Sleepless Detective

MerlinCross's page

Organized Play Member. 707 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 707 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Does it matter? What happens at tables won't effect any story Paizo is telling nor will it matter to other tables.

I mean do we have a clear example of how many years from NOW in PF the Gap happens in SF?

I can't process this being a problem. Not saying there isn't one I guess considering it was brought up, but this is one I just don't get.


QuidEst wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Are we talking 3.5 or Pathfinder? I know people in Pathfinder, myself included, that will lower your carrying capacity(It makes bloody sense why not?)
I'm talking about the actual Pathfinder rules, which don't have you recalculate carrying capacity for anything less than ability drain. I know that a lot of people did it differently, but that's sort of the point- the actual rules didn't see a whole lot of use, and I messed them up a lot. Paizo even did an Oracle curse that didn't have an actual drawback because of how ability damage rules actually work.

Shrug, each DM does it their way that makes sense. Anything that does damage/drain/loss mid fight should first be applied to rolls that are used most in mid fight or big changes like Encumbrance or Acrobatics.

After combat then maybe we get into just what your loss of numbers actual means and only if they'll last long enough to pose an issue.

QuidEst wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Okay I'll give you on the Shadow killing you with STR damage. Unconscious then. And I have no problem with monster that ignored normal defenses. If only because people tend to get to a point where attacks don't bloody matter vs AC.
I suspect that attack and AC will be more balanced now that they don't have to deal with backwards compatibility.

Eh? Backwards to what 3.5? They'll still have to worry about it when transferring stuff. Even if it's just DM's porting things over.

QuidEst wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
It's an issue with having info scattered all around the place. Really they should just reprint the core book with Unchained changes and be done with it.
Unchained is a bunch of optional rules, and too many things reference page numbers and the like in the CRB. If they wanted to make any major changes to something in the CRB, they'd have to basically make an entirely new edition of the game. (Which is why we're here!)

Or they could have just done reprints. If most people are already doing Unchained, might as well put out a CRB that was unchained anyway for a year.

That's not to we can't have a new edition just that when PF2 gets their unchained stuff(5 years maybe?) we'll be back to cross referencing stuff from all the different books. Just wish there was an easier way.

It's why I tend to pick and choose what Unchained stuff I like/allow. And why I don't use Spheres of Power at all due to having to basically relearn and cross reference EVERYTHING again. This is more a complaint about publishing practices and how the books/rules are written out more than anything though.


QuidEst wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

I don't know 1 DM that would actually ask you to turn off feats due to Ability damage. Encumbrance yes(Oi Mages, maybe don't DUMP it fully?) But feats? Same with skills. Now your Bow example? Can still use it, but you do less damage. Much like hitting something with your melee would. I don't see this as too hard to manage.

Especially with online play and Apps.

Ability damage and penalties didn't turn off feats, and strength damage didn't actually impact your carrying capacity. The rules were weird, and very few people played them as written.

Are we talking 3.5 or Pathfinder? I know people in Pathfinder, myself included, that will lower your carrying capacity(It makes bloody sense why not?)

QuidEst wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
But can you still Die from it? That Shadow doesn't seem so scary if it does only 1d6 damage with Debuff. There's probably a good amount of creatures that are only threatening or notable because of the Ability damage. Take that away and either you need to give them a big boost or might as well remove them. To say nothing about having to revamp ALL Poisons and Diseases.

You couldn't die from strength damage normally anyway. Shadows had to have a custom rule just to make that work. Shadows in PF2 might kill you if their debuff stack reaches your ability score or something like that. Yeah, monsters will need to be changed if they had ability score damage, but I think it's reasonable to get rid of some of the options that ignored normal defenses.

Pathfinder Unchained already revamped how poisons and diseases worked to avoid ability score damage (which was more of a nuisance than a real threat). Personally, I found it to be a lot more interesting.

Okay I'll give you on the Shadow killing you with STR damage. Unconscious then. And I have no problem with monster that ignored normal defenses. If only because people tend to get to a point where attacks don't bloody matter vs AC.

I can't comment on Unchained Poisons as I haven't looked at them in detail. The whole Track thing seems just another thing to upkeep though.

It's an issue with having info scattered all around the place. Really they should just reprint the core book with Unchained changes and be done with it.

Did they do that now that I think about it? I should see what printing my book is.


Hoo boy, have a few things to talk about.

Staffan Johansson wrote:
I believe it was intended to compensate for the complexity otherwise introduced by on-the-fly stat changes. For example, let's say you have Strength 16, and you're hit by a ray of enfeeblement for a penalty of 5 points. In 3e, you don't only have to worry about getting a penalty to attacks and damage (and how big that penalty is), but you also need to worry about whether you suddenly become encumbered, whether your feats turn off because of your reduced Strength, whether you can still use your composite bow, and such. In PF1, it was changed to specify that stat penalties/damage only affect certain things, so you don't have to worry about the weird cases.

I don't know 1 DM that would actually ask you to turn off feats due to Ability damage. Encumbrance yes(Oi Mages, maybe don't DUMP it fully?) But feats? Same with skills. Now your Bow example? Can still use it, but you do less damage. Much like hitting something with your melee would. I don't see this as too hard to manage.

Especially with online play and Apps.

QuidEst wrote:
Saw a lot of discussion regarding bonus-only listing and ability damage. They’re moving away from messing with stats directly. We saw this with one of the mutagens, which now provides a long list of bonuses that happen to line up closely with what would happen if you boosted strength.

But can you still Die from it? That Shadow doesn't seem so scary if it does only 1d6 damage with Debuff. There's probably a good amount of creatures that are only threatening or notable because of the Ability damage. Take that away and either you need to give them a big boost or might as well remove them. To say nothing about having to revamp ALL Poisons and Diseases.

Dragon78 wrote:
I still think they should give the ogre a reaction ability of some kind.

Level in Fighter for AoO. Maybe Barbarian will have something comparable. We can still slap Classes to a monster I believe so giving a monster PC abilities shouldn't be too hard.


Rysky wrote:
Didn’t see anything about Brownies in Fey Revisted but it does call out Redcaps as being innately murderous and sadistic, representing nature’s cruelty.

I could have sworn that Redcaps aren't so much born as "made" when some fey end up turning extremely murderous.

At least the smaller lower CR ones. Hmm where did I read that?


The Sideromancer wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Quandary wrote:

Because they're Evil and they assume Good gods to be their mortal enemies.

Although I would agree the ability name could be tweaked...
Holy Fright? might be better starting place, being more specific re: Good Divinity.
Except nothing forces redcaps to be evil? Non-Evil Redcaps likely exist, so why would they fear only Good gods
Save for the fact that becoming a redcap turns the fey into a homical sadist?
There are fey that aren't homicidal sadists?

I'd assume yes, I mean Brownies seem more than willing to be helpful if treated well and at worst they usually do pranks or hamper the house/farm without resorting to out right murder.

Brownies that do cross that line usually turn into Redcaps actually.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Quandary wrote:

Because they're Evil and they assume Good gods to be their mortal enemies.

Although I would agree the ability name could be tweaked...
Holy Fright? might be better starting place, being more specific re: Good Divinity.
Except nothing forces redcaps to be evil? Non-Evil Redcaps likely exist, so why would they fear only Good gods

Save for the fact that becoming a redcap turns the fey into a homical sadist?


John Lynch 106 wrote:


Thebazilly wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
If an ogre switches weapons just use the stats for ogre hook and pretend it's a different weapon. That way the different weapon doesn't change the CR of the ogre.
If the game actually ends up recommending this, I will riot.
Make sure to playtest them as written so that your opinions are given the same weight as those who like the changes (does mean a less enjoyable playtest experience, but hopefully it will come with the reward of a better game).

I mean we'll have to see what is written first yes but I can't see how switching from Ogre Hook to something else would change the numbers enough to switch the CR.

Maybe if it was Magic based. Hey do Monsters have Resonance to power their Magic Gear?


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
It doesn't explain their Deception modifier being so high, though.
In PF1e the devs would have had "+2 racial bonus to Deception" which is as arbitrary as saying "Redcap's have a +13 deception bonus because I said so".

Or a feat that says "+2 on Deception Rolls"

Speaking of, I noticed neither entry had any listed feats. What's up with that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This has probably been asked but can we Counter Spell these non Spell Like Abilities?


Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

Yes, that we can run it now and offer our players credit! It’s exciting to be able to offer APs as a change of pace.

I’m sorry that you had a bad experience with the Society, Merlin. It can be a wonderful experience, but a lot of that can be very dependent on local group culture. If you do ever decide to try us again, I hope you have a lovely experience the next time around.

Hmm
Venture Captain, Online Play-by-Post Region

PS Seers of the Drowned City! Squeeeeeee!!!!

Yes it's more a local issue than Society in general(Though I feel the restrictions cause some problems but that's another topic)

Though if I had to give Society another try, It wouldn't be with this AP. HAhahah, I'm sorry I look forward to see posts about book 1 results. Having played book 1 and part of two, it's pretty brutal.

To GMs looking to run this, make sure you're up to date on how some rules work and now some monster effects are. I've seen too many stories of someone doing something wrong and people getting murdered extremely fast in this AP. Good luck people.


As someone who has a bad history of Society(And only clicked on it as it was on the blog and I like this AP) what does this mean?

That Society GMs can run it now?


Question to the Devs.

So Spell Like is gone. Do Monsters still keep Supernatural Abilities? Or are they just called something else?

I don't think it's been mentioned though if I'm wrong, well I'm wrong and will be given a link.


There's gonna be some kind of tag line for "This isn't a spell".

At least for monsters. As an example, I can't see Sandman's Sleep Aura being a Spell that it needs to cast while In combat now.

That's more for over in the Monster topic though.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Also this idea that joining a party usually involves a hiring process doesn't have legs. Just want to reiterate that.

It can possibly. Not with the actual players themselves but depending on the Campaign I can see it being a hiring process or at least "Show us how well you can do X before you are hired for Y".

In the right hands this could actually be a fun idea.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Nah, that was just me talking about games I ain't never played, and I'll own that. I'll stick to what I know: Things I don't like about tabletop RPGs. ;)

Fair enough.

Though I've always wanted to play a Minotaur in pathfinder. Just while we're on the subject.

Back on somewhat topic about the art..., what is that knuckle dagger anyway? I'd love to see the stats on that. Monk weapon too maybe?


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Point being, I'm not saying it couldn't work, but it's a dicey prospect either way. Ever since orcs passed from Tolkien's wise, guiding* hand, they've been increasingly nudged into the World of Warcraft/Elder Scrolls/D&D direction of "savage brutish pagan tribes who run around attacking civilized human women".
I, uh, ah... you obviously have no idea what you are talking about in regards to World of Warcraft. Like, zero point zero. Or negative numbers.
Fair point; I've never played it. I mean, there's clearly still coding (still shamans, still warchiefs and clans) but it may not be negative.
I think Tauren might be closer to what you're talking about though.

Perhaps, but Tauren do not exist in Pathfinder, and this isn't the "let's list all known examples of negative racial coding" thread.

Even though a lot of people arguing with us seem to think it is.

While true and I'm dropping it with this post, I mean Tauren might be the WoW race that was closer to what you were saying earlier when you reached for the WoW orcs.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Point being, I'm not saying it couldn't work, but it's a dicey prospect either way. Ever since orcs passed from Tolkien's wise, guiding* hand, they've been increasingly nudged into the World of Warcraft/Elder Scrolls/D&D direction of "savage brutish pagan tribes who run around attacking civilized human women".
I, uh, ah... you obviously have no idea what you are talking about in regards to World of Warcraft. Like, zero point zero. Or negative numbers.
Fair point; I've never played it. I mean, there's clearly still coding (still shamans, still warchiefs and clans) but it may not be negative.

I think Tauren might be closer to what you're talking about though.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Personally, I don't think there's an issue with humanoids being presented as 'tribal'. 'Tribal' isn't necessarily a bad thing, nor is 'civilized' always a good one.

The only issues come with them always being presented as the same kinds of tribes, and with so many tribal cultures being Evil.

It'd be much nicer if there were more Good tribal humanoids out there. And it would be particularly awesome if there was more cultural variation in what kind of 'tribes' we're talking about. A pseudo-Celtic Humanoid culture or three would be very nice to see, for example.

Yes, exactly. There's nothing wrong with including tribal cultures, but if only the "monstrous" races are tribal, it's kinda a problem

Mammoth Lords?

Also as my favorite to bring up for these kinds of things; Sahagin should also get the same treatment but everyone just skips over them. Do we just hate water adventures that much(Devs hey, better water rules for PF2?)

Though hmm question, what do we do about a race that is kinda largely MADE to be evil. And I don't mean just by the writers but in universe too. Example; Deep ones.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Catharsis wrote:

To my eye, these orcs look decidedly like gorillas rather than any human cultures, «primitive» or not, so they do not register as racist for me, but then I probably don't make a good canary for such things.

I rather liked the knuckle-blades and the locomotion as a fresh perspective on orcs.

Yeah I thought that was actually a cool look with the knuckle blades. That and I wonder "Do they need Mounts if they can easily keep up and or have the mass/force to basically count as a Calvary charge?"

But like you, also not a good 'canary' for this. I can see it maybe causing problems but I doubt all Orcs will be like this anyway.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Howard197 wrote:

That said, I'm less wild about these "multiattack" abilities just for monsters. What can very quickly ruin a game is if the monsters are playing by their combat rules and the PCs are playing by a different set.

PCs have multiattack abilities like the Whirlwind Strike feat previewed in the fighter blog that is actually more powerful than the marilith's six target ability in some ways (in that it doesn't limit itself to six targets). They work the same as PC activities do, and some monsters use actions or activities PCs gain from class feats. Monsters in PF1 also have abilities like hekatonkheires Hundred-Handed-Whirlwind; in that a monster's creator can just give it any ability, they never played with exactly the same set of abilities as PCs gain from their class.

To be fair, if a Fighter is surrounded by enough targets that they can hit more than 6 then either;

A)Fighter has Reach
B)Fighter has stupidly high AC
C)Things have not gone according to plan at all.


Catharsis wrote:
As for the «poor Wizard», remember they can deal slashing damage if they use Telekinetic Projectile with a pouch full of glass shards.

So that's a Wizard spell now? As when I looked it up to see what you were talking about, I get the Occult classes.


Benjamin Medrano wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


Two Weapon/multihits are gonna have a field day with Weakness then.

That said... I have no idea how one would actually balance this without gimping the damage or making it feel absolutely vital. Hmm. Maybe extra Damage die?

Not necessarily, since we don't know how TWF will work yet. If the feats primarily give the wielder something like the 'twin' quality they talked about with the sawtooth sabre in the equipment blog, and just increase base damage, it very well might be part of the tighter math and keeping TWF from quickly outpacing other options.

I don't know yet. There's so many things about Pathfinder 2 that I don't know that I'm reserving judgement. Optimistic about it, mind you, but cautiously so.

I do agree. This is very much a "We have to see the Math" issue.

So we'll see. But if they do improve or lessen the reigns of TWF, we'll have to see how it works with Weakness.


Benjamin Medrano wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

1) Weakness: it all depend on the creature, but for a 2 HD zombie, getting hit for an extra point of damage by a common kind of weapon seem excessive.

In AD&D 1st ed. the Juju Zombies halved all damage unless it was dealt by a cleaving weapon, i.e. a large or at least largish slashing weapons.
That included the bastard sword, 2 handed sword, axes, bardiche and a other few polearm. It would be a a more appropriate weakness. A kitchen knife shouldn't add 5 points of damage against a zombie, while a cleaver should do that. With the new weapon abilities adding an appropriate trait to some slashing weapon but not all that allow them to deal more damage against creatures with the appropriate weakness seem a good solution.
Agreed, although something like +50% weapon damage (excluding STR, Sneak, etc) would similarly distinguish bastard sword and bardiche from kitchen knife.

I don't like this idea, in part because it encourages the 'golf bag' mentality too much for me.

Personally, I don't mind an extra 5 damage for the mundane dagger. Sure, that's a lot at level 1... but if you've got a +5 greatclub that deals (guessing) 6d12+whatever, should I be looking at completely changing my usual strategy because hitting the weakness does 50% extra? In my view, this lines up with the math they're using by making hitting the weakness good without making people feel that hitting it is absolutely vital.

Two Weapon/multihits are gonna have a field day with Weakness then.

That said... I have no idea how one would actually balance this without gimping the damage or making it feel absolutely vital. Hmm. Maybe extra Damage die?


gustavo iglesias wrote:

Well, I don't think we are talking about the same topic at all. So instead of keeping talking past each other, I'd bow out of the conversation and simply reinstate that FOR ME, the most important difference betweeen a Blacksmith and, say, a farmer, is the fact that with one of those backgrounds your character is a blacksmith, while with the other, he is a farmer. The lore skill you are never going to roll does not matter, and the attributes are flexible enough to don't matter (or maybe even be the same between farmer and blacksmith).

YMMV.

We probably are. I think we got mixed up somewhere. If you want to we can take this to PM.

Myself, I find boiling a character down to a core background, never mind that they could take several, feels rather limiting. More so if the backgrounds are so bog standard that you could easily slot multiplies into the same character. That's not part of a character, that's a box you're checking off.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Regarding the first example, no it doesn't. What dose matter is what job you put down first. You are A or you are B. And here's your buffs for it. I could argue that your first "Job" can work just as well on land as sea but weird, I'd be getting a Sea buff. Well better roleplay as if I'm from the sea.

I'm going to go with the "assume the best" route and claim this is just dissonance between the way we play.

A big major difference between being a slave trader and a navy captain, among other things, is taht if you were a slave trader, you were a piece of scumbag and a s~@&ty human being. That would mean either that your character is still an awful person, probably Evil as alignment, or has the charge of guilt, trying to undo his past behaviour. The vibe your personality gives out if you are a Navy Captain is totally different.

I don't think if you met two new characters in a book, and one of them is presented as a drug dealer, while the other is a taxi driver, your thought would be "cool, both are good at streetwise", without forming any opinion about their respective personalities by the fact that one of them deal with drugs while the other carrry people in a car.f.

Actually it was more "I really feel uncomfortable using that word/term for debates as people have gotten into trouble about it over in the Paladin thread" more than anything else.

But didn't you write down;

Quote:
So if I tell you my character is, say.... a slave trader, does not make any difference than if I say he is a Navy Captain?

So that means this is the same character? If they aren't then YES I would expect them do be different. If they are the same character, well which one did you put down as background first. While I assume said character to be evil and s~@&ty I would also assume "Trader" to be easily placed into any location while "Navy Captain" to be closer to ports. Why? Because of the Mechanical benefits. Why would someone that puts down "Navy Captain" want to really adventure in the middle of a desert? That's 2 feats/abilities/options that aren't going to come into play at all. I'm fine with not building optimal but I for one would at least like to use everything on my sheet at least once.

And well the min maxers still see they aren't getting everything they can so Navy Captain wouldn't get picked anyway.

Also about the drug dealer and taxi driver..., depends? What abilities do they get? Drug Dealer is clearly Criminal. Taxi Driver is..., laborer?

Oh wait, no the book goes on to say how the Taxi Driver grew up on the streets an orphan and had to live the hard knock life to get where he is. Maybe even run with a gang to survive. Is that Urchin or Criminal now?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

Again I don't know Davos. But replace Smuggler with something else say Captain. Thief. Criminal. Pirate.

It's hard to explain if you don't know Davos. But no, changing Smuggler for something like Pirate or Criminal would make him a totally different character. Certainly not the Onion Knight.

This I'll agree to only on the idea of I have no idea about the character. I could go and read up said character on a wiki but I feel that misses some nuanced points of seeing the character in action.

gustavo iglesias wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
The difference is... what? They are still "Person that knows how to sail and or move goods possibly illegally." Heck depending on how he does it, I'd say he's Merchant.
So if I tell you my character is, say.... a slave trader, does not make any difference than if I say he is a Navy Captain? If I say he is a fisherman, it's the same if I say he is a corsair? Really? Just because they all get "sailing" as a skill and DEX and WIS (or whatever) as ability bonus, does not mean that the roleplay of a merchant is the same than the roleplay of a bucaneeer.

Regarding the first example, no it doesn't. What dose matter is what job you put down first. You are A or you are B. And here's your buffs for it. I could argue that your first "Job" can work just as well on land as sea but weird, I'd be getting a Sea buff. Well better roleplay as if I'm from the sea.

Your second example; okay fine. I can see the difference between fisherman and corsair. Difference between Corsair and Pirate? Difference between Smuggler? Difference between Corsair and "Sailor that breaks the laws"?

And as of right now we don't have those backgrounds. If you want a background that deals with "Getting lots of money by moving goods" here's your Merchant background.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:


Among other things, it influences his weapon of choice (a hammer), it marks him as a strong character (that being, say, a shepard would not convey in the same way), and it gives the character a feel. It's not the same when Ned go and find him, at the forge, melting iron, than if he finds him peeling fish.

Similarly, Davos Seaworth, the Onion Knight, has a totally different feel as a knight that has a smuggler background, than if he were a knight with, say, a whale hunter background or an architect background or a pole dancer background. Even if he doesn't roll a single time in the whole story "pole dancing" or "smuggler lore", the fact that he was a smuggler plays a role in the story, while being a pole dancer would play a totally different role.

Okay the hammer I'll buy a bit(Though I could also say someone with background "Construction" could use that), I don't see how blacksmith holds solo claim to strong character(I mentioned Farmer myself, I would assume having to work the land before machines would build up good physical abilities. At least CON from not getting tired.) And I don't know. What's the difference between finding him working at a forge and him doing ... any other job? Especially physical.

Again I don't know Davos. But replace Smuggler with something else say Captain. Thief. Criminal. Pirate.

The difference is... what? They are still "Person that knows how to sail and or move goods possibly illegally." Heck depending on how he does it, I'd say he's Merchant.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:
Good ol' software engineering philosophies applied to game design.

Which makes actually a good amount of sense to do.

Though, hmm, what would a infinite loop look like?


Shinigami02 wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
The multiattack options take enough actions to prevent using them more than once per round.

I didn't see it mentioned just how many actions it would take.

Still for bosses might want to bump that number up. Maybe.

Mark’s post, previous page. Mariliths probably shouldn’t get to blenderize somebody twice, make two more attacks, and raise their AC.

Probably Blenderizing(Totally yoinking that) would be bad. But I would maybe think 1 Blenderizing, then maybe normal swing to raise AC?

This isn't something I should think be a set in stone rule by the way but more GM options for boss fights based on each party. I've played around with the boss getting an extra turn or maybe an extra lesser turn.

If only due to boss getting 1 action vs 4-5 a turn has always been a bit of a balancing act for climatic fights.

I'm kinda expecting the "use the other blades to parry, giving her a killer AC for 1 round" option to be it's own Action, akin to a sword-n-board raising their shield. Possibly with a clause of the AC boost you gain being equal to 6 - [the number of attacks you took that round]. In which case using it with an optimal whirlwind (6 attacks) would be a waste, but it might be useful after, say, a 4-strike whirlwind.

*Nods*

I can see this. But yeah it's more GM side than rules side at least for now as we theory/guess


GM_Starson wrote:

I think a LOT of people are getting hung up on the zombie and skeleton comparison and missing what makes weakness so cool, which is funny because the other two examples of fey and werewolves provide great examples of how weaknesses can look really cool.

Before, if I'm fighting the fey monster and I reach into my bag of tricks to pull my cold iron dagger, if I swung with anything else it would just bounce off them, leaving me to do no damage, and swiching let me do 1d4. Wee.

Now, when I swing with my regular dagger it doesn't do much, but when I reach into my bag and pull my cold Iron dagger and swing it at the fey, suddenly my dinky 1d4 does 1d4+5 or other numbers (Possibly bigger ones for hard to find rare weaknesses?), changing the scene dramatically. Now my cold iron blade isn't the only way to hit fey, but if I hit with a cold Iron dagger, they BURN as my blade cuts into them!

At the same time, depending on how you've built, you also don't need to waste the actions in doing so.

Which is good in the sense of I'm not locked out of doing damage but also kinda... eh in the sense of I don't NEED that as much now.

It'll also be interesting to see how Magic weapons work with this. If i have a silver Sword and Bane Fey, does the target just melt?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
The multiattack options take enough actions to prevent using them more than once per round.

I didn't see it mentioned just how many actions it would take.

Still for bosses might want to bump that number up. Maybe.

Mark’s post, previous page. Mariliths probably shouldn’t get to blenderize somebody twice, make two more attacks, and raise their AC.

Probably Blenderizing(Totally yoinking that) would be bad. But I would maybe think 1 Blenderizing, then maybe normal swing to raise AC?

This isn't something I should think be a set in stone rule by the way but more GM options for boss fights based on each party. I've played around with the boss getting an extra turn or maybe an extra lesser turn.

If only due to boss getting 1 action vs 4-5 a turn has always been a bit of a balancing act for climatic fights.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:

No, what make it a larger effect, is that your character is a blacksmith. Which gives him certain depth.

Gendry, from Game of Thrones, haven't "rolled" his blacksmithing skill a single time in Gamoe of Thrones. Yet still his character personality is informed by his background.

From the TV show or the books? Haven't watched the TV show and read the books ages ago.

But if he didn't do anything blacksmith related or bring up some hint that he was, or it was just shown to the audience; his personality is informed how? You could replace "Blacksmith" with any possible background that would still fit his personality.

If he's pragmatic about being a commoner in a world where the nobility has so much sway, why not a farmer? How much does Gendry change as a character of Farmer was put down.

I'll admit I have no real knowledge of the character.


QuidEst wrote:
The multiattack options take enough actions to prevent using them more than once per round.

I didn't see it mentioned just how many actions it would take.

Still for bosses might want to bump that number up. Maybe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Adding more abilities. Okay I'll take that. Monsters should at least feel different enough to make the party think a bit before going into combat.

Have to see more on the Resistance and Weakness. As of right now at least in my mind, I don't see too much of a difference other than hopefully more weaknesses assigned. Or maybe just some attacks that would cut through DR being given extra damage instead now. Have to see more but sounds interesting.

Removing weak abilities or at least re-codifying them to fit the monster. Okay I can maybe get behind this. Really it's dependent on what each monster loses/gets but I'm not expecting a play by play on each monster. Not till I see the bestiary.

Multiattack, so is each one of those 1 action? Do they get a reaction to swing at someone? Maybe a bonus reaction if they don't fully use all their arms/heads/swings? The mind wonders.

Side note, I know this is how you guys build monsters but outside of maybe the Multiattack and Resistance/Weakness, I wonder how GM's will be able to build/alter monsters. Say giving them Class levels or Templates.

Friday Blog maybe?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Cyouni wrote:


Blog wrote:

Generally, backgrounds allow you to select a bit of backstory that mechanically affects the current state of your character.

...
After all, your background not only deals with activity but also your personal focus.
So as noted, they work in exactly the same way traits do - a bit of backstory that has a mechanical impact. It can be what you did, or what you focused on. They put you in the same box as traits did.

The backgrounds are an overall framing device as opposed to traits that could make up several different parts of a character.

I know, not the best development.

I actually think it's the best idea they can come up with to prevent the same power gaming traits from showing up again and again for no reason.

But the flip side is at least to me, we've lost the personality and story defining traits. We've also fully axed Drawbacks which I'm not sure how used they were but I felt added a decent weakness to a character or extra role play/story moments.

So as much as I've actually ranted on in the thread, this is at worst a mixed development for me. Getting something good, but also losing out on something too.


Cyouni wrote:


Blog wrote:

Generally, backgrounds allow you to select a bit of backstory that mechanically affects the current state of your character.

...
After all, your background not only deals with activity but also your personal focus.
So as noted, they work in exactly the same way traits do - a bit of backstory that has a mechanical impact. It can be what you did, or what you focused on. They put you in the same box as traits did.

The backgrounds are an overall framing device as opposed to traits that could make up several different parts of a character.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

Did you just never use traits before or something? How is that a change?

I keep hearing people say that it's going to make it harder to make characters, so let's put it to the test so we can see for the future. What's a character backstory that literally cannot fit in any of the playtest backgrounds?

As a reminder, they are: acolyte, warrior, blacksmith, hunter, noble, scholar, entertainer, scout, acrobat, street urchin, criminal, laborer, merchant, nomad, animal whisperer, barkeep, farmhand (plus 2 more, but hard to discuss those)

My Alchemist ran and hid from people due to not having a shadow and thus being probably burnt at the stake or stoned or whatever. He survived on a combo of petty theft, snake oil salesman, and actual healing work before setting down with someone. Said someone vanished and he took up research to find out just why.

This was my character for Strange Aeons. He can easily fit into Urchin, Criminal, Merchant, Laborer and maybe Nomad. But each of these also feel wrong in the broad stokes of things. He's a mix of them yet also not truely belonging to any of them.

Which you would pick depends on the skill feats associated with each background. If one of those speaks more strongly to the character concept, choosing that background represents the influence from that part of their story.

And if none of them fit the background I have in my head? Or maybe I don't want to be assigned into a little box and feel I need to play that.

Again I don't have any problems mechanically with this, heck it's probably one of the few ways to go to reel back min maxing(It's fine elsewhere it seems), but it feels... well I don't want to use limiting. Stifling might work better.

Its the same problem I had with 5e when I looked into trying that. I'm not picking out something that might be based off their mannerisms, upbringing, or possible tragedy. I'm picking their day job.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Having trained as a blacksmith isn't just a hook you wrote on a piece of paper the GM may or may not have read, it's something that will influence your character over their entire career, which for many people makes the background more real and memorable.

Debatable.

The Ability score increases probably won't be recalled too much. What might have a larger effect is the free Feat(Of some kind) and the Lore. But that's only if they are used often enough.

I'd be quite willing to bet that a good amount of players will simply forget the background they picked but recall what free Feat they got.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:

Did you just never use traits before or something? How is that a change?

I keep hearing people say that it's going to make it harder to make characters, so let's put it to the test so we can see for the future. What's a character backstory that literally cannot fit in any of the playtest backgrounds?

As a reminder, they are: acolyte, warrior, blacksmith, hunter, noble, scholar, entertainer, scout, acrobat, street urchin, criminal, laborer, merchant, nomad, animal whisperer, barkeep, farmhand (plus 2 more, but hard to discuss those)

My Alchemist ran and hid from people due to not having a shadow and thus being probably burnt at the stake or stoned or whatever. He survived on a combo of petty theft, snake oil salesman, and actual healing work before setting down with someone. Said someone vanished and he took up research to find out just why.

This was my character for Strange Aeons. He can easily fit into Urchin, Criminal, Merchant, Laborer and maybe Nomad. But each of these also feel wrong in the broad stokes of things. He's a mix of them yet also not truely belonging to any of them.

Likewise with my current Iron Gods character, a Local tinkerer that wants to dig up, repair and use machines from the past/sky to help her Religious family back at the edge of the World Wound. Merchant? Blacksmith? Scholar? Again all work but they feel like they boil down the character to a certain Archetype that doesn't fully sell what the character is.

Traits were little extras. Backgrounds feel like a box you place your character into.


I question how willing people have been to allow stat dumping. Or stats in general.

Usually I set a limit of 8 is as low as you can go and 18 is usually as high as you can go. This seems reasonable to me as depending on what you're doing, Ability damage can quickly kill you if you go lower than 8.

PF2 with that threat gone hmm, I don't see any outright reason to not dump something. More HP means Mages don't need CON that much as a buffer. Even with Resonance, Pretty sure you can get by with an 8 if you just use whatever the safest, broadest and most standard Magic items. Or get someone on the team to activate them for you.

So yeah not a fan. But after testing it for awhile people will probably figure out what they can dump anyway. If not dump then slightly lower to buff their main stat/build.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:

I think people are missing the point with backgrounds VS backstory.

Belgarion Backstory is that he is the nephew of Polgara, the sorceress, and grandson of Belgarath, the great master of sorcery. His lineage includes a king, and a chief of a tribe, unknown to him. He is destined by a prophecy to defeat a dark God. His fathers were killed, and he was raised by the murderer of them, in a effort to use him as a pawn when time is right.

His background is farmer.

Yeah see in my head you go from nice high fantasy concept that looks like it would be in the cover of a book as part of the summary...,

To just "I'm from down the street" or something. Not "Hidden away from some sort of political trap" or "This is the life we wanted for him".

Just Farmer brown. Who has +2 STR or CON and +2 elsewhere. Farmhand Feat and Lore(Farming tales).

Honestly this example, no offense, if the reverse of everyone just taking Power Traits for the buffs. It doesn't show any special skills and traits given from their birth, background, childhood it's just "This what everyone learns".

It feels very boiled down.

dragonhunterq wrote:
Crayon wrote:
whew wrote:
Crayon wrote:
By contrast, if you divorce character background from the rules, you have an unlimited number of choices for your character's backstory. Ergo, more options.
Having a background doesn't prevent you from having a backstory. It just ensures that everyone at least has a minimal backstory.
I never claimed it did. I will say that as far as backstories go, 'Apprentice Blacksmith' is strictly a lateral move from 'I have a longsword' and that I don't think there should be associated game mechanics because said rules serve to restrict the choices available to the player for no real pay-off...

The way I see it, backgrounds are seeds, the kernel of who you are - they aren't (necessarily) the entirety of who you are.

Nothing in backgrounds limits your backstory, you can reflect your backstory in other ways than just a background.
A background only has to reflect a part of your backstory.

Of course if you want to pick a background and call it done as far as backstories are concerned you are golden.

I saw Traits as the finishing touch or maybe a starting point to build from. Backgrounds feel so bog standard I really can't figure out how to make them work beyond "This was my day job".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Snip

So you don't want the GMs to pretend like they don't know character capabilities but you also think its absurd that enemies will use tactics based on knowing those capabilities like targetting the healer?

EDIT: And yeah once again couching things in game terms makes it seem stupid. What isn't stupid is this conversation

Boss: Hey Goons, watch out for that guy I've seen his reflexes and getting past him will be hard. Try and take out their support in the back if you can, they are packing some serious magic.

I don't know what I want, but I know how you put it sounds silly doesn't it? And that seems to be what we're going to get now.

How would the boss have seen the Fighter in combat before? How would he know they have magic? Boss doesn't know, none of his guys have come back alive.

GM knows. GM has seen them fight. What does GM do?

What level of info does GM put into his enemies?

This is however completely off topic now so if people want to pick my post part go for it. I'll reply through PM though if I want to keep this going.

Probably my last post about in this topic anyway. I just can't think of anything more to talk about Backgrounds. They're just so Meh. But we can't have anything more because Min Maxers don't care about story.

Bleh. Yet another change that isn't worth it at my own tables. Fixes nothing and houseruled away. But this is probably a blog that's not worth arguing over because it's that easy to remove it or play around with changing it.

I mean Resoance and Alchemist got me riled up, heck Goblin made me worry about some players/groups I know of. But the weapon blog was interesting to see, and I have mixed hopes for the Alchemic info. This? I might have posted a few times in the thread but really, I can't find the fire to be riled up or the hype to look forward to more info.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Melee folks can no move and flank better.

How'd they do that now? Also I suppose this is sorry news for anyone that wants to flank. Sorry Rogues.

Captain Morgan wrote:
Ranged and Casters can now use their abilities at point blank range [when their opponent doesn't have AoO.]

Depends. I'm assuming the most common class level to give enemies will be "Fighter" and depending on when they get AoO this whole idea is dead on arrival. Also yeah they can attack with their skill point blank.

That is if Ranged doesn't have penalties from shooting at melee. And both classes don't want to eat a counter swing from a Reaction or straight up attack if the target is still living.

Captain Morgan wrote:
And characters who invest in AoO now get to use it more often-- enemies probably won't know you have that ability because it is an exception and be more likely to provoke.

GM knows though. But GM should just ignore that and have every character play stupidly right? Can't have the enemies realize things that'll slow down the battle.

Even without that, are we actually putting Classes into the world lore now?

Boss: Hey Goons, that guy's a Fighter! Stay away from him or he'll swing at yah! Go for the Cleric in back he heals and can't swing you enter his threat area! Same with the Wizard too!

Captain Morgan wrote:
The old system was a boon only to melee folks who didn't have to invest, but it also meant most foes with a lick of intelligence won't provoke in the first place. Even an animal understands not leaving itself vulnerable in a melee exchange or showing it's back to an opponent. And it wasn't usually an effective counter measure against ranged and casters because they could just five foot step and still unleash the same amount of devastation. At least now a five foot step will cost them an action.

Usually you'd get 1 swing, monsters too or am I missing something. Have your AC guy bait the swing and get the squishier characters out of there. Besides, how do you tie up creatures now? If only 1 class gets AoO early enough, just walk around that character.

Captain Morgan wrote:
I think it is fair for you to not like this change, but calling it a power down or saying people are forced to buy it back ignores how many benefits there are to this change.

I think it's too early to decide on if this is a GOOD enough change until each player and GM gets their own hands on it. What's good for you might not be good for someone else based on their playstyle and how their GM runs things.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

I will miss the usually deep flavor of traits and the creative challenge of weaving them in your PC's backstory

I guess they were a part where balance and variety just cannot coexist

Yeah I'll miss that too. My usual creation walkthrough had picking traits last.

- Why yes I did do the Sacred Tattoo and Fate's Favored combo. However, that seemed like it would easily work with the Half Orc Shaman I had made, a tribal healer that has to be inscribed with a Shamanic Tattoo as part of their 'graduation' ceremony. And given the great task she had to do, her Spirits bent luck/fate a bit to make sure she could succeed.

- I had an Alchemist that had 4 Traits(Extra Traits Feat, well that's gone now). Even had a drawback. Umbral Unmaksing meant no Shadow. In Ustalav this meant BAD things for him. Carefully Hidden to hide easier, Hedge Magician as he was always on low supplies and did the whole traveling "Potion" salesman to get cash, Accelerated Drinker as he knew he'd have to be fast to down insert "Save my butt" potion before a mob got him, and Twitchy cause he was always watching his back and on edge.

Under the new background system?

Half Orc takes Tribal Healer. +2 Wis, Healer Feat of some kind, and Lore(Spirits/Medical Herbs)

Alchemist takes I have no idea. "Con Artist" isn't him, he's just trying to get enough supplies to live and move to next town before someone realizes he doesn't have a shadow. Whatever I'd call it, Alchemist gets +2 Int or Con, Potion/Stealth feat and Lore(Potions/Brewing).

Yeah the second set just seems blander to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bilwiss wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Tender Tendrils wrote:

It feels like a lot of the objections to this system seem to be based on literal interpretations of the backgrounds?

In most systems smithing is a broad enough skill to apply to leatherworking, tinkering, bowmaking, Fletching, etc. If your gm won't let you cross out the word "blacksmith" and write one of those other things, then I think any inflexibility is more in the gm than the system.

Additionally, I think any reasonable gm in a group where the expectation is that it's about story and roleplay will happily consider using the backgrounds as a guide to make ones specific to what a character needs - in 5e, the main utility of the backgrounds is to give examples for players who want to make their character quickly or need ideas, the players who want something more specific can just choose options that are appropriate instead of them dedicating 50 pages to fit every possible niche.

Really?

Cause I can tell you in 5e at least where I am I was told by the people running it "Sorry can't change backgrounds" at their Adventure League. I question what my local DMs will do for Society play.

"Sorry man it's not in the book or the one you want is from a book that's banned. So take X instead".

Why yes, this is a GM problem. But just saying "Get a better GM" shouldn't be a solution to everything.

Just fyi creating your own custom background is a core rule in 5e and Adventure league legal.

http://dndadventurersleague.org/faq-12-12/
If your DM doesn't allow it thats on the DM not the system.
Similarly it would be nice if Paizo has custom backgrounds as a core rule in 2e.

My GMs at Organized only read the FAQs that effect themselves. And I admit is is the GM.

But you cannot FORCE a GM to do anything. Much like you can't FORCE players to not Min Max with the system. The people playing the game decide what to actually do, largely at the GM's word. Or against the GM's Word which causes another set of problems.

The problem is the GM but with how many I keep seeing, there's something about either this system or Tabletop in general that draws them.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Tender Tendrils wrote:

It feels like a lot of the objections to this system seem to be based on literal interpretations of the backgrounds?

In most systems smithing is a broad enough skill to apply to leatherworking, tinkering, bowmaking, Fletching, etc. If your gm won't let you cross out the word "blacksmith" and write one of those other things, then I think any inflexibility is more in the gm than the system.

Additionally, I think any reasonable gm in a group where the expectation is that it's about story and roleplay will happily consider using the backgrounds as a guide to make ones specific to what a character needs - in 5e, the main utility of the backgrounds is to give examples for players who want to make their character quickly or need ideas, the players who want something more specific can just choose options that are appropriate instead of them dedicating 50 pages to fit every possible niche.

Really?

Cause I can tell you in 5e at least where I am I was told by the people running it "Sorry can't change backgrounds" at their Adventure League. I question what my local DMs will do for Society play.

"Sorry man it's not in the book or the one you want is from a book that's banned. So take X instead".

Why yes, this is a GM problem. But just saying "Get a better GM" shouldn't be a solution to everything.


Captain Morgan wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
Can you double up on boosts? So, with blacksmith, you give the required boost to STR and then use the free one on STR as well?
This is actually a very good question and one I'm surprised wasn't asked sooner.
Umm, what?

People don't read through hundreds of posts before they say stuff.

This is also why so many of our posts involve just regurgitating the same sound bites, because folks won't read a blog entry closely, or the thread attached to it, or remember stuff from a previous blog entry, etc.

Cough.

MerlinCross wrote:

This is actually a very good question and one I'm surprised wasn't asked sooner.

Was it asked before? Have to double check but wow that could be a nice spike for say 2 handed builds early.

Maybe, have to see the numbers. Still a good question

I hadn't gotten around to checking, the post was made shortly before going into work.

So let me transfer "Good question" to you then. Though I could be snippy here Captain Morgan, too sore for this. Heck I'll probably bow out.

There's just too little to backgrounds. Yay, no more min maxers taking stupid traits for builds but come off making no sense. Boo, the backgrounds are about as bog standard as you get from 5e.


Buri Reborn wrote:
Can you double up on boosts? So, with blacksmith, you give the required boost to STR and then use the free one on STR as well?

This is actually a very good question and one I'm surprised wasn't asked sooner.

Was it asked before? Have to double check but wow that could be a nice spike for say 2 handed builds early.

Maybe, have to see the numbers. Still a good question


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
XBow Enthusiast wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:

Awesome! But wish they each had like some unique special ability(s) like 5e and SF. That way they are more than just "plug in your 2 boosts, + skill feat + lore" and actually have unique stuff that makes them special!

Otherwise the splatbooks are not gonna offer much in the way of backgrounds besides "some permutation you could have done yourself + some lore on it". The campaign traits in the past were really cool! Wanna see some of those exlcusive powers still in 2e.

The trouble with that idea is that we want backgrounds to be fun but flexible, allowing you to try out all sorts of combinations for your characters. But if they had a unique and desirable ability you can't get anywhere else, suddenly they become extremely inflexible: you have to take the background that gives you a particular unique ability or you will never be able to get that ability. Does that make sense?
As opposed to every thing else? I don't see why background get a free pass.
Because backgrounds should be selected pretty much entirely for story reasons. Class feats, not so much.
I suppose no one picks Class for story reasons. Or any race.
I'm sure most people do, but everyone remembers those people who only pick things for pure mechanical advantage.
You mean how min maxers do that with everything?
You mean all those Magi DIDN'T take Wayang Spell Hunter because they loved the flavor of hunting deer with shocking grasp? I'm not sure I can handle this revelation.

Lemme try to be a little more clear here.

What's the problem with traits? Oh min maxers just take anything and everything that don't make any sense. Okay, I can get behind that. It's something I've argued elsewhere.

So this means min maxers are even more of a problem to the point they want to remove mechanics from role pay. Okay I can get behind that.

Why stop at backgrounds if it is such an issue? I mean how many Tattood Half orcs are running around now? If there's something like that for Racial Feats well everyone is taking it.

1 to 50 of 707 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>