Tarik Blackhands's page

1,489 posts. Alias of ItsTheName.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,489 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Tallow wrote:
MrCab wrote:
Igwilly wrote:

Honestly, one thing I like about 4e was the easiness of monster design. One thing I hate about 3.X/PF1 was fiddly, overly-complex monster design.

There's absolutely no need for monsters to have feats, numerous tables and rules accounting for generating stats, and so on.
As Paizo has presented these stat blocks, I think my main complain about PF1 is gone. It functions clearly, it has the information I need, and it can be as tactically complex as I like. That's terrific!
I think one should look this article as it is, and it's awesome :)

Edit: Also, giving keywords such as arcane or evocation to magical abilities is a great way to identify them when this matters ^^

Simplified monsters work fine for plug and play, but if you want to do any level of modification to a stat block, it's still nice to know where things came from. Even if as GM you simply declared a monster to have an ability, you inevitably get into a discussion about how a monster is allowed to do a thing. Not that you can't invoke rule 0, but it's nice to be able to back things up
This is kinda the point though. You don't need to back anything up now.

You didn't even need to do that back in PF1. Why can that manticore fire laser beams out of his eyes? Some text at the bottom of the stat block. Replace as needed with any other modification as needed.


Tallow wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:


Hypothetically the flip side to that is that said succubus literally had divine intervention from a major deity to do so.

On the other hand though, fallen good (and neutral) outsiders are dime a dozen without any deific interference so assuming the converse to be true is perfectly fine albeit with the caveat a bunch of demons are more likely to rip apart one of their own for edging toward weakness/good than a bunch of angels and evil.

I keep hoping the final AP for PF1 is Nocticula's rise to become the goddess of outcasts and artists.

I think the devs already vetoed that happening, at least in terms of PF1 APs. Cosmology is supposed to be the same in PF2 as it is in 1, at least on the outset.

It also suggests that the "canon" ending for Wrath isn't going to have any ganked demon lords on a similar note.

That said, I wouldn't be shocked if there's a PF2 AP about Noct's rise since JJ at least seemed to really like the idea.

That's not entirely true.

The Playtest FAQ and most of the information I've seen so far, has indicated that they are going to be updating the cannon. Nothing huge and world-changing like Time of Troubles or Spellplague or the abomination that happened between 3.5 and 4th edition.

But they are going to be updating who's ruling what nation and give us canon outcomes of some APs and such.

Like I said, I was speaking in terms of cosmology and deities rather than events in general. I think they've already said the Worldwound is going to be closed (but still a demon infested wasteland), various lost cities are off being explored, and Ravounel is off being not part of Cheliax and such.


Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:


Hypothetically the flip side to that is that said succubus literally had divine intervention from a major deity to do so.

On the other hand though, fallen good (and neutral) outsiders are dime a dozen without any deific interference so assuming the converse to be true is perfectly fine albeit with the caveat a bunch of demons are more likely to rip apart one of their own for edging toward weakness/good than a bunch of angels and evil.

I keep hoping the final AP for PF1 is Nocticula's rise to become the goddess of outcasts and artists.

I think the devs already vetoed that happening, at least in terms of PF1 APs. Cosmology is supposed to be the same in PF2 as it is in 1, at least on the outset.

It also suggests that the "canon" ending for Wrath isn't going to have any ganked demon lords on a similar note.

That said, I wouldn't be shocked if there's a PF2 AP about Noct's rise since JJ at least seemed to really like the idea.


Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I agree that this would be an improvement, but I doubt Paizo wants to move away from the "some races are innately eviler than others" shtick, especially judging by this right here.

Well we have one example of a race moving away from that. Goblins. We have no examples on the other side. So I think that judgement is a bit premature.
Goblins are an outlier and should not be counted.

Golarion has at least one redeemed succubus.

If a demon can rise to become a servant of Desna, anything can.

Hypothetically the flip side to that is that said succubus literally had divine intervention from a major deity to do so.

On the other hand though, fallen good (and neutral) outsiders are dime a dozen without any deific interference so assuming the converse to be true is perfectly fine albeit with the caveat a bunch of demons are more likely to rip apart one of their own for edging toward weakness/good than a bunch of angels and evil.


It is, but if you want to bluff that guard or diplomacy the bandit lord, it's generally expected you actually have ranks/proficiency in those things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I thought being functional in social situations was about having actual social skills.


I'd figure occultism handles ritual magic while arcana is general spell casting. Plus some other things, but I'd presume that's the main difference.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Saffron Marvelous wrote:

1 for every 4 levels perhaps. 1 for 1 is still essentially frontloaded, and you're back to the best paladin only really needing ~4 paladin levels to extract most of the benefit.

I think the system is better off having Divine Grace abandoned. It's been a crutch that the class has leaned on in place of more effective mechanics.

1 for every 4 wouldn't cover baseline Paladins though.

I mean, heck, my level 10 in PFS has +5.

By your math he'd be only able to have +2, and at that point... Meh... Its not that great of a power.

I mean, this is the system where fighters get +2 to reflex while using a shield. At level 11. Math's changing, as the edition is. +2 to all saves at L5 is more than likely a damn good deal.

There is no evidence of that.

Shields only usually give +1 to +2 to AC in PF1 as well.

In this case I would never accept +1 every 4 levels. H-E-Double hockey sticks no. That would be neutering Divine Grace.

I mean, the Figher blog was pretty clear on the benefit and when it happened. Whether it's any good or not at its level is anyone's guess and won't be known till the playtest hits, but considering the emphasis on tuning the math and the general +/- 10 success/fail paradigm I'm going to go on a limb and say Grace is getting "neutered" in comparison to PF1. While I'm at it, so will the auras that typically granted full immunity.


HWalsh wrote:
Saffron Marvelous wrote:

1 for every 4 levels perhaps. 1 for 1 is still essentially frontloaded, and you're back to the best paladin only really needing ~4 paladin levels to extract most of the benefit.

I think the system is better off having Divine Grace abandoned. It's been a crutch that the class has leaned on in place of more effective mechanics.

1 for every 4 wouldn't cover baseline Paladins though.

I mean, heck, my level 10 in PFS has +5.

By your math he'd be only able to have +2, and at that point... Meh... Its not that great of a power.

I mean, this is the system where fighters get +2 to reflex while using a shield. At level 11. Math's changing, as the edition is. +2 to all saves at L5 is more than likely a damn good deal.


Soulgear wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
BenS wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
BenS wrote:

I didn't understand the upthread references to 20th level Nature Oracles. Why are they considered so powerful? Their capstone is interesting but not a combat ability. What am I missing?

On topic, I don't think Paizo stats up anything higher than CR 30. Or am I mistaken?

The Nature Mystery capstone can make you into an animal and thus a valid target for the Awaken spell. Normally, Awaken making the target a magical beast prevents it from being used on the same creature again, however the Nature Mystery capstone can turn you back into an animal, and thus a valid target for Awaken again. Repeat until your stats are:

Initiative - Goes First
HP - More then all the bestiary entries combined.
AC - Only hit on 20 (maybe)
CMD - Higher then any CMB
Saves - Only fails on a 1 (maybe)
Save DC - Only Natural 20's need apply
CHA - Pick a 9 digit or higher number of your choice.

I still don't quite get it, but I appreciate the response. Assuming the DM was ok w/ that bit of loophole cheese to begin w/, the Awaken spell could theoretically then give you infinite amounts of HD, Intelligence & Charisma, right? Maybe I don't understand the rules enough, but not sure where the higher AC and Saves come from.

Anyway, this is off topic; you don't need to respond.

Nature Oracles get the Nature's Whisper Revelation that allows them to add CHA to AC and CMD instead of DEX. Your increases to your HD from Awaken will also increase your saves with a progression of good Fortitude and Reflex and poor Will. To further hammer home the insane saves you can add your incredibly high CHA to your saves cast Bestow Grace/Bestow Grace of the Champion on yourself.

Funny thing no one ever mentions about the Awaken spell is it only works on a creature with an INT of 2 or less.

Once one reduces their INT to 2 or less, are they then intelligent enough to cast Awaken?

Nothing says you can't presuming you're casting off charisma like oracles. Spell usage is only cut off when your casting stat drops to deficent levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
After seeing a 1st level 1e Wizard killed by an angry housecat once I was giddy when PF changed the HD for the class.

1e wizards had to earn their infinite cosmic power dammit! Kids these days, so spoiled...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
At least to me (non-WoW) knowledge, Warcraft Orcs are still divided into clans and the warchief is still their overall leader even if in the case of dudes like Thrall, it's more or less an honorary title and not indicative of his overall goals (dude's goal in WC3 anyway was to get his people, settle a new land, and just be left well enough alone, fighting was either in self-defense or because one of his subordinate chiefs was being an idiot. Or /demons). Noble Savage sums up the general identity well enough even if these days they're packing large and prosperous cities with adequate enough tech.

In the modern setting all other tribes than the main orc civilization based in Orgrimmar have become effectively irrelevant. There are some holdovers of the Blackrock clan holes up in one region, but in effect those are renegades to the main orc culture (which are the green orcs under Thrall). With the new upcoming expansion some of those other tribes will become playable, but those guys are actually imported from an alternate timeline.

The warchief by this point is the leader of the entire Horde and all the associated races. At the moment the position is held by Sylvanas Windrunner, a Forsaken undead, though she is still based in the orc capital, Orgrimmar.

While orc culture in WoW largely still centers around honor and fighting, they still are one of the most technologically advanced races on the planet, packing tanks, rifles, gyrocopters, zeppelins and all other kind of steampunky stuff.

Frankly, WoW orcs never fit the negative stereotype of black Africans Kobold Cleaver is trying to associate them with.

Thanks for that. I used to be big on WC3 back in the day and never kept up with the goings on in WoW beyond what could be assimilated by osmosis via the internet. I ain't even going to ask who on earth anyone trusts Sylvanas of all people to lead a grand alliance of dudes as I suspect the answer is going to require several pages of text and I'll probably just end up calling it dumb anyway.


At least to me (non-WoW) knowledge, Warcraft Orcs are still divided into clans and the warchief is still their overall leader even if in the case of dudes like Thrall, it's more or less an honorary title and not indicative of his overall goals (dude's goal in WC3 anyway was to get his people, settle a new land, and just be left well enough alone, fighting was either in self-defense or because one of his subordinate chiefs was being an idiot. Or /demons). Noble Savage sums up the general identity well enough even if these days they're packing large and prosperous cities with adequate enough tech.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

Or the Elder Scrolls for that matter. I mean, "orcs" there are actually elves (All -mer races are elves there and orcs are Orsimer) and everyone there's a pagan due to the wonky cosmology. And while they are stereotyped by most people as more savage, it's stated several times to be just that, a stereotype. Them going after human women isn't suggested anywhere at all, at least since Morrowind and beyond.


And yet we have "(Noun) expert/master" archtypes running around already that you can take at L1 no sweat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've always been partial to Battlemaster (or Warlord) as a Fighter name replacement if you're looking for a punchier class name that doesn't infringe on general name space and warrior happened to be taken already.


MadScientistWorking wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Chemlak wrote:

Regarding art (I love the rules bits, that’s awesome):

I have... concerns regarding the message that comes from portraying orcs as (my words based on the art) apelike brutish tribal primitives. It runs some risks of paralleling some less-than-fair (he says very euphemistically) historical (and in some cases current) opinions of real-world human cultures.

TL;DR That pic skirts pretty close to racist. Please take care.

No it's veering drastically into racist territory given the fact that often the rationality for such claims is a game mechanic used to denote evil and good.
Good thing the devs have already neatly side stepped that little trap by having Drow be the other main CE race.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not because I could probably go on and on and on and on and on about how the Drow are worst.

Honestly half and half. On the one hand, can't have evil = ugly when you've got the race of sexy demon worshiping elves. On the other, wouldn't be the first time I've seen people get salty over implications with backstabbing demon worshiping yahoos who happen to be purple/black. But really, best drop the topic or shunt it to another thread.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Chemlak wrote:

Regarding art (I love the rules bits, that’s awesome):

I have... concerns regarding the message that comes from portraying orcs as (my words based on the art) apelike brutish tribal primitives. It runs some risks of paralleling some less-than-fair (he says very euphemistically) historical (and in some cases current) opinions of real-world human cultures.

TL;DR That pic skirts pretty close to racist. Please take care.

No it's veering drastically into racist territory given the fact that often the rationality for such claims is a game mechanic used to denote evil and good.

Good thing the devs have already neatly side stepped that little trap by having Drow be the other main CE race.


Gorbacz wrote:
Brother Fen wrote:

Pathfinder Basic.

First edition will become Pathfinder Advanced, because we all know things are being dumbed down for non-gamers.

So, am I a non-gamer?

Clearly. Only intellectuals and true gamers deserve Advanced P&D.

/s


Athaleon wrote:
Steelfiredragon wrote:
I want divine grace back like it was in pf1, but cap it at +4 and no higher, so that items t hat increase cha will only be useful to a point
I would cap it at Paladin class level.

Achievement unlocked if you manage to get Cha 50+ at L20...


Captain Morgan wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:


Or, just take the hit and be worse at something with no benefit. You are incentivized not to do it, but in the old system you were incentivized to dump a stat. You just have the shoe on the other foot this time.

That's how Starfinder does it and frankly works fine by me. You really want Grog the Barbarian to be an int 7 savage, then shine on you crazy diamond. Of course $5 says if that gets implemented all the "roleplayers" clamoring for dump stats will "Just make do" with 10s.

I imagine a certain amount of them will, yes. I won't quite be cynical enough to say they all will, but certainly not everyone is honest about their intentions with stuff like this.

And again, it's very easy to limit make yourself act dumb for any mental stat or not utilize your strength or dexterity effectively. Pretty much the only thing you can't role play into the dirt is CON, and it is pretty rare that anyone takes that below an 8-10.

Oh you can roleplay minimal con by constantly playing up how weedy and sickly your person is. Granted as you said no one (read: most everyone, I'm sure someone had a Con 7 person somewhere) actually dumps con because HP and Forts are handy things to have to not die, but still.

As for my prior statement, I'm mostly referring to folks on these boards. I have far less overall cynicism for the general population of Pathfinder players than I do for the general population of Pathfinder players who frequently post on these boards.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:


Or, just take the hit and be worse at something with no benefit. You are incentivized not to do it, but in the old system you were incentivized to dump a stat. You just have the shoe on the other foot this time.

That's how Starfinder does it and frankly works fine by me. You really want Grog the Barbarian to be an int 7 savage, then shine on you crazy diamond. Of course $5 says if that gets implemented all the "roleplayers" clamoring for dump stats will "Just make do" with 10s.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

[

@ Tarik Blackhands: 18 in a starting stat is just as arbitrary, so is starting with 10s in attributes before applying ABCs. I fail to see the relevance of this argument because it's just as circular as my argument. "I want an 18 starting stat because I want an 18 starting stat" is equally ridiculous, and the opposite of "I want a 20 starting stat because I want a 20 starting stat" can just as equally be accounted for.

Oh, I know 18 is just as arbitrary. My point was that the max stat line has to be drawn somewhere and...well 18 got chosen arbitrarily. That's just where the devs decided to balance the math and what we as players have to work with.


Athaleon wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Revan wrote:
Also Wizards *aren't* the only ones who cast from a book. Magi do too, so do arcanists, as do certain witches, inquisitors, hell, even *Fighters*...
To be fair, the Inquisitor ones should be readily identifiable by their predisposition to bashing people over the head with said book, usually after loudly declaring that person a heretic.
Subtlety is an actual stat with mechanics in Dark Heresy.

In 2e anyway. That said, I was actually making a Berserk reference, not a DH one.


The general problem is simply put, there's an arbitrary amount of high level PC class chuckleheads running around (who do you think is scribing those Miracle/Wish scrolls?). What those high level (or god forbid Mythic in case of Wrath) badasses are busy doing while a bunch of L1 scrubs are off to save the world is basically down to the Eleminster problem (they're busy/apathetic at the time) and is one of those things you basically have to look the other way about.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Revan wrote:
Also Wizards *aren't* the only ones who cast from a book. Magi do too, so do arcanists, as do certain witches, inquisitors, hell, even *Fighters*...

To be fair, the Inquisitor ones should be readily identifiable by their predisposition to bashing people over the head with said book, usually after loudly declaring that person a heretic.


MerlinCross wrote:

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.

Oh I get you fine. I was just having a good laugh at the Magi pilgrimage route from the Orison to that Wayang island to wherever the campaign start is, replace with stuff like Fey Foundling or near everyone getting beaten up in their childhood.

Either way, I figure there's going to be an attempt to kill off all the various gimmie racial traits too. But hey, at least traits going the way of the dodo (or rather being repackaged and properly codified into Background) means Fate's Favored and all the wombo combos that go with it are gone while we're talking about the legion of half orcs with awesome sleeves.


I can replace it with scorching ray if you want (which coincidentally does less average damage with 2 bolts for 8d6 total) or Battering Blast to keep overall spell level the same for identical damage presuming both hit (2 balls at 5d6 a pop). Doesn't change much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


Kalindlara wrote:
Our groups have never really had any problem with the damaging spells in PF1, and I doubt we'll have any trouble with them in PF2. Maybe we're just too casual about it...

Maybe, but at least in my experience throwing a basic 10d6 fireball at L10 for 35 feels sad compared to the Barbarian who just staved something's head in for 100+ at 2+ to hit. Puts me in the mindset of why I'm even bothering trying. But that's more on PF1's math variance being utter drek than anything else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ultimately 20 in your starting stat is entirely arbitrary. You can just as easily say "why not 25" or "why not 16" and you won't get a real answer beyond "That's where we drew the line."

At least the way I imagine it, 18 got picked as the max and from there majority of the PC v Monster math was clocked around that maximum. Loophole your way to an initial 20 and the math starts to break down, how much it cannot be said without the books, but +1s are quite a bit more meaningful with critical failure/successes than before.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

They really should just rip off the bandaid and just say that spells create some wibbling noise and a glowing rune circle around your head/hand/tentacle like pretty much all the art has these days.


Probably lumped under some nebulous banner like "the heroes of Varisia/Kintargo/the Worldwound/etc" if given that much attention honestly.

Paizo's mentioned that most APs will have a canon ending that may/may not get mentioned in PF2, but I have significant doubts the people will get any detail and instead will be left to the GM to flesh out as he sees fit.


Ckorik wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
A good example of a LG paladin behavior in Game of Thrones is Jon Snow putting thousands of lives on danger because he refuses to lie to Cersei. The answer to Tyrion about that is very paladinesque.

That's a horrible example - Jon Snow is an oathbreaker who is only 'honorable' when it suits him. As a Paladin he would have fallen several times over by this point in the series.

Ned is who you are thinking of - the guy who let his own wife think we was unfaithful (including everyone else) to protect his nephew. The guy that let his head get cut off rather than compromise once.

There is a reason Ned is the perfect Paladin, and why he's the first shocking death.

That said I don't think a single one of Charlemagne's knights would actually qualify either - but that's the way it goes :)

Slight nitpick. Ned did actually compromise when he got his head cut off. He was offered a deal from Circe where if he sang her tune about the charges against him a messy civil war would be avoided, his children would be safe, and he'd live out the rest of his days on the Wall which he accepted ultimately. Granted the whole situation went to hell when Joffrey went off script and executed him but still, Ned's not quite perfect even if he's probably the best guy in the series besides Barristan the Bold.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder and Knuckles


2Zak wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:

"Hey guys, you ready to kick in the baron's door and slaughter his family because he said my shoes didn't match my cloak? Perry the Paladin, you want to go pray at the temple for a few hours while we're gone?"

Evidently such encounters are more common than you think or something. Darn code.

I know (hope) that's hyperbole, but if that's the kind of party the Paladin travels with, he's gonna have more problems in their hands than skipping an encounter, to be fair.

Yes, it is meant to be hyperbolic. Short of traveling with the band of murderhobos, there are very few common encounters I can think of that the paladin code prevents the player from participating in as opposed to the player being rubbish at stealth because he's dex 10 and in full plate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
2Zak wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
The difference is that the wizard's mechanics don't bog down the game for the other players. Meanwhile, the paladin's teammates have to put up with the paladin randomly not being able to participate in encounters.

I mean, I've seen people take their time choosing spells for the day and it comes up fairly more often than someone not being able to participate in encounters because they're a Paladin.

What exactly is causing this hypothetical Paladin not participate in this hypothetical encounter?

"Hey guys, you ready to kick in the baron's door and slaughter his family because he said my shoes didn't match my cloak? Perry the Paladin, you want to go pray at the temple for a few hours while we're gone?"

Evidently such encounters are more common than you think or something. Darn code.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
You would kind of have to be intentionally trying to bait the code in order to build a paladin who couldn't solve the issue of dying children with Medicine (an untrained use anyone can try) but could do it with a hypothetical wand of infernal healing (requires specialized training to fake out the wand), and even then, Medicine would take one action while persumably infernal healing would take at least three (it doesn't exist, but in PF1 it had a "1 full round" casting time), so if a whole bunch of people were dying on a timer somehow, you would save three times as many with Medicine
Non-magic healing is faster than magical? That seems odd. I'd think first aid would take at least some time to identify the issue, stop bleeding, clean and bandage wounds etc. Doing it in 2 seconds sounds a bit fast.

Just saying, even back in the day we had rogues picking locks in about 3 seconds. Plus even in PF1, Heal for first aid was a standard action.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

But my point is even as a stress test, it's a lousy one thanks to what we can piece together with the rules thus far. Medicine is a skill that has been reportedly heavily improved in use over Heal (primary healer Barbarian and what have you) and thanks to scaling bonuses by level, even an untrained paladin can attempt something as simple as stabilizing another person with a reasonable chance of success (if he's good enough to reliably Arcana an Infernal Healing wand, he's likely good enough to do an untrained stabilize. The solutions are supposedly in place for this sort of event, although we have no idea how good it is at without the playtest docs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, even discarding how contrived the sample situation is, the whole thing is literally just hp damage. At the extreme worst, a Medicine roll can be done to stabilize her till the next day when Lay on Hands equivs can be done, if someone actually invested proficiency, she's fixed straight away. I rank the listed scenario as a virtual non-issue even if somehow you ran across a situation where EVERY LAST RESOURCE AND CONSUMABLE was depleted.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I actually like this sort of thing in books. Really fun way to flesh out the setting and general tone by having small quotes or conversations by various in universe folk. Shadowrun's done this fairly extensively with some splats even being written nearly entirely from an in character perspective (I believe one of the hacking books was written as a seminar from an advanced hacker to a bunch of newbies, aka the reader) and the Warhammer RPGs (fantasy and 40k) also make heavy use of in universe quotes, small stories, and descriptions from in universe.

Space isn't too huge an issue as long as you don't go too nuts with it and can be limited to a handful of header quotes or side barred content. Wonderful way to immerse people in the setting you're trying to push and the devs are pushing Golarion in general so might as well consider it.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Someone was reading their Aasimov with the second code bullet...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If we're still on the topic of dumb weapons, don't forget double-anything, virtually anything with the word "gnomish" in the name, and of course, Starknives, the favored weapon of Desna because you need the backing of a luck goddess to not end up hacking off your own fingers using it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:

The more annoying thing about the unconditional surrender acceptance thing is more the annoyance factor that goes around when you're not in town.

Having to drag around a clown car of cowardly goblins, bandits, and savvy evil wizards around till you can return to town to throw them to the gallows/temple before going back to the quest at hand is more tedious than anything else.

Uhm... Just to point out.

You have to accept surrender. If they've committed high crimes you *can* execute them. So long as you are lawfully empowered to do so.

Something tells me that Shelyn isn't too huge on the whole "The crimes you have committed are too great, may the gods have mercy on your soul" *Glaive chop* schtick.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The more annoying thing about the unconditional surrender acceptance thing is more the annoyance factor that goes around when you're not in town.

Having to drag around a clown car of cowardly goblins, bandits, and savvy evil wizards around till you can return to town to throw them to the gallows/temple before going back to the quest at hand is more tedious than anything else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The survey is asking about preference which coincidentally does not feature any form of information on if those 40% will actually take their business elsewhere if a game isn't to their preference. Just because I prefer pizza over sandwiches doesn't mean I'm never going to order a sandwich.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

You're going to need to pull some numbers up with the whole malark about 1/3 of the TTRPG market declaring grid maps a no-sell.

And further talk's cheap. It's easy to say "Oh just find a happy medium that will please everyone" and quite a separate matter to actually do it in a satisfactory way. Five bucks says the devs have tried while drafting up the playtest rules just saying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Jester David wrote:
The point is designing the rules and presenting them in a way that does not inherently assume miniatures and a battlemap. If the only way certain rules make sense is if you NEED to have a diagram of a battlemap with minis, then maybe things have gotten too fiddly.

So you mean like PF1? The only way combat in PF1 could be more fiddly and demanding a proper grid/map is if they added facing rules.

And yet, people have managed to jury rig that into working without a map reasonably well which is probably the view the devs are taking among any other legion of reasons to prioritize a more map focused system which range from identity to preference.

Can you do it? Yes.

Is it common or expected? Not really.

TotM play in PF1 is so uncommon the devs hadn't even considered it when designing PF2.
Which is the point. A not insignificant number of people play TotM. That so few are engaging with PF2 is lost revenue and an excluded audience.

Nothing is ever going to appeal to everyone. Trying to do so is a fool's errand and ultimately leads to bland products (see also, the general complaints about the homogeneity of mass market products). It's virtually impossible to have a system that appeals to grid and theater players anyway because they're mutually exclusive systems. You flat out cannot have the granularity of template effects, positioning, etc with a theater system that abstracts positioning to say engaged/close/medium/long so it boils down to which niche the devs want to appeal to since one way or another you're going to lose an audience in some capacity. In this case they chose maps for a bunch of reasons we can only speculate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:


The point is designing the rules and presenting them in a way that does not inherently assume miniatures and a battlemap. If the only way certain rules make sense is if you NEED to have a diagram of a battlemap with minis, then maybe things have gotten too fiddly.

So you mean like PF1? The only way combat in PF1 could be more fiddly and demanding a proper grid/map is if they added facing rules.

And yet, people have managed to jury rig that into working without a map reasonably well which is probably the view the devs are taking among any other legion of reasons to prioritize a more map focused system which range from identity to preference.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

Real hidden takeaway from the blog: Constitution based skill checks.

That said, color me unimpressed so far with the fact that cloaks of resistance and rings of protection to a lesser extent are now just being subsumed into armor. You're not going to promote more diverse item usage if the dull no-brainer options are still around.

1 to 50 of 1,489 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>