Sleepless Detective

MerlinCross's page

Organized Play Member. 1,357 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,357 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Cevah wrote:

Well, Rich Parents gives a lot more gold, and anyone can get it. So the money from Get the Cargo Through is not an issue.

** spoiler omitted **

The special cargo is something precious. This usually means jewels, which are small and maybe easily smuggled. Probably not too valuable, or it might be sold by the carrier. Alternatively, it could be a message or token of alliance being carried. It might not need to be secret, but if it was, it might still be delivered.

With something secret, it might be hidden well enough to not be picked up by the pirates collecting the PCs. Or a token might not be recognized as important and left the PC.

Should the PC deliver this item, it could be a nice small loot drop for a reward.

/cevah

Thanks for the tip. Though hmm I was thinking of making it some sort cargo/supplies for Harrigan. What better way to smuggle in aid/spies than not to tell the smuggler, only for them to be gangpressed by the guy who needs it.

Hmm I'll think on it.


Okay so, need some tips, help, advice. Not the whole character but some pointers might be needed.

First, we're playing with Elephant in the Room feat tax. Here if you don't know it. Granted we're using the PDF version but they're kinda close.

BUT Even without knowledge of that, short verison is I can skip Power Attack, Combat Expertise and a lot of "Improved Maneuver" feats. That or pick up Dirty Fighting.

No the biggest issue is the following. I'm a Brawler, in Carrion Crown. The heck do I build?

If this is undead heavy(Along with a few other monster types *COUGH* Abominations), Dirty Fighting is right out same with Feint. Trip isn't as useful and Grapple is going to be a pain. So Maneuvers seem right out. I plan on picking up Pummeling Style but that's 2 levels away.

I just don't know what feats to pick up besides just more "Tank" feats. But I find just picking up Toughness and Shield Focus to be..., meh? I don't know.

The team is Standard Brawler, Paladin, Sorcerer, and Druid. And I have no idea what to build/learn to help out against the enemy types. And I just hit level 4, but still can't figure out a level 3 feat. Help?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
ICE NINJA wrote:
For Pathfinder 2 they should give attacks of opportunity with -2 to atk to all classes and all monsters. Fighters can be better than the other classes and ignore the -2 penalty.
Oh heavens no. Restricting attacks of opportunity is one of my favorite changes in the system. It results in a fun guessing game tactically and movement heavy dynamic combat. Give other classes their own fun flavorful reactions, don't spread AoO everywhere again.

Guessing game, once. Per creature. Ever see that creature again you'll know they have AoO or not.

I don't see this magical moving combat people keep talking about. Stay in the way of the squishies, bottle neck the enemy, swing as many times as you can if you can hit and or crit.

What are people doing with their movement? Step, swing, step? Yeah that's moible combat. And not at all annoying when the enemy also starts doing it.

Good lords, I'm thinking of Tuckers' Kobolds now. Give a few of them Fighter level 1. Non fighter step up, swing, step back into AoO halberd coverage. And keep doing that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Belisar wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
How many of those 31 are skill feats? How many ancestry feats?
And how many of those skill and ancestry feats were built into base skills and ancestries in PF1e? And how many feats need to be used to acquire things you would have gotten from a class passively?

Here the same answer applies:

Better choosing freely from Skill, General, Ancestry feats than getting fixed fighter abilities which rather makes every fighter look the same.
Unless you want to have every fighter look like a clone of each other.

Oh. No. Every fighter has AoO.

WELL back to the drawing board Paizo, we need every character ever made to be different.


Okay. So, here's how this happened.

Rounding up some friends for Skull and Shackles. People start picking traits, statting up good times. Someone takes "Getting the Cargo Through" trait..., wait what? Yes, he mistakingly picked it up from Serpents SKULL, not SKULL and Shackles.

For those that don't know; the trait in question gives them 300 extra gold, AND a piece of cargo they need to deliver. What the cargo is, depends on the GM in question.

Now I'm not a big fan of taking traits outside of the Campaign they are in. But this one seems pretty harmless/basic. And besides they'll lose the cash/items at the start of the adventure anyway for a few days/session or two.

So..., it got me thinking; is this a good Opportunity? One of those instances where something just falls into your lap and you go "I can work with this?"

I have a couple ideas myself of what this cargo could be and help hint at the story going forward. Papers towards a certain group, smuggling some supplies/materials for some later event, heck maybe even sneak in some spies this way.

But this also means that the Wormwood also goes through this cargo. Which opens up some other ideas for me.

What do you guys think? Revoke it, use it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KohaiKHaos wrote:

The Erastil-following Cleric can take 0 feats and take only -2 within 50 feet with his longbow, or any cleric can invest a single class feat in Fighter Dedication and run around with a shortbow because they can, in fact, do that.

If they are dedicated to going full archer, sure, they're welcome to grab Point Blank Shot for some icing on top. If you want to round out the archetype with a third feat invested into the Fighter Dedication (for some reason) you can steal Attack of Opportunity or even wait until level 12 to become an Expert archer.
You don't need a way around the Longbow volley property if you go into Fighter Dedication. You *can* if you're dedicated entirely to going longbow for that +1 average damage per die, but is it really fair to consider it so onerous to be making an equal or lesser relative investment to get to the same place?

So at best, PF2 costs 1 feat instead of 3, because if you're that concerned about the -2 from volley you'll use a shortbow to completely circumvent it, and if they release a cleric feat at some point for Erastil followers that lets them ignore the volley property, you'll still be at 1 feat. So even if clerics had a native way to copy point-black shot for the one God with a favored bow, it'd cost just as much to get to it as just using shortbows.
And if they ever print a god with shortbows favored, you can get down to 0 feats to competently wield bows with no penalty. And the people who want to specialize and be better at bows than other clerics will still be going Fighter Dedication -> Point Blank Shot -> Weapon Expert because that's just how you show that you're the better archer.

You make it sound like some kind of massive step backwards that the cleric can invest *less* of his feats or class levels into this for the same result as the previous edition. A PF1 cleric could have invested those feats into being more clericy too, but he chose to throw 2-3 archery feats in instead.

Now see, I'm not the one who said You have to give away Cleric feats. Or cleric abilities. There's debate there but I wasn't even touching that.

Is it a step back? No I don't think so. I think it's jsut a step to the SIDE if anything.

2 feats to use bows in PF1. 2 Feats to use bows in PF2.

There's a difference? I mean for longbows at least.


ChibiNyan wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
They should matter and play differently. I don't think class X should have a monopoly on a play-style though. Or at the very least, Combat Style. I want to make a TWF guy that uses knives..., well I would just make him Rogue(Gasp) or maybe Ranger, maybe a few other classes. NOW I have to make him Ranger or Fighter.
Or Warpriest <3 One of the coolest ways to make TWF with tiny knives be badass.

I had a player drop out that was a Warpriest. He's coming back with a Shifter(Needed like two months off). So I've seen what Warpriest can do and am interested in maybe running one.

Also, and main reason I'm making a post; the whole bit I did about how Clerics can use bows in both editions..., well. That's for Clerics. Or casters in general. Any class that can boost their hit with a spell or side ability can maybe get over the hump of -4 to shooting into melee. Finding a way to use the bow in the first place is another matter.

PF2 still has the issue of you need first Proficiency and then you have to find a way around Volley. Which is -2. Not quite as bad as -4 but I really haven't had a bow user in my tests just yet so I can't tell with the math and crits is that better or worse just yet.

So PF1 you needed Point Blank shot to get Precise shot to really start using bows. PF2 you need..., probably a class or dedication to use the bow and a way around Volley. Which is probably Fighter dedication into Point blank shot.

At best, PF2 costs 2 feats instead of 3 if you wanted to bow with a class that couldn't pick up Proficiency or work around it with spells/traits. Maybe 1 if you can grab an Ancestry feat or Common feat to give you weapon training but still need a way around Volley.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

I

For reference, the team was; Druid, Monk, Sorcerer, Barbarian.

A flying monk should deal some considerable damage (fly is on the druid spell list and you were given a scroll of fly).

When I played it my druid did exactly that on the monk. The cleric mostly kept the monk alive as he drew a LOT of damage. The rest of us primarily plinked away with ranged attacks (including my druid. Don't all druids take weapon proficiency :-)? )

I admit to be being heartily amused by Paizos apparent surprise that this fight showed that monks, barbarians, etc needed better range options. I mean, OF COURSE a fight with a ranged flier is going to show that all characters NEED some range options.

I don't remember the outright turn to turn play. That was last week. But I believe that was the plan, but the Monk ate crit from the Jaws and dropped like a rock. Sorcerer(Angelic) was able to patch him up while the Barbarian kept the beast back. But it was looking grim till they used Mist to cover their escape.

They retreated, rested, and then went back on track, avoiding the beast in question(We are talking about the manticore right?)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marc Radle wrote:
nogoodscallywag wrote:


Fortunately the VAST majority of players like and use Golarion, so this aspect will remain. Thankfully.

Very interested to hear where you get this data.

"VAST majority of players" is a pretty specific term and would seem to imply some sort of concret data to back it up ...

To be fair, I maybe... kinda get where they're coming from?

PFS is or was pretty popular(I have no idea just how many are playing I know my local stores run DnD leagues now). And I believe those game take place on Golarion.

The other point of note is the Adventure Paths. Which is supposed to be one of their better selling products(I keep seeing that but no data so sorry). All those books take place on Golarion and some of them might be hard to trasnplant into a home brew.

So I can see the correlation I believe but it also doesn't prove it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's a bit out of left field but I suppose a decent play check test.

My own crew also got beat down by it but solved the issue by..., running. The Druid that was playing had Obscuring Mist ready. Drop it, go over the plan for maybe a turn, and then they booked it. I think they also summoned something to draw attention.

So it wasn't a complete wash. Druid player felt pretty good about getting them out. But the rest of the team was kinda bothered that they HAD to run.

For reference, the team was; Druid, Monk, Sorcerer, Barbarian.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think one of the big goals of PF2 should be to make various combat strategies (e.g. archery, twf, etc.) functional without any feat investment, so the fact that some classes have some feats relevant to these strategies is simply a bonus that makes the strategy a little more efficient for that class, not "you need to be this class to do it."
Is that satisfying, though? I'd like to play a Cleric, for example, who is good with a bow. I have no options outside of multiclassing to demonstrate that I'm a better archer than the bog standard cleric? If I wanted to show that in PF1e I would take archer feats and have all my cleric stuff. In 2e I have to trade out cleric stuff to get any recognition as a bow user.
Well, from a Barbarian I've been playing I have found that things like "grappling, shoving, and tripping" are satisfying even though I have invested 0 feats in it and these were things that you would never have enough feats to fully optimize in PF1. Just being able to knock people over because I have a high strength and athletics proficiency I find satisfying.

Also side note, UM, while I do like the fact Manvuers seem better or at least easier in PF2..., part of the issue is that You're not always locked to Athletics from what I understand. If you're trying to do it while Flying, It becomes an Acrobatics check. Now while this might not effect you all the time, I can see it being kinda out of left field if a Grapple build jumps/flys up to the monster and fails their check cause they didn't put as much focus into Acrobatics as they did Athletics.

Also gimme Dirty Trick back.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think one of the big goals of PF2 should be to make various combat strategies (e.g. archery, twf, etc.) functional without any feat investment, so the fact that some classes have some feats relevant to these strategies is simply a bonus that makes the strategy a little more efficient for that class, not "you need to be this class to do it."
Is that satisfying, though? I'd like to play a Cleric, for example, who is good with a bow. I have no options outside of multiclassing to demonstrate that I'm a better archer than the bog standard cleric? If I wanted to show that in PF1e I would take archer feats and have all my cleric stuff. In 2e I have to trade out cleric stuff to get any recognition as a bow user.

Correction: In PF1e you HAVE to spend your feats to even THINK about using a bow. Don't want to take a -4 on every single attack? That's two feats down the drain. At least in 2e you can use a bow with no penalty to begin with.

Also don't think of you trading out "cleric things" when you multiclass. You're still gaining divine spell levels and proficiency in divine spell casting. The cleric feats aren't what makes you a cleric.

What shooting into Melee? Depending on the Cleric level, you can probably find a spell to ignore that. And you can probably pick up a Domain that helps too.

Final bit, there's a couple Gods that have Favored Weapon: Bow/Long Bow, so you can even get around not having the Proficiency for the weapon.

PF2..., we still actually still need Feat to use a bow or Favored Weapon. Which is only Erastil right now. That or take Fighter Dedication to get it and if we're already taking that, might as well pick up Basic Maneuver too for Pointblank Shot, cause you're probably going to have a Volley trait otherwise we have -2. And then depending on if Screening is a thing...

That seems close to the "needing 2 feats in PF1".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think one of the big goals of PF2 should be to make various combat strategies (e.g. archery, twf, etc.) functional without any feat investment, so the fact that some classes have some feats relevant to these strategies is simply a bonus that makes the strategy a little more efficient for that class, not "you need to be this class to do it."

Oh they're functional across all classes. Class X does the combat style better though. SO it's only "functional" if you pick that class or dedication. Otherwise it's possible but a trap. You won't be as good as X so why bother?

That's how we do it right? We have to have the max benefits for a thing or it's not worth it right?

See, that's the issue. It might be a little more efficient to play the combat style with X. No biggy. But the Math of crits is probably going to make any small benefit worth more and then the community gets in on it. To the point that while it wasn't designed as such, we'll get to "You NEED to play X style with X class, what are you a bad player?"

So it might be designed for You don't need X class. It'll end as "You need X class" anyway.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pandora's wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
We have far different ways of playing then.
I'm curious why you say that. What do trap options add to your game? The only reason I know of to like trap options is because one likes to be better than players who don't know to avoid them. I'm sure you have a better reason than that, so I'd like to know what it is.

Well for one, I don't min max. I try to be effective in combat, traveling, social, etc. But I don't go out of my way to push the number as far as it can go. So if you look at my character sheets you'll probably see a bad pick or a trap option when it comes to feats, skills, or even items. I mean heck, I picked up Craft Construct as a feat on my current character in PF1, but the community seems to consider that a trap, not worth it, what are you doing, unless you're using it to make a crafting army you are doing it wrong. Don't care, I have a little junk golem that follows me around and helps out.

As a GM though, and I admit this isn't in the rules, or for new GMs I guess, I'll give you the same as when I explained Appraise to someone else; To me there's no Trap option. There are harder options yes, but I try to make sure players are able to use the skills, feats, and items they pick up. It might require a bit more work, but I like sitting down with a player and trying to help them build what they want and then make it work. I might have to bend the rules or even ignore them at times, but I play for story and character, not the math. And if it is truly, truly trapish or Taxish... well I just remove those.

Pandora's wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

I do agree though. Remove classes. I shouldn't have to be a Fighter to be an archer. I shouldn't have to be one or ranger for two weapon fighting. Or Barbarian for 2hander.

Remove the classes, let players do what they want. I dislike this half done system they have in place. It's half classless(Build what you want with what you want) and half class(OH but only these classes are good at X good job trying to make it work without X).

I agree that completely classless could make a good game but I think we both know it won't happen here. If you're going to have classes, they should matter and play differently. If feats define your combat options and everyone takes the same feats, classes don't mean much in terms of combat. There's no variety. Classless systems overcome this problem by offering vastly more options for your build path. PF1 was the worst of both worlds in this regard: build paths were too similar with too few build paths.

They should matter and play differently. I don't think class X should have a monopoly on a play-style though. Or at the very least, Combat Style. I want to make a TWF guy that uses knives..., well I would just make him Rogue(Gasp) or maybe Ranger, maybe a few other classes. NOW I have to make him Ranger or Fighter.

PF1 might have been bad. I went out of my way to do different things. However I'm looking at PF2, and with people already making the true build paths, I ask; How is PF2 going to be any different? The math is going to get figured out, the guides are going to go up and you'll see the same character again and again. There might be more paths in PF2, but how sure are we that the community isn't just going to go down the same one like before?

Pandora's wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Also. Arcane Archer. Was it good to play nothing but Wizard classes? I don't know, probably not. I still had fun.

To be fair, the Arcane Archer gives a bunch of abilities that make using bows less of a trap for a Wizard. I'm not opposed to a Wizard with a bow. I'm opposed to Wizards who are intended to be bad with a bow being offered a bow as an option without flashing warning signs.

I'm glad you had fun, but it's possible to have fun with a useless character and with a wet turd of a game system. In a playtest, we're trying to help create the best game possible to maximize the potential for fun. Having fun isn't good enough, when more fun could instead be had.

See this to me is why Retraining exists. If you have messed up your character enough or are not having fun, ask the GM to either retrain or just rebuild. Unless it's PFS, they usually will let you do so. I'd also suggest as GM, maybe tell players "This might be hard to pull off". I have someone going to run a Shifter for Mummy's Mask. Oh god the DR might hurt them, and Shifter is kinda a weird class. Now I'm willing to see what I can do for them, but for a newer GM and player, I would tell the new gm to maybe suggest something else. If you need the book to pop up with red letters, I suppose that's fine. I'd rather see the player and GM talk it out myself.

And this is where we break. Because fun is subjective. People are split on the fun of Resonance and seem to be having a lot of fun with the 3 action system. Resonance in my playtests, gets in the way and kills Alchemist; and the 3 action system while neat tends to just boil down to "Move attack Move" or just standing still to get as many crit swings in. It's not that different from the "I need to get full attack". It's just "I need to get as many crit swings in".

What is fun for you is not fun for me all the time. And vice verse. What is MORE fun for me could make it less fun for you. I'm all for trying to see if we can make the system fun for all but I don't see that happening. Not with the systems already in place, and the community that is so used to pushing every number they can.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, if we want to play good people who come from a horrible and regimented culture, who rebel against such... we can just play Chelaxians.

And yet I think I've only seen 1 player make a Chelaxian.

Probably because Human. Humans have some of the best stuff to make it good to pick but heck we're all human. Lemme play as something else....

wait we ARE all human right? There's no mad AI or lizard people form the moon here right?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pandora's wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

It's true. You had to put a bunch of feats into it.

Now you just need to put class levels into it. This is...better?

Want to be a Wizard with some bow Feats? Nope. Take Fighter.

Wizard with bow feats? I'm alright with traps like that being taken out. You could do that to yourself in PF1, it just always sucked. I'm not a fan of ivory tower game design. If a feature is going to be available to a character, there should be some instance where it isn't a trap for that character. If Wizards are going to suck at weapon combat (which they clearly did in PF1), then they shouldn't have access to weapon feats. Either classes should be offered options only for what they are allowed to be good at, or everyone should be able to be good at anything (with investment, of course) and classes should be removed because no roles/niches are being protected. PF1's approach just allowed a ton of trap options that required system mastery to save yourself from.

We have far different ways of playing then.

I do agree though. Remove classes. I shouldn't have to be a Fighter to be an archer. I shouldn't have to be one or ranger for two weapon fighting. Or Barbarian for 2hander.

Remove the classes, let players do what they want. I dislike this half done system they have in place. It's half classless(Build what you want with what you want) and half class(OH but only these classes are good at X good job trying to make it work without X).

Also. Arcane Archer. Was it good to play nothing but Wizard classes? I don't know, probably not. I still had fun.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
thflame wrote:
I disagree. ANYTHING should be an appropriate option for a PC. (Maybe with level adjustment.)
I'm of the opinion that any ancestry which can literally only be a single alignment is inappropriate. Like Pathfinder canonically has more non-CE Succubi than non-CE Drow.

even if we assume that, a few things stand out

1) some people don't play in Golarion. It is easy to change drows background in your home world, but it is harder to build a race mechanically if you are not a game designer. Certainly I easier to pick up Paizo 's vision
.

2) being always evil is not a problem for evil campaigns. Which some people play.

Drow is an inmensily popular race, because of certain guy with 2 scimitar. It is wise to give people popular things

I mean it is.

BUT aren't you losing something when copying the guy with 2 scimitars that's a horrible outcast of his race that's fighting the good fight to help put things to right when and where he can going against the sins of his people....

And then said race is just as good to evil as humans?

I suppose you can swap race to "OH My Town/city/house/family is SO evil so I fight against that temptation!" but I feel the 2 scimitar man wouldn't have been so popular. Who knows.


Side note, I didn't take any Dedications. Do I jsut leave that blank? Could have used a "Didn't take" box. If there was one I didn't see it.

Are we EXPECTED to always take a Dedication?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I usually wing it with skill points. Usually trying to make sense.

My Brawler was an ex Bouncer for a tavern. His skill points (And I have to convert it to Core standard rules so one sec) get chucked into; Perception, Sense Motive, Knowledge Local, Bluff, Diplomacy and Profession. If I can, gets tossed into Craft(Alchemy) or maybe Craft (Brewing). Is brewing a thing?

Under PF1 rules I'd probably spend the first 2 levels just putting a point into them all or at least Perception and some other things. But I'd probably juggle those followed by some support(Hello Climb, Acrobatics, and maybe swim).

But he's a down on his luck city boy. He doesn't need the other skills(He MIGHT but in my head he doesn't require them in his line of work and now his adventures). He could just dump a level into Linguistics and be allowed to by RAW.

But I'm looking at this character and thinking "Why would I do this?"

I dunno, this is off topic I feel but people were talking about PF1 skills.

(Psst, I took a trait that gave me Diplomacy as a class skill so that's why I put skill ranks into it)


Tholomyes wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
I like the change, but do think it's a bit odd to have everything listed in SP in the normal gear chapter and then everything in GP in the treasure chapter. It's an easy conversion, but does require that mental check of "Oh yeah, this was SP and the other thing I'm comparing it to is GP."
It hasn't really been a problem for me, as I can kind of do that mental switch pretty automatically depending on which chapter I'm looking at, but I think it will be tricky once supplements start coming out, and you don't necessarily have that clean divide from the equipment and treasure chapters. That being said, I still like the change, though. Maybe they could do something simple like have sp and cp in lower case and GP in upper case to make it stand out, but yeah I like that there will be a slow transition from a silver economy (and one where coppers are still probably going to see some use, even if only in the background) to a gold economy as the party levels up, right around where you begin to see more heroic challenges.

Which strikes me as Pointless.

If we're paid in silver for the most part; everything gold priced is going to stay expensive. We haven't slashed prices at all, they're about the same.

If we're getting paid in gold: What's the point of having Silver then? Especially if it's only for a handful of levels? What the jump to magic gear wasn't significant enough we have to show them jumping from silver to gold? And by the end of the game your crew is still probably carrying more than what real world gold we have(Because that's the POINT).

"Oh but it makes the Economy make sense". Okay fine. Unless your playing Business Tycoon in Pathfinder, why does this matter?

I mean they rarely cover the Ecologically damage an Undead uprising does, large warbands spending weeks trying to out maneuver each other or just having a dragon to a group of goblins move into the next valley either. Why don't we cover THAT too? Because we need it to be realistic and make sense right?

Where the heck are the Dragons getting enough Protein to survive and just how many hyper breeding sheep are there?


I just filled out the Alchemist section and quit out. I hope it saves what I did.

But seeing as some other people are noting issues, I wonder if 1) It'll take and 2) If I should go back but a) will that matter with some of the issue.


This is probably going into the Jade Regent game I want to get around to.

But that's on the shelf.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Really we just need rules for NPC generation. See if they follow the same rules as PCs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pandora's wrote:
Lotsa people are ignoring the huge number of feats required to be minimally viable in most combat styles in PF1. I don't care that the fighter doesn't get a combat feat every level, because they no longer need 6 feats just to use a bow effectively. Many people said Fighters, and most martials, didn't have enough they could do out of combat, and now we have 10 skill feats. Some people just won't be happy unless every single character resource can be poured into combat ability. Replacing combat feat taxes with skill feats looks like a win from where I'm standing.

It's true. You had to put a bunch of feats into it.

Now you just need to put class levels into it. This is...better?

Want to be a Wizard with some bow Feats? Nope. Take Fighter.


vestris wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


Ghoul and Ghast don't do anything new. They Jump but that's it. They do have Consume which is flavorful but I question how useful that actually is. If there's a Dead PC, that's a problem in and of itself regardless of the two monsters getting HP back.

Just to stay on that example, from a GM's perspective this gives you a lot of room to actually build encounters or even whole settings. This explains why the undead might be able to overwhelm the city guards and thus the players are needed.

You can create pressuring examples where the PC's are not really at danger but need to exert themselves to save the populus or guards. Or it is a fine explanation why the ghouls/ghasts are still at full health when they reach the players.

Jump is fairly nice as there will be frontliners like fighters or paladins to which they might first get but after biting their teeth into hard metal they might look for something more squishy jumping into the back lines, while being replaced by more of their friends that need room to engage.

Having the ability to pass through otherwise impassible or damaging terrain is nice too. So yeah in a vacuum these abilities might look boring or weak but they offer a whole lot of design space.

I still hope that the dragons will be more diverse in their actions and special abilities in the final bestiary, the white dragon stands out so far.

SO just walk around the front line? Just walk around him/her. What's stopping you from just saying "Good bye Mr/Mrs not fighter, I'm just gonna go over here now." And shuffle over to the the cleric in back for a nom nom.

I mean what's the Paladin or Monk going to do? Unless you have basically set up as a shield wall or just a line of dudes, you have a better chance of reaching someone if you just WALK over to them.

I can't see why I would need Leap. More to a point, Why would I need Leap when they actually have an Acrobatics score? At least Tumble has a risk of failing. But I suppose carwheeling undead is just too much for the system.

And I still say they should at least get Temp HP from eating.


HWalsh wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Nettah wrote:

Ohh I do agree that suboptimal characters should probably fare better than they do atm. It's just important to realize whether you are truly optimized or not when evaluating the data in the playtest.

MerlinCross said wrote:
So the only way to play a Dex fighter is to... play a completely different class.

Or go for ranged weapons, two weapons or perhaps do a single weapon with free-hand style. But if you go for 18 dex and 12 str, an agile weapon with shield and take power attack as a class feat, then you are kinda building the character in 3 different directions.

An agile weapon is likely better for double strike synergy or 3 attacks to actually get more than a +1 on the second attack. So are not really utilizing the agile trait if you have to spend an action to raise shield or often use Power Attack.
All melee damage with 12 str is going to suffer, so might as well try to engage with a ranged weapon and let the enemy come to you and then switch weapons instead.

I can imagine bulk being an issue with that build as well.

But I do think that in the final product suboptimal builds should be available without feeling incompetent. In the playtest is fine to test whether the more optimal builds can break the game.

K.

We're already trying to build to the point of "This is the one way to play a class/build. You are doing it wrong, build right".

In the playtest. Why do I even bother.

You were the poster who said the party was optimized though. So, of course, thinking they optimized made them feel weak when they weren't optimized.

Your Monk, on the other hand, sounded like he did mechanically spec for combat.

Recommendation:

Try a few more stable builds and remember that Goblins are high Reflex enemies.

For Fighter, suggest, if they want to go dex build to check out double strike. If they're more strength and want more defense to go longsword and shield with an 18 str and 16 dex with a Heavy Steel
...

I think you're mistaking me with someone else.


And again, that's fine.

But I'm not going to sit back and take complaints from some nameless goon(Not you two) on a forum complaing about oh say Wands for 35 pages and 15 topics and told I'm badwrongfun for daring to try and fix it in my game.

I don't like Resonance. If I play PF2, I'm removing it. I don't want to suddenly be called "the worst GM ever because how dare you" for pages on end.

I don't want to be accused of robbing the players of their agency when I tweak some of the numbers or accused of wanting to power game the heck out of a game if I mess with some of the systems.

The COMMUNITY seems to think otherwise, so whatever. Report me to the GM association. See if they can revoke my GM license

Mekkis wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


But when people sit there and complain about something they could easily try and fix only for them to fold their arms and go "It's not my job to FIX it" strikes me as an insane stance to have.

If there's a problem with the system, it is literally "not our job" to fix it. It's Paizo's.

Whether we can houserule something to deal with it is something that should be discussed after the system is published.

Working around a problem both diminishes the value of the playtest data, and makes it less likely that the issue will be corrected in the published rules.

I'm running PF2 as is. Or at least how I understand the rules. One reason I'm waiting to see the Erratas a bit.

But if PF2 hits the shelves, and there's something in the rules YOU, Mekkis, do NOT like. Well then I guess you need to either play with the thing you dislike or find another system. Because you can't houserule it without being wrong it seems.


thenobledrake wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
It's weird that we expect the PCs to do the mechanically most potent thing at every opportunity but for the monsters it's suddenly all about the flavor.

Nah, it's about flavor for the PCs too - especially given the number of players that legitimately don't care to figure out what the most potent thing is, and those that don't get it right even when they try.

At my table I've got monsters using cool options just because they are cool, and players doing the same.

The question of "You can do that, but why would you want to" is answered with "because it is fun, cool, and while not the most mechanically potent is still better than other things an action could be spent on in this situation."

Sadly, I agree with you. I want to do whatever I want.

But the math, system and community pushes for the numbers for the "BEST" way to play. The moment you aren't doing so, you're subpar, behind and depending on the system, going to eat dirt.

I feel PF2 is going to do the same. The abilities are nice but either useless at times or redundant. Something they seemed to want to move away from.

The "It's fun and cool" is not an answer the math supports. Can you swing? Can you crit? Math says to swing.

Player or Monster, Math says you should be swinging. But this is a larger problem I have with the system than monster Abilities.


deuxhero wrote:
This is yet another reason Saga Edition scrapped the idea of superior equipment and just tied equipment effectiveness to levels in a PC class. Short of a Jedi without lightsaber (who is still powerful without one), nobody needs more than what they can grab off a generic Stormtrooper to be effective in combat.

I mean I don't need that gun or armor the Stormtrooper dropped to be effective. I have gun an armor.

Those grenades he had strapped to his belt..., yoink.


Draco18s wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
Mudfoot wrote:
I'm not even sure the splash is really a good thing. In the playtests it looks as though the alchemists have often splashed the other PCs.
Precise Bombs means you stop hitting allies.
At level 6.
You, me, OP, and half the playerbase think that Precise Bombs should be a level 1 or 2 feat.

Now that is something I can agree to regardless of any thing else that happens in the playtest.

Seriously, I got hassled in a Strange Aeons game into taking what was it, Precise Shot or maybe Point Blank by my fellow players and GM. Because numbers man. I wanted to go Extra Discovery Precise Bombs but okay whatever.

And then I got hassled for having to throw my bombs at squares to hit only the enemy with splash damage because all my allies were mostly melee and in tight spaces. Yeah. Thanks guys.

I question how many Alchemists are going to be hassled by the team, and how many are going to stick around for 5 more levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
Requielle wrote:
My players insist on calling it 'dabbling' rather than multiclassing. I can't disagree - you aren't actually a real wizard if you take the wizard dedication, you are just a <class> that dabbles in magic.
Interesting. The old system felt like dabbling for non-martials to me (martials, at least, got BAB progression) while this new system seems a lot more natural. Does this mean that you're not a real Cavalier in the playtest, just a dabbler, if you take the archetype because it's not a class?

On this subject, I feel PF2 Cavaliers aren't real ones.

Where's the teamwork feats? Where's the charges? Where's the different orders to play around with?

You want to play Cavalier in PF2? You're probably better off just going straight Paladin and selecting the Mount option. Maybe take the Fighter Dedication for some goodies maybe.


thenobledrake wrote:

MerlinCross, you see to be stuck on some idea that the monsters should be doing something other than being the monster that they are - actions don't need to be the "best" thing for the creature to do, they just need to be something that the creature would do and result in the encounter with the monster being a bit unique and fun.

That means leap is great because you can set up the encounter area so that leaping is useful, or just toss in a leap here or there for flavor.

And as for the feed action... it's not limited to PC corpses. Use more than 1 ghoul or ghast, and as soon as one hits the floor, have another chow down on chunks of it.

In use, entirely not wasted space. There is more to the experience of playing the game than the monsters doing the mechanically most potent thing at every opportunity.

It's weird that we expect the PCs to do the mechanically most potent thing at every opportunity but for the monsters it's suddenly all about the flavor.

The phrase "You CAN but why would you want to" is how I've viewed most the playtest. Because the math is going to effect the "Why".

You CAN leap, but if you can hit and or crit with your swings, why aren't you swinging? And if you CAN get to a target without eating a Reaction, why ARE you leaping?

You CAN Feed on a corpse, but it's better to take that swing, you aren't going to get enough HP to survive the resulting attacks form the PCs. Oh wow, a ghoul runs up to the dead ghoul that's standing in front of the Fighter/Monk. Now they don't even need to do anything, here's 3 swings for free.

It is wasted space, to me at least. Abilities that are neat but going to rarely be used because the math asks "Why aren't you swinging to crit, you are playing it wrong.".


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Nettah wrote:

Ohh I do agree that suboptimal characters should probably fare better than they do atm. It's just important to realize whether you are truly optimized or not when evaluating the data in the playtest.

MerlinCross said wrote:
So the only way to play a Dex fighter is to... play a completely different class.

Or go for ranged weapons, two weapons or perhaps do a single weapon with free-hand style. But if you go for 18 dex and 12 str, an agile weapon with shield and take power attack as a class feat, then you are kinda building the character in 3 different directions.

An agile weapon is likely better for double strike synergy or 3 attacks to actually get more than a +1 on the second attack. So are not really utilizing the agile trait if you have to spend an action to raise shield or often use Power Attack.
All melee damage with 12 str is going to suffer, so might as well try to engage with a ranged weapon and let the enemy come to you and then switch weapons instead.

I can imagine bulk being an issue with that build as well.

But I do think that in the final product suboptimal builds should be available without feeling incompetent. In the playtest is fine to test whether the more optimal builds can break the game.

K.

We're already trying to build to the point of "This is the one way to play a class/build. You are doing it wrong, build right".

In the playtest. Why do I even bother.


I agree to the two of you.

But when people sit there and complain about something they could easily try and fix only for them to fold their arms and go "It's not my job to FIX it" strikes me as an insane stance to have.

A game should work at least enough out of the box for new players and a GM to figure out and play. But they should also be allowed to fix things and not be called out for it as badwrongfun and told "Not your job".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Wow your group wants shorter combats? That's a surprise coming from my group in 1e where combats will rarely last more than 2 rounds. I'm happy that combats are longer. makes them feel more epic.

How much longer are your fights in PF2? I'm finding my battles are either the same or with the swingy of crits, ending a round or two sooner.

I suppose the other way to read this is not turns but actual time. I dunno, my time in both games is maybe the same? PF2 might end the fight sooner, but we're having to look up rules and terms mid fight so that still takes some time.


Moro wrote:
Data Lore wrote:
But you gotta judge a game on the game it is not on the one you want it to be.

Patently false. You can judge a game on whatever criteria you choose. Didn't used to be this way, back when there weren't many options, but there are enough TTRPG alternatives in the market nowadays that people can judge games by whether or not they like the cover art, or by how friendly or unfriendly the players of that game appear to be, and still be able to walk away completely satisfied with lots of other options that better meet their criteria for a "good game".

There are plenty of people who judge a game by whether or not it's the game they want it to be. They pick the system that is closest to exactly what they desire, and house rule the rest.

Boo, the GM should do no work, the game should be perfectly fesible to run and the GM shouldn't fix any problems they have with the system at large.

Oh you did fix it? Either you're badwrongfun or the system isn't for you.

No seriously, people have said a version of that. That it's "Not their job to fix the system" when it comes to some problems. Do these people run everything as RAW?

Bah. But that's one reason I'm sticking with PF1. I have it largely to the point I want. I'm looking into other features/options to turn on maybe but my ruleset is largely finished. Maybe some touch ups.

PF2 won't have that home brew for awhile AND probably won't have that many extra options at launch.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Castilliano wrote:
Nettah wrote:
Arrow 17 said wrote:
1) No one except the monk felt truly heroic. Most felt like they were barely getting by as optimized characters instead of feeling like they should be dominating trash mobs like goblins

They really don't sound like optimized characters. A fighter using a sword short and shield but build with dex just seems like a poor idea and only getting 12 str if you are melee (even with finesse) is just asking for low damage output. A druid of the storm probably shouldn't use his healing in combat instead of doing damage most of the time, and how much healing would he even have? I do think the monsters numbers are a bit high atm, but playing suboptimal builds is not going to help with that issue. I wouldn't mind seeing the numbers you are suggesting (as I don't see the need to make goblins on par with PC's)

The cleric should be able to heal enough of the party with just his channels leaving him free to use bless or something else in the first round of the combat (but he is pretty much a support char atm).

This.

The Dex Fighter could have been a Rogue w/ a Fighter mentality.
That'd be like doing Power Attack w/ every Strike (and slightly better damage actually even before Sneak Attack!)
There's the Rogue Feat to gain +2 AC and/or they could take shield proficiency or Toughness w/ a Human Feat (to take a General Feat).

This makes me wonder if there should be a suggestions/advice page in the rulebook that helps newcomers with character generation.

So the only way to play a Dex fighter is to... play a completely different class.


thenobledrake wrote:

ghouls and ghasts having a leaping ability and a (grotesquely appropriate) health restoration action is also awesome.

I'm really digging all the little bits of uniqueness given to each monster.

I think my favorite so far are the actions of the faceless stalker and doppelganger that give a reason to reveal the true nature of the creature before it is dead.

Yay Leap. It's so good... oh wait. What's it do? Half move and no reactions. This is only useful depending on what class make up you have to deal with. And the Feed is fitting as I said before but..., no it's not useful.

Think about it. You have to kill a PC, you have spend an action to feed and you'll a sitting duck to recover...1d6. When your HP is 20. Or 3d6 to recover with a pool of 45 HP for a Ghast.

So for the Ghouls that can be half a hit or a hit. Ghasts MIGHT recover more and live longer but by the time players fight them, they should be able to clear out 3d6 of HP at a decent clip. It's a Level 3 monster, the team might have a 2dx magic weapon by that point. And more to the point you need a Corpse to do it, which means if you've killed a PC, they probabably have WAY more to worry about than the enemies recovering some HP.

The other way is to fill the room with bodies already... but that also means the ghoul/ghast will have to stop attacking, run back, and feed. Which is almost their entire turn(Full turn if they have to leap away from Fighter) and thus a waste of a turn.

Fitting to the creature. In use, why waste the space?

And that's actually what I'm coming away from the bestiary with. I recall one of the blogs showing Monsters for PF2. They showed some big creature from PF1 saying "Look at this dude! He fits so many special abilities and spells! But some of them are useless and or redundant. We're not going to do that again!"

No Paizo. You seem to be doing that again. Or at least setting yourself up to do so. But this is one GM's opinion.

Suggestion though; Let Feed boost Ghoul/Ghast power or maybe give temp HP. This way they can feed before battle or on their first turn to get a useful buff.


Draco18s wrote:
Mudfoot wrote:
I'm not even sure the splash is really a good thing. In the playtests it looks as though the alchemists have often splashed the other PCs.
Precise Bombs means you stop hitting allies.

At level 6. So for the first two parts of the Doomsday Dawn, you're probably still hitting teammates.

Hmm I should go back and read the level progression of that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So back to banning casters and or their spells.

The more things change huh.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Skeld wrote:
Voss wrote:
The parts that get to me, though, and really make me wonder are the parts that are simply incompatible with Golarion as written. Either Return of the Runelords is a terrible meta-adventure that changes the nature of the universe like the 'Time of Troubles/Fate of Istus' things that happened to AD&D, or some of the ways the world operates and its defaults assumptions just get flushed for no explicable reason.
I really hope that isn't the case.

They’ve explicitly ruled out “realms shattering events” a number of times.

I think people are going to argue (surprise) about whether or not PF2-Golarion lore is compatible with PF1-Golarion. It’s not going to be at the “God’s are dead, returning abeir” type stuff though. It depends whether you consider the inclusion of “domesticated” goblins as a bridge too far.

I mean, I have 2 sentient skeleton NPCs that are quite civil running around in my games. And even a CN Gnoll running around.

I can probably stand goblins not being stab kill burn all the time. Giving them to players, well....


Hey slight question if someone's still around to help me.

The Owlbear encounter bugs me. His morale says that if he's reduced to 15 HP he'll get a club and then lower than 10 HP he'll try to back away and end the fight.

But the fight should be dealing Non-Lethal damage anyway. You don't deduct those from hp. Should I run it based on how much Non Lethal damage he's taken?


shroudb wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
shroudb wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

Isn't the point of Delayed Bomb to give more persistent damage and not like bomb traps?

Which wow with the game and players pushing to end fights as fast as possible is that "useful"

delayed bomb does nothing for persistent damage.

the bomb literally stands there, without exploding, and when it goes off it deals it's normal damage.

I dont understand where you got that it helps with persistent damage.

Well I'm at work so I don't have the PDF.

Mixed it up with another feat I suppose. Repeating Bomb?

maybe you're talking about sticky bomb.

which deals the splash damage as persistent to the main target. I've rated that with a 3/5, solid damage increase.

That's the one.

Forgive me, tiny screen makes reading large posts a chore, I suppose I missed your rating.


shroudb wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

Isn't the point of Delayed Bomb to give more persistent damage and not like bomb traps?

Which wow with the game and players pushing to end fights as fast as possible is that "useful"

delayed bomb does nothing for persistent damage.

the bomb literally stands there, without exploding, and when it goes off it deals it's normal damage.

I dont understand where you got that it helps with persistent damage.

Well I'm at work so I don't have the PDF.

Mixed it up with another feat I suppose. Repeating Bomb?


Isn't the point of Delayed Bomb to give more persistent damage and not like bomb traps?

Which wow with the game and players pushing to end fights as fast as possible is that "useful"


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
2e combat so far (halfway through chapter 3) actually has hard choices and so much more mobility.
Yeah, I see more movement, I love it, but can you give an example of these hard choices?

I don't see movement myself. You're in base to base with an enemy why move if you're a Martial? And the battle maps haven't been really big enough for running battles.

This might just be due to how I run monsters

As for the purpose of PF2; yeah it seems to be the game they want to make and design for. And it seems easy to work with. To play? Feels off and to run? I actually dislike running it.

So I'm glad to see the designers are happy but I don't see anything in the playtest that makes me want to play PF2 other than testing


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
The problem is, this can't happen when you're level 1. There's no CR minus two.
"Level 0 creatures are weaker than normal, counting as a “party level – 2” creature for a 1st-level party" -- Playtest Bestiary, page 21, last paragraph under "Choosing Creatures".
If by "weaker than normal," you mean "have the same to-hit, AC, and have higher saves and skills than an 18 Strength Fighter," then sure, I suppose that entry in the Beastiary is correct.

I'm curious, which level 0 monster is hitting same AC and better saves and skills than a fighter? As I've mentioned in other threads, level 0s do have intentionally increased accuracy and very low damage, but the other stats shouldn't be lining up like that, and if that's what you're seeing, the specific monster you're looking at might have problems. I opened up to the giant rat, and I'm seeing 13 AC, Fort +3, Ref +3, Will +1 (skills of Athletics +2 (+5 Climb or Swim), Acrobatics and Stealth +4).

To be low enough to tie those defensive values, the 18 Strength fighter would need to have 10 Wisdom, 12 Dex and Con, and be wearing only leather or padded armor (14 Dex and no armor would hit the AC but would give +4 Ref; both of these are lower than a fighter with those Dex scores would usually opt to have). To be worse on saves would be even tougher. I guess the fighter probably has 16 Cha or Int to be that low in the other stats. He has +5 Athletics if trained, and then if he has 16 Cha, I guess he's trained in Intimidation, Diplomacy, Deception, and so on with a +4 for each.

Giving them weapons with the deadly and lethal traits is not low damage. Especially when combined with the exaggerated attack bonus.

Didn't we see this in PF1?

Okay I don't have like Hard Numbers for it but I recall numerous stories of DM/GMs sending bandits/orcs at a level 1 party and some of them have x3 crit weapons. Which on a lucky roll, seems to instantly end a PC.

With Crit easier to hit well...,


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kringress wrote:
Adventures are equal to a gold rush in an area, so all prices should have a dramatic increase when they blow into town.

Cough.

That said I think you CAN mess with the actual price of things depending on circumstances.


Rysky wrote:
The Chromatic Black Dragons can backhand people who backtalk them as a Reaction.

Do they? I just see Tail Lash which gives them a free swing at anyone in 15 feet if they Skill check or Strike. Granted that's once per turn as it's a Reaction.

The Strike makes sense I suppose but the Skill seems more flavorful or unused.

I suppose due to Maneuvers being tied to Athletics you can get slapped if you try to do one.


Likes:

1) Trinkets. I'm always a sucker for 'cheap' magic effects to store for a rainy day. Not stockpiling them. Hope they do a bit more with it, expand them a bit.

2) Poison. Seems far better on paper than what we have in PF1. Have to double check and test against some higher level monsters but should be better. That said, the bar for Poison in PF1 was on the floor for players so that's not too hard to do better.

3) Runes. I kinda like the idea of being able to transfer effects from one weapon to another. The rules or at least the wording could use a bit of work but this seems like a good change.

Dislikes, whoo boy:

1) Dedications. I feel they will limit class design actually. Any extra classes that see print OR new feats for the Core classes are ALSO going to have to be measured up against any Dedications that also see print, from both the designers and the players. I also don't believe you can get the same feeling as playing the actual class(Cavalier doesn't have Orders, Charge, or Teamwork/Tactics as of yet. Fighter/Wizard isn't Magus, etc)

2) The Math. My own limited tests and talk on the forums leads me to think the math is off. Not just different but slightly off when it comes to success. More to the point, the whole Crit system seems to push you to really try to be Optimized. Feels like I'm being pushed to keep everything high to get/avoid crits. I tend to make okay characters in PF1, picking stuff for RP and character reasons as much as Numbers. I feel PF2 is going to punish me for not picking according to numbers.

3) Alchemist. This might tie a bit into Resonance complaint but Alchemist feels like a class that isn't a class. I keep looking at it and thinking this can't be a PC verison of it, it has to be NPC right? Resonance eats all our features, bombs fall behind in basically everything later, Mutagens are meh and force you to use Unarmed(Untrained too), and Poison is better but you'll probably need to Dedicate into Rogue to use it well. We seem even more mashed up and randomly designed than PF1. Final bit, when magic gear comes online that nullifies the item bonuses we provide. What?

I actually have a few more but I think I complained enough.

1 to 50 of 1,357 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>