Neith

TheFinish's page

404 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 404 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Kaemy wrote:
TheFinish: the problem is if we don't get an answer/clarification here and now, and then it turns out it's also open to interpretation in the Playtest.

I agree, but I can't summon Mr. Seifter, so in the words of the preacher from Blazing Saddles:

Son, you're on your own!

Diego Rossi wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:

Shame we can't get a FAQ on the Playtest Blogs. I'm actually somewhat surprised not a single dev has explained what that line actually means yet. It's clearly open to misinterpretation, since obviously we can't both be correct.

mrianmerry wrote:
as intuited clearly by nearly all readers.
Given the split seems if not even at least pretty close to it, I'm not sure "nearly all" is quite accurate.

Yeah, I can see it going either way. Of course, it'd be best for the monk if mrianmerry is correct, but my gut says that's not how it goes, and the phrasing doesn't help.

Hopefully Mr. Seifter or someone else can chime in, else we shall have to wait for the full wording in the Playtest.

I think that mrianmerry is right. So far we have seen nothing that requires a "quadratic" failure.

I am not a native English speaker, but even defining the concept in a clear way is difficult:
"If you benefit from an effect that worsens the target save by one level and the target would have critically failed the save without that effect, instead of the normal effect of a critical save, you 'enhanced effect stun'"
More than 3 row to say that. I doubt that is what the blog means.

I'm not a Native English speaker either, but you don't need to be that verbose:

"This effect only triggers when the target fails it's save by 10 or more after the Monk critically hits."

Boom, done. Clear, and concise.

I'd still like it to be the other way though.


Shinigami02 wrote:

Shame we can't get a FAQ on the Playtest Blogs. I'm actually somewhat surprised not a single dev has explained what that line actually means yet. It's clearly open to misinterpretation, since obviously we can't both be correct.

mrianmerry wrote:
as intuited clearly by nearly all readers.
Given the split seems if not even at least pretty close to it, I'm not sure "nearly all" is quite accurate.

Yeah, I can see it going either way. Of course, it'd be best for the monk if mrianmerry is correct, but my gut says that's not how it goes, and the phrasing doesn't help.

Hopefully Mr. Seifter or someone else can chime in, else we shall have to wait for the full wording in the Playtest.


Farrindor wrote:

I realize that blogs are partial, and we as a community end up chewing them to death trying to understand the missing information. But on the weapons training subject, I am wondering if the general view is perhaps a bit sideways on the info... is it possible that Monks will have trained weapon proficiency in some weapons (I would guess 'monk' tagged items) and just never advance THAT proficiency by class leveling the way they do unarmed... and that the wording of the weapons feat is so that you link your weapon use to your unarmed proficiency, and so giving you advancement in weapons past the 'basics' as well as letting you buy unarmed feats that then stack on your weapons due to that linkage?

I will fully agree that a dev type should at least comment on the 'trained or no' on at least some weapons, just to clear up the angst (or justify it) on the weapons front.

If monks are trained in weapons, one has to wonder why the blog says:

“Monks aren't trained in any weapons, but they are trained in all unarmed attacks.”

Thats why people are kinda mad, not the feat.


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

Stronger healing potion is 2d8+4, probably level 3.

(Later options, by the way:
Moderate, Level 5, 20 gp: 3d8+8
Greater, Level 8, 60 gp: 5d8+12
Major, Level 12, 250 gp: 7d8+20
True, Level 18, 1200 gp: 9d8+30)

Wait, is this for real? Because gee willigers batman, that is some horrible pricing structure right there.

So the 2d8+8 Jump from Greater to Major is worth 190 gp, but the 2d8+10 jump from Major to True is worth 950? What? How? In what planet?

For 50 GP more I can get 5 Majors for 1 True. That's an average of 257 healing versus True's 70.5. Sure, it costs more resonance, but at that price difference? I'll take the resonance hit, especially at level 18, where even a Cha 0 guy will have 18 Resonance to spend.

Man oh man I can't see how Wands turn out in this system. It'll be a hoot.

I'm decently sure it's accurate, as I copied it from the shown page at the Paizocon Banquet video, at 1:04:41. You're welcome to check it yourself.

I'm not doubting you man, the "Is this for real?" is for effect, as in "I can't believe this isn't a joke." I'm sure it's accurate.

'Sides I don't even know what video you mean so...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:

Stronger healing potion is 2d8+4, probably level 3.

(Later options, by the way:
Moderate, Level 5, 20 gp: 3d8+8
Greater, Level 8, 60 gp: 5d8+12
Major, Level 12, 250 gp: 7d8+20
True, Level 18, 1200 gp: 9d8+30)

Wait, is this for real? Because gee willigers batman, that is some horrible pricing structure right there.

So the 2d8+8 Jump from Greater to Major is worth 190 gp, but the 2d8+10 jump from Major to True is worth 950? What? How? In what planet?

For 50 GP more I can get 5 Majors for 1 True. That's an average of 257 healing versus True's 70.5. Sure, it costs more resonance, but at that price difference? I'll take the resonance hit, especially at level 18, where even a Cha 0 guy will have 18 Resonance to spend.

Man oh man I can't see how Wands turn out in this system. It'll be a hoot.


Mewzard wrote:
Tholomyes wrote:
Except you have to Crit and they have to critically fail to get stunned. Even if you're good enough that you crit, say, 20% of the time, and they crit fail also 20% of the time, that's still only 4% that you stun with it. And I'm guessing that the chances won't be that high, unless you're fighting something that's way lower level than you, based on what little we know about monster stats from the stat blog, which makes it look like you're seeing only about a 1% or less chance to stun, barring things we don't know about yet, which might put it closer to 2%, but that's still not a lot.
Kaemy wrote:

Then he needs to Critically Fail the Fortitude Save. I'm not sure how you calculate it, but in the post it says it's based on your STR or DEX... Let's assume its 10+Level+STR, that would be DC 15 (is this right? I'm missing something? Maybe a Proficiency?)

A Lv1 enemy usually has +0/2 Fort Save, right? Let's be generous and go with 3. So he Critically Fails when rolling 1 or 2, so 10% of the time...

In these two scenarios (assuming your DC is actually 15, and the 10AC and 15AC enemies have a +3 Fort Save) you are Stunning them 4.5% and 3% of the time). Granted, is not amazing, but is looking okay-ish.

If the enemies had a +0 Fort the Crit Failure would increase from 10% to 25%, and the total stun chance would grow to 11,25% and 7,5%.

You're both missing something important. If you Critically Hit someone with an ability that requires a saving throw, their result is one degree worse.

Meaning, if they normally would have saved from that roll, your Critical reduces their result to a Failure, and if they regularly fail, that would be reduced to a Critical Failure. Even a Critical Success would be dropped to a regular Success from your Critical Hit.

In the scenario you crit them, that DC 15 stays a DC 15 for Critical Failure vs Regular Failure, and would require you to beat a DC 25 for a regular Success.

Yes, but it's not entirely clear if, when the blog says this about Stunning Fist:

"If your strike is a critical hit, the target's saving throw result is treated as one category worse, and if it critically fails its save it's stunned for 1 round!"

They mean any Critical Failure, or a real Critical Failure. IE: do you stun an opponent if they Fail, because it gets downgraded to a Crit Fail, or do they have to actually have a Critical Failure, not just a downgraded Failure.

If I crit and the DC is 15, do they get Stunned on a 1-14, or on a 1-5, is the question. Given the 4 degrees of success I'm inclined to go with the latter: Critting your Stunning Fist turns a Pass into a Fail, a Fail into a Critical Fail, and since you can't go below a Crit Fail, if you Critically Fail you get Stunned. But it could go either way, certainly.


Azih wrote:
Iron Fist, as per the Marvel Netflix TV Series, is definitely not High Wis or High Int though. His mysticism needs to be Cha based!

Yeah, and the Netflix TV series is a horrible murdering of his character.

In the comics he's actually much wiser than he lets on, but even then, his mystic powers literally come from Shou-Lao the Undying, so if anything his powers fit a Barbarian Totem more than they fit anything else.

He's definitely not using Int though, that's for sure.


Cyouni wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

How much of a problem is having a 16 in your main stat in PF2? I know that +1 matters a lot, but I always have trouble with monk stats.

Like I'm thinking of playing a Dwarf Monk with 16 in Dex, Con, and Wis, 12 Str, and 8 Cha. Bad idea?

Pretty sure this will be impossible by the new character building system...:

Class: +2 one stat
Background: +2 two stats
Race: +2 three stats, -2 one stat
Floating: +2 four stats

I think at max you could have 16s in two stats, and that's giving up an 18 in one stat to do it.

Hmm.

Ancestry: 10/12/12/10/12/8
Background: 10/12/14/10/14/8
Class: 10/14/14/10/14/8
Floating: 12/16/16/10/16/8

Seems possible.

Yeah it's plenty possible, assuming Monk gives +Dex or +Wis or +Con. Otherwise, you can't pull it off. But you can pull 3 16s, that's for sure. It's just that Class and Ancestry determine which ones.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Maybe I am still half asleep, but how does Flurry works, in regards to the combining damage, how does it work out, exactly? Let's say you make your first attack, and it hits, you roll damage, then your make your second attack, it hits, you roll damage, and then what?
I believe you make your first attack, it hits, you make your second attack, it hits, then you roll once for the sum of the damage.
Once for the sum being the damage dice from both attacks (double damage dice)?
Yeah. Well, double if you used the same weapon both times, you don't have to AFAICT.
Thanks, so both attacks have to be against the same target?
That has not been stated explicitly. I would guess you can probably make the attacks against two targets but forfeit the extra benefits of a double hit by doing so. An interesting difference from PF1.
So 1 x weapon damage + Str mod vs. 2 targets, or 2 x weapon damage + Str mod vs. 1 target?
I suspect you get to add your Str mod to both sets of weapon damage dice whether they're against the same target or not, but it's not 100% clear to me.

From the way it's worded I'm 100% sure you add Str Mod to both:

"If both hit, their damage is combined"

So 1st hit does 1d6+3, then you hit with the 2nd also for 1d6+3, you'd do 2d6+3 if both are at one target. Or, more likely, you roll the first hit's damage, then the second and you add them together.

QuidEst wrote:
Subutai1 wrote:

I am confident Paizo will manage to make sure that the average damage of a monk is on par with other non-caster classes.

However, I am disappointed in the heavy punishment for attacking multiple times per round, which became most apparent with the monk now, even if other classes are affected by it as well, since this is an inherent problem with the new system as a whole. The penality for iterative attacks is huge, especially in a crit system that is tied to your chance to hit. So most of your damage comes from your first attack, just like any other non-caster class. Any attack after the 2nd one has next to no chance to hit any worthwhile foe. The only counteracting feature we know of so far is agile, and its a minor counter measure at best, since -8 is still way too much of a penality for anything but worthless or stationary opponents.

So you are basically forced to build around your first hit (or 2 hits because of flurry of blows), which is why all those ideas about a hit&run monk come up in this thread. From what we have seen thus far, I am concerned the days of a viable multi hitter are all but gone in PF2, which is a bit too much of streamlining for my taste.

Your chance to hit with your third attack is at least as good as your chance to crit with your first. Monk can essentially have two third attacks (three with Haste), and since two hits is usually worth about as much as a crit, Monk seems quite well-equipped for either hit-and-run or multi-hit.

Sure, but your third attack also has a much higher chance to critically fail. People often bring up PF1E penalties but in PF1E, you have a variety of ways to pump your score that PF2E doesn't have and you don't care all that much about your low to-hits because missing's the worst that can happen. Not so in PF2.

I mean, the 19th level upgrade that lets the Monk count any roll lower than 10 as a 10 wouldn't be there if this wasn't an issue, I figure.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

This preview isn't....very good. At all.

First of all, absolutely no weapon proficiencies without spending a feat is just horrible. It's just a Feat Tax for people not wanting to play a punchy monk.

Secondly, how does Flurry of Blows work? The blog text is kind of confusing. If I use my first action for it, it's two attacks at, I assume, +0/-4. Then, if I use it again, it's what, -8/-8? And -8/-8 again if I use it a third time? Flurry of misses just got revived hard if that's the case. Until 19th level, of course.

Also, a starting Monk will have an AC of 11+Dex. No armor penalty, true, but then, even someone trained in just Light Armor can start with 12+Dex. I really don't see how a Monk can keep up when they'll be limited to 13+Dex at maximum (assuming Legendary in unarmored) while everyone else will be 13+Armor Bonus+Dex (keeping in mind my earlier comment in the Gearing Up! thread about maximising AC). Unless Heavy Armor is seriously underwhelming, that is.

I don't mind Stunning Fist being a feat now (I mean, par for the course at this point), but it's been horribly changed for the worse. Flat-footed on a fail, Stupefied on a Crit, and I need to Crit with my strike and have the target Critically Fail for it to actually stun?! With a feat called Stunning Fist, you'd think it'd actually Stun people regularly, not just when the stars align. Oh and it takes two actions, because of course it does.

The rest of the post is just underwhelming. Really strange scaling on the monk's fists (3-5-17, really?), the styles look alright though.

I also don't like making Ki Powers into feats, but again, par for the course with how this edition is going.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
At first I was going to agree that giving an AC penalty was more problematic than a bonus to-hit for flanking... but then I realized something. You can't just give someone a blanket +2 to hit because they might decide to attack someone other than their flanked target. For instance, a Summoned Monster might not attack the flanked target and might instead go after someone next to them or perform some action other than combat attacks. So it's not actually more work. It's just different than what we're used to. :)

Flanking was only +2 to hit versus the flanked target and nobody else in PF1, and we didn't have problems with it then.

Mechanically, +2 to hit and -2 to AC both work out the same with the new 4 degrees of success except in some edge cases. But "I have +2 to hit this dude" is a bit easier to remember than "This dude has -2 AC versus my attacks".

I mean, in the games I've played it I never saw anybody confused about their flanking bonus, but I have had to pull out the rulebook more than once to show a GM that a prone enemy is at -4 AC versus an attacker in melee, the attacker doesn't get +4 to hit.

It's not a deal breaker, it'll just take some getting used to.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This looks good. Like Willuwontu, I am intrigued in how these conditions will stack.

The ones that are simple adds/substracts seem easy enough. If I'm Accelerated 10, Hampered 5, I imagine I only get +5' of speed.

But what if I'm quickened 1 and slowed 2? Do I lose the extra, conditional action from quickened first, then a normal action (for a total of two non conditional Actions), or do I lose normal actions first (which would leave me with one normal Action and one I can only use to Stride or Strike)?

Other than that this looks good.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Oooh, I found an even more definitive statement in regards to how close the Earth you can visit in Pathfinder is to our real Earth:

Robert G. McCreary wrote:
After all, this is Earth in Golarion's universe, where magic exists, so it's not really exactly the same as our own Earth. For example, I doubt that Rasputin was really an oracle in our world, or that Anastasia was resurrected after her murder. :)

Ah, well, I had prepared a rather lengthy post, but in light of this there is no need. If the Earth in Rasputin must die! isn't our Earth, but an alternate Earth, then all bets are off.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
BPorter wrote:
However, to make the argument that Golarion "operates by different rules" while excluding magic or another explanation is somewhat disingenuous. Because according to Paizo, Golarion inhabits the same reality as Earth. There are AP installments that interact with Earth. Yes, it is a game representation/alternate reality of Earth but things like breathing, gravity, etc. are assumed to be equivalent within the representation of the game. PCs traveling to Earth didn't "de-level" because they moved to a world operating by different rules. Earth NPCs had class levels and hit points. The emulation provided by the game was consistent.

This is both sort of true and deeply misleading.

Firstly, it's not in the same Earth as the one we live on. It's one where the Cthulu Mythos and a variety of other magical and fantastical things. There's a wealth of proof for that.

Secondly, elite commandos on Earth are demonstrably 6th level Fighters, and it's strongly implied (and stated by the author of Rasputin Must Die) that them even being that high in level is the result of the odd and magical area the PCs encounter them in making them more powerful. Which means that out in the world they'd be lower level.

So high level people don't de-level, but there's a lot of evidence that high level people also simply don't exist on Earth without interference from elsewhere. Indeed, there's some evidence that you need a magical environment to level beyond a certain point.

First of all, the earth in Rasputin Must Die! is supposed to be our Earth. No ifs or buts. The foreword goes into detail about it at length.

More importantly, I wanted to write something that
could really have happened from our real-world historical
perspective. I didn’t want a single glitch. From the timing
of Rasputin’s and Anastasia’s resurrection, to the inclusion
of Tesla’s strange technology, I wanted to assure the
audience that they would find no distracting historical
hiccups, without resorting to an “alternate timeline” Earth
or any such mechanism. This must be our world
.

Second, the russian soldiers in Rasputin Must Die! aren't elite, they're normal, run of the mill russian soldiers. Even then then adventure has two earth humans of much higher level: The Bear Hunter (14) and Miroslav (10), with only the Bear Hunter being called out as enhanced by her proximity to ol' Raspie. And if you want to do a rough approximation, the first world energy shenanigans turned Polar Bears (CR 5) into Dire Bears (CR 7), so if the jump was similar for the Bear Hunter she was 12th level before the weirdness, Miroslav was 8, and the soldiers were 4.

Which just shows that PF1 is horrible at simulation given all the stuff even a 4th level fighter can easily survive that a real-life russian conscript wouldn't (most egregiously, a direct, full damage hit with a Hotchkiss 8 pounder, according to the book), let alone the 6th level soldiers presented in the book, who are positively super soldiers.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Tholomyes wrote:
Perhaps it's just me, but having experience with point-buy games that have options for stuff like codes of conduct or the like, I've never seen anyone metagame their chosen code or choose one just because they want the points, and know it'll never come up. It's always been something that makes sense for the character and setting. I don't see why just leaving it open to the players and the GM to come up with on an individual basis isn't just the go to. Maybe for PFS you could have some predefined PFS-legal anathema options, but I don't even know that that's necessary.

I've seen plenty of players choose a code they were going to follow anyways for the points. After all, if I'm going to play a Street Samurai in Shadowrun that follows Bushido, I might as well get something out of it.

What Wultram is getting at, I think, is that the vast majority of players didn't choose Totems for flavor, but for mechanics. Nobody cared what the Beast Totem said, the important thing was Pounce at 10th Level. I doubt every person that chose Superstitious actually RP'd their barbarian as an actual superstitious person, they just looked at the cost:benefit ratio and went "This is good, I'll take this."

Furthermore, no totem in PF1e has any sort of code. You took whichever you liked the most, that was it.

Now in PF2E they're shoehorning roleplaying restrictions into the totems for flavor reasons, but the totems aren't just flavor, they're mechanics. So you're locking mechanics behind arbitrary RP restrictions. Mechanics that weren't previously so gated. Understandably, some people don't like that.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

If an Anathema is not going to have a mechanical impact, but you still want it to be there for flavor, then having a huge list of them and letting people choose is the best choice.

If your Anathema is going to have actual mechanical impact (like the Superstition Anathema as described) then it should be tied to a suitably balanced mechanical benefit.


JoelF847 wrote:

Does rage give any increase to actual strength, or only to damage?

blog wrote:


rage that drastically increases her damage and grants her a significant booster shot of temporary Hit Points..
I get not wanting to directly increase strength, cause of the cascading affect on other derived parts of the character, but I would have thought it would also give a bonus on Str skill and ability checks, which would cover climbing, jumping, swimming (all under Athletics), as well as breaking doors, lifting objects, etc.

I figure they'll go the way of the Unchained Barbarian and file those under class feats. You know, the old Raging Climber/Swimmer/Leaper,Strength Stance for all the lifting stuff, and Smasher for the breaking doors and other objects.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Toblakai wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


Let's correct your statement: "something that a level 1 wizard has a 30% chance to do if he has used 1 of his 2 slots to memorize Feather fall and the fall is 60' or less". That completly change the value of your rant, right?

(30% chance because you need to cast the spell while falling, that is a concentration check against 21. Int 20+level 1 give a bonus to 6 to the roll, so he succeed with a 15+)

I disagree on your interpretation of the casting while falling rule. IMO the concentration check is for the case where the fall is over 500 feet and it is a regular casting of a spell, the fact that feather fall is a swift action and called out separately makes it not require this check.

Also the feather fall spell reads:
Duration: until landing or 1 round/level

The 1/round per level is for the case where you pre-cast before jumping off a cliff. The "until landing" duration allows the caster to fall any distance.

--Edit--
James Jacob on Feather fall:
Nope; no concentration check is necessary to cast feather fall

If my DM required a DC 21 concentration check to cast feather fall while falling, I would look for a new GM.

Jacobs says "the instant before you're falling." If you're already falling, it's a DC 21 concentration check, regardless.

And no, the until landing or 1 round/level doesn't mean that. It means if you land before the duration would expire, the spell expires. Otherwise it lasts 1 round/level.

If you're a 3rd level wizard, you cast feather fall, then jump off a 120 ft cliff.

You'll reach the ground in 2 rounds, and then the spell expires, even though it'd last three rounds.

If you're a 3rd level wizard, you cast feather fall and jump off a 240 foot cliff. You fall for 3 rounds at 60 foot per round, then the spell expires and you fall 60 feet normally, taking the associated damage.

The spell description is pretty clear here.

"The affected creatures or objects fall slowly. Feather fall instantly changes the rate at which the targets fall to a mere 60 feet per round (equivalent to the end of a fall from a few feet), and the subjects take no damage upon landing while the spell is in effect. When the spell duration expires, a normal rate of falling resumes."

And if someone throws you off an airship at 200 feet before you can cast it, and you try to cast it while falling, it's DC 21 Concentration, And then the normal rules apply. The concentration check is required to cast any spell while falling. It later calls out that you can only attempt to cast a spell if you're falling more than 500 feet or the spell can be cast as an immediate action (which includes all swift actions).


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Let's correct your statement: "something that a level 1 wizard has a 30% chance to do if he has used 1 of his 2 slots to memorize Feather fall and the fall is 60' or less". That completly change the value of your rant, right?

(30% chance because you need to cast the spell while falling, that is a concentration check against 21. Int 20+level 1 give a bonus to 6 to the roll, so he succeed with a 15+)

You're obviously correct about the distance, and about them needing to have it prepared (though I'll note that Spontaneous Casters have a better time with that)...I'm not at all sure you're right about the DC 21 Concentration check, though.

The listed DCs are 10+Level for 'vigorous motion while casting, 15+Level for 'violent motion while casting' and 20+level for 'extremely violent motion while casting'.

But from description all are for repeated jostling side-to-side sort of motion (being shipboard during a storm or on a jostling mount). I'm not sure if falling counts, and if it does it's more likely to be classed as the 15+Level category than the 20+Level one, IMO.

Still, the 60 foot thing alone makes a good point in regards to Catfall being legitimately good.

Its DC 21 because the falling rules specify casting a spell shile falling is Concentration DC 20+Spell level. And it can only be attempted if the spell is an Immediate action cast or the fall is bigger than 500 feet


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:

Oh hey, it's my favorite class!

Most everything in this blog seems really cool. I'm very interested to see the full details on superstition totem. I loooove Spell Sunder in PF1 so I may end up biting the bullet and going for this anathema.

One thing I'm kinda tilting my head at is the new rage mechanic. It's... interesting, for sure, though I'm wondering how it'll balance out. It makes the first three rounds of combat extremely important to the Barbarian because you have to deal with having worse-than-nothing in round four. At first thought this would mean the Barbarian must be the strongest class during those three rounds of rage, but that could itself be a pretty major balance concern since those first three rounds of combat also happen to be the most important rounds.

It'll also be interesting to see how you enter a Rage. The blog doesn't say, but if it's an Action then that has even bigger implications given the new action economy.


willuwontu wrote:

Are totems still restricted like in pf1?

I take it superstition was changed to a totem because of how good it was.

Restricted as in you can only have one? Most likely.

At any rate, I like what I see, though I jave doubts about the 9th level ability. Can we choose "Physical" as a damage, or does it have to be B/P/S? Can it be upgraded beyond upping your Con score, like you could upgrade DR in PF1? Does each Totem give it's own resistance, or do we choose?


bookrat wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

What prevents multiple theories from being true? It seems like it would not be out of the question for evil spirits to spread germs.

For now, the rest of the rules don't support Germ Theory. We don't have infections and random sickness that ranges from mild colds to devestating Ebola, nor do we see infections destroying things as small as fingers to as large as entire communities. That realistic aspect is not something people generally exore in games like these. And it's not fun to have your 15th level PC die of AIDS or influenza.

So if we abandon that entirely and move on to a more supernatural theory of disease, we can create a better game as a whole. You don't have to worry about random sicknesses, but instead when you see a sickness in a game you have an adventure ripe in the making!

And it also explains why various classes can be immune to all disease - they don't have asuper immune system, but rather have the power to expell negative supernatural influences from their own (or another's) body.

I know this isn't a topic most people care about. But for me, it's always bugged me that wound infection and random illnesses don't exist I'm the same world where the Germ Theory of Disease is also true (which is it in PF1). By removing it, not only do we completely remove that concern, but we also help create a fantasy world that just feels more fantastic and magical.

Would these optional rules from Horror Adventures fit what you want?

Disease Templates

Since they allow you to create a much wider range of diseases, they sort of eliminate the main problem you have with Germ Theory.

As for infections, while we don't have rules for those, we do have:

Infected Wounds Hex

Which gives us an idea of the mechanical effect an infected wound would have. The problem I see trying to do normal infections of this kind would be ruling on a DC and also how/when you have to test. But it's doable, if that's something you want to run.


Excaliburproxy wrote:
Again: the NOVEL rules are thus not representative of the GAME world. What would give the novels primacy in depicting a world that was introduced to be part of a game? That is absurd.

Of course I would. The novels are all actual representations of Golarion while the game system is an abstraction designed for ease of play, because you cannot quantify everything in the world and thus have to cut corners in places.

I mean, Warhammer 40,000 started out as a game world too but nobody tries to pretend the tabletop game rules accurately represent the world in any capacity. That'd be absurd.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

This is just fundamentally not true for the most part. We actually know the levels of many Pathfinder Tales protagonists, and with only a couple of exceptions they cap out at maybe 7th level. Most are 6th level or lower. And 6th level characters with, say, Con 12 (and few Tales protagonists demand higher Con than that, while almost all demand enough skills that they'd need to put FCB into them) average less than 40 HP in many cases. Certainly less than 50. Most also probably spend a certain amount of their time at less than full HP (characters with healing are rare in the Pathfinder Tales novels).

The only exceptions are Isiem, who manages 9th or 10th level by Nightblade and engages in appropriately impressive activities for a 9th level Wizard, and Salim, who as mentioned literally cannot die and is just generally ridiculous on several levels.

So no, the protagonists of almost all of the Pathfinder Tales Novels prove absolutely nothing about what high level people in Golarion are capable of. Because they aren't high level people. At all.

It doesn't matter that they're not high level people. Even a 7th level PC can take quite a few blows before being incapacitated. But not the guys in Pathfinder Tales Novels. Similarly, they face thing way above their level and beat them in like two hits.

Salim, in The Redemption Engine, brings down an angel with one blow, not once, but twice. An Angel well above his level. He also takes wounds that impair him, even though he's not unconcious and thus he still has hit points. But he's being mechanically impaired by damage.

And you can see this in all the novels. All it means is that the game rules are not representative of the world. So going "well you see people in golarion can survive falls because of hit points" doesn't work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Game Master Q wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
thaX wrote:
6th edition, which will happen at some point, will likely abandon Bonded Accuracy and have the return of high magic campaign like the previous editions (including 4th edition). Items will likely not augment stats or give out bonuses beyond +3 to hit/dmg, much like what PF2 is likely doing, but the magical items will be a part of the game once again, not rare artifacts that a character may get about 10 times in his adventuring career.
THAT bugs the crap out of me, and why I can't take 5e seriously. Also the lack of specific item prices. I get people don't like MagicMart. But even if the items are once in a lifetime additions, I want a price tag.
There is one. It's in the DMG and the price is based on rarity.

Magic items exist but the game's core system was designed without magic items in mind so they are broken as hell. If your GM gives the party a +1 speed sword, the fighter has suddenly wasted his feat investment in being great at spears (since he is going to be better with this magic sword than he ever will be with the spears he specialized in).

Belt of Giant Strength is similarly f@~#ed in that system because it replaces the strength score of the wearer. As such, any build based on strength suddenly has a lot of wasted potential.

Not only that, but +X magic items are actually really effective mechanically (especially on fighters who are eventually looking at 4 or 5 attacks at their highest bonus) so they end up making some encounter too easy or buffing certain party members far past their cohorts.

So really, a GM who wants to keep their game balanced needs to police magic items in 5e quite a bit or leave them out all together.

Just a note, but the Belt of Giant Strength is always good because the max Str you can have is 20 and the belt always gives you a minimum of 21. Which means at worst you lose nothing, and at best (Str 29) you've gained 9 points of Str over your maximum.

That's nothing to sneeze at, and there's no wasted potential.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Voss wrote:
'Pathfinder Reality' doesn't allow for most of these either. We've got 10+ years of things that fit in Golarion for usages of abilities and skills. These don't fit.

Yes it does and yes they do. Several martial classes have the ability to survive falls of unlimited distance pretty casually, and high level Rogues are able to Disguise themselves as a full round action, as are many Vigilantes.

And so on and so forth. Few of these abilities seem strictly new, they're just accessible rather than requiring weird Classes and choices to access.

For one, none of the people that can survive those falls do it because they're martial classes. They do it because they're PCs with enough hit points.

For two, they don't do it unscathed, they always take damage.

For three, both of the above only happens because, bizarrely, falling damage caps at 20d6, ie any fall above 200ft is the same. I understand they may have been trying to simulate terminal velocity, but in that case, the limit would've been 188d6, since it takes a fall of abou 1880 feet to achieve it. And guess what: no PC would survive 188d6 on average.

For that matter the point about Pathfinder tales just shows the mechanics of the game don't represent the setting at all. There's plenty of times people in Pathfinder Tales die to falls they would've survived in-game, or die to a single attack, or a whole host of other things that contradict how the rules work. Because the rules don't perfectly represent the world, and never have.

If anything Pathfinder Tales novels show us Golarion is much more grounded than the system would have us believe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NetoD20 wrote:

I hope Occultism skill feats include Object Reading. And that Arcane, Nature, or Occultism skill feats include natural divinations, like looking at a fire, reading tea leafs, gazing at crystal balls, reading entrails, reading the patterns of dust in the wind, etc.

But the way the progression of Skill Ranks and Skill Feats is right now, I think that gaining a new Skill Rank does you very little good. You get a +1 and it's a gateway for you to get new kinds of skill feats, but only next level. I wish each time you gained a new Skill Rank you gained a Base Skill Use, which would be the same for everyone who attained that rank in the same skill, much like an Occultist gains a Base Focus Power everytime he gets a new implement school.

Well, some stuff does, like Crafting (since now you can craft Expert/Master/Legendary stuff) but for other skills it might feel a bit too game-y to do that.

Like, for example, what would you give Thieving at Expert? That isn't something like "You can now pick Expert Locks and Disarm Expert Traps".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
If it isn't broken, don't fix it. That's how the saying goes, yes?

That's a horrible philosophy, and encourages people to never improve - to never find a better way because what they're used to for now works good enough for them.

As Grace Hopper says, "Humans are allergic to change. They love to say, 'We've always done it this way.' I try to fight that. That's why I have a clock on my wall that runs counter-clockwise." Or the common paraphrase, "The most dangerous phrase in human history is 'We've always done it this way."

That's what "If it ain't broke, done fix it" means. It means never improving.

That's what this argument is: Don't try to improve because I like the way it was, even if it isn't the best.

By the same token, change for the sake of change isn't always good, as even a cursory glance at experimental firearms development will show you. And some of them weren't even doing it for the sake of change, but trying something new. Something that didn't work.

Just because something has worked for ages doesn't mean it's the best, true. Conversely, it doesn't mean it isn't the best. It could be. Dismissing something because it's old is just as asnine as clinging to it just because it's how it's always been done.

In this case, I don't see how the symbols do anything more worthwile than using [A] and [R] does. And I have had bad experiences with symbol-heavy games, so I'm even more skeptical.

ALso, I bet that your clock, even though it runs counter-clockwise, still has numbers on it? Why? Why not express the time in fractions? Or with hieroglyphs? After all, it's just learning more symbols.


bookrat wrote:

Having played FFG SW, I can say that it takes all of a single session to get used to the symbols. Even for my players who generally have a tough time with reading, like my wife who has dyslexia. There's only seven of them.

On that same note, we use symbols and combinations of symbols in every day writing. It's called the alphabet. If you can learn the alphabet, then you can learn to use a single new symbol that denotes Action.

We also have non-letter symbols we use all the time, such as . and , as well as &, !, $, #, @, and more.

It's just a matter of literacy, and for those who are playing these types of games, which have a minimum level of literacy requirement, learning a handful of new symbols isn't a even a mild obstacle.

Heck, if you want to complain about having to learn one or two new symbols, then don't ever try to learn Japanese (with it's four different alphabets) or Chinese (with it's thousands of symbols, each one can denotes an full word or even entire concepts).

For those concerned with speach-to-text programs, if those programs can be programmed to recognize other symbols, then they can be programmed to recognize these symbols. Paizo has a history of accommodating the disadvantaged, and I'm sure if they had a request to have these symbols included in a common speach-to-text program, they'd make an effort to assist.

Oh, I got used to them. It was still a pain. It also makes the game terrible to play online since you have to cross-reference dice results (in numbers) with dice symbols. But I got used to that too. Just because I get used to something doesn't make it good. I've gotten used to my glasses, that doesn't mean not needing glasses isn't better.

Now, leaving aside the overall condescending tone of your post, which I find rather cute: I already learned the alphabet, and the alphabet works more than well enough for what Paizo wants to do. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. That's how the saying goes, yes?

And the difference between this game and japanese is: I need to learn the different symbols to learn japanese. Same as I'd need to learn Cyrillic to learn Russian. Same as I had to learn umlauts to learn german.

But guess what? Paizo doesn't need to use these symbols. They can use [A] and [R]. It's less work for them, it's less work for us, it's less work for everybody, and it works just as well as a random squiggly bit, if not better.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Childeric, The Shatterer wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
Childeric, The Shatterer wrote:

I skipped a bunch of pages due to the flame wars emanating from them, so...

The legendary feats look amazingly overpowered, but you only get a limited number of them (3-6 I believe), so it's not like you're pulling these legendary stunts with everything you do all day long.
If they applied to every single thing your PC ever did, I'd be totally against them. but occasionally being able to do something amazingly overpowered is pretty damned cool.
So, as long as the accessability limit remains, I'm fine with them.

If you're a normal dude you get 3 Skill Feats past level 15 (where you can first get Legendary Proficiency). If you're a Rogue you get 6.

Still, Cat Fall shows you don't need a Legendary feat to do something bananas, though that just moves the house rule from "No Legendary Feats" to "No Legendary Proficiency" which is easy enough to do.

Besides, how often does the need to "fall from orbit without taking damage" actually come up in a game? maybe once every 5-10 years (that's actual real-world years, not game downtime years)? I really don't see it being an issue.

Well it doesn't need to be orbit. Anything over 50 feet triggers the Legendary upgrade (50 or less and Master has you covered) and when you're fighting flying shenanigans, that's pretty easy.

Heck, 50 feet is what? 16 meters? Which is approximately 5 stories. I can see a lot of ways for a PC to fall more than 5 stories. "Fall from orbit" is just the "reductio ad absurdum" to show how silly the feat as written is.

Not that it matters much since it's pretty easy to excise whatever bothers people, which is a plus.


Childeric, The Shatterer wrote:

I skipped a bunch of pages due to the flame wars emanating from them, so...

The legendary feats look amazingly overpowered, but you only get a limited number of them (3-6 I believe), so it's not like you're pulling these legendary stunts with everything you do all day long.
If they applied to every single thing your PC ever did, I'd be totally against them. but occasionally being able to do something amazingly overpowered is pretty damned cool.
So, as long as the accessability limit remains, I'm fine with them.

If you're a normal dude you get 3 Skill Feats past level 15 (where you can first get Legendary Proficiency). If you're a Rogue you get 6.

Still, Cat Fall shows you don't need a Legendary feat to do something bananas, though that just moves the house rule from "No Legendary Feats" to "No Legendary Proficiency" which is easy enough to do.


KingOfAnything wrote:
Rek Rollington wrote:

Maybe the icon should be use alongside the words: [AAA] 3 Actions

Hopefully it doesn’t take up too much extra space and blow out the books page count but it would allow the icon for quick glance while also work for electronic readers and those who don’t like to remember icons.

The icon on the pregen sheet was as easy as counting diamonds. If you can remember how to count, you can tell how many actions the symbols represent.

Having played FFG's Star Wars game, I can tell you that using symbols is generally a complete pain, though PF2 will be less of a pain since they aren't on the dice.

But honestly, since Action and Reaction can just as easily be represented by A and R as with a symbol, I don't see the point in using the latter.

I mean it's just as easy to count A's as it is to count diamonds, but the former is easier to copy-paste and for several programs to read.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think out of all of them, Stranded has the most merit because by it's very nature you will end up stress testing a part of the system I doubt Doomsday Dawn will: the crafting and survival rules.

It'd be interesting to see how the "4 days to craft" rules interact with foraging and such.

Also it's similar to what I plan to do for the playtest (though only if Dawn seems boring), but I'm just calling it 'The Grimrock 2: Electric Boogaloo PnP Edition"


Iron_Matt17 wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:

TheFinish,

I believe the problem here is the "Rules as Written" vs "Rules as Intended". If a Paladin is *consistently* using that sentence to excuse him from acting out and putting himself in danger, THEN HE SHOULD FALL. He kept the literal words of the 2nd tenet, yet lost the meaning of what it is to be a Paladin. In fact, I would say he broke the 1st tenet. Words like cowardice, selfishness, and ultimately EVIL could describe him.
I know that there are many fringe cases that can prove me wrong... But that's not the point. The point is: It's not about the loop holes that one can make with the tenets, (the letter of the law) it's about the tenets freeing you to be the exemplary of Goodness. (the spirit of the law) I believe that any document, no matter how perfect, can be exploited if one tries hard enough.

All that being said, this document is not perfect. And if you have a better way of stating what the end goal of the second tenet is, I'm all ears!!

Honestly? Just replace the second tenet with:

"You must protect the innocent as best you can, and never knowingly cause them harm."

That's it, really. You'll still have problems (what exactly constitues harm? How do we tally the paladin's ignorance to ascertain whether or not they knew their action would cause harm?) but it allows the Paladin a bit more leeway, and doesn't read like a horrible jumble of legalese.

That's something you definitely should bring up during the Playtest. It is pretty wordy, and perhaps your replacement would be better. But I have a feeling they had already come up with something like that. But I want to hear why they ended up with the more "legalese" version.

Oh I intend to, because the second tenet is just...ugh. But even if my ideas don't resonate I'll still house-rule them. You gotta talk to a Paladin player anyway, even with this new and revised code.

And we don't even know how a deities anathema works in! That's gonna be a whole other can of worms I tell you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Iron_Matt17 wrote:

TheFinish,

I believe the problem here is the "Rules as Written" vs "Rules as Intended". If a Paladin is *consistently* using that sentence to excuse him from acting out and putting himself in danger, THEN HE SHOULD FALL. He kept the literal words of the 2nd tenet, yet lost the meaning of what it is to be a Paladin. In fact, I would say he broke the 1st tenet. Words like cowardice, selfishness, and ultimately EVIL could describe him.
I know that there are many fringe cases that can prove me wrong... But that's not the point. The point is: It's not about the loop holes that one can make with the tenets, (the letter of the law) it's about the tenets freeing you to be the exemplary of Goodness. (the spirit of the law) I believe that any document, no matter how perfect, can be exploited if one tries hard enough.

All that being said, this document is not perfect. And if you have a better way of stating what the end goal of the second tenet is, I'm all ears!!

Honestly? Just replace the second tenet with:

"You must protect the innocent as best you can, and never knowingly cause them harm."

That's it, really. You'll still have problems (what exactly constitues harm? How do we tally the paladin's ignorance to ascertain whether or not they knew their action would cause harm?) but it allows the Paladin a bit more leeway, and doesn't read like a horrible jumble of legalese.

Like, in my examples (and I'm sorry I'm not quoting you Stone Dog, but I figure I can work it in here without making this post ginormous. My apologies):

If the Paladin sees a village attacked by orcs, he may think the best he can do is attack the orcs to distract them. Or try to save some villagers. Or go get reinforcements.

If the Paladins sees a burning building, he may thinkt he best thing to do is leap into the building to save people. Or stay outside and start a bucket line. Or use a want of....uh....create water to stop the flames (I was gonna say gust of wind and then I realised that would probably make things way worse...)

If the Paladin sees a Katapeshi slave master whipping a slave to near death, he may think the best thing to do is attack the slave master. Or stop him with words. Or try to buy the slave. Or just heal the slave.

I just think the second tenet, as written, is giving Paladins a way out of acting, instead of allowing Paladins the leeway to fulfill the tenet as they think is best.

But maybe it's just me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
John John wrote:
Maybe its just my personal preference and the fact I like supernatural pc's but luck doesn't cut it out for me, at least for an ability that's repeatable without any cost.

If you're not willing to have things occasionally be luck/preparation based then you're really limiting the kind of Legendary character people can conceptually play, IMO.

Because for a lot of people, you can't prepare to do any of these things. You can't "prepare" to survive a terminal velocity fall (well, except for having a parachute) it's all down to luck. And the feats, presented, aren't luck. They're skill.

It's much easier to accept "magic" as an explanation than "I'm just that good" because for a lot of us, we know you can't be that good. It's impossible in a world trying to emulate our world's underlying laws (and Golarion, aside from magic and a few system glitches, does). Therefore the only logical conclusion for me and others is that they have supernatural aid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stone Dog wrote:

I think that being incarcerated (or executed) prevents the Paladin from doing actual good in the future, so the second tenets safety clauses feel like they give the paladin a decent buffer to choose inaction if necessary.

It sets up a paladin's player with interesting challenges, but one thing should be kept in mind (okay, at least one). A paladin doesn't have to win. A paladin can stay Lawful Good, not commit any Anethema, keep to the Code to the best of their ability and still not succeed in saving innocents from immediate harm.

It isn't a weakness .

If the threat of death or incarceration is enough for a paladin to decide not to act....what's the point of the second tenet, except for them to be able to break tenets 3 and 4 with the excuse of "I'm saving an innocent!It's fine!"?

Basically any situation where you'd need to save an innocent would involve going up against something that could "[...]sacrifice their life and future potential in an attempt to protect an innocent", be it a band of marauding orcs, a house being on fire, or a Katapeshi slave-driver mistreating slaves. Which means the Paladin is free to ignore the situation.

If so, then the entire second tenet after "You must not take actions that you know will harm an innocent" is essentially pointless.


SilverliteSword wrote:

See, this is actually where I'd like to see things go the other way. If the legendary thief could disarm/dearmor enemies during combat, I'd be very happy.

He doesn't have to do it unnoticed, because it's the middle of a fight. He slips around behind the big ogre and just slides his dagger between the metal plates, severing leather straps like he's done this a thousand times. The armor chatters to the ground, no longer usable, and the enemy stares at him in shock. I think it would be cool.

As I said, it's not that I dislike abilities of this sort. People who love them can have them and people who don't can excise them from the game. What does make me raise an eyebrow is the game telling me this isn't magic, but rather a person being extremely skilled. Because it's magic. Stripping the armor off an enemy mid-fight isn't skill. It's magic. Spending [X] minutes hiding in shadows stealing full plate off a knight isn't skill, it's magic. Surviving unassisted in the vaccum of space for, say, more than three minutes isn't determination, it's magic. Falling from ten kilometers high and landing on your feet unscathed isn't skill, it's magic.

If you're going to have this kind of Legendary skills, just go full Earthdawn and stop pretending non-spellcasters aren't magical too. All PC classes are magic, the magic just materialises in different ways. Lets call a spade a spade.


None of them, I just want someone to bring g!++!@ Spelljammer back. I don't care who it is. I don't care how you do it, as long as you do it well.

Just gimme my Spelljammer.


Ninja in the Rye wrote:
https://youtu.be/W1_BpNAeeX0

Now that sir, is impressive. Although I am 100% sure that isn't a real shirt, and those are not the man's "shorts" as the good showrunner says. Good for a laugh though.


MusicAddict wrote:

T-shirts are damn near impossible because of this thing called a head and face that make it near impossible to take off cleanly and putting the item in fron of their face, if not impossible, but armor isn't put on and taken off like a t-shirt. This is why button shirts and jackets are easy, because you can slide them off the arms, and sliding pants off the legs, which don't have the same issues with tshirts in terms of ability to remove them.

Your average joe isn't going to be pulling this off. Someone trained in sleight of hand is going to be able to take off armor. You're REALLY overestimating yourself and people in general when it comes to observational skill, being capable of rationalizing thought has so many drawbacks, as we subconciously prioritize what we conciously observe. You don't notice your tongue until you realize it's there, you're breathing automatically until it's brought to your attention. Clothes generally aren't at risk of suddenly vanishing off your body, and the touch of their fabric is so constant it's not worth keeping them on your mind, so when your focus is intently on something else? Don't really notice when that changes until it's brought to your attention.

Again, how are you sliding someone's jacket/button shirt off them without them noticing. Unless you have them with their arms dangling next to them while your friend distracts them. Dude has arms crossed? Impossible. Dude is sitting? Impossible. Dude has hands in pockets? Impossible. Dude is Italian or Latin American, and therefore speaks as much with their arms and hands as with their mouth? To quote the preacher from Blazing Saddles: "Son, you're on your own."

And pants. Really, what kind of people are you with that they don't notice it got noticeably breezier down under? Not to mention, if they're standing, you have to a)get them to raise their foot; b)somehow get the pants off them without trouble (seriously, just try taking your own pants off, now, with whatever shoes you're wearing). Oh and you have to do b) in the small ammount of time the mark does a), unless your making him pretend he's a flamingo or something. And again, if they're sitting down? Impossible. They try to walk? Well now they know something's up. Wind picked up? Boy, they'll notice their pantaloons are halfway down right quick.

But again, you can convince me otherwise by showing me a video. A stage magician doing it, dudes on the street pranking people, whatever. So far, the most I've been able to find is Darren Brown taking off people's ties. Which is absolutely impressive, but not, y'know, pants. Or shirts.

I mean, I know people aren't usually paying a lot of attention, but you make it sound like you're surrounded by Mr.Magoos.

Shinigami02 wrote:
To be honest, of all these things, the armor seems like the easiest to do. Metal doesn't stretch and deform like cloth does when put on, so armor by necessity will be plates held together with straps. Loosen the right straps, tug the plates in the right way, and maybe some precision application of your dagger, and it seems like generally it would probably slide off quite easily. You'd probably need a good distraction, but well, that's where the Legendary part comes in.

It'd depend on the armor, obviously. A chain shirt for example, would have the same problems as a normal shirt. Except it'd be noisier. Removing greaves and such, absolutely. Removing a full helm is obviously a no-no. Breastplates and such I'd imagine you theoretically could, though the weight going all weird would probably be a tip off.

Still, while I think it's really silly and wouldn't allow it, I'm not saying PF2 can't have Skyrim level shenanigans going on. I'm just saying, we just gotta accept it's basically magic and move on.


The only problem I see with the code is that it makes it basically impossible for Paladins to operate openly (in a peaceful manner) in an evil society due to the second tenet.

Take the example of the samurai presented above. Except he hasn't murdered the serf yet, but you can clearly see he's going to. Per the second tenet, the paladin has to act. But if they can't de-escalate the situation without violence, and the Samurai tells them to bog off with their dumb duel...then the paladin has to unlawfully stop the Samurai, or they fall.

And it doesn't have to be that extreme. A paladin spots a Chelish noblewoman about to physically punish one of her halfling slaves because they accidentally splattered the noblewoman's dress with mud. A slave master in Katapesh is whipping an exhausted slave, and will probably kill him. The Uskwood druid is about to forcefully take a child from their family for...well, nothing nice, to be sure.

All these situations mean the paladin has to act, but if they can't stop them with words, they have to get physical. And when they do that, they're breaking the law. Which means they're now criminals. Unless "doing time in prison" qualifies for the "This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice your life and future potential in an attempt to protect an innocent." then any Paladin in one of Golarion's many predominantly evil societies is going to either fall or become a fugitive/prisoner extremely quickly.


Fuzzypaws wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
MusicAddict wrote:

The answer is that in real life sleight of hand, misdirection and distraction is key. You need someone deft and highly skilled to pull off the physical part, but if you can't keep them distracted well enough it's over immeadiately. But in fact with sleight of hand in real life you are almost always more likely to be caught by an onlooker than your mark.

Shoes are actually remarkably hard iirc, and pants aren't too bad, the deft guy needs to make sure that they won't trip on them when you move the mark . Jackets and button shirts are supposed to be the easiest when it comes to clothing iirc, with gloves being the hardest.

Most of sleight of hand is knowing psychology more than anything, though dexterity is still important. I'm super clumsy myself so I could never pick pocket someone or take off a piece of clothing, I can still take objects from people's hands or put something in their hands without making them notice, and move them across a building before they realize it. Just look into it and things like real life studies on perception, and you realize just how little we actually notice regularly.

Yes but....how? Like, there is, for example, no physical way to remove someone's T-Shirt, Shirt, Jacket, what have you without your "mark" having to move in very specific ways. Especially button shirts, where you have to unbutton them. The same is true for pants (and doubly true if they're wearing shoes.)

I mean, this is easy to see. Just put on a t-shirt and ask someone else to take it off you, without you helping them in any way. You'll see it's pretty much impossible, let alone taking it off without them noticing.

Like, I can see people taking your hat, your cloak, a belt. But your shirt? Your pants? A breastplate? That's when it goes from "really skilled" to "complete silliness".

Usually this is done with an accomplice, who distracts the mark. It's still possible to do without an accomplice, but requires a much greater degree of skill.

All due respect, repeating what has been said doesn't make it true. Again, put on a shirt, a normal, run of the mill t-shirt. Ask a friend, spouse, family member or trained monkey to take it off you. Don't help them in any way, by raising your arms, moving them back, etc (you know, all the stuff you have to do to take off your shirt.)

I'm going to bet good money they can't (well, not without destroying the shirt, if we're being honest.). Which begs the question, how would they do it without you noticing? Even if you're distracted, there's no physical way to take off someone's shirt, or jacket, or pants without them noticing. We can be pretty oblivious, but not that oblivious.

I actually searched for this on the net, and found about...zero examples. Lots of watches, rings, wallets, poker chips, a shrimp. But nobody ever takes off someone's clothes.

Crayon wrote:
I think he was referring more to the physical removal of the garment from a standing or sitting mark without their active cooperation.

Yes, I am. Perhaps I should have been clearer. My apologies.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MusicAddict wrote:

The answer is that in real life sleight of hand, misdirection and distraction is key. You need someone deft and highly skilled to pull off the physical part, but if you can't keep them distracted well enough it's over immeadiately. But in fact with sleight of hand in real life you are almost always more likely to be caught by an onlooker than your mark.

Shoes are actually remarkably hard iirc, and pants aren't too bad, the deft guy needs to make sure that they won't trip on them when you move the mark . Jackets and button shirts are supposed to be the easiest when it comes to clothing iirc, with gloves being the hardest.

Most of sleight of hand is knowing psychology more than anything, though dexterity is still important. I'm super clumsy myself so I could never pick pocket someone or take off a piece of clothing, I can still take objects from people's hands or put something in their hands without making them notice, and move them across a building before they realize it. Just look into it and things like real life studies on perception, and you realize just how little we actually notice regularly.

Yes but....how? Like, there is, for example, no physical way to remove someone's T-Shirt, Shirt, Jacket, what have you without your "mark" having to move in very specific ways. Especially button shirts, where you have to unbutton them. The same is true for pants (and doubly true if they're wearing shoes.)

I mean, this is easy to see. Just put on a t-shirt and ask someone else to take it off you, without you helping them in any way. You'll see it's pretty much impossible, let alone taking it off without them noticing.

Like, I can see people taking your hat, your cloak, a belt. But your shirt? Your pants? A breastplate? That's when it goes from "really skilled" to "complete silliness".


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MusicAddict wrote:
NetoD20 wrote:

Although I like the "superhero landing" feat, all the other legendary skills seem too ridiculous to me. Robbing someone of their full-plate is something that I can only imagine Loki doing (mythology Loki, not Tom Hiddleston), and it seems it could be totally abused. I'm glad it can be easily removed from the game, but that still doesn't seem like the ideal solution, I would like at least an in-world explanation like mythic has. Mundane skills should not equal magic.

I would also like some clarification, how do I progress my skills from Trained to Expert and so? Does it happen automatically at set levels for all the skills I took at first level? Is trading skill feats for the Skill Training feat the only way to get extra skills after first level? Whether or not that last question is true, when I get the Skill Training feat with a new skill, does it progress to Expert, Master, and Legendary in the same way as the skills I selected at first level? If the answer to that is yes, then when I get Skill Training at a sufficiently high enough level, does it automatically become Expert or Master?

Last, but not least: so Ancestry Feats, Background Feats, and Skill Feats all come from different "pools" of feats that you get at different progressions? That would be great, it would be lovely not to have to choose between a type of feat over another like in 1st ed. Also, do class feats and general feats also come from different pools?

On the clothes stealing thing, it's a case of reality being unrealistic, as stealing people's clothes off their back is surprisingly doable and I've even helped someone do it for a practical joke once( I played the distraction so the one with deft hands could actually pull it off).

I'm actually really curious as to how? Like, I see no way you can steal someone's shirt/pants without them noticing. Shoes/socks maybe, if they're sitting down, but if they're standing I just don't see it.

The legendary feat is just codifying the silly stuff you can do in videogames (and they better have a reverse pickpocket feat if this one made it in), which is good if you like silly stuff and not good if you don't/


2097 wrote:

This guy… T_T

Weather Report wrote:
2097 wrote:
I was comparing attack matrices of Rules Cyclopedia the other day. Fighter goes from THAC0 19 to 7 over 20 levels. 12 steps as compared to 5e's 11 steps,
5th Ed only goes from +2 to +6: 4 steps. A 2nd Ed AD&D fighter's THACO goes from 20 to 1 (BAB +0 to +19), 19 steps, similar to a 3rd Ed/PF1 fighter.

omits to quote that I did write that in 1e it goes one step per level, as opposed to the Basic branch (i.e. RC) (+1 to +12) and 5e (+5 [if you have a sixteen stat] to +11).

and omits that in 2e, if you have strength between 8 and 16 for mêlée, and dex between 6 and 15 for ranged, you don't adjust your to hit.

in 5e you have an ability modifier that is added to attacks. making it go to eleven, uh, to +11, as you reach +6 prof and +5 ability mod.
which matches up pretty well with Rules Cyclopedia and is, just as I said, about half of what AD&D has

I don't want anyone missing out on a great game just because of these mischievous jokes that Weather Report makes.

If it's their serious taste that grappling should not be a skill or that rogues&bards should not be good at skills then that is fine!

We can describe the games factually and people can then mix and match the rules that they like and that makes sense to them!

I love Paizo so much even though we usually think differently about games. I want there to be more peace across the larger community of this class of games ♥

(I was also being unclear in implying that in 5e you went from +1 to +11 which was a mistake on my part, you don't start at +1.)

You can easily start with a 20 in 5th edition though, so you just go from +7 to +11, so 4 steps. Since you can begin with "max" attribute in basically all systems (except PF1, where you can start with 20 but your actual max without magic is 25), it doesn't make sense to include them. You just see how the classes scale.

5th Edition Fighter goes from +2 to +6, so 4 steps. The Rules Cyclopedia Fghter goes from THACO 19 to THACO 7, so 12 steps. A PF1 Fighter goes from +1 to +20, 19 steps. Adding Ability Score Mods doesn't change the steps, just the numbers you start and end with.

If you count expertise in 5th, then it's +4 to +12, or 8 steps. But AFAIK there's no way for a Fighter to get Expertise in Attack Rolls. So it's pretty easy to see how the math in 5th edition is far more constrained than in the other systems. And that's fine for a lot of people, and not very fine for others.

As for 5th Edition being a great game, I'll have to disagree. And bounded accuracy is a big part of why I don't think it's very good. But PF2E isn't going that way, so on that front I just shrug and move on.


Excaliburproxy wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Some of the editions of shadow run have like 3 or 4 different hacking skills and then additional skills for computer science and hardware. It gets silly.

Which edition is that?

I admit to having forgotten that 5E had two (one for Cybercombat), but 3E (the edition I played the most of) only had one for actually using a computer (you could admittedly take others to build or repair them), and neither have the three or four you mention. I don't recall 1E having more than one either.

I...appear to have skipped the even numbered editions of Shadowrun. Huh.

I don't know if it was 4e or 5e but one had:

Electronic Warfare
Cybercombat
Hacking
Computers
Hardware
and Software

Both 4E and 5E have those skills, 4th Edition also adds Data Search. But Shadowrun has always been a game with extreme skill granularity so...who cares.

Besides, none of them reaches the height of stupid that 3/3.5E "Use Rope" skill was, so that's something.


2097 wrote:
Another thing that's good about bounded accuracy is mixed party level groups. Right now we have three level threes, one level two, and two level nines.

That may be true in 5th Ed, where the accuracy is much tighter, but from what we've seen so far, try running that group in PF2 and they'll get slaughtered against anything that would present a modicum of challenge to the level 9s.

PF2's math makes it very equal in the same level, but it also makes level differences matter a LOT more.

If your example is a 5th edition party, then the level 3s and the level 2 have a +2 proficiency modifer and the level 9s have a +4. If it were a PF2 party, the level 2 has +2, the level 3s have +3 and the level 9s have +9. It's a much bigger difference, and since monsters work basically the same way, it's a much bigger deal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:

[You may never have climbed as a waterborn humanoid, but if you needed to, you'd actually be pretty good at it, just from raw athleticism and body control.

Not really how it works, they are not always translatable, and require different applications. You don't have to be that strong to climb, it's more about balance, leverage, skill (mostly use your legs).

The Acrobatics/Athletics separation can get muddy, to me, as so much Str is required in gymnastics/acrobatics. Basically, most badasses, let's say Bruce Lee, have high Str and Dex, they do not dump one.

Yeah, it actually makes much better sense to just put Acrobatics, Climb and Swim in Athletics, instead of the weird divide. If you consider "picking pockets" and "picking locks" and "disarming traps" to be in the same ballpark (and they're not, spoken as someone who can pick locks but not pockets; and disarming traps has nothing to do with either) then those three obviously are. As are Intimidation, Deception and Diplomacy.

I mean, if you want a real life example of people that could climb but not swim, ask all those poor 17th and 18th century sailors, many of whom were adept at climbing the rigging, almost none of which could actually swim.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Tholomyes wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
That means he isn't allowed to tell us. He doesn't spoil stuff planned for later blogs. I bet we will find out on Friday.
Signature skills are the ones you can increase to master and legend, and are typically defined by your class. Though there are a few other ways to get more.
This is... Disappointing. I like the idea that maybe you can get to higher ranks faster in signature skills, but being locked off from master or legend by class just feels wrong. There being other ways to get more doesn't make it feel any less wrong, unless there's some sort of thing like with Ancestries or Backgrounds, where you get certain signature skills based on your class, but one free. As much as I'm not sure I liked the extreme divergence in skills in PF1e, it at least let you be almost as good in non-class skills, by only granting a +3 boost in class skills, which is a decent boost, but isn't the same as gating off higher ranked skill feats and skill uses based on class.

Yeah, I think lowering the level requirements for Master/Legendary might be better. Or attaining automatic Master/Legendary in X Signature skills. But gating the two highest levels of proficiency by class? That's kind of a bummer. It makes classes even more pigeonholed than in PF1.

1 to 50 of 404 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>