maybe the math should assume the regular DCs to be around 3/4 times the APL so player characters being untrained in saves don't get snuffed out too quickly.

Harveyopolis wrote:
I'm not a huge fan of the +level to your modifier, but I think an easy fix could be had. Just make the amount your level contributes to your modifier based on your proficiency rank? For examples Trained would grant 1/4 of your level, Expert 1/3, Master 1/2 and then Legendary for the full level which at that point would be a reasonable thing. It makes the proficiency ranks matter a whole lot more, while still keeping more or less the same balance.

Huh, and this is almost like what I was originally going to post before I fully accepted the rules as is of now...

So with proper investment I can rain down 48d4+48 force damage on an unlucky critter? How tempting...

I'd insist that at the very least Thought and Emotion components fit the sorcerer better than V & S components. Being born with the ability to cast spells somewhat doesn't fit right with "artificial" necessities such as language or specific hand signs...

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems they made dumping Charisma a hard choice by adding the new Resonance pool system.

As such, do you think they made steps to ensure that it's a tough choce to dump Strength either, for inter-ability balances? Assuming PF2 did so, what could have been added to Strength, oher than weapon hit/damage, Athletics, armor versatility and carrying capacity?

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Would all this be a good compensation if wands are now permanent and won't crack anymore when "used up" like PF1?

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.

Whew. Then I think the DC has to do with raw damage taken when you drop to zero. Would it be like that?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ah, this! And never forget to apply the correct direction to which the T.rex claws face (Hint: it's inwards, not down)!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wait, object HP is gone now? Hmm, that's troublesome...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Awahoon wrote:


2: Subtypes in the book, like Goblin Archer, Goblin bomber, Goblin Wolf Rider, Goblin whatever.


Shush! Now that's too scary, and don't give them ideas on bringing this abomination to life!

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
(...) "Ì̴̴̛͜T̷̨̕'͏҉̕͘Ş͘ ̡̛̕W̨̛H҉̛À̴͘̕͡T̷̢͜͝ ̸͏҉̵M̵̸̧͟Y̷̧̛͡ ̨̀͟͡͝C̵͠H̴̛҉Ą̢͏̷͘Ŕ͝A̸̛Ć̵T̴E̢͜͠R̵̀́͜͢ ̛͜͟W̴̨O̷̢̡͜U̷L̵҉̷͡D҉̸ ̷̧́͡͏D̵̛̛͝O̵҉̛" (...)

It's not related to the topic, but what on earth is this unholy abomination of a "font" facsimile?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:

As long as the "new action" is something extraordinary that most people wouldn't be able to do, great.

The risk is having actions that anybody should be able to do locked behind feats.

Yes, this. For such cases, "Do you have the feat for that?" must go away.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So PF2 gives "relative" EXP... Well, since (as far as I know) XP payments for other elements such as spells went the way of the dodo long ago, I'm cool with it.

But only 4 stat boosts, which works almost like Starfinder... I don't want them gimped like SF, diminishing returns later on and like that. While it's painful, the torment of deciding to get that "maximum possible ability score for any character" (36 in PF1, usually) is still quite enjoyable (apart from the fact that only SAD classes used to be able to afford it with little or no sufferings).

Eben TheQuiet wrote:

I've always thought there as a seriously missed opportunity regarding monks and their unique proficiencies. Or, as I think would feel more appropriate and unique, give monks the ability to get more value out of simple weapons. Instead of using these really rare and underpowered "exotic" weapons like kama and siangham, let them take similar simple weapons (sickle and shortspear) to higher heights.

That would give monks even more of a schtick: taking every-day tools (kama = sickle, for example) and making them lethal weapons.

One way of doing this would be to allow them to deal their unarmed damage with these weapons (assuming that in PF2, the monk's base unarmed damage eclipses the base damage of those weapons).

Good point. One of the things that 5E did right was exactly that one.

As such, I'd be delighted to see them wielding some kind of slashing-damage sword with DEX to hit (and damage, if applicable). Just like western fantasies, swords are supposed to be Wuxia heroes' favorite weapon, too (followed by spears, other pole weapons, bare body, then others, if I remember correctly).

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Healing spells back to Necromancy school? SWEET!!!

And so another pet peeve of mine was solved...

bookrat wrote:

Could also go with the old school version of it: flat percent chance to simply ignore your spell, whatever it is.

Creatures with 100% resistance were the bane of wizards everywhere. :)

Hehehe, you beat me into mentioning that one.

Yeah, apply flat percentage SR, or Magic Resistance, then make previously underwhelming spell schools (like Evocation) either bypass or do partial effects upon contact, and you solved SoD spell supremacy and inter-school balance with one stone! :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Speaking of which, why did the U.S. fail to introduce metric properly? I've heard rumors about bin Laden's attack on New York invoking fervent patriotism nationwide having to do with its last straw, but surely that alone can't be the whole story...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Erik Mona wrote:
ulgulanoth wrote:
I would hope that the first bestiary contain at least the vast majority of the monsters from the first 3 bestiaries, otherwise the game is going to be too lean.

I'm guessing a truly credible version of that book would be at least 600 pages.

Are you willing to pay $60-70 for such a book?

I'm genuinely interested in people's answers, because to tell you the truth I am strongly considering a base monster reference that is significantly larger than Bestiary 1's 320 pages.

So... don't be shy about your opinions, please.

Yes, absolutely!

Edit: And I hope the majority of all playable races in PF1e would make it in the first book. Really.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My favorite ones are of course, true dragons.
Particularly, I'd like to see imperial dragons right from launch; stereotype western/eastern dragons and all.

For others, I'd like to see the 9 major alignment outsiders, at least the CR 2 "familiar-able" lackeys and the CR 20 bosses for each race.
And succubi as not-necessarily CE. It was too hard to see scheming fiends as chaotic, and I find it good that at least 5E retconned that little fact, so why not too? (retconning incubi as the male form of them is a fine idea, too)
Another one I can think of now is the phoenix. The Pathfinder version is majestic and thematic, and it is a mystery why mainstream D&D never had them in core since 3.0E (as far as I know)...

The Sideromancer wrote:
Do you have a link to that? iew-with-Erik#74

I think this was it.

P.S. Sorry for no hyperlinks, but my Mac OS Firefox acts strangely on and the format instructions button below won't budge...

Maybe in the (probably existant) "Building NPCs" chapter, instead of that elf ranger guy from 1E's CRB, they could put in Damiel as a new example for those "NPCs built using PC rules" (yeah, they were confirmed, just in case no one learned about it).


P.S. Why is the writing box stretching rightwards over the window boundary (Mac OS High Sierra, latest Firefox)? It's frustrating to have to use the tab key to reach the Submit Post button...

At least the beans Mark spills for us seems promising.
Higher ceilings and more leeway for (Ex) abilities!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Splendid news, that you can now enjoy crazy mind games whether or not to raise your shield each turn.
Do they crack easily, unlike PF1E when equipments usually didn't break unless successfully sundered?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Free scaling for spells gone here too? Good riddance.
They were never FAIR, considering those unrealistic to-hit penalties for iterative attacks + casters getting more spells AND more slots at the same time, not even considering individual spell powers improving without any investment.

The best tabletop aggro system I've seen so far was from 4e Essentials, the so-called "Defender's Aura" power. Basically it worked by slightly cutting off accuracy of all foes who aren't attacking you.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
Like when Jason misidentified a font of holy water as a healing potion. *clears throat*
Still #1 playtest adventure moment! #2 is when Jason chain lightninged and cone of colded all the other PCs on the same round.

Hmm, interesting... So in PF2E the "attacker" (or caster) always get to roll now? I do approve of 4th Edition's static save defenses, so...

Dilvias wrote:
One of the things I haven't heard discussed yet are the NPC classes. I wonder if they will or should keep all of them. They are a pretty important part of my home campaign for example.

This seconded. Especially since their very existence will also confirm PC-NPC transparency automatically.

I'd like to see all "half-(whatever creature type)" races, like aasimars, tieflings, etc. on launch, at the very least included in the new Bestiary 1. With no differences between PC and NPC versions, of course (I'm looking at you, Starfinder...).

Many playable races from PF1 Bestiaries 2 and beyond that fit the criteria (including uncommon ones), like suli and wyvaran, would be gladly appreciated if they were included from the start, too.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I liked the Unchained economy somewhat, so I'm mostly OK with this. I just want steady damage/action scaling for martials without looking too arbitrary like Starfinder's chunky plusses to damage.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Please do this;

Keep set DCs for skills, or at least a list of firm examples for each skill from the easiest to its extraordinary limits. I can't stand fiat from potential tyrannic problem GMs who wrongly claim that things proven in RL to be possible as impossible and refuse valid check attempts...

Remake sorcerer spells to work without the "artificial" feeling Vocal and Somatic components. I believe you should replace them with something more "natural" for a in-the-blood caster, like Logic and Emotion from Occult Adventures.

Include most major breeds of true dragons in the new Bestiary, especially the Imperial ones. This one is just personal preference, but it doesn't seem right to see only the western-style chromatic/metallics only in the first and most important monster book.

Please don't do this;

Destroy PC-NPC transparency. Now, frankly I don't care about the uplayable monsters, but for playable races, like in Starfinder's Alien Archives, the dealbreaker for me was that the books explicitly split a same creature's player version and NPC version's racial features (like the skittermander), and it was a nightmare. At least for potential playable creatures, please keep the transparency.

Thank you for the answer!

I hear of this Creation domain here and there, so I did some research on it.

As it turns out, the Core Cleric domains in Pathfinder are composed of those from the original SRD, including the so called Divine rules' additional domains, EXCEPT the Creation domain (Scalykind having joined back later through later hardcovers); apparently its original domain bonus to conjuration caster level stacked with the Artificer domain, so the dev team seems to have considered its presence useless.

So basically, did the Creation domain in Pathfinder truly had gone the way of the dodo?

Thanks for the quick answers! Speaking of iron dragons, I found out the great wyrm is missing one extra fully ranked skill (probably due to missing out the inherent bonus), and some places have typos like "kowledge"...

A backer here, and boy was I pleased. Especially a fire breathing true dragon that ain't weak to cold damage, finally! I didn't even expect one to appear in this book...

Anyway, I have questions too.

1. As someone may have already said somewhere else, do the spheres associated with Improvd Unarmed Strike automatically gain its original benefits (always considered armed), even with no mention of it already included in the text?

2. For sphere martials, would you recommend the whole Vital Strike chain as the main source of scaling damage? Or was I lazy and didn't find SoM's own damage scaling methods already in the book?

3. It's a mix of a request and a question; which Conscript Sphere Specialization would reap its class level+1 scaling benefits the most? As such, do the scaling skill ranks for certain spheres and talents also benefit from said feature (21 ranks at conscript 20)?

Finally, another generic spherecaster that I adore! Which gishes around leisurely using cool combos? Lovely...

By the way, when will the book(s) be delivered? It's been a long time since the initial playtest ended...

While I'm still skimming the PDF, I do have two major irritations.

1. NPCs not built on same principles as PCs.
Yeah I know it makes the game much more manageable, but my suspension of disbelief shattered faster than the speed of light when I learned about it. If the nightmarish event of a PC style statblock "transforming" into an NPC style one ever happens in an adventure path... (shudders in fear of going amok)

2. Solarians' super MAD-ness.
The Chained Monk problem Mark-II. They managed to (mostly) fix Fighter and Rouge in this game, but why not our Jedi-esque space monks? Well, guess no Yoda archetypes for me, shame...

So they're the new Chained Monk, huh?
Pity, I really would like to play one if it wasnt't this screwed up mechanically...

Why is starting with 18 on a stat considered bad? Isn't that the only way to get a natural 22 at 20th level?

Now I'm really curious how damage actually scales with the dead-basic weapon attack.
PF had base damage as [weapon]+[ability mod]+[other fiddly bonuses] multiplied by number of attacks.

Wonder how Starfinder plays out, but I'd really like to move and enjoy RELIABLY scaled weapon damage in combat...

This I do consider as a nice variant, other than the one which divorces Agility (AC, initiative, Reflex) from DEX plus sundering CHA and dividing it along INT and WIS.
The GURPS point costs for its stats plus its history since The Fantasy Trip was a major cue.

Arachnofiend wrote:
While we're pointing out good 3rd party replacements for the Fighter, the Spheres of Might Conscript is basically what you want from a Fighter (a blank page chassis that you can fill in with most any non-casting concept you want) except really good. This is largely because, unlike having a lot of extra feats, having a lot of extra sphere talents is actually worth a damn.

I am proud to be a backer for the book! :)

Anyway, last time I checked DDS' forums, I was shocked to see someone who wanted out-of-combat abilities booted out of Spheres of Might, which is exactly the opposite of what I'd like to happen to martials. Wonder why did that person think like that...

This guide is great. I wish you keep updating it, Javaed.

The Japanese' most popular PnP ruleset, Sword World (currently the 2.0th edition), already uses almost exactly the system you propose, except...

1. All classes are active at once, and the "Universal Level" is just equal to the highest class level; the rule assumes all players will be heavily multiclassed at higher levels, especially because of my 3rd point below.
2. Spell points are just calculated by cramming all spellcasting class levels together.
3. The game calls classes as skills; what we'd call skills in d20 are just hard-coded ability checks (such as STR-climb check or INT-identify check), and each skill-class gives a bonus equal to its level on preset kinds of checks; hence the heavy multiclassing.

1 to 50 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>