Ilarris Zeleshi

dragonhunterq's page

FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 3,366 posts (3,482 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 11 Organized Play characters. 5 aliases.


1 to 50 of 3,366 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Your Phantoms hp are off slightly.
It's 5.5/level rounded down (but not lost). And if you have 6 Hd you should be adding 6 for toughness which brings us to 50hp. If your phantom only has 5 hd then it's 5(5.5+2)+5=42hp.

The AC bonuses stack.

I've been using stripped down NPCs for years when I need to - Scribble down the numbers I reckon I'll need and look close enough to what I want. It saves a ton of time. If they become more relevant I can flesh them out. Players never see the numbers so a little massaging and it's all good if they later become a PC (which has never happened - most players IME want to play their own creations not a hand-me-down).
This just formalises the process a little - which is good if you aren't an old fart like me...

Hythlodeus wrote:

well, to be fair, try to swing a Katana like a European sword of about the same size, use the same fighting technique and it won't do you any good. And vice versa actually. I had training in the past with both types of swords and it DOES make sense that they are treated differently. Granted, that was a long time ago, in my early 20s, but I still remember how different those techniques were.

Now give a pseudo-European Fighter with no experience with Katanas one of those and he will probably treat it like any other sword he encountered. Which is inefficient and does not make sense. But give him training on how to wield the Katana, a proficiency if you will, due to the exotic fighting style, and he might know what to do with it.

But then by that logic you need to make every longsword exotic to eastern folks and that particular rabbit hole is going to get messy real fast.

I tend to agree with the OP, but it's also somewhat counterintuitive as to me those weapons are (mostly) inherently exotic to my admittedly euro-centric world view.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:

Come on, man. It's been explained that the skill check is not the defining metric of how good you are. It is really just a determination of how seldomly you fail. Skills are gonna be a lot more than just that number. It's gonna be proficiency and skill feats and whatever.

This thread is starting to argue in circles because people are refusing to acknowledge anything EXCEPT the numbers being the indication of skill.

I'm not comparing it to the other PCs in the party who have skill feats. I 100% understand that a PC who specialized in a skill will have much more ability to use it compared to the untrained people in their party because of ability scores, items, class features, and skill feats.

This doesn't change that the massive bonuses provided by proficiency specifically make you at-the-top of the world in regards to the basics of every single skill (see Mark's examples with the cookies, where the high level character will be much much better at making standard cookies than a low/mid level master of culinary arts, but the master cook will be able to make up non-basic dishes that the untrained character cannot attempt to replicate).

The rules for jumping for example will be one which needs to be severely changed in regards to DCs, considering jumping is a basic thing that anyone can do that you don't require training to accomplish.

Nothing I say will change your mind, but I for one am looking forward to characters being good at a broader range of things, to parties being able to attempt scenarios in ways that don't involve combat because Job didn't put a rank in disguise (or whatever).

And I'm saying that as someone who, 'til now, has enjoyed hyper- specialising in a skill so that I can take 1 and succeed at a DC 40 skill checks at level 10.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Like I said the real problem with CLW is that it gets you to Max hp between every single combat. Encounters are not designed with PCs being at full hit points every fight.

Aren't they? I've seen this mentioned a few times now, but the only rules I see on the matter are an encounter of Y level should force the party to use X% of daily resources. I can't find any encounter design rules that hints or suggests the party should be entering combat at less than (or close to) full health.

You never know when you will hit a major encounter, not healing up after an encounter (or retreating if unable to do so) is a recipe for disaster unless the GM is going to pull punches.

I have GM'd for more player deaths from a player forgetting to heal after a fight than any other single cause (except my own mistakes -

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Voss wrote:
Because D&D/PF combat is largely an exercise in statistical outcomes, PCs don't behave like characters in books or movies, and that offends some people. But against a reasonable CR encounter, the party *will* get wounded and *will* need healing. Every time, multiple times a day, and wands are the most effective way of dealing that statistical fact.
The party will likely be wounded, yes, but perhaps not life-threateningly so. And the healing needed can be provided by things like actually casting cure spells, or channeling energy, or whatever other limited resources are available.

The presence of healing items is largely because clerics, who had all these cool spells, couldn't cast them because they were always converted into healing spells. It made the game very unsatisfying to play a cleric or other healing class when you were pigeonholed like that/cut off from fully utilising one of your major class features.

And I'll echo Angel Hunter D. when you give players plot immunity to injuries, then you can do away with convenient healing. This isn't a story and the authors aren't fully in control of how hurt characters get, the dice are. At it's heart it's a game used to tell a story, but you need to make allowances for the game part.

And whether that healing is CLW spam or some other mechanism won't change your underlying narrative (it takes 30 seconds in game to say "I use 5 charges and heal 23 hp", it doesn't have to be particularly intrusive unless you make it so).

In short if you remove CLW spam either insulate your players from some of the damage they should be taking or give them access to some other form of healing (which may or may not make any more sense than CLW spam) or 'encourage' someone to play a healbot.

faeriegodfather wrote:
AD&D Kits and Player's Option were better. Fourth Edition's Feat, Paragon, and Hybrid multiclassing were better

Having played with both of those - nope! or more to the point you may have preferred their implementation, that doesn't make them better. If they were objectively better then I wouldn't hate them so much I wouldn't touch either with the proverbial 11' pole.

I am not seeing anything that would cause the power to fade before the duration expires, could you break down your concern for me?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
FangDragon wrote:
I understand some folks dip to build a character concepts not supported by the existing classes / archetypes. I don't have a problem with this. but I've never actually seen anyone do it (not even for an oradin). On the other hand I have seen dips used for powergaming reasons to make something thats rather strong for its level, I intently dislike that.

Again your powergaming is someone else's normal and a third persons 'awww, that's cute'.

One of the flexibilities of PF is that it can adapt to different power levels, it just needs the GM to set appropriate limits. It is a lot easier to say "you can't use this" than it is to create something new. So I really don't want to see too many hard limits on a new system.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Romanowski wrote:

Since "class" is akin to "profession", and your character probably spent the last five years learning how to be a level 1 X, you need to simulate the dedicated training time before taking a level in a different class. Perhaps require character to take three levels in Commoner before they can take a level in another PC class?

I think it is very "unrealistic" to be able to take a level in a different class after a couple weeks adventuring, and suddenly get the same abilities as someone who has been training for it since a child.

That is not a universally held view of class.

To me most classes don't define what you are, it just describes it mechanically.

And I have done the 'start as a commoner' game - it wasn't fun.

The problem is I'm seeing a lot of suggestions flying around that if adopted would suck a lot of fun out of the game for me.

Bloodrealms fear of what the new skills will do to the game is a perfect example - to me they sound awesome and fun, if anything I'm hoping the cool ones aren't all gated to too high a level.

I don't want to tell these other people they can't play the kind of games they want, but I also don't want to lose the things I enjoy.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
ubiquitous wrote:

It's not an interesting choice: you CLW Wand spam because it's the most resource-efficient way of healing between encounters. There's no reason to go into the next fight with less than maximum health when healing is such a minimal cost.

Healing between encounters should consist of interesting decisions, or the time-consuming 1d8+1 roll spam and marking off of charges should be removed for a more efficient system.

You mean like resting for 8 hours because the cleric's spells are now all gone. That is a real interesting decision.

No, the "interesting decisions" involve the PCs figuring out how to avoid being wounded to within an inch of their lives in the first place. How to succeed even though they're gravely wounded. How to grit their teeth and carry the day even if they're doing it with buckets of blood trailing behind every footstep.

CLW wand spamming feels to me like taking a great deal of the heroism out of our adventures. Heroism is overcoming adversity to seize the day, while constantly filling your tank to "full" seems to be sidestepping adversity.

I'm aware that many folks on these forums don't feel the same way, and would (will) be mightily peeved if/when CLW wand spamming is no longer an available solution to their hit point blues. It will mean adapting to a different playstyle - the horror! <g>

Why should anyone have to adapt to a different playstyle to the one they obviously enjoy?

17 people marked this as a favorite.

Or, you know, don't stop the one level class dip.

Some of us like the fact that you can tweak your characters with little perks, gain a little edge or fulfill a concept that can't easily be done with a single class.

Calling it min/maxing like it's a bad thing isn't going to change the fact that we enjoy that. It's an integral part of the fun of the flexibility of pathfinder as opposed to a more generic game. If it's not for you, you can just not do it.

I'd rather they made multiclassing more attractive for casters than deny it to everyone.

enhanced mind blade wrote:
If this would reduce the enhancement bonus on the mind blades to 0 and weapon special abilities are applied, the soulknife must reshape her mind blade to make the options valid.

Your mindblade follows all the normal rules of magic weapons. So it needs to have a +1 enhancement before you can add special qualities.

Also bear in mind that many enchantment abilities do not stack. For example, having keen on a weapon twice does not further increase the threat range, only one applies.
while some people believe you can add shock and it equivalents multiple times, some don't so it is wise to check with your GM.


augments wrote:

1) if you spend 2 additional power points, the ability damage you suffer to increase another score is delayed until the power fades.

2) If you spend 4 additional power points, the power’s duration increases to 1 minute/level (D).
3) If you spend 6 additional power points, the ability damage you suffer to increase another score fades when the power’s duration expires.

Can you spend 8 points on augments 1 and 3 to effectively negate the ability damage?

I suspect not due to timing. Augment 3 would trigger first and try to remove the damage before the delayed damage from augment 1 actually kicks in, but I thought a double check might be worth it.

Exemplar Brawler: Inspiring front liner. I am awaiting the fighter archetype that can bard (or I've missed it and it should be on this list). Not one of the core 11, but consider this a sub for the fighter.

Drill Sergeant (Fighter): teamwork feats! (I'm un-apologetically a fan)

Skirmisher (ranger): Sometimes you want a ranger without spells, also moves a bit of the focus back to the animal companion, which is never a bad thing (Make boon companion core if the rangers AC is still hindered /aside).

Master of Many Styles (monk): Bruce Lee - adapt and use different fighting styles, seamlessly melded!

Planar Sneak (Rogue): I wish it also had more ways to mitigate hostile environments/survive on the planes beyond the save vs effects and/or move between the planes.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like this, but then I think a 14 int human rogue has too few skill ranks, so I may be biased!

I am seeing a lot of posts that want to change some of the default assumptions of PF1 - things like easy access to magic, wand use and out of combat healing, the accumulation of multiple small bonuses, and so on - these all give the game a distinctive feel - one that I actually like.

I hope that PF2 has enough flexibility and the guidelines to handle a game that matches what I'm looking for and the things that someone looking for a different feeling game is seeking.

Will PF handle the transition from low to high magic? Heroic fantasy to grim and gritty?

Should it have that kind of flexibility?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Classes defining roles was already critically wounded in 2000 with the release of 3E.

Its about time we burried it out back.

Nope. I like defined roles and classes. I really do not like suggestions to gut a key element of what makes this game this game and not some other game. If I want a classless system there are dozens out there that will fill that role just fine.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I do not understand why on earth people try to change a fundamental, even defining part of a game with a feature that is freely available in other games.

Defined classes is one of the things I like about Ad&D/3.x. Take that away and it is no longer AD&D/3.x.
Keep your grubby mitts off...

5 people marked this as a favorite.

To be fair this has the hallmarks of the most extreme version of a thing that they indicated they were going to put out there when they had several options.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

HIstorically accurate for Golarion? or the world of Dragon Age?

There is little to no gain for most of the intended audience, ultimately it really doesn't make the game any better, and as I've said before, near as I can tell even the experts can't always agree on terminology for the most part so why hold a game to a higher standard?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
graystone wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Let's all just take a breath here before things get too heated.

Rabble! rabble! rabble! rabble!

At least the pitchforks and torches aren't out yet. ;)

Looks up from sharpening his pitchfork.

conceals tindertwig and torch behind back

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Resonance is going to have to be absolutely amazing in the playtest, because the more I think about it, the worse it sounds. I don't have an issu with the big 6, nor with spamming CLW. This is potentially a deal breaker for me.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
eldrwyrm wrote:
trying to catch up after being away for 20 hours. Where is Resonance being defined?

2nd post edit 4

Chess Pwn wrote:
One thing is flying combat. Like it's hard to know if my bow can shoot in the first range increment or not all the time.

Quick and nasty way to work out range from different elevations that I use is take the longer of height and distance and add half the shorter. It's not going to be right, but it's close enough for a TTRPG.

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I have issues with resonance. It feels forced. I don't really like the idea that only the charming adventure - it will need to be very carefully managed such that you don't suddenly need to max charisma at the expense of your primary stat(s). It limits the number of trinkets you can attune if you wanted a number of small cheap magic items rather than 2-4 big ones. By about level 10 or so I want to light up like a x-mas tree!

I will give it a fair shake, but on first blush I don't like the concept at all.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Resonance feels like more than a little forced way to make CHA relevant. I hope resonance isn't so powerful or limiting a mechanic that suddenly only the suave and charming adventure.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Biztak wrote:
Cylerist wrote:
Luv9rove wrote:
I like Starfinder's ability increase system and I am glad it is being brought into Pathfinder.

I am on the opposite side of the fence. I like the ability score boosting items makes pc's think of what magic items to wear.

I like magic enchanting mostly normal people - I don't want people to be so OP they don't need magic to raise above the norm.

Just my view of "magical fantasy"

I'd rather be able to choose an item that I think is cool than be forced to pick an item like Ring of Protection so that I can survive combat. If making characters progress on their own eliminates the need of choosing optimal items and allows for the chance to pick inventive and thematic choices without sacrificing my combat capabilities then, to me, that is a great thing.

Am I the only cynic who reckons if you get rid of the need for the big 6 then it won't be long before the replacements are decided upon whatever they may be and we are right back to people complaining about the new 'big 4' that everyone has to have.

I l know I'm not alone in hoping these suggestions aren't adopted. There are many of us for whom part of the pleasure of the game is finding and using these sometimes funky, sometimes powerful, combos. I want multi passing to be viable.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leyren wrote:
The True Monk wrote:
I'm on board with everything except the 1000 XP for every level. The three advancement tracks were great for choosing how fast a GM wanted their group to level up, and I'm sad to see that go. The system could be altered without abandoning it entirely, and I fear this new system could be restrictive for homebrew games that don't have a premade dosage of encounters pre-balanced to have PCs level up after a set number of challenges. It sounds like the Starfinder Society's "1 xp per adventure, 3 xp gives you a level up", but not all gamers like that.
The 1000xp rule is so good because your issues can be resolved with one sentence, e.g. "if you want your players to level faster, they gain a level at 800 xp. if you want them to level slower, they gain a level at 1,250xp instead of 1,000xp."

i would be very surprised if there wasn't a variable xp track system in the final product, but I would be equally surprised to see it in the playtest.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
Why is this a problem that needs to be solved?
Because powergaming and munchkining are bad.

except that you know your munchkin is my standard and a third persons 'so weak, I wouldn't even bother'. I enjoy the mechanical aspect of the game the little tweaks and uplifts to make a synergistic whole greater than its parts.

I guess I am having badwrongfun again!

Neo2151 wrote:
graystone wrote:
No... We're playing a fantasy game, not a medieval simulation written for history professors.
Realism is an important part of the game though. There's a reason that Human characters don't have a Fly speed or can't breathe underwater. ;)

There is a difference between flying amphibious humans and what you are asking for - your minutiae that really has no significant impact - I certainly don't care about the nomenclature, and near as I can tell those that do care can't always agree anyway )or at least there are contradictory expert sources).

And illusion and enchantment are dramatically different in theme, I for one am not seeing the parallel.

AlicornSage, describing your actions and assigning a skill check to it after is play style, the rules have little to no impact on that. You only have a problem if your players don't share your play style.

It's a spiritual taboo, it doesn't need to make rational sense.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Dαedαlus wrote:

So then, are all feats gained through class advancement then? Or are there still the independent spots for general feats that P1e has?

General feats are also listed in the class advancement chart for your ease of reference just so you don't have to flip back and forth between two places.

As long as it's clear that it is repeated. You know you will get people claiming they get two general feats...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:
Phantasmist wrote:
Is it just me or is naming everything feats confusing anybody else?
I agree as well. They should be renamed to talents!

Because naming everything talents would be less confusing? or alternatively giving these functionally identical abilities different names would be less confusing?

It doesn't seem that confusing, and the alternatives look at best the same if not worse on the face of it.

Interesting! I am looking forward to seeing what martials gain instead of spells.

Take 10 wrote:
Removal of the Take 10 rule.

Nope, nothing wrong with take 10 as long as you accept the GM has right of veto.

As near as I can tell your shield doesn't take damage, but every time you shield block your shield is 'dented'. So many 'dents' and your shield is broken (maybe).

Tallow wrote:
bookrat wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Aside, it was never a flat %. The old SR was Vs a level 11 caster, and you added or subtracted 5% for each level you were from that. /Obscure ancient rule
Was that a 1e rule? I don't see it in my 2e PHB or DMG (I could be just missing it, though).
They are referring to 1st Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. I think 2nd Edition also had the percentage, but I don't recall, its been nearly 20 years.

yep, it was only in 1ead&d I did have to double check ... 2e had a flat%, but I don't recall any 100% or better MR on creatures in 2e (it's been many years though, so not going to swear to that :)).

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Aside, it was never a flat %. The old SR was Vs a level 11 caster, and you added or subtracted 5% for each level you were from that. /Obscure ancient rule

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Coherent weight/cost rules for special materials at all sizes. Actually all the rules that affect size should be coherent and complete. Don't assume PCs are always small/medium, or that the GM won't want that information.

OK! I missed that bit. That seems pretty clear. I suppose technically they don't get cantrips, but they do get an unnamed equivalent that works in exactly the same way.

Why would they get cantrips? What is the argument for them gaining cantrips?
Not only is it not a class feature, the bloodrager - which their casting is primarily based on - does not get cantrips.

Even if you can do a reasonable facsimilie with archeypes, I'd still like to see the hunter and inquisitor (and the requisite teamwork feats :)). Also the investigator, the warpriest and the kineticist. Beyond that I'd rather see something new before any other classes redux.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Switch to hex grids so we can ditch the 5-10-5-10 diagonals
Please no.

Seconded - hex grids come with their own baggage. They are not an instant fix.

I imagine this is one of those things that will depend on what you are more used to though :)

Zhayne wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
If you change the canon then they aren't the same Golarion goblins we are familiar with.

Well, yes, that would be the point. The only canon that matters is the canon the GM and his players create.

Let me expressly clarify something that I think might not be well known, in regards to my personal position ...

I don't give two squirts of skunk musk about Society Play or Golarion. I don't find the setting that interesting. I've never used it as a GM. Ideally, to me, the book would be as setting-neutral as possible.

I think your perspective kind of means you don't get the point I and others are making.

What you say is perfectly correct, and changing a races background is one of the easier changes you can make. Paizo however has created a specific character for their signature creature. That character has been well developed and well established. While many hate them, they do have a huge fan base. It will be interesting to see how Paizo establish goblins as a PC viable race and stay true to their own canon - I can't see how they can, but that's why they are in that job and I'm not

3 people marked this as a favorite.

That's a given Zhayne. It's not about creating your own family friendly goblins though. This is a discussion specifically about Golarions goblins.

And sure playing against type is fun, but then so is playing the archetype and with the current canon that is next to impossible outside of 'we be goblins' type set up.

If you change the canon then they aren't the same Golarion goblins we are familiar with.

Eschew Materials basically means you don't need a spell component pouch - it's a little underwhelming (unless you get it for free) until your pouch gets sundered!

1 to 50 of 3,366 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>