Tarik Blackhands's page

1,600 posts. Alias of ItsTheName.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,600 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Diego Rossi wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:


If you've built your character well, that should be it - they should be able to easily overcome any obstacle within their specialization. You need a party because everyone specializes in different things, and because one fighter can't stab all the baddies at once.

And then we get the million threads about "my specialized character can't do anything outside his specialization".

Personally I feel that a base of 50-50 against same level opponents is perfectly fine,
One of the goals of this edition is to reduce the rocket tag combat, but it seem that some of the people requiring higher to hit base values want exactly that.
"I win initiative, the enemy get to do nothig and I win the fight."
For them it can be fun, for me it is annoying and boring,

Well if you want high accuracy but longer combats you can just increase hp val-

"Enemies have bloated hp!"

Lets not even get into what happens to the jokers who run around specializing in the save/lose magic and are wanting crit fails on a 15+ from the bad guys.


Dracovar wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Dracovar wrote:


I think Skeld nails it on the head. Right here. THIS is the real issue, not whether or not I'm paying in GP, SP, BottleCaps, Shillings, Quatloos, Dollarz$ or whatever.

Was there a technical problem that needed fixing? Probably not. Did the design team want to take the opportunity to shift away from gold to silver because it seemed more "realistic"? Maybe? Did they need to mess with the cost base at the same time? Nope, but they did anyways - and it does present a jarring change.

With so much PF1 material available, this is just another inadvertent one finger salute to anyone who wants to convert that material to PF2. Making it HARDER to convert all the AP's I've purchased over the years simply buts one more roadblock in my adoption of the new system. And it's a NEEDLESS roadblock.

Convert to silver, sure. Whatever. But keep the pricing consistent so previous PF1 material is easily translated to the new system. Moving a decimal point is easy. Repricing everything is not.

Why on earth should they keep the pricing consistent between editions? The items themselves have changed, their availability (maybe) changed, their usage method (maybe) changed, and the general philosophy on when/how to use them has changed so why should their price remain identical (or with a...

I think I was pretty clear about why I thought they should keep pricing consistent. A longsword is still a longsword in Golarion. And the pricing just decides to radically shift? Why? Would the availability of longswords suddenly just change? Why? Silver might make more sense for immersion/realism, but radically changing the pricing at the same time is does not help with that same immersion/realism.

As for the rest - pure strawman. I wasn't speaking to other parts of 2E regarding action economy, monster design, etc.

Yeah, a longsword's a longsword but then again an ogre's an ogre and they've changed due to the whimsy of edition changes. Hell, even weapons themselves have changed, sometimes quite radically (*waves at longbow*). You can't argue that pricing should be (basically) be the same because /immersion when virtually everything else has changed and doesn't get so much as a batted eyelash.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dracovar wrote:
Skeld wrote:

What is the technical reasoning behind changing this? What problem is it trying to fix?

If it were a matter of moving a decimal place, or all the game items simply replacing the gp cost with sp cost, then it wouldn't be a big deal. That's not the case however as items have just changed cost base AND cost altogether. For example, a PF1 chain shirt was 100gp, while a PF2 chain shirt costs 45sp. A PF1 longsword is 15gp; in PF2, it's 10sp.

A silver piece in PF2 does not means what a gold piece in PF1 meant. From a game world perspective, it's a jarring change. From a backward compatibility standpoint, it adds barrier to converting old adventures.

-Skeld

I think Skeld nails it on the head. Right here. THIS is the real issue, not whether or not I'm paying in GP, SP, BottleCaps, Shillings, Quatloos, Dollarz$ or whatever.

Was there a technical problem that needed fixing? Probably not. Did the design team want to take the opportunity to shift away from gold to silver because it seemed more "realistic"? Maybe? Did they need to mess with the cost base at the same time? Nope, but they did anyways - and it does present a jarring change.

With so much PF1 material available, this is just another inadvertent one finger salute to anyone who wants to convert that material to PF2. Making it HARDER to convert all the AP's I've purchased over the years simply buts one more roadblock in my adoption of the new system. And it's a NEEDLESS roadblock.

Convert to silver, sure. Whatever. But keep the pricing consistent so previous PF1 material is easily translated to the new system. Moving a decimal point is easy. Repricing everything is not.

Why on earth should they keep the pricing consistent between editions? The items themselves have changed, their availability (maybe) changed, their usage method (maybe) changed, and the general philosophy on when/how to use them has changed so why should their price remain identical (or with a decimal shift)? It's like demanding that ogres have stat blocks that are virtually identical to their 1e counterparts for ease of conversion despite the changes in action economy, monster design, and CR balance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Reticent wrote:

It seems like a tricky thing to balance, because if skill and item healing is good enough to be fully viable, then how do you keep injury from becoming trivial when you also have a cleric around?

Then for skill based healing there's the question of how good you can make it before it stops feeling plausible. Mundane healing can only get so effective before you need to start calling it magic.

For the first part there's several possibilities. One, you just don't care about lasting injuries and presume everyone's going to march into encounters near or at full hp but at that point it's a more elegant solution to just use starfinder's stamina or a short-rest mechanic to simplify matters and call a spade a spade if HP loss is meant to be mostly irrelevant outside combat itself.

Alternatively you go the other way and give magic healing the same x per day/encounter restrictions that mundane stuff gets and suddenly the attrition is real and scary. Now doing this will go over about as well as a lead zeppelin since the only thing these boards hate more than paladins are nerfs to spellslingers but also, Pathfinder is not Dark Heresy or similar. It's a game of heroic adventure, not crawling across the finish line missing an eyeball, 3 fingers, and a leg.

Heroic adventure is what segues into the last point. If I'm choke slamming rhinos, bathing in lava, and walking around sub-zero temperatures without care in just a loincloth then frankly screw plausibility. I'm a big darn hero (or Master/Legendary in game parlance) and I should be looking more like someone out of myths (or even something like the Matrix in terms of "some rules [of the world] can be bent, others broken"). "Plausibility" is more or less the conceptual design roadblock that causes C/MD to fester the way it has back in 3.5/PF1e


FormerFiend wrote:
I feel that Calistria being allowed CG clerics while Gorum isn't is part of James Jacobs' pro-elf agenda. Can't have the top elven god(even if Jacobs insists that Desna best represents the elves, she's still not part of that pantheon) not allow good worshipers.

Calistria may be on the iffier end of the scale too but I'd sooner accept CG clerics of her ethos than Gorumite ones. There's nothing wrong (by default anyway) with rolls in the hay and at the very least the premise of "seek retribution over slights done to you" can be done with a degree of proportionality and doesn't de facto go around ruining the lives of bystanders.


Just a general comment, silver standard is the difference between finding the leprechaun's pot of gold (we'll say 1000 coins) and the reaction being "Well that buys us absolutely nothing" and "Sweet, we can get some cool stuff with that"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

See also: the Earthdawn method. Everyone's an Adept (aka magic user) but rather than spending time learning how to throw fireballs, some people channel that mojo into casually leaping across football fields leading into 10 or so slashes with their sword or vanishing behind a 1" thick pole like he was Bugs Bunny.


Darkorin wrote:


The simple fact that the paladins is the only class left with an alignment restriction is an aberration, and they showed with the second edition that they could keep the pure Paladin identity with a combination of Powers and Orders/Tradition/Anathema/Feats.

Did clerics just blink out of existence? They have alignment restrictions too you know.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Problem is asking for real world atheism (as opposed to Golarion atheism which is that the gods don't deserve your worship) is that it makes absolutely no sense in the setting. The gods and their servants aren't distant figures that appear in your morning toast maybe. They're in reach, tangible, approachable, and offer direct aid one way or another. To not believe in the existence of beings with god-like power that are capable of granting power to their followers with the evidence in place puts your character firmly in the zone of either ignorance at best or utter madman at worst.

It's not a matter of inclusiveness, it's the setting at work. Real world atheism makes as much sense in Golarion as thinking you can get by as a Flat in Eclipse Phase.


Senjen wrote:
In 2nd edition there are sorcerers who have access to the divine spell list. How is a cleric objectively different from a sorcerer who can cast divine spells. From within the game world you would not be able to tell the difference.

Take the instance of a sorc and cleric who have not chosen whatever the remove disease equiv of the edition is

"Help sir cleric, my son has fallen ill of the pox! Use your divine powers to help him!"

Sorcerer: "Sorry, I can't do that"

Cleric: "Give me a day to pray for the right spell and I shall heal him"


I'm honestly confused what the section would even contain. Either it's going to be entirely unhelpful "Action economy totally different, see proper section" or you end up literally reprinting the various sections of the rulebook which is a colossal waste of space. I agree with the other people up thread on this, this is something that shouldn't be bothered with. It's a new edition, it's generally speaking good protocol to actually read the bloody rulebook rather than shrugging and going "well surely it's the same as 1e..."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alternatively this ends up like DocWagon/Crashcart from Shadowrun where upon your vitals hitting 0 (you're ritually Statused I guess) a squad of Abadar commandos warp in, use whatever force is required to secure your carcass and beam you out for rezzing. Could even have the old clause about no operating on other church territory or similar.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the flip side the same line of questioning was used by Socrates too so I guess there's a certain elegance in simplicity there.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Thing is though, you still need to, as a cleric, be perfectly okay with the premise that in the grim dark fantasy of Golarion there is only war and the kid with the notched kitchen knife is just as worthy of getting split in half as the local demon. It's for that reason I find the idea of CG clerics of Gorum incompatible. As a good person that philosophy should be utterly abhorrent.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Some Good yahoo tossing out a prayer to Gorum before the big fight isn't the issue. The issue is clerics who need to accept the ethos of being a literal warmonger. Diplomacy and peace are anathema to a Gorum cleric and frankly running around seeking and making war without end with no scruples as to who's on the receiving end should not be behavior a Good person strives for. People who don't have a problem with that sort of thing are evil or at least neutral.

The minute you start coming up with a list of acceptable targets (like what a Good person would do with stuff like only demons/evil stuff) is when Gorum throws a greatsword at your skull because anything wielding a sharpened stick is supposed to be an acceptable target.


BlackJill wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Hm, if someone earns a Hero Point for taking notes or mapping the dungeon, is that for merely promising to take notes at the beginning of the session, or is that Hero Point given out uselessly at the end of the game session?

In Warhammer 40K we had the Fate Points, and I'm told in Shadowrun (which I never played, but my husband did) you had Karma Points, and both carried over. The Hero Points are more closely related to the Fate Points I believe, only Fate Points were handed for outstanding achievements in-game. The big difference being they carried over. In both cases, to my understanding, they existed to counter the system's lethality - so they're basically butt-savers for buying rerolls or stave off death. Considering what little I've experienced of the lethality of P2 at lower level simulated encounters, I don't think they're really expendable.

Minor correction. Karma in SR was their parlance for XP. Edge (which was an actual stat you could buy in char creation) was the closer equivalent to the fate points of 40k/WHF RP including being permanently expendable to cheat death.

And as another sort of correction, Fate Points only sort of carry over. Spent FP (aka ones used on rerolls, recovery, other not-death related instances) all refreshed at the start of every session. Burnt fates (aka used to avoid death) permanently removed the point from your stack forever more.


Luceon wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Seisho wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
the feat is buried, and doesn't have the best name for what it does, but it's there, it's called battle medic, and allows you to restore someone's hit points with a DC 20 medicine check
The only thing that sucks about is is the 1/day use per character only
Yeah, I don't disagree. Especially since the feat has a chance of hurting the target more. They really should either get rid of that or get rid of the limited use.

Oh please God no. Making that unlimited use is about the worst idea I have seen yet on this forum.

And D&D 5ed, has way too much recovery, that's why I have played in 4 APs and taken a cleric the 16th level and never seen a character death. Keep that care bear system out of PF2.

If you guys are hurt and beat up got rest, who cares what kind of rest it's called. If you have time pressure, and can't rest for 8 hours, to bad. Sorry you had to struggle. This is not a game for millennial's seeking safe spaces.

Man, when I think of gritty and punishing pen and papers, Pathfinder is definitely the first one to come to mind /s.

Please, any game where death can be solved by throwing money at it loses any right to be in the same building as systems designed around punishing combat.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

That and munchkinism is very rarely about actual in game creative solutions. Rather than breaking a seige on a tavern by throwing casks of burning moonshine or something like that, the strategy is more "I swat down all the attacking losers because I'm AC50 with DC30 save/loses at L10, aren't I grand?" Creative only in which sourcebooks got pillaged for the cherry picked stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Playing the individualist warrior who relies on his own strength is badwrongfun apparently.

Been badwrongfun for approximately...7 editions of DnD counting Pathfinder about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not even remotely. Even ignoring the fact that monsters only followed PC rules in name only I as a GM have better things to do than flipping between a legion of charts, following all the fiddly rules, and then twisting the arm of those fiddly rules to make it actually work just because I wanted a martial fey that doesn't have 2x the hit die of something on level or whatever.

Benchmarks, simplified blocks, and general role archtypes are infinitely more appealing to me than a handful of players demanding muh versimlitude.


I'm still of the mind to shunt Gorum to CE and make his cleric options CE/NE but that's probably not going to happen simply on the merit of clogging up the evil worship options. I can accept CN base with CE shift but I still don't buy CG "Blood for the Iron God" as reconcilable without either a lot of stretching, willfully ignoring a chunk of his ethos, or similar. There's plenty of martially inclined good deities out there to be a cleric of and while there may be a point that CG could use more options than the current ones, I don't think Gorum's the right one.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
FormerFiend wrote:
Personally I've always read Gorumites as caring more about fighting than the reason for fighting

That sentence could describe Khorne, the Demon Lord of Warhammer universe.

As much as I like to joke that Gorum is basically Khorne with the serial numbers filed off there are a handful of nuances between the two. Khorne doesn't allow for psykers (read: spellcasters) and is at least okay with assassins and murderers (not as good as running forward and applying chainaxe to face, but blood's blood and that is martial prowess). Gorum does allow spellcasters and detests skulduggery and assassination, also has a slightly tighter list of acceptable targets than Khorne (any person vaguely capable of fighting vs anything with a pulse and many things without one).

That said, I still say Gorum should be CE rather than CN. I have no idea how you can justify the ethos of "war for war's sake" as anything other than CE even if he frowns on you killing prisoners or whatever.

(Other minor differences, Khorne likes brass, Gorum iron, axes vs greatswords and Khorne has a pimping throne of skulls vs Gorum's lack of pimping skull throne)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
What the hell is AoS?

Age of Sigmar.

Apparently its a Warhammer thing.

One would hope PF2 ends up as well as AoS honestly. Both started similarly enough, since all the old fans of Warhammer Fantasy absolutely hated the old fluff getting nuked and replaced with some really vague ultra fantasy stuff that wasn't even a proper singular world (more sundered elemental realms) and that's before getting into the standard bevy of rule changes and such.

But the thing is...people have turned around on AoS. The fluff has been fleshed out and gotten lots of new people interested, the models are all generally high quality, and the rules have worked well enough. Sure a lot of people prefer the Old World (like me) but the update certainly has gone quite a bit better than the admittedly awful looking early days.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well,there are Neutral Clerics of Norgorber in his role a "the Reaper of Reputation" which is the most socially acceptable version of worshiping Norgorber, so I won't say there are "none."

But for the most part I like it, "joining team evil" is not really a thing neutral characters should be particularly interested in, and the "only one step" rule always bothered me since "Oh, no... I'm a neutral Cleric of Rovagug" wrankled. A lot of people would just play CN as a sort of "diet evil" and worship something horrific just to skirt around rules that prohibit actual evil. I will be glad to see this gone.

Sums up my thoughts mostly. Besides deities actually kitted to make sense with N worshippers like Norg, most of the N clerics of evil deities (and the inverse for a bunch of good ones) always just struck me as players scalpeling off aspects and being edgy rather than picking something that actually doesn't need a stretch armstrong doll to justify why you chose the local devil or demon lord rather than something G/N that probably has the same bit of the portfolio you're sniping.


Malachandra wrote:

"I have an idea! Let's give a deity stats. Then, if my players make characters that can beat it, I'll just arbitrarily raise all of its stats to a million. Can you survive a +1,000,000 Everyone-Bane Vorpal Iwin longsword (1,000,000d6 + 5,000,000/2-20/x500,000)? I didn't think so."

How is this different from not having stats again?

You can sell a book of arbitrarily scaling stat blocks to rubes. Can't sell no stats (or if you can, you are clearly the king of salesmen and better served elsewhere)


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:

so, my Asmodean LN lawyer is not longer an option?

"§45b(III) of your contract clearly states that my client owns 250% of your soul, I know that sucks but as long as that signature down here, here and on page 61 is youry, there is nothing I can do for you. No, I have no idea, where to get the missing 150% soul, but you have to deliver them tomorrow at noon to my office."

I don't think your character was very neutral if he was signing away people's souls at interest just saying. At least unless the playtest changed things, Neutral people generally aren't supposed to go out of their way to hurt people like say...lawyering them to sign away their immortal soul to Hell.


To me anyway, if your weedy wizard can casually chokeslam a rhino and backstroke through molten lava, (which happened in 1e simply through leveling) I'm fairly sure we can drop the pretense that characters are following a vaguely realistic trajectory of experience and following a more heroic/mythic one. Hence why everyone eventually goes beyond trivial acts of mere mortals. Big Darn Heroes and all.


Revan wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
Err, you do know that Socobenoth's worship involves very specific "taboos" right? Including stuff that I'm not sure if forum rules even allows mentioning
According to his wiki write-up he appeals to 'deviants of all kinds'. Obviously, he's going to especially favor the de Sade/Dark Eldar stuff. That's why he's Chaotic Evil. But does every cult *start* at full-throttle Slaanesh? Or do some start out just trying to thumb their nose at society like an admittedly cursory reading suggests was the main intent of most real-life Hellfire Clubs, or even as a gathering for those with tastes that are mostly harmless but socially unacceptable looking to loosen up and enjoy themselves? Obviously that's gonna go downhill sooner or later; Socothbenoth doesn't want his clerics to *stay* at Neutral, he wants to drag them down into the proverbial muck with him.

Sure on paper that makes sense, but the rub of the matter is if you've already won the worship sweepstakes (aka got cleric powers) what incentive do you have to drop up/down an alignment rung beyond just osmosis of hanging out with legions of pure degenerates/good guys? The corruption/redemption angle really needs something to the effect of appeaser/seperatist mechanics where those N gits actually get the short end of the stick power wise (if any at all). You want the real good stuff friend? Here's the list of taboos to break/list of good deeds to follow and THEN you get the sweet sweet mojo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FormerFiend wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
FormerFiend wrote:
But I think there's a sense to LN Asmodeus followers & CG Gorum followers. Not as a majority & if we want to call them heretics, fine.

My problem with that is that it's hard to call someone a heretic (and have it mean anything) when the boss is literally okay with that and gives him just as much backing as the orthodox guy. If they were actual heretics to the faith I'd figure the patron deity's step one would be stripping them of their cleric powers since they no longer serve/exemplify their interests.

Well in the case of Asmodeus you've always got the work around of him corrupting the neutral to evil eventually as part of the long game, you know, character development, or otherwise one of the great schemers & manipulators in the multiverse recognizing that occasionally one wants to have a follower who doesn't set off a detect evil spell. Value of PR & everything.

Gorum also doesn't have a problem with conflict among his own followers; one of his aphorisms is, after all, "Will you fight?" not, "Why do you fight?"; so if he's got a sect of CG followers going to war with a sect of CE followers, that's fine by him because they're fighting.

Thing is you can stretch that logic for either deity to encompass everyone. That LG guy who wants to knock skulls? Gorum throws his support because he cares not from where the blood flows and that jazz. CN person over there? Just as corruptable and good for PR for Asmo as that LN dude I'm sure.

Point is, both of them have some line in the metaphysical sand where they aren't willing to just dole out the (un)holy mojo since that person just isn't compatible with their ethoses even if it would be a grand game to corrupt them/watch them reap skulls.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FormerFiend wrote:
But I think there's a sense to LN Asmodeus followers & CG Gorum followers. Not as a majority & if we want to call them heretics, fine.

My problem with that is that it's hard to call someone a heretic (and have it mean anything) when the boss is literally okay with that and gives him just as much backing as the orthodox guy. If they were actual heretics to the faith I'd figure the patron deity's step one would be stripping them of their cleric powers since they no longer serve/exemplify their interests.


CorvusMask wrote:
Err, you do know that Socobenoth's worship involves very specific "taboos" right? Including stuff that I'm not sure if forum rules even allows mentioning

Man CN Socobenoth Cleric discussions really bring back the (annoying) memories...

And I'm fairly sure you can mention that Socy's worshipers include rapists since...that's literally written in his portfolio by Paizo, just like I'm pretty sure I can say Vepar is (literally) the Infernal Duke of rape without much concern.

More to the point though, CN Soc worshipers honestly made about as much sense as CN Lamashtu or CG Gorum (Someone already beat me to the Khorne comparison, alas) in that they're technically doable just rather tenuous stretches and whatever aspects you were scalpeling out to worship there was probably a more sensical deity waiting in the wings.


doomman47 wrote:
How does one stat out a CR infinite creature?

The previously mentioned Cain statblock that consists of "You lose"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malthraz wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:
Well if there putting Goblin in why not Orc's?

Can we exclude goblins as well as orcs?

Actually, I have a great idea: Why don't we include Balrogs as a core race? And Dragons.

Hey, while we are at it, I want to be Cthulhu.

That's just silly. Cthulhu isn't a race.

You're looking for Starspawn.


MuddyVolcano wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Maneuvers are a Skill check (usually with Athletics, though some seem to be Acrobatics or other stuff). They target Save Defenses (which is to say Save + 10, which Save varies). So to Disarm an Ogre you roll Athletics with a DC of 13 (10 + 3 for Reflex Save).

There seem to be no barriers at all to doing this (such as provoking AoO), though doing so counts as an attack (meaning it accrues and is subject to iterative penalties). Whether you can enhance maneuvers in some way is currently unknown (though it seems likely).

I'm happy to see this rolled into Athletics. I'd forgotten about that, though I remember reading it. Thank you both for bringing it up!

I suspect most martial classes will be trained in Athletics (I'd need to go back and check the blogs).

Do you folks think that will be enough of a boost in terms of access? Martials in 1e needed some love, and maneuvers are a thematic way to do that.

In and of itself no it's not enough. Sure its nice to at least attempt them without getting clouted in the face, but the fact of the matter is there needs to be more than 3 maneuvers that are worth even bothering with in the first place after you've sunk half your feats into them which is the main problem in PF1's maneuvers. On the same token, having those relevant maneuvers NOT be instant enders on the target would be nice too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Everyone still automatically having Common makes it difficult to have language matter much.
Get rid of that please.

Can't. It's tied into the lore of the world. Taldor covered most of the continent at one point which led to most of the humans in the world speaking Taldane (Common).

Most humanoid races are gonna want to understand humans, so most are going to know common.

Plus having a party where no one speaks the same language is one of those things that only sounds fun right up till you have to start playing with it.


Constitution to Knowledge (Arcana) or riot


On the other hand, comic resurrections take at least a year (if not decades) to successfully get pulled off. All a matter of efficiency vs cheapness.


Malk_Content wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

It's been made very clear that in PF2 there are two varieties of NPCs:

#1: Those made exactly like PCs with PC Class, stats, WBL, and everything else.

#2: Those made by the same rules as monsters. Which, much like Starfinder (or every edition of D&D except 3 and 3.5), is a completely separate and much simpler creation system (though, unlike Starfinder, the actual bonuses wind up being very similar).

There's really not any room or need there for NPC classes. A character who would've been a Warrior or Commoner or Expert in PF1 can just be built via Method #2 in PF2.

Method 2 is not good enough for me I'm afraid. At least not if its anything like Starfinder. I tried to stat up a Doctor who could actually do useful Doctor things. He had to had to be a higher level than the party, 45 HP and attacked at +10. No thank you.

You're probably not going to end up much better in PF2 with either method just saying. If you want a healer with Master Medicine (for example) he's going to end up with the same general combat statistics as a pc whatever level unlocks master skills which at a minimum means a bucket of HP and a not-inconsiderable attack mod even if you tank his strength or dex.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
The point of everyone being vaguely competent enough to do basic adventuring tasks is so you don't run into "Well we could try to sneak into the castle, but Wally Wizard and Freddy Fullplate are utterly inept and will either ruin it out the gate or be forced to sit around while Randy Rogue scoots around.

I love how you casually jump from being "vaguely competent" to completely capable of sneaking past the security of a guarded castle.

In the 3X games I've been playing for going on to 20 years now, there have certainly been times when frontal assault was decided to be the best plan. But there have also been times when the group came up with solutions, often including elements of magic, by which characters who were not at all built with stealth in mind, were included in "sneaky" missions. But rather than just hand waving that *everybody knows how to sneak past a bunch of trained guards*, the really sneaky guys and spallcasters had to expend resources and carry the weight of these "stealth deadbeats" because they knew that having the whole team together on the other side would be worth it. And them, instead of it simply being an easy matter of this group of competents to waltz in, a risky situation followed and much drama and excitement was had as they put their plan into action.

A lot of fun would have been lost if they were all good at sneaking despite zero narrative basis for that in the characters.

A regular castle full of regular Joes on the job? Yeah, that's vaguely competent for a mid tier (or god forbid high) bunch of adventurers. Pop on over to Orcus's castle or Baba Yaga's Summer Home and things may be a bit harder and require some more consideration but hey, what do you do, I dunno spend those resources you talked about maybe. That's the general point. My world renowned hero or demigod should be able to sneak past some trained guards pretty easily even if he might run into issues with Orcus's best or whatever's considered a proper challenge and even against those, at there's a chance it'll work out without just shrugging and taking the local invisibility option and effectively handwaving the whole thing anyway.

Paizo wants to make a game of high fantasy and part of that comes from being Big Darn Heroes where glaring at the stable boy to move out of the way is trivial for anyone, but glaring at the demon and giving it a heart attack is for the specialist.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:
Mouseless wrote:

Trying to get as close to a 50/50 on all checks, feels like trying to make everyone a jack of all trades master of none, and if that's the kind of game you wanna play, you don't need a rule set you need a coin.

When everyone is special no one is :(

Heh, I've already used this quote as a major concern of mine regarding the design approach for 2E.

There seems to be a lot of pushing to make sure that nobody ever feels like their character can't contribute. "My geeky scrawny wizard is L14, he should be able to climb like awesome cuz he has seem guys doing it for so long now". And, yep, he has a +12 for no reason other than, well no reason, he just does.

And after six months of playing this, does the wizard start feeling awesome? Nope, he doesn't even notice. The reason he doesn't notice is the rogue character whose thunder he is stolen has stolen all of the wizard thunder by being able to back door around problem the wizard used to solve. And both of them notice the fact that being cool in what they want to do has been diminished way more than they notice they can do those others things where the other guy used to shine.

Everyone gets to be special.
And there is not great achievement in anything because the character were already built with being capable of doing anything backed right in.
Everybody loves it on Day 1 (4E made Mearls a NYT bestselling author) and then, before you know it, people are underwhelmed and they drift off.

People play to be awesome for a bit.
And you won't truly be awesome unless you have parts that are weak and unless you other party members have places that are weak and you shine like a beacon.

I'm not saying Paizo has going running a million miles in some crazy overreach. But I am saying they strongly appear to have taken a good five steps in this direction, and every one step will do more harm than good.
When everyone is awesome, nobody is awesome. In a game where the players want to be awesome, this is really important to...

This whole thing strikes me as either missing the point entirely or just not getting the system at play in general. The point of everyone being vaguely competent enough to do basic adventuring tasks is so you don't run into "Well we could try to sneak into the castle, but Wally Wizard and Freddy Fullplate are utterly inept and will either ruin it out the gate or be forced to sit around while Randy Rogue scoots around. Frontal assault it is again," or situations along those lines. Randy, by virtue of putting ranks in Stealth, gets his moments of cool when he gets to sneak by the disintegration beam trap that has blind sight or something just like (hopefully) Wally and Freddy have their own stuff that can't be readily replicated by the other bozos in the party. Your coolness is meant to shine through by being even more awesome at certain things rather than pretending that because your wizard is BAB+0 and Str 8 that makes your spells feel more awesome (or social skill rank 0 and cha 8 fighters or what have you).

Plus most character weaknesses as I've seen are about as unimpressive as they get. Either it's compensated for from the start (tank cha, get stat replacement for cha skills), never really mattered to begin with (Oh no, no climb ranks! What am I to do? cries the wizard as he floats around with Overland Flight), or are just shrugged and ignored because someone else is dealing with that (Cha 07 and no social ranks guys, you go ahead and handle talking down the mad tyrant +40 to social bard, I'll get some more snacks).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mekkis wrote:
Indeed, one of the drawbacks of monsters no longer using PC rules means that there is no accountability with regards to monsters' stats.

You can find a ton of quotes from Mark that monsters only used the same rules as PCs in name only in design. They were designed the way they were in spite of the rules, not thanks to them.


Brock Landers wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
A 'd20 system' is simply a marketing gimmick for 'a system that uses d20s to resolve success/failure'.
Nothing to do with marketing, a gimmick, maybe, but d20 vs. a DC is pretty much it, hence, 4th Ed and PF2 are d20 systems, where do you draw the line at what is a d20 system and what is not?

Is your system's core mechanic throwing a 20 sided die in order to determine success or failure? If you answered yes to this question then you have a d20 system. There's nothing universal about it as a core mechanic just like every other core mechanic whether it be d100 or various forms of dice buckets (usually d10 or d6).


RicoTheBold wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Yeah but that's not exactly the devs making the call for you. In GURPS (or whatever) no one's saying that firearms are rare except me the GM. Meanwhile if I boot up a game of Dark Heresy, it's presumed that plasma guns are quite rare unless I go monkeying around with the fluff.

GURPS has rules for how difficult it is to find something. There are "unusual background" costs for unusual abilities, "tech level" for describing what sort of things are available to buy with cost modifiers for cutting-edge things that are hard to find, "legality class" for legal structures restricting access to equipment, etc. Most settings define which of these apply to what kinds of abilities/gear.

There are "defaults" but because it's GURPS, the most default of defaults attempt to simulate normal present-day Earth reality and every setting changes them to some degree.

Noted. I'm honestly not super familiar with GURPS (or universal systems in general). Always cut my teeth on more focused games.


Malk_Content wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
edduardco wrote:


I have bad news for you, Paizo doesn't believe there is a distinction between fluff and mechanics, so you can expect to see rarity applied for fluff reasons, like sleep Poison for example, is most probably going to be tagged as uncommon.

You might want to expand Paizo to nearly every other developer who made a non-general universe RPG system. Uncommon sleep poison (or whatever) isn't any different than not being able to casually find lasers or mil-spec gear in Shadowrun, plasma tech in 40k RP, or firearms in Legend of the Five Rings.

Or hell even universal ones too, because every mechanic that exists impacts what can be done in the world.

E.G how you decide to handle skills in a Universal RPG, even though the skills can be anything for any setting, still impacts the tone of how capable people are/can be, how quickly they advance, how much fate impacts trained people etc.

Yeah but that's not exactly the devs making the call for you. In GURPS (or whatever) no one's saying that firearms are rare except me the GM. Meanwhile if I boot up a game of Dark Heresy, it's presumed that plasma guns are quite rare unless I go monkeying around with the fluff.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:


I have bad news for you, Paizo doesn't believe there is a distinction between fluff and mechanics, so you can expect to see rarity applied for fluff reasons, like sleep Poison for example, is most probably going to be tagged as uncommon.

You might want to expand Paizo to nearly every other developer who made a non-general universe RPG system. Uncommon sleep poison (or whatever) isn't any different than not being able to casually find lasers or mil-spec gear in Shadowrun, plasma tech in 40k RP, or firearms in Legend of the Five Rings.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Elleth wrote:
Crayon wrote:

Yeah, it's not really a cooldown per se as the wait period is only a factor if your Shield is destroyed as a result of using it to block an enemy attack.

That said, it does suggest that the same Shield manifests each time the spell is cast which has some very strange implications for the setting...

It's sort of fun to imagine it in different ways, like being a little spark of your magic power you bud off as a defensive ward, it breaking hurts and you need to gather your wits again before it can work.
The "same shield every time" conversation makes me think about the ethics of using summoned monsters to fight for you. I don't remember if you normally summon the same monster every time, but that spell has weird moral implications either way.

Near as I recall, with stuff like Summon Monster you never actually summoned a real creature, just a copy out of astral gobblygook or whatever. Which is why there's no need for binding/bargaining and explains why you can send the local summoned angel to massacre a church of its own patron deity if so desired.


Excaliburproxy wrote:


On martial summoner: I sort of think of it like you fighting with your guardian angel providing buffs, support, and/or spell damage. To turn it into an anime reference, it is kind of a JoJo's Bizarre Adventure stand sort of thing.

Maybe this is just me not being deep enough into Jojo to follow, but at least from what I've seen/gleaned, the vast majority of Stands are very much the "stand around/pose while your summon does the heavy lifting" (Of course you could just say everyone's a martial on the merit of being jacked as hell, at least before the style shift went more toward the fabulous end of the spectrum rather than beefcake)

Plus that concept just seems rather janky to me being more or less what amounts to a buff/crush cleric build only without those silly action economy issues


Avoron wrote:
** spoiler omitted **
ShroudedInLight wrote:
But the topic of the Thread is the Hardest official monster, not "theorycrafting Koan Builds". Lets keep on topic.
I couldn't agree more. I've been trying to keep my responses spoilered in the hope that things would die down, but it doesn't seem...

Davana's still have nothing to get past the old greater invis+mind blank chestnut so in theory they go down to any person with a high impact ranged attack(s). Plus they don't have any rapid bug out abilities besides walking which is problematic for getting away from the local buffed archer thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorignak227 wrote:

Hmm, i'm curious how golarion lore is going to explain magic and culture with some of the charisma penalty races like dwarves and most 1st level monsters.

What's a good explanation as to why dwarves, or any race with a charisma penalty, make magical items when they can't use them?

Do merchants with magical wares just not go to dwarven or orcish towns?

An average of one less resonance per citizen does not unable to use magic items make.

1 to 50 of 1,600 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>