Planpanther's page

431 posts. Alias of Pan.


1 to 50 of 431 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Im a little worried that reactions are too restrictive. There is going to be a lot of hoping the dice fall just right to make it happen. Even then, you only get to do your cool move once a round. I'd almost rather add a bunch of cool things you can do instead/in addition to attacking and bring back AoO.

This is something ill be looking hard at during playtetsing.

Stopped reading at science. Its magic I believe you are overthinking it. I wouldnt mind some better interaction rules with illusions, just not this detailed.

TheFinish wrote:

Neither does animate dead though. Your soul is just peachy.

Also raise dead, resurrection and such do damage the soul. That's what the Negative Levels/Con Drain is supposed to represent.

Is it spelled out somewhere that soul damage is the narrative for the penalties? Are you sure those conditions are not just game penalties for dying?

As others have noted resurrection has a different condition than raise dead. Also, resurrection is often quite rare and something reserved for PCs. This speaks to the more game part of the system. Folks want a way to keep their characters alive if they have such a luxury.

As a side note, in my home games resurrection magic has a pet cemetery effect on the target. This is why most people who can afford it, chose not to cheat death. The PCs make a good use of their hero points to avoid becoming...something....else.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Meophist wrote:

I'm guessing that Spell Points will only be used for spells.

I'm also guessing that a lot of special abilities that weren't spells before might be changed to spells now, so that we don't have a whole bunch of different types of powers to keep track of their interactions.

Spell Points are used for (certain types of) spells.

Thats at the heart of the issue for me. Spell points are not for only spells. (Unless im incorrect on that?) Something like channeling or panache I wouldnt consider a spell. Thats why I think something more intuitive like ability points that are universal for pools for both martial and casters would work better. YMMV

master_marshmallow wrote:

And when judging intent, you go based on the player, not the character in game. I can't tell you how many times I've had players go about acting like they can just take 5 seconds out of game to tell me "I go help a cat out of a tree or something" to try and game the alignment system into getting out of admitting they just want to play an evil character. Sure, in character you may be acting one way, but the intent of the player is to gain all the benefits of being evil with none of the drawbacks and I'm not having it. It's blatant metagaming.

This is exasperated by the no evil rule that is so prevalent. Folks want to RP anti-heroes, and occasionally carry out terrible acts, because its expedient or interesting. However, because they cant be evil and are supposed to be a good guy they go through a series of logical gymnastics to try and make their actions good.

Just because you are willing to employ evil tactics, doesn't make your character a bad person. Assassins and necromancers are guys willing to cut corners and get things done. They are evil characters, but that doesn't mean they have to steal all babies candy or kick every puppy.

I'd like to offer my alternative for folks with these issues. I allow evil alignments in my games under a caveat in the social contract. You can do what you like to any number of my NPCs, but you need to leave the other PCs alone. No stealing, attacking, or interfering with your fellow party mates. Under this rule ive had no issues with evil alignments. YMMV.

Id say move the GMG into the bestiary, except they cant because of the design decisions on monsters.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Im going to disagree with the witch. She was my favorite class in PF1 after the bard. I dont see the inherent evil. Sometimes the good guys are antagonistic too!

Id like to see the cavalier get a revision. I really enjoyed the orders and flavor. Id like to see more abilities and archetypes that dont kneecap the cav without their mount.

Ckorik wrote:

This thread is a good reason why the tying the setting to the rules is a bad idea.

It works great - until you don't have the concept of a "Pharasma" in your game - then the logic goes out the window.

PF isnt a generic system so these types of things are a feature for me.

CorvusMask wrote:

If you want to use that sort of logic, question becomes "So why bone/carrion/flesh/blood golems are neutral instead of evil?"

(and out of those ones, you need to be evil only for purpose of creating flesh golems, though few other of them do require animate dead)

Those inconsistencies are known by Paizo. Hopefully they can take advantage of PF2 and the stronger focus on Golarion to tighten that up.

Im hoping for some really cool pirate ship rules!

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Haywire build generator wrote:
Suppose I wanted to build a wizard: Int-based casting, wizard class feats, all that. But I wanted to replace all of my mental essence spells with vital essence spells. How well-supported would this process be?

I am hoping you cant do this. I prefer the arcane and divine divide. Whatever they want to call it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheFinish wrote:
Planpanther wrote:
TheFinish wrote:

It's just that PF seems to think the Negative Energy Plane is Evil, for some absurd reason.


The outsider that is born from the Cristalized Essence of the Negative Energy Plane is Neutral Evil.

Meanwhile, these guys, born from the Positive Energy Plane, are Neutral.

The Negative Energy Plane is Neutral. Negative Energy is Neutral. Therefore it stands to reason that something made out of Negative Energy would be Neutral. But nope. It's Evil. Why? Who knows.

Same for mindless undead. Let us put aside that the descriptions of them (especially Skeletons) doesn't sound mindless at all. But they are mindless nonetheless.

They are corpses, animated by Neutral energy. By all accounts they should be True Neutral, much like Golems, who are animated by Neutral energy (Elementals). But they're Evil. Why? No reason given.

All you can really infer from this is that the Negative Energy Plane is actually Evil, not Neutral. Otherwise, cosmologically, this makes no bloody sense (not that PF Cosmology has a lick of sense anyway).

No. The process of a animating dead is evil, not the negative energy used. This has been mentioned before.

TheFinish wrote:

It's just that PF seems to think the Negative Energy Plane is Evil, for some absurd reason.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Im coming around after Mark's reasoning.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I like what im reading here. Just two nitpicks. I think a better name for spell points could have been thought up. It sounds like PF2 may be using a spell point system and that's not really the case. Also, save conditions not being best to worst or the opposite was confusing.

I got a sneaking suspicion that the new action economy and archetypes might make the magus as a class go bye bye. Maybe.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope they do provide a reason, but also keep undead evil. Something has to be evil...

^^What Lyoto Machida said. Honestly, that was one of the chessy things that allowed 4E to be so SAD. I most certainly hope that this design style is not followed. /not signed.

Ckorik wrote:

The implications of 'no charges' really is starting to hit me - so many iconic items throughout the history of the game have been x/day ....

They still are. X now equals your resonance score.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like that is the way the devs are going. I know there was a quote about a pally being able to lie when it serves a greater good and work with evil dudes without instantly falling. Though alignment was still something a pally needs to be mindful of. Sounds like a guideline instead of a standard. This allows each table to make it as stringent or non-event as they like. PFS is of course an exception.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can live with less restrictions on characters. As long as planar beings are still the stuff of irrefutable alignment and spells affect them, I'll be good. I do like pallys being LG but I can live with some extensions like any good. Id be bummed if they make pallys of any alignment in which case I hope they dispense with 9 different codes and make some blanket statement to save space. Pally can be redefined as the armored fighter class I guess.

My problem with high levels isnt too many character options. Its gonzo math with uncapped stats and treadmill game design. I have zero issues with CRB dipping, few with APG, and then several with later splats. Its annoying that the dipping problems came about during the Paizo era of 3E and now they want to kill the concept in PF2.

To answer the question, (which I think the premise is faulty) no its not a deal breaker.

I dont give out target info as GM I just indicate success/fail. After a couple rounds the players usually can figure out the targets. So these abilities are not my favorite but they dont bug me.

That said, I put the responsibility on the player to announce their intention of using the mechanic so I can delay my response.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There are a lot of Latino diners in my area that sell the cane sugar coke. Its around if you like it. I heard from my ex who was raised in Louisiana, that in Texas there is a plant that makes Dr pepper with cane as well. She swears by it.

If PF2 turns out to be made with syrup, folks are just going to have go to a specialty shop for wholesome cane sugar PF. Or this entire premise was intentionally incendiary to get blog views. Your choice.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is the problem of chopping everything into feats and tossing them across levels. I think these vision penalties would be quickly forgotten and relegated to "Did you know x rule of PF2.." thread that comes out in a few years.

What musicaddict said. Also, there is already precedent with some ancestries clearly being better than others.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

So Halflings get to reroll a D20 once a day while gobos get no STR flaw, faster speed, and darkvision. Talk about going from the trash heap to the penthouse.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Stone Dog wrote:
I'm still in favor of halflings getting Wis for their tenacious spirit and gnomes getting intelligence for their keen minds. All small races getting Charisma seems bland

I'd go a different direction. Id remove the trash dwelling gobos CHA bonus and give it to INT. Makes sense they have to be clever to make their trash gizmos. I'd make their flaw STR and leave their fast speed. Give em a boost to DEX to show their quickness. For Gnomes id give them a bonus to WIS instead of CHA. Keep their CON and STR boost/flaw. Then halflings would keep CHA bonus rounding out the three smallies with three mental stats.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So all smallies get a bonus to Cha but no bump to WIS or INT... Wish that were a little different. Glad to see halflings keep their luck and got a boost to the ol sling. So gobos get extra STR and speed...What do gnomes and halflings get to match those goodies?

With magic items being less necessary for the game to work, I wouldn't mind seeing identify move back to a level 1 spell. The spell just gives you a good bonus you can still fail the check. I'm old school that way though.

Instead of your idea, I'd say just identify magic items at no cost. 1 resonance point seems like an arbitrary speed bump. /Not Signed

You know since ability damage is gone I dont see why stats have to be so high at all. Y'all are going to hate this, but what if the new stat gen was 1D6 down the line and apply your ABCs? Instead of topping out at 26, you could top out at 16.

Every thread I've read and poll I've seen about what makes PF great puts custom chargen at the top. This is something Paizo most certainly gets. It would be suicide for them to make 5E clone.

As for the new coke thing, customers sometimes do know what they want. Back in '09 Chevrolet decided to ax the Impala in favor of keeping the Malibu. Even though customers preferred the Impala in large numbers to the Malibu. Chevrolet execs decided they simply put too much marketing into the Malibu over the Impala to let the Malibu go.

Paizo don't be afraid to keep the Impala at expense of the well marketed Malibu.

TheFinish wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Some people would find giving charisma more use and adding in a mechanic to reduce the healing old low level healing wand thing a positive effect of resonance. Also it works to eliminating the big 6 which a lot of people have complained about in the past. I think it is at least an interesting mechanic and am interested in it. Of course I actually like occult adventures for the most part. except for the occultist and mesmerist, but that was more because the occultist was very hard to understand I have no trouble understanding what they have said about resonance so far.

In itself resonance does nothing to eliminate the big 6. If the big 6 still exist then that is what people will use resonance for.

Every character needing charisma for resonance is an even bigger flaw for me than everyone dumping charisma. It does not feel like a fix to me. It feels kludgy.

Especially when "Resonance helps people not dump Charisma" kind of....goes out the window when you introduce classes/abilities that change that.

Like the Alchemist, who uses Intelligence.

Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Every character needing charisma for resonance is an even bigger flaw for me than everyone dumping charisma. It does not feel like a fix to me. It feels kludgy.

Lacking further information, and thinking positively - it could just be that magic items in general are less emphasized to focus more on personal power, thus you don't need charisma unless you want to play a character with lots of magical trinkets.

(I'm not saying this is guaranteed, just that we don't know.)

That may be true, but again, Alchemsits use Intelligence for Resonance, so the whole "Personal power for magic items" gets shot right in the foot.

I was worried about that as well. Use X instead of Y stuff was my least favorite of PF1. Though, Alchemist may be the exception. Gives the class a little something of its own. If they open that up to all casters (and more), than its a problem.

Folks, fumbles are baked in to the system. Monsters will be enraging reactions when you crit fail. What those reactions are remains to be seen. Also, the frequency is unknown. Reactions might be far and few between or they could be widely available. Who knows?

There have been a lot of posts lately about social contract, rulings over rules, and now re-flavoring. I think these things are best left to a game mastery guide 2, than the CRB, IMO.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The best way to go about it is to address whats been revealed. You cant make a full picture yet. I can only compare the reveals to PF1, unchained, and perhaps Starfinder. Even then, I'm not going to make a declaration about the entire system until August at the earliest. Probably, not even until August 2019.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There will be a learning period for sure with monsters doing their own thing in PF2. My fear is that once folks learn the monsters triggers they will never trigger them if possible. Then, only crit fails will cause enemy reactions. PF1 AOO was universal and worked the same for everyone. Its a shame there is no universal AOO on top of additional reactions in PF2.

Yes there will be some type of gating and expansion via feats.

Thats a nuance that is difficult to explain in a rule book to "dont want to support ma allies I wanna do all the cool stuff bro" types.

Did you dislike traits?

Claxon wrote:

I think part of the problem is we have a faction of players who want grim dark challenging dungeon crawls where you're very likely to have your character die, and others like to be super heroes were there are challenges but they are rare (comparatively speaking). And 1 system doesn't really support both types of play very well, so you kind of need to choose.

Not necessarily need to choose, you can design for the former while leaving room for the latter with a modular design.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Warlord sounds like a Bard archetype to me.

Judging by how many posts decry healing as a role or necessity, I dont know how much traction this is going to get with the base.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. Where did you hear new ancestries are coming in bestiaries? I cant see that happening since monsters now have their own rules.

2. I hope APs have both new background and ancestry feats that cleave to the heart of the story.

3. I hope so. I prefer systems that change, improve, evolve as you level instead of set and forget of the past.

Folks remember the actions are not just based on actual time it takes you to do something in real life. Actions are an abstraction of your turn. Raising a shield is not simply raising the shield. Its engaging in a defensive mode and preparing to defend yourself. Your real world experience may not be able to grok that, but its a game and not a real world sim.

That HD healing system sounds needlessly fussy. /not signed

I keep seeing folks wanting to swap bombs for mutagen via archetype and its giving me hope for multi-classing. For instance, if the devs are spacing out abilities to stop dipping power, then hopefully you can archetype around to get what you actually want. For instance, a fighter with a little mutagen but not bombs. Allows you to dip an ability with out getting the entire starting package traditionally.

A guy can hope.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A new bestiary for PF2 is a must since monsters are no longer using PC rules. Im really curious what a new player will think of this.

Halflings are one of my faves looking forward to Friday!

1 to 50 of 431 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>