Ilarris Zeleshi

dragonhunterq's page

FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 3,947 posts (4,066 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 11 Organized Play characters. 5 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,947 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, you need to factor in the playtest goals for this chapter - which as a player you may not (and probably should not) be aware of*. And remember that this is a playtest, it is not a polished final product so noting how much is too much - well, this sort of feedback is important, so make sure you fill in the surveys. Completing the remaining chapters will be similarly useful, so please keep at it.

*That said, if there is one chapter that players should be aware of the goals - this might be the one.

thoughts on goals:
players might not react appropriately if they fear further encounters - if they try to conserve resources it could lead to a higher death rate than normal - maybe?

One thing I am doing is letting my players know what the playtest goals are after we've finished (where they aren't so obvious)- so they can see why things happen the way they do.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just because something can be dented does not mean you can interpose it between you and an attack.
Shields only get damaged in this way if you actively shield block.
There is no way to "armour block".

Armour and shields are still items and can therefore be damaged in other ways - although the lack of an explicit sunder manoeuvre makes it unlikely that that will happen in combat.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:

Far from 'across the board'. It is quite rightly LG only.

Also not a surprise, they spoke about this and if they do paladins of other alignments they want the time to do them properly and not just a lazy switcheroo of "evil" to "good" or "chaos" or "mercy" to "cruelty". Which can only be a good thing, because the only thing worse than a non-LG paladin is a non-LG paladin with bad and lazy mechanics.

because LG is ofc the one true alignment, the only one capable of empowered holy warriors, whose detect/smite subroutine and demands to dictate what everyone else plays aren't a huge malignant sore on the hobby at all.... Oh wait, honestly at this point they are, if paladins stay LG only, remove them from core, stop wasting valuable CRB pages on such a game distorting blight of a class, and drop war priest or Inquisitor into the holy fighter slot. Seriously they have been nothing but trouble, every edition they have been in, and the passionate defence of them remaining such a party dominanting class says alot about the people defending the current situation with party alignment and actions having to pass muster with the guy playing the paladin.

Ah! so of course we should all defer to your opinion, as you put it so eloquently...

Paladins are cool and deserve a place front and centre. If you don't like them, there are 11 other classes to play. It's all good. There are at least 4 classes I have no interest in (Alchemist, Barbarian, Ranger and Sorceror for those who need to know) and will never play - I'm not calling for their removal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Then don't use them. They aren't mandatory - the rules couldn't be more explicit about that.

secret checks p293 last sentence wrote:

Conversely, the GM can let the players roll any or all of their checks even if they would usually be secret, trusting players not to make choices based on information their characters don’t have.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ah! the miscibility table - I remember that less than fondly. (albeit there was that one time a player rolled 00 on a potion of speed - permanent haste, but he aged a year every hour or so).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
counteract wrote:
... against the DC of the target effect. ...

If the dispel magic level is higher than the level of the effect you dispel it automatically. If the dispel magic is the same or lower level make a dispel check at a cumulative -5 penalty for each level lower than the effect your dispel is. The DC is that of the effect.


Remember, it can become broken after blocking 3 hits (not counting other abilities) - thus "dented or broken".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ghilteras wrote:
I don't think shield block is clear at all with the current wording. Since the PC gets the extra damage after the hardness the shield only gets damage up to its hardness so with the current RAW the shield can only get one dent per shield block.

Thats kind of how it looks like it should work - you really don't want a shield being destroyed in one hit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:

For a shield to take multiple dents from a single hit you have to a) ignore that shield block rules says the shield only prevents damage up to it's hardness and you take the rest and b) double count the overflow damage. It's patently nonsense.

Yet that's exactly what the rulebook does on page 175 with its example.

I agree entirely that the Shield Block interpretation is better. It's silly that shields can explode in a single hit and you also take all the damage from it. That's just silly and you have to really question how worth it a shield is when you have to constantly grab new ones or repair them.

A single shield should at least be able to last a combat when it's used more than once, wouldn't you think?

This really needs some clarification. It's just confusing and not intuitive right now.

Page 175 is an example of damaging an object - not an example of what happens when you shield block. There is a difference. When you damage an object the object takes all of the damage. When you shield block the object only takes damage up to it's hardness and you take the rest.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

They certainly don't need fewer skills. There needs to be a class that focuses on skills. Rogues are it.

It has not been my experience that they are the highest damage - even when sneak attacking - that honour goes to a barbarian with a great axe.

They don't have the incombat durability of a fighter (who will also crit far more often) or paladin.

they don't have spells or alchemy.

So no, I disagree. They need 'something' and skills are it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really do object to it being referred to as an ethical violation or cheating. Its the g-d rules, it quite literally by definition cannot be cheating.

As part of your introducing PF1 players to PF2 just inform them that the system is asymmetric - social contract met.

Cheats will cheat no matter what the system.

GMs can already just alter monsters to suit their whim or to provide a more suitable challenge to their players (or attack their weaknesses) without explanation. There is no rule stopping them. The reality is the custom creation 'rules' are just guidelines. I tweak monsters all the time.

I have seen plenty of adaptations of monsters to PC playable that reduce their size, remove racial HD or remove some of the more egregious abilities or scores to make them playable - not everything that is available to monsters is available or suitable for PCs - asymmetrical rules for PC races and monsters is not a new concept.


Need to be careful with multiple specialisations as many abilities overlap (and Racer overlaps with base 'specialised' abilities right out of the gate with both granting master fort saves - this needs changing)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

But when you have a rule that can be read two ways and one way it's a workable mechanic that's actually quite cool and the other a worthless waste of ink isn't it reasonable to assume that the former reading is the right one?

until it's FAQ'd into oblivion anyway!


Hah true enough! it'd probably help if they didn't use a shield in the damaging objects example - I'm sure that has added to the confusion more than it needed too.

Still, how hard is to notice that the shield in that example is taking all of the damage (because, you know, the example is about damaging objects) and not being used to shield block.


There are many systems that use asymmetrical systems for critters and PCs. They all work quite successfully. The players all know what they are signing up for.

By selecting the system you agree to use that systems rules - not some other systems rules. PF2 will set the rules you play by, and they aren't hiding any of the maths - so no violation of any rules occurs and no breach of player/GM contract and certainly not a violation of some arbitrary morality (especially one that ignores PF1 and it's predecessors blatant breaches*)

*random example - hey mindless undead get no feats, but lets give two of the most classic undead bonus feats because...uh! shouldn't this be the point that, morally, you stop playing PF1? or do you give players feats just because?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

For a shield to take multiple dents from a single hit you have to a) ignore that shield block rules says the shield only prevents damage up to it's hardness and you take the rest and b) double count the overflow damage. It's patently nonsense.


Once PF2 critter creation rules hit the printer they are the rules. Creating creatures that way will be following the rules. It can't be cheating if it's the rules.

It's just streamlining the system. The end result will be nearly identical. Monsters have the right stats for the role and unique abilities the players can't duplicate - and no need to pad beasties with unused feats and skills "just because".


3 people marked this as a favorite.
chadius wrote:

CLW wands always felt like a problem with PFS, where you get 2 Prestige Points after your first adventure that can be spent on the wand. I'm in 3 Adventure Paths (Kingmaker, Giantslayer, Hell's Rebels) and we've never had easy access to a wand.

Why not make wands cost more Prestige in PFS?

For a start parties are essentially random in PFS. There is no guarantee you will have sufficient healing (or pretty much sufficient anything) without access to wands (and scrolls).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pick a monster from PF1, let's say a hill giant - it's pretty basic - please explain how it is built using the same rules as PCs.

Because at some point someone sat down and said* "it needs to be large, more HD than an ogre, we'll need some kind of rock throwing as all giants have that ability and it needs to be CR7", and someone else telling them "well it's AC needs to be about 21, how much of that should be natural?", "well if we give it 8 dex, so increase it's natural AC by 1, let's not worry about the hit to init. now it needs to be doing nearly 20 damage on average how do we want to break that down?"

It only bears a resemblance in the results to the system the players use.

PF1 pays nothing more than lip service to following the same rules. In some respects Starfinder is much more open and honest than PF1.

*possibly :)


I'd much rather have the kitchen sink and then I decide what I should and shouldn't allow in my games. More options are good.

I accept I can't have an encyclopedic knowledge of everything, nor all the permutations thereof. All my games have a proviso that if a rules element, or combination of elements, I allow in turns out to be unfun or overpowered it gets pulled. It's that simple.


andyrhi wrote:


5) I have no idea why the designers of PF2 felt Initiative should "Usually" be Perception. Perception is WIS based. Initiative should be DEX based because it relates to how quickly the character can bring his body into action. Initiative occurs only when the PCs have decided that action is necessary or desirable. Suppose the PC Perceives someone hiding behind a rock beside a road. Is that person hiding in order to ambush the PC or because he is afraid the PC will rob or kill him? It is only after the PC has reached a judgment that the skulker is a threat that he needs to make a check as to how quickly he can react to it.

First and most importantly - PC's don't decide when initiative is rolled, the GM does.

Awareness is just as justifiable as speed. Just because it's been dex based so far, there is no reason it has to remain so. If someone persuades you speed is relevant you can always allow them to use acrobatics.

If the players are assessing the risk posed by the skulking individual that is still perceptions as perception covers sense motive as well. If the players are trying to sneak up on the skulker that's stealth. If they engage the skulker in conversation then other options come into play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ludovicus wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Ludovicus wrote:


--) Each monster would remain a relevant challenge for longer.
--) High-level PCs would not have to routinely face immersion-breakingly fantastical tasks in order for skill tests to be meaningful.

--)So low level monsters become as irrelevant as they should be.

--)So I can accomplish fantastic tasks.

There is a well loved and popular RPG which gives players monsters that stay relevant and tightly bound skills, I'd like PF to be different. I want heroic fantasy.

Again. I agree.

For the reasons you gave, PF should have a much steeper rate of advancement than 5e. But it still would.

Under the current system, an optimized PF2 character's bonus increases from +6 (+4 ability modifier, +1 expert proficiency, +1 level) at 1st level, to +20 (+5 ability, +2 master proficiency, +10 level, +3 item) at 10th and +35 (+7 ability, +3 legendary proficiency, +20 level, +5 item) at 20th. At the reduced rate, the improvement would instead be to +15 at 10th level and +25 at 20th. That's still a huge difference! Basically, a 10th level character succeeds whenever their first-level counterpart would fail, and critically succeeds whenever their counterpart would succeed; a 20th-level character can always succeed at a task a 1st-level character never could have. (It's also more than twice the rate 5e, wherein a 1st-level fighter probably has a +6 attack bonus (+4 ability, +2 proficiency) that increases to +14 (+5 ability, +6 proficiency, +3 item) at 20th level.

Or, more concretely: I think a good DC for a truly fantastic task (opening the hardest lock in the world, impressing Shelyn and her entourage with a musical performance) is 35. At +1/2 levels, that's something a 1st-level character could never dream of, a 10th-level character could do on a natural 20, and a 20th-level character could do on a 10 or better. Doesn't that seem about right to you?

Nope - a 20th level character with legendary training should be accomplishing those tasks relatively easily.

In my mind the 50/50 mark for a high on-level task should be aimed at being achievable by an expert level and a secondary stat with minimal equipment. If you are legendary with maxed stats and maxed equipment these tasks should be easier to achieve.

Whether that 'high level 20' task turns out to be DC35 or 45 doesn't really matter to me. I'm more interested in the sense of progression and the difference between levels.


Table 4-2 on page 146 supposedly gives you the DC for identifying items as well (it doesn't direct you anywhere else, so half the level of the item? round up?


Ludovicus wrote:


--) Each monster would remain a relevant challenge for longer.
--) High-level PCs would not have to routinely face immersion-breakingly fantastical tasks in order for skill tests to be meaningful.

--)So low level monsters become as irrelevant as they should be.

--)So I can accomplish fantastic tasks.

There is a well loved and popular RPG which gives players monsters that stay relevant and tightly bound skills, I'd like PF to be different. I want heroic fantasy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:


Because roleplaying is not the same as acting. Roleplaying is creating a character and making decisions based on their personality, not making a convincing speech. You could be an excellent actor but a s&&+ roleplayer because you are incapable of thinking of anything that someone else hasn't written for you. Now are you finished insulting people for Doing It Wrong?

I'm not saying that you're doing it wrong, I'm saying that there are better ways of spending time with other people while rolling dice and killing monsters than a game which explicitly expects you to act things out. Descent, Gloomhaven and all the other dungeon crawler board games are just that, D&D without having to feel silly because the other person at the table is channeling Matthew Mercer while all you can do is state "I say something nice, can I roll for this because I really don't like acting it out?".

Square pegs, round holes and all that.

This is a particularly toxic attitude, also it's fundamentally flawed. There are a lot of things to enjoy about RPGs without requiring actual acting. There is nothing about an RPG that 'explicitly' requires you to act things out or speak in the third person. You can interact quite happily in the third person and still be telling a story.

Maybe we're disconnecting at some fundamental level, but for me, interaction in third person is game-breaking. Short of time-saving interactions of negligible importance ("We tell the innkeeper that we'll be back by midnight") I expect everybody to sweat it and act in first person, even if they're not the world's best actors. And yes, I do act out all NPCs in first person.

To me, interaction in first person is a core element of RPGs as opposed to board games/video games and I don't do groups that don't share this view. Fortunately, all my current groups do.

Thats fine- its right for you and your players. Doesn't make it universally right, and doesn't mean those doing it differently shouldn't be doing it that way. RPGs are wonderfully versatile things and there are more ways to enjoy them than just yours.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tiona Daughtry wrote:
I realized that maybe an actual example of variant approaches should help. This references one of the games I myself am running, a copy of the original Temple of Elemental Evil updated to PF1 rules. We have the Earth Temple, which has 4 earth elementals who rise up, but don't go hostile unless players enter specific parts of the room or try to steal the items on the altar. Meranthryl, our sorcerer, who is focused extensively on charm and diplomacy, decides that he'd like that chest, contents unseen, but doesn't fancy fighting the elementals, which he has already figured out likely would attack if he just 'tries to take it'. Instead, he recognizes that he'd just picked up a lodestone (literally, he was the party member who actually succeeded in the strength check to do so). He carefully goes as close as he imagines is safe, and attempts to find a language in common with the elementals. This part is entirely outside of the original module's 'script', so, yes, I do have to wing it. One of the elementals rolls high enough to seem to understand at least a bit of abyssal, and, discovering that, Merahnthryl begins negotiations, offering the lodestone, which is an elemental earth magic, in exchange for the chest. He has significant bonuses, which overcome the difficulty in communicating in what amounts to a pidgin dialect, and convinces the elemental to trade. Yes, this is completely *not* the intended scenario for the adventure. But that does not make it wrong, or bad in any way. I reward creativity like that. So do all of the other dms I play with. Finding alternate solutions to a situation is always cause for at least a compliment, if not other rewards. The problem I see with PF2, is that your chances for success in much of anything are terrible, and characters do not have enough chance for a 'personal niche' to pull something like this off. And these are the sorts of problem solving we do pretty much *Every* game session in our group. Being told that we just don't have the ability to alter a...

Nothing in the current rules prevents this type of interaction - there is nothing in the current rules that prevents you from proposing a course of action and the GM setting some appropriate skill checks. The only thing preventing you from finding alternative solutions to encounters and going 'off script' is your GM.

I fail to see any substance to your perceived problems with PF2.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:


Because roleplaying is not the same as acting. Roleplaying is creating a character and making decisions based on their personality, not making a convincing speech. You could be an excellent actor but a s&&+ roleplayer because you are incapable of thinking of anything that someone else hasn't written for you. Now are you finished insulting people for Doing It Wrong?

I'm not saying that you're doing it wrong, I'm saying that there are better ways of spending time with other people while rolling dice and killing monsters than a game which explicitly expects you to act things out. Descent, Gloomhaven and all the other dungeon crawler board games are just that, D&D without having to feel silly because the other person at the table is channeling Matthew Mercer while all you can do is state "I say something nice, can I roll for this because I really don't like acting it out?".

Square pegs, round holes and all that.

This is a particularly toxic attitude, also it's fundamentally flawed. There are a lot of things to enjoy about RPGs without requiring actual acting. There is nothing about an RPG that 'explicitly' requires you to act things out or speak in the third person. You can interact quite happily in the third person and still be telling a story.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dark Midian wrote:
Grandlounge wrote:

It seems to me this is a problem for organized play but in any home game or in the system in general, you can just make the consumable items much harder to find. Though economical from a GP perspective healing a level 10 barbarian twice take a whole wand and game time.

This article seems to be missing key aspects of game design. Does this make the game more fun, more immersive, or more easily adopted. I would say from the tone of the article the answer is no. The most frequent 1st ed complaint about items was that some were mandatory and filled slots that can be used for more fun and interesting items. It is the reason the company wrote the automatic bonus progression, which became a highly utilized rule system.

This is an answer to a problem very few people had. Look at the success of Borderlands and Diablo people love loot and magic items make them fun and helpful but not mandatory that is how you fix the problem.

Ding ding ding. Resonance sounds completely devised for PFS play.

I haven't read all of this to the end, so someone might have covered this - but I can't agree with this. It seems terrifyingly bad (to me) for organised play. When you can't know who you are playing with then these kinds of restrictions will lead to a lot of dead players and/or inability to complete scenarios.

Not knowing who or what capabilities your fellow players will have necessitates a batman-like approach to magic and items - you need multiple low level solutions to a wide range of challenges just in case you don't have the requisite skill or ability amongst you.

Resonance makes that much harder to achieve.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
neaven wrote:
Pramxnim wrote:


Remedies to the problem in actual play:

However, these chances, even for spells that require saves, can be improved.

Flat-footed is a common condition that gives a -2 penalty to enemy AC. For someone who used to hit 50% of the time, this ups their accuracy to 60%, or a 20% increase in accuracy.

There are also buff spells like Bluff and Heroism that increase your chance to hit, making even fights against equal level enemies much easier.

For Spells that require saves, a common condition in Frightened lowers the enemy's save, and can be applied judiciously...

The fact that situational buffs exist does not imply that a base 50% chance is good. Flat footed requires another person in the right position, which is not possible on all battlefields or with all parties. Buff spells require someone to be playing someone who hands out buff spells as well as them spending a limited resource to do it. And frightened only applies to enemies that can be frightened.

On top of that, all those "remedies" require the spending of actions in combat to use.

Not "remedies" - design. Part of the idea is to encourage you to do stuff other than "hit it, hit it to death". That is one of the reasons for the multi attack penalty - they want that third attack to look unattractive and for you to do something else to impact the battle - even if it's to move into a better position (which the lack of AoO encourages too) - make things a little more dynamic.

Whether it succeeds at that...?


For stuff like this where the information is simple and basic I don't see how repeating it in every spell is really necessary. It isn't hard to remember standard=double/base/half/no damage.

If they had half a dozen proposed shortcuts for saving throws then maybe I could see the point, but for just the one...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the simpler format - but I'm a fan of keywords/terms.

Standard would get my vote over basic.


quairon nailo wrote:
"I don't like this it shouldn't be like this" doesn't really make for a good argument.

um, isn't that the entire basis for wanting it opened to all alignments, I mean at its core that's the sum of your position, really. Or is there more than "I don't like LG only paladins, please change it"?


Matthew Downie wrote:
Then why are so many playtesters reporting deaths and TPKs?

most of the reported TPKs predate the new rules. Even under the old rules dying is normally quite hard. I suspect a combination of forgetting hero points and/or either poison or persistent damage. Hero points will save you from a nasty crit, but won't save you from ongoing damage. If you have no healing a few bad rolls and being on fire will kill you even with hero points.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quairon Nailo wrote:

This might be an unpopular opinion, but i think restricting Paladins to Lawful Good is outdated, unnecessary, and makes them far less interesting.

One of my favourite books in D&D 3.5 was the Unearthed Arcana, which introduced the Paladins of Slaughter, Freedom and Tyranny, of alignments CE, CB and LE respectively. Just like the LG paladin, they are living embodiments of their respective alignments carried pretty much to the extreme, and, to me, that's what being a paladin means.

I do not see a reason we can't have that as part of the base class of the Paladin, all Paizo would need to do is remove the restriction for the base class (or change so it can be LG, CG, CE or LE), change some powers and feats to work differently depending on the alignment of the character (like we have for clerics) and maybe create alignment restricted feats (for instance, maybe they can have feats like "Aura of Fear" which would require you to be Evil, while others like "Oath of Freedom" need you to be specifically CG).

Sure, this means revisiting and tweaking the whole class, but it makes for much more interesting paladins, and, therefore, much more interesting characters, as we can now explore how those characters with extreme unfaltering alignments interact with the world.

Adittionally, given the current archetype system, implementing it at a later date would be pretty much impossible unless they are released as separate base classes. For all those reasons, Paizo, please consider allowing paladins of different alingments.

No, No and No. First Paladins are LG. This is their Right and Proper alignment.

Second, if you must have non LG paladins for the love of all that you love about gaming don't just "change some powers and feats to work differently". Just changing smite evil to smite good and lay on hands to touch of corruption is just terrible game design - do them properly and make the abilities different.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Monsters have never really followed the same rules as PCs except in a token manner.

Except... the token manner was formulaic. The base chassis predicated off the same rules a PC had. BAB implied attack abilities and basic saving throw progressions. Yes, a designer could bolt on things like natural armor bonuses or DR, but players had a world-building immersion, knowing that wizard-like monsters would have high Intelligence, non-agile massive beasts would have terrible Dexterity stores, and so on. It let players anticipate the nature of their foes in a very realistic fashion. Now a designer can just decide that a monster has a high TAC without earning it mathematically, without regard for if it makes sense.

Yes, it's a matter of degree. But "worse" isn't the direction design should take, despite DM effort. This, from the mouth of a DM who has spent a LOT of time tweaking and adjusting challenges, and yes, I'd always make sure I had the right number of skill ranks, etc, etc.

A thing worth doing is a thing worth doing right.

If you just increased a monsters intelligence by 2 to 'officially' give it the extra skill ranks you want it to have why not just give it the skill ranks?

Once they get the monsters operating on the same numbers as the players (an error they have admitted to) you still have the non-agile beasts having a lower dex score, but now you don't have to give it +16 natural AC to make up for the lack. There is no reason for creatures not to make sense just because you skip the middle 'justification step' and give it the appropriate and realistic stats for it's type from the outset.

As a DM who also spent a LOT of time tweaking and adjusting challenges and spending a LOT of time making sure critters had the right number of skill ranks, this seems to make my job a LOT easier.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aiken Frost wrote:
N-Sphere wrote:
Historical accuracy isn't a reason to change the rules.

I don't agree with this.

The rest of your post, though? Perfection.

Also, to the people saying that they "don't care" about realistic armor... Then why not change to something accurate, allowing people that do care to be happy, wile you continue enjoying your blissful ignorance?

For a start it's something else that I'd have to unlearn and relearn. That would make me unhappy. Do you want your happy to be at the expense of my happy...

:P


Atalius wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Atalius wrote:
While I've got you here Fuzzy, do you know which page I can find mental damage on?
The only thing they say about it is "Effects that exist purely in the target’s mind deal mental damage." on page 293 under "damage types." It doesn't seem to have any built-in special properties, there are just some things that deal it or resist it.
Hmm so vague

In what way is it any more vague than "fire damage" (it's a type of energy damage) or "force damage" (it affects ethereal foes)? You won't find much more description than that for either of those - just abilities that deal that type of damage and those that resist it.

Just curious about what you were expecting.


Luceon wrote:


They are just comparing two different degrees of a scale. PF2 is one scale, D&D 5ed would be an example of a different scale.

IF we already have 5e at one point on the scale, why would you want PF2 to be anywhere close to that same scale? Why not just play 5e? It is already well established and has brand recognition - PF2 cannot compete with that unless it operates at a different scale with a different feel.

Also - don't appreciate intimations that supporting the current system means we aren't paying attention to the point we are being duped. And are they really duping anyone when they put all of their monsters online?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atalius wrote:
While I've got you here Fuzzy, do you know which page I can find mental damage on?

I'm not fuzzy, but try page 293 with damage types.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DarkKnight27 wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

Taking prisoners is what nonlethal damage is for.

It's probably meant to be something similar to the 5e rule: "Most DMs have a monster die at 0HP rather than having it fall unconscious... Mighty villains and special nonplayer characters are common exceptions."

Things like bandits tend to drop dead instantly, to prevent the "should we execute the prisoners" dilemma.

I agree, but the rules should just come out and actually say this instead of using weak, open to many interpretations, language.

They have - not sure this could be more explicit "NPCs die on reaching 0hp unless nonlethal damage or the GM says otherwise".

page 294 wrote:

When most creatures reach 0 Hit Points, they die, unless the attack was nonlethal, in which case they are knocked out for a significant amount of time (usually 1 minute or more). When undead and construct creatures reach 0 Hit Points, they are destroyed. Player characters don’t automatically die when they reach 0 Hit Points. Instead, they are knocked out. Villains, powerful monsters, enemies with healers or regeneration, and any other NPCs at the GM’s discretion are knocked out like a PC as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Re: naming conventions - Bardarok is correct in that quality is omitted if it is the minimum required quality, however official material will normally follow a "potency, quality, properties, type" format.

page 370 wrote:
An item with runes etched on it is typically referred to by the value of its potency rune, followed by its quality (if that quality is higher than the minimum required for its potency), its properties, and finally its item type; for example, a +1 longsword, +4 legendary fire-resistant chain mail, or an expert flaming kukri.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Monsters have never really followed the same rules as PCs except in a token manner. If you needed a monster of a certain level to have two extra points of AC it got a boost to natural armour or a template or you gave it +4 dex and made some other adjustments to bring the consequences of that change back in line - just being able to go "this needs to have AC24 - done!" is simpler and in some respects more honest. (There is only 1 thing I would like to see broken down some - I'd like some indication of how much armour is hard armour and how much dodge/deflection, but even that isn't really needed. I can't think of anything else I need broken down)

As to changing monsters now it's as easy as it has always been - remove the effect of one feat and add the effect of another feat. Reduce it's HP by it's level and give +5' speed - it's not rocket science. Once you have an idea of the range of numbers required for a particular level you can tweak any critter to your hearts content.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alex Cunningham wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:

Nope, don't mix your historical reality with my fantasy otherworld.

What happened 500 years ago on Earth has zero relevance to what happens on Golarion or Faerun or Greyhawk...

It's already mixed in. That's why the "standard" game doesn't have lazors and cybernetixXx.

We're discussing whether it's better to have a little more verisimilitude, more interesting variety, and words that mean what they actually mean if you look them up (like, let's say, if you're a new player or don't speak English as a first language).

You suggesting you don't want new players in the game being able to understand things quickly, more interesting variety when you play, and clarity?

Fantasy otherworld - not sci fi other planet (ignoring for the moment that technically there is already lasers and cybernetics in Numeria.)

The 'official' nomenclature is hardly a bastion of agreement and clarity. Depending on who you ask and what specific period of history and where in the world you are referring too...

And it's clear enough - chain shirt gives you these stats, half plate those stats. Simple.


Which part of the druid mandates the use of metal armour such that not wearing it is a breach of their oath again?

It's an article of faith. Many articles of faith don't stand up to close scrutiny. Articles of faith can be contradictory. I do not have a problem with arbitrary restrictions on a mystic/spiritual class - seems consistent with my experiences.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Proposed multiple backgrounds houserule (incorporating many of the ideas above) - pick up to 3 backgrounds - you must choose at least one element from each background. you may only choose each element once.

elements being ability boost, lore skill, skill feat.

Makes each background relevant on some level, maybe too versatile - as at this point just freely assigning the elements may be simpler.

I'm not sure adding more lore skills is a good plan - I think more broadly applicable lore skills would be better.

Overloading on skill feats straight out of the gate is also probably not a great idea.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It is an 80 mile journey to get to B1. The game indicates the average group will take 5 days. They also give you camels with a speed of 35' - I'm assuming that the average group will accept them.

35', according to page 316, is a daily travel rate of 28 miles. A critical failure on the survival check reduces your progress by 8 miles. 28-8 = 20 miles per day. By my maths that is an absolute maximum of 4 days if you crit fail every survival check.

How does the average group complete that section in 5 days?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
EberronHoward wrote:

But most of the treasure in TLS is held by the BBEG. There is roughly 4 magic items before you reach Drakus.

Also, I'll point out that even if you've used up your Resonance, you can still attempt to Overspend Resonance (starts out with a Flat DC 11 check, +1 to DC for each further attempt).

Most of the treasure is actually not held by the boss.

I did a better count and I under-estimated the number of items requiring resonance.
not sure this is required, but...:
It depends on which way round you go. If you go through the secret door after the goblins you access a large cache of items before you encounter Drakkus.
Drakkus actually only holds 2 items and there is only 1 other item past him - I didn't count any of those.

That leaves 13 other items that require resonance potentially available prior to reaching Drakkus.

Now there are lots of caveats involved including (but not limited too) whether you have the time to ID them, the right characters to use them, and their specific usefulness.

But it is possible to use a substantial number of resonance in this adventure despite being 1st level.


CalebTGordan wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:


2) There wasa clarification about Hardness / Dent

You should just apply the damage. If equals hardness they take 1 dent, if double hardness they take 2 dents

Was this a direct clarification on the shield block reaction?

Because if so, they need to change the wording in the reaction.

<> SHIELD BLOCK wrote:

Trigger: While you have your shield raised, you take damage from a physical attack.

You snap your shield into place to deflect a blow. Your shield prevents you from taking an amount of damage up to its Hardness—the shield takes this damage instead, possibly becoming dented or broken. See page 175 for rules on dented and broken items.

(bold is mine)

The RAW states clearly that the shield only takes damage up to its Hardness and not a point more. Thus a shield cannot take more than 1 dent when using the Shield Block reaction. If the intention is for the shield to take more damage and create the risk of 2 dents they need to reword the reaction.

(EDIT: Also note the rule says "possibly becoming dented or broken." It doesn't mention being destoryed.)

Also from Dented and Broken Items:

Broken wrote:
Broken is a condition that affects objects. A broken object can’t be used for its normal function, nor does it grant bonuses.

(bold is mine)

This means that you can't use the Raise a Shield action if the shield is broken, and thus cannot use the Shield Block reaction. This also means that taking the two bolded rules together you cannot break a shield by using the Raise Shield reaction.

This guy gets it - People seem to be conflating the general rules for damaging an object with the shield block rules. When using shield block the shield cannot take more damage than it's hardness, so can only ever get a maximum of one dent at a time (the rest of the damage goes to the shield wielder).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow! rose coloured bi-focals are on.

Most of your complaints do not appear to be really about the system at all - it's about the style/feel of game you want - and from what I've seen so far, that can be achieved as you get familiar with the system. I'll be honest it feels a bit strange to me, but anything new requires bedding in.

1000xp or 130 millionxp - it's the same number of encounters I'm not sure I get that, but it is amusing especially when it's often the "old school" types complaining about number inflation.

Different levelled characters within a party has never been a good idea and should be avoided if possible. It's a conscious step away from that paradigm. Your houserule solves the problem handily.

+2 to hit against AC 18 is not, and has never been fun. Even way back when you had a thaco of 20 and +2 to hit against AC2.

The xp system is far more flexible now. You can fine tune it to the kind of progression you want. 1000xp is too fast for you, change it to 1500xp or more. You can even change it on a level by level basis if you want (I'm not sure why you would, but you can - maybe you want to skip level 8 as it's a boring level make that one 500xp).

Since I've been playing encounters have been designed primarily around 1 big monster and for encounters to be largely discrete. I'm not sure much has changed - if you merged encounters together before, you still can.


graystone wrote:
Forgember wrote:
Some of the bulk stuff is just down right silly.
Some? ;( This potion, javelin and shield are all the same bulk and any four of those seem to fin in a belt pouch...
bulk on page 184 wrote:
This measures how heavy and cumbersome the item is to carry. Containers can hold the listed amount of bulk, but some items might not fit due to their dimensions.

1 to 50 of 3,947 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>