Ilarris Zeleshi

dragonhunterq's page

FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 3,817 posts (3,936 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 11 Organized Play characters. 5 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,817 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Bardarok wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

I want to be able to create a melee character that has high DEX, good CON, likely some good mental stats, an average or lower STR and that stays relevant and fun to play in actual PF2 combat, notably thanks to his high DEX

Note that this character should be able to significantly contribute to victory, ie not be all about defense at the expense of relevant offense

And this without being chained to a class or a weapon

I am open to all ways that allow for this kind of character

I am strongly opposed to anything that makes such a character impossible to create

And I feel that forbidding DEX to damage makes such a character completely irrelevant in melee combat

So you want to be able to dump Str with no conciquences and are strongly opposed to any game design that makes choosing between Dex and Str a meaningful choices. Probably just removing Str from the system will be your best bet. Just make atheltics and carrying capacity based on Con.

No I want to choose between the two and not have dex be significantly worse because ... reasons?

Dex to damage is not hard to achieve in PF, especially if you allow deadly agility from path of war, and dex to damage is still not optimal. It is however fun to build around.


Childeric, The Shatterer wrote:
Maxed out at level 6? Hell, most of my games don't even start til levels 3-5. I can't imagine never going higher than that, wow.

I know, right? 6th level is where things start to get interesting.

People are strange :)


MusicAddict wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:

So it's fine for a caster to go all in on e.g. wisdom and ignore intelligence, but a martial can't go all in on dex and ignore strength (or vice versa)?

Dex to damage should be a legitimate option without requiring some notional lip service to strength.

I oppose this, and would ask the developers to relax their general opposition to easily available dex to damage.

If it offends your sensibilities keep some parity between the stats in your own characters, don't spoil the fun for those of us who are not opposed to the idea.

Dex to damage is a cancer that reduces any concept that likes dex to the same exact array. There's no variety in dex to damage, no decision making, no choice. Every class/concept should have primary, and probably a secondary( this is proving true in 2e) if that second stat is that important... ( Which is pretty true of every caster so far). After that you should have a choice in your stats. If you should want more damage in martial combat and more carrying capacity? Go strength. You don't need more? Feel free to pick what you feel you need.

I want pathfinder second edition to run with 0 straight stat replacement options including dex to damage or alchemists int to resonance.

Yeah, I dislike immensely flat arrays. I like spikes and dips in ability scores. I don't want sensible, homogenous or realistic. I want fantastic. It's a preference.

I have never noticed easy dex to damage overtake strength builds in practice, it has not unbalanced the game anything close to the issues caused by any full caster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorignak227 wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:

So it's fine for a caster to go all in on e.g. wisdom and ignore intelligence, but a martial can't go all in on dex and ignore strength (or vice versa)?

Dex to damage should be a legitimate option without requiring some notional lip service to strength.

I oppose this, and would ask the developers to relax their general opposition to easily available dex to damage.

If it offends your sensibilities keep some parity between the stats in your own characters, don't spoil the fun for those of us who are not opposed to the idea.

What do you think is the right "level" for dex to damage?

Its one of the things people are always excited about and I'm curious what level would please most people.

No restrictions or require a feat/class feature investment?
Should you get dex to damage for ranged weapons like bows?
Should it only be restricted to finesse weapons or open to all weapons?

For me, it should be available for a single feat or equivalent class feature. primarily with finesse weapons, maybe a second feat required to open it up to other weapons. I accept it should require an investment - it shouldn't be free.

Less convinced with it being open to ranged weapons, but just because it doesn't make much sense to me doesn't mean it shouldn't be an option.


So it's fine for a caster to go all in on e.g. wisdom and ignore intelligence, but a martial can't go all in on dex and ignore strength (or vice versa)?

Dex to damage should be a legitimate option without requiring some notional lip service to strength.

I oppose this, and would ask the developers to relax their general opposition to easily available dex to damage.

If it offends your sensibilities keep some parity between the stats in your own characters, don't spoil the fun for those of us who are not opposed to the idea.


KingOfAnything wrote:
Crayon wrote:
While obviously easy to disregard, this mechanic seems like it was designed solely to be cumbersome and obnoxious - what purpose is it meant to serve?

reads thread

scrolls up to blog detailing many uses and benefits of mechanic

scrolls back down

Really?

I can see a player who never GMs not seeing any benefit and how it is just going to get in the way - it is, in many respects, a GM campaign management tool. There aren't many benefits outside of that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm curious about composition and how some people are reacting to it. I never associated it in particular with the scale of the work - it's simply a piece of music. I wonder if that impression of scale is regional or occupation based or specific to musicians, or whether it's just me?


I doubt there will be any explicit answer to any of these save number 1) which we will find out soon.

2) For the most part PCs are special because they are the focus of the story you are telling. I don't think there should be any restrictions on why any one or group of PCs are special. It could be any one of the reasons you mentioned and more to boot as the story requires.

3) as many, or as few, as you need for that character. Stories abound of people finding their feet after years of training and others that are gifted naturals - both are equally valid and again the rules should not limit either one.

4) I've never held to the belief that anyone can use magic. I don't believe the rules have specified that one way or the other, I doubt they will in PF2. The fact that not everyone picks up a level of a spellcasting class implies some restriction.

5) game balance - doesn't apply to NPCs though - you can have one who's power is bleeding out and infecting everyone around them, or one that can barely muster a single ability.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
Drewg wrote:
The word Occult has a sinister connotation. It evokes images of ouiji boards, summoning circles, sacrificial daggers, old relics, rituals, tombs, etc. Many of the Occult classes in 1e exemplified these themes well. Bards being Occult casters? It seems shoehorned in.
It bothers me too, fwiw. I'd have preferred "psychic" but I'm trying to remain open minded.

I, for one, don't get the "dark vibe" from occult as a term, but my exposure to the term has not been coloured by that sort of exposure - not a fan of horror films and the like.

I am liking the bard itself. Occult seems fitting (original definition something close to "knowledge of the hidden")

Buffs are hitting my watch list though. I hope to see more longer lasting buffs without the ongoing upkeep.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have not made secret my ... concerns ... about resonance, but it would be churlish not to give it a shakedown in the wild as it were.


Having read through all the opinions I think, as a player, I still prefer the certainty of a 2 step process "that's allowed" and "that's banned".

It's great for world building, not so great for limiting player options.


I have just started shattered star and intend to go straight into return of the runelords thereafter - based on the speed we went through rise of the runelords that's about 5 years of play right there.


For the bad guys in the open I would give them a sense motive or perception check vs the Rogues bluff or sleight of hand check (depending on how he tried to notify his allies) to see whether they get to act in the surprise round. If they fail they were too busy talking to notice suspicious activity by the rogue.

The rogue should definitely get to act in the surprise round whatever happens.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
A character should have just as much reason to be aware of an effect of a spell stuck in a runelords vault and an effect the player saw in a computer game - there is no difference - the character has no reason to be aware of either, but the player is aware of both - I see no reason to treat them differently just because one is published by Paizo and the other by SquareEnix.

So the way I envision this working is something like:

Player- I want to be able to cast a spell which does [X]
Me- Well, it's a lot easier to just adapt an existing spell, so let me look and see if one exists and get back to you.
[later]
Me- Well, I found this spell, but it's marked rare so it probably shouldn't be something you can learn by sitting at home with books. I will try to work it in somewhere so you at least encounter it so you can use it as a basis for your personal version.

Sounds fair :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Charon Onozuka wrote:
Sure someone else can come up with the idea, but that doesn't mean they can execute it as efficiently as Karzoug could. Imagine that a wizard tries to make Blood Money off of rumors they heard. They end up with a 3rd level spell that takes a full round to cast. It wastes too much magic and takes too long, making the spell effectively useless. Without some idea of how Karzoug managed efficiently weave the magic into such a quick casting, a wizard could easily need to be a legend in their own right before they could hope to mimic Karzoug's magic without any extra information on it.

All reasonable points, I don't take issue with any of them or any flavour based explanation. This is about independent research with no rumours/notes or anything - just saying that the character has an original idea.

Because there is a line between player knowledge and how your character comes by information. Saying that a character cannot research/create a unique spell that a player read in a PF book just because it is already published, but he can research/create a unique spell that the player saw in a computer game creates an artificial distinction that grates.

I guess the primary point is I prefer a hard ban to the artifice of rarity.

I don't get why, though. According to Charon's explanation, you'll probably be able to research a new spell doing a variation of the effects of Blood Money. Your GM will probably tell you, look, considering the circumstances, you won't be able to replicate the best current variant of this spell, but you can get something lesser, that you might still find useful, if you're so inclined. So it's up to you.

Why would you prefer a hard ban instead of choice?

Yeah - shouldn't have posted whilst dinner cooking - totally not my main point.

My main point I really want to make is that of drawing a distinction based on where the player draws their inspiration from. As per what I replied to way back when.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

So if a player has an idea for a spell they want to create and they have the chops to pull this off, we can work together to come up with the rules for the spell (per rules for this when they exist).

If a spell already exists in a book somewhere, and it's marked as "rare" I would require the character to have some idea that the spell actually exists and what it does before they can research it. Spells which have been sealed in some Runelord's vault for several thousand years are spells that a character has no reason to be aware of before cracking said vault.

A character should have just as much reason to be aware of an effect of a spell stuck in a runelords vault and an effect the player saw in a computer game - there is no difference - the character has no reason to be aware of either, but the player is aware of both - I see no reason to treat them differently just because one is published by Paizo and the other by SquareEnix.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon Onozuka wrote:
Sure someone else can come up with the idea, but that doesn't mean they can execute it as efficiently as Karzoug could. Imagine that a wizard tries to make Blood Money off of rumors they heard. They end up with a 3rd level spell that takes a full round to cast. It wastes too much magic and takes too long, making the spell effectively useless. Without some idea of how Karzoug managed efficiently weave the magic into such a quick casting, a wizard could easily need to be a legend in their own right before they could hope to mimic Karzoug's magic without any extra information on it.

All reasonable points, I don't take issue with any of them or any flavour based explanation. This is about independent research with no rumours/notes or anything - just saying that the character has an original idea.

Because there is a line between player knowledge and how your character comes by information. Saying that a character cannot research/create a unique spell that a player read in a PF book just because it is already published, but he can research/create a unique spell that the player saw in a computer game creates an artificial distinction that grates.

EDIT - removed a bad point made whilst hungry


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
If I have an idea then that can be treated as my character inspiration, but if I read it somewhere it can't? what about a spell I read about in another game? or an effect I see in a film? does my character have to justify that too?

Who's saying anything about character concepts? They're quite obviously not putting tags on those.

A spell you read about in another game? It has no tags at the moment, it doesn't exist. You'll have to talk about it with the GM, adapt it, and research it, same as always.

It really is mind-boggling how a lot of people are getting so hung-up with the basic concept that a katana can't be found at every single Wiscrani swordsmith's, or that Blood Money is just not a thing outside of Karzoug's personal spellbook, or that to take the Gray Maiden prestige archetype you must have been, big shocker, a friggin' Gray Maiden.

I think you misunderstand - I do not understand why a GM would treat a players request to research a spell differently based on where the player got the idea from - either you allow spell research or you don't and if you do you base the merits of the proposed spell on what it does, not on where the original idea for it came from.

I don't have a problem with a spell only existing in Karzougs spell book, but saying no-one else in the whole world can come up with a similar idea is, to me, ridiculous and metagamey.

I mean sure, say no because the spell is too powerful, or thematically inappropriate, or any of a dozen other legitimate reasons, but if you are allowing spell research I don't think you should just say no because it's already printed somewhere else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
edduardco wrote:

If it is not possible to research rare spells, does that mean that research and development is no longer allowed?

How those rare and unique spells came to be? Were they spontaneously generated somewhere? Or does it mean R&D is something that only NPCs can do because reasons?

So if a player has an idea for a spell they want to create and they have the chops to pull this off, we can work together to come up with the rules for the spell (per rules for this when they exist).

If a spell already exists in a book somewhere, and it's marked as "rare" I would require the character to have some idea that the spell actually exists and what it does before they can research it. Spells which have been sealed in some Runelord's vault for several thousand years are spells that a character has no reason to be aware of before cracking said vault.

If a player read about a rare spell in a book and wants it for their character, they can let me know and I will try to work it in somewhere. It's not fundamentally different from when the fighter says "I'm looking for magic fauchards".

So if a player has an idea for a spell they can research it, but if it is already printed they need to justify why they can research it?

If I have an idea then that can be treated as my character inspiration, but if I read it somewhere it can't? what about a spell I read about in another game? or an effect I see in a film? does my character have to justify that too?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Elorebaen wrote:
Patrick McGrath wrote:
This feels like a codification, possibly over-codification, of what is common sense / GM fiat. OK...I guess.
In a certain sense I think you are correct. But I look at the extensibility of this codification. In the years ahead we will see many books with many options, this codifications assists me as the GM, to more easily adjusdicate available options. In some cases I will scan all of the options, in other cases maybe just a certain category. Either way, it is, potentially, a huge time saver for me as the resident DM.

Not really much of a time saver, unless you are just going to say "no uncommon or rare items from the latest release" without actually reading what they are.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
gwynfrid wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
gwynfrid wrote:
This is one of those ideas that are unexciting at first glance, and, on second thought, seem so obviously necessary that the question becomes, why didn't we think of that ages ago? Which is another way of saying it's genius in its simplicity.

Personally I feel a decent number of us did something of varying degrees like this before, which is what puzzles me to see it actually formlized. Did this really need to be written down? I guess it did but eh, just weird to see.

A lot of the systems coming down the pipes are things I can't easily ignore or have to work hard to fix for my games. This? Meh. I don't see it having an impact on games I run.

You're saying this as an experienced GM. There's also a decent number of beginner GMs that don't have the time or expertise to do this organically. Even for me as a fairly seasoned GM, I find this mechanic very convenient as a shortcut for party creation, then leveling. Instead of listing a whole bunch of books that are accepted / banned in my game, I can just say, for example: You get unlimited access to Common options, and up to 2 Uncommon ones provided your backstory justifies them in some way; more will become available during the course of the campaign. This saves me quite a bit of work (and debate time, too, with certain types of players).

Most importantly, it's forward-looking: It covers not only the present books, but the ones that will be published during the course of the game.

I don't get this. In my games something is either available or it isn't. I will limit things according to theme far more often than how powerful they are (assuming that in general the more rare the item the more powerful it is).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am conflicted.
I feel I should like this more than I do.
I know some people disapprove of the practice, but there are also many who like to know where they are going mechanically and for them this will make planning characters more challenging.


Unicore wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:

Bless requiring concentration sounds ... limiting and unfun.

officially adding buffs to my list of concerns re: PF2 :(

I understand where this sentiment is coming from, but a +1 to hit is now very likely a +1 to critical threat range now, which makes bless a far more powerful spell that it use to be. There are many times where maintaining that will be much better than attacking, especially as a 3rd action.

I can understand the reasons for it with bless, but it definitely puts other buffs on my watch list. If all buffs work the same way ...

I like multiple buffs with many small bonuses affecting a wide range of relevant abilities. While some reduction is not necessarily a bad thing limiting stacking (which isn't confirmed, but hinted at) and limiting the amount of buffs you can have up is overkill from my perspective.


Bless requiring concentration sounds ... limiting and unfun.

officially adding buffs to my list of concerns re: PF2 :(


Nope. If it was flammable they'd point it out like they do in the Web spell.


ability text wrote:
This is an aging curse effect.

The curse descriptor is covered.

ability penalty wrote:
Some spells and abilities cause you to take an ability penalty for a limited amount of time. While in effect, these penalties function just like ability damage, but they cannot cause you to fall unconscious or die. In essence, penalties cannot decrease your ability score to less than 1.

It really does need a duration though. The text is inconsistent with it just being while the image shares a space with a creature.

If I were house-ruling it I'd probably be looking at something like 1 round/character level with a save (at the same DC to avoid it) at the end of every turn (with a caveat that I may change that when I see it in play). It feels about right for an ability coming on line when full casters are getting 7th level spells.


It's a magical disease of the body - it will not follow you when you possess another.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wultram wrote:

Well I am going to ignore the a%#%*$* living under a bridge, as to the rest I am not gonna go without using quotes as the posts are generally the same.

Yes PFS and ready made adventures are easier. You get what you put in. For some it may not be worth it to put the effort in, for that increase in quality considering the increase in time and effort.

That doesn't mean that it infact isn't better. Seriously something that is custom made to that set of players, that set of characters, those builds etc. Assuming same level of competence in the maker, something custom fitted well will simply fit better. And as such is the superior choice for those spesific people.

The other ways of playing are compromises, perfectly understandable ones, but still compromises. And those compromises are about outside factors, such as forming a group or time available.

Regarding economics, yeah I can certainly understand why paizo would cater to those people that in adtion to buying the rules are buying additional material. That just makes for a worse game imo.

As to why the hierarchy is true? Simple, each step can do what the previous step could and more.

This is objectively wrong.

A bad GM running a campaign they wrote themselves is just as miserable an experience as a bad GM running a PFS scenario. A good GM running a campaign they wrote themselves is just as much fun as a good GM running a PFS scenario.

The quality of the GM and your fellow players will always determine the quality of fun you have, not the quality of the written material.


Ssalarn wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:

Whilst I have minor concerns (extending that first level feeling trying to avoid front loading, multiclassing, the new economy) [...]

As someone who's played with 5 of the playtest classes so far (sorcerer, fighter, ranger, monk, and paladin) and GM'd for the rogue, paladin, fighter, alchemist, cleric and wizard, my personal experience is that PF2 does the opposite of extending the first level feeling; I think a first level PF2 character feels a lot closer to about a 3rd level PF1 character in terms of having things to do and feeling like you're playing the character you set out to play. Of course, you'll have to make your own decisions on that front, but no one I've talked to who's played the game has felt like the characters were stripped down, and generally people have felt that the opposite was true, that they're actually getting a better selection of meaningful options right out of the gate.

One of the biggest differences that gets overlooked, IME, is that while you don't have a bunch of racial traits adding small numeric bonuses, that's because this is a system that focuses on expanding capabilities over stacking small numbers to "beat" the game's math. You're also pulling more relevant abilities from a broader number of sources; many weapons offer an additional bonus or effect that will come up pretty regularly, your starting abilities have the additional vector of Backgrounds adding to your loadout, some classes, like the Fighter, got bumps to their number of skills known, etc.

That's good to know - I have never enjoyed AD&D/3/PF first 3 levels so that is promising on at least one front then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oops option b is almost certainly completely wrong. ignore it. option b) is scuppered by the durations text (which I didn't check).

durations wrote:
you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell.

on your new question:

holding the charge wrote:
If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates.

You lose the Touch of Darkness if you cast another spell.


Do you really have 6 people willing to be affected by Touch of Blindness?

Touch of Blindness is normally going to require an attack roll and therefore be a standard action - 1 target/round.

touch spells wrote:
Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch up to 6 willing targets as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell. If the spell allows you to touch targets over multiple rounds, touching 6 creatures is a full-round action.

If you have 6 willing targets you have two choices.

a) as part of the casting of the spell you can touch 6 willing targets, but all targets have to be part of that casting - you cannot add new targets so effectively lose all other uses.

b)cast the spell without targeting anyone and the next turn affect up to 6 targets as a full round action, and on the third+ turn you can repeat that until you run out of charges or targets.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

It is an integral part of the game and needs to stay.

I don't want a 5e experience from PF2, if I did, that's the game I'd play. It is too simple and too stripped back - too flat.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Well you don't need a holistic view of the system to try and take a more whole view of the system. You just need a holistic view of all the blogs (and various other bits like the banquet speech I suppose) rather than the one thing at a time approach. You still (as in it happened in the Sorc thread) have people making assumptions based on things that don't exist anymore, like BAB or check penalty to spells when judging a PF2 feature for example.

Unfortunately my concerns about resonance only heighten when I look at the bigger picture. Not only does it limit magic items and consumables, but also activates class abilities (in at least 1 instance) with no concrete information to mitigate those concerns.

Whilst I have minor concerns (extending that first level feeling trying to avoid front loading, multiclassing, the new economy) none of them hit quite so many triggers as resonance - it really does impact quite a substantial part of the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

mounted combat implies that the bat could take a single move action after the wizard has travelled full speed, but this is not covered explicitly by the rules.

mounted combat wrote:
...If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can't make a full attack.

If your mount (equivalent to the person carrying you?) moves more than 5' you can't take a full round equivalent action, but you can take a standard action.


pjrogers wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:
I for one find GMDLH's post reasonably interesting. I don't fully understand it, I think I get the gist of it, and I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but parts of it are seductively and tantalisingly evocative of...something that rings true. I like it. As an idea. About games.
I agree. If they stay focused on how they play without commenting on how others are play and work on making their explanations ... more accessible? ... there is definitely something interesting buried there.

And his comments are similar to some of my thoughts (though I wouldn't reject the word "game" to describe D&D/Pathfinder and most other RPGs). In a competitive game, rules and their fair implementation are critical.

In a RPG, rules are a means to the end of the collaborative creation and telling of story. If/when the rules get in the way of telling the story, then they can and should be adjusted, either in advance or on the fly. I know that in some circles, this is seen as "GM cheating," but to be honest, I see that phrase as a bit of an oxymoron.

I've been on the receiving end of far too many bad, unfair and/or arbitrary decisions to be quite as sanguine about the premise that rules should be cast aside when they are inconvenient. I have rarely (to the point that I can't recall a single instance) come across a situation where abandoning the rules would have assisted or improved role-playing.

Now lack of rules covering a situation and the need to improvise is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.


OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:
I for one find GMDLH's post reasonably interesting. I don't fully understand it, I think I get the gist of it, and I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but parts of it are seductively and tantalisingly evocative of...something that rings true. I like it. As an idea. About games.

I agree. If they stay focused on how they play without commenting on how others are play and work on making their explanations ... more accessible? ... there is definitely something interesting buried there.


GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
That {a game} is not what an rpg is, regardless of what we call it.
a dictionary wrote:


2.
an activity that one engages in for amusement.

I think RPGs are very much a game, the dictionary agrees with me. Many games are competative, but not all of them are. Doesn't make it any less a game.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Imagine if you had a jaguar and everyone called it a beetle. Woukdn't you get tired of that after a while? Especially if it impacted where you could go and what you coukd do?

If everyone is calling it a beetle, I'd be taking a long hard look at my own identification of that creature and my definition of it. If you are using a different definition to everyone else it's going to make life harder.

I don't think little of you. You are obviously smart and have given this a lot of thought (maybe too much). You know way more about game history and story structure than I do for example. My problem is that your apparent belief that there is a way the game was intended to be played and that the way you play the game is the right way comes across as contempt for the game as it is now and the people who play it ("lego" players doesn't come across as particularly respectful, nor that flavour is only there for unskilled GMS).


GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
...then drop this stupid pretense of a game.

Interesting point of view, also about as meaningless as most of your game theories.

One wonders why you are still here. Seriously, why waste your time with a game you obviously have no respect for, and telling people that the game they enjoy isn't a real game - all your going to do is alienate them.


Some more details/restrictions required, because as open-ended as that request is you just take a great wyrm time dragon, slap on all the templates you can, give it 20 levels of cleric (or other non-arcane full caster) and slap on the Kaiju subtype just for the hell of it. Add mythic ranks and/or 3pp to taste.


Having never played a PF1 sorceror, I'll be looking at this as an option to play. Very interesting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure 'sacred cow' is the right term here, when you are referring to gutting at least one style of play.

It's about much more than the wand of CLW and potions of healing. The 'cure' to a supposed 'problem' has knock on effects.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Considering all the things that have been said about multiclassing I am not hopeful - I'm really just hoping it isn't so unwieldy as to be unusable or so anaemic as to be be a complete waste of time and word count.

VMC-like would count as anaemic.
Callbacks to AD&D would count as unwieldy (apologies to The Mad Comrade).


8 people marked this as a favorite.
The Mad Comrade wrote:

Simplest solution is to increase the XP required per level of advancement.

Variations can include "Old Skewl" Multi-classing - HD are averaged, not best-of, for example. Limitations like these would not require as steep of an XP requirement. Say, +500 XP per level per additional class.

If a 3e gestalt style of multi-classing is done, the XP cost is either per-each class level advanced simultaneously e.g. 1,000 xp per character level multiplied by the number of classes, or the cost is slightly reduced to, say, +750 XP per level per class after the first.

Adventures/modules/chapters/[insert nomenclature here] as a result are for "Characters that have earned X XP" rather than # level.

By the current PF2 playtest rules, a character that has earned 4,000 XP is 4th level.
A character with averaged-HD multi-classing in 2 classes having earned 4,000 XP is 3rd level part of the way to 4th (1,500 XP twice adds +2 levels). A gestalt character with 2 classes having earned 4,000 XP is just barely 3rd level (2,000 XP earned twice for 3rd level), or is part of the way to 4th (1,750 XP earned twice is still 3rd level with 500 XP left over towards 4th).

An AD&D fighter-wizard-rogue using gestalt advancement pays 2,500 XP per character level instead of 1,000 XP per character level (or 3,000 XP per character level). An AD&D fighter-wizard-rogue using multi-classing advancement pays 2,000 XP per character level instead of 1,000 XP per character level.

you have a very novel definition of "simplest" for solutions :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Its unintended because I don't think the designers meant for all your healing to be done by a 1st level wand. If they had why would they be changing it so you couldn't? Why even have a cure mod wand?

If it was unintended why haven't they fixed it before now - between 3.x and PF they've had 15 years to do something about it - or are they just a little slow off the mark?


Both abilities would be in effect so you'd do 150% damage that the target is immune too.


Dajur wrote:
Kristal Moonhand wrote:
Also, Dajur, that is a poor understanding of how touch spells work. Shocking Grasp is also instantaneous and it definitely can be held.
You indeed can hold the charge of a touch attack. In this particular case, at least according to the text of the spell, I don't think it counts as a touch attack, and therefore can't be held.

It is a touch spell if used on a natural or unarmed attack, but not if used on a melee weapon.

range of spell wrote:
touch or reach of melee weapon


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:


I admit, Resonance has some weirdness to it, and it's not perfect, but it certainly beats the pants off of dealing with even 1 Batman Wizard at the table.

For you...that's the important bit you keep forgetting in your own little melodramatic outburst right there.

I don't have a problem with batman wizards, or wands of CLW - and while this blog is about potions the reality is it cuts down hard on all consumable use - it will dramatically restrict the style of game I enjoy - call that melodramatic if you wish, but it is an indisputable fact - I will not be able to play the same style of game I do now with resonance in effect. whether the rest of the rules make up for that lack remains to be seen.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gavmania wrote:
graystone wrote:
There is a HUGE difference in what I said and 'dumping it'. The dwarf literally just didn't advance their starting score: they didn't lower it so how can it be a 'dump'? How do you 'tank' something you don't touch? For me, I'm bothered by people viewing not focusing on a stat dumping/tanking it. IMO, it doesn't seem odd in the least for a 2nd level dwarf fighter to not advance Cha.

That's just semantics, or would you argue that an elf with 8 con or a gnome with 8 strength didn't "dump" that stat? Call it " failing to invest " if you like, it still amounts to the same thing. In pf1, you could get away with low cha, in pf2 you can't. It's that simple.

"graystone" wrote:

Secondly, it's not an equivalent situation: The low strength guy still makes attacks and hits and damages things without wasting magic items. A low con guy doesn't destroy random potions when he takes a hit. So IMO, the "consequences" aren't equivalent ones.

The low Con guy gets killed, or are you arguing that's preferable to wasting a consumable? Either way the solution is simple: don't have 8 cha. You wouldn't make a character with 8 con, you probably wouldn't make a martial with 8 strength (unless you were going finesse/agility), now you don't make a character with 8 cha.

I wouldn't make a martial with 8 strength, but I would make a full caster with 8 strength, in PF1 the only stat you really shouldn't uh...'fail to invest in' is con really. One absolutely necessary stat. PF2 either makes that 2 or makes con less necessary and it's still 1 - I'm not sure that's a good thing.

And generally if you required a high ability score for your class you rarely get much of an incidental peripheral boost (wizards and skill points being an arguable exception - and the reason behind that con casting archetype was errata'd away maybe). Making such a potentially potent mechanic be an incidental benefit for charisma based characters is another worrying aspect to me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

I love how the idea that we should actually, you know, WAIT and TEST the system is somehow so abhorrent to some of you guys you'll take it as me saying you're having "badwrongfun."

Would a compromise along the lines of "Consumables with instantaneous effects do not require RP investment" work for you guys?

For example, a potion of Heal, instantaneous, anyone can benefit, however a potion of Mage Armor, Energy Resistance, True Strike etc requires you to spend 1 RP

Two things need highlighting here.

A) Until I playtest it I don't know whether a compromise is even needed. It is still possible for resonance to blow me away when I actually use it. I don't think most of the people against the concept of resonance have said they won't be testing it - I certainly haven't.

B) I'm not looking for an answer or compromise to resonance. Resonance at it's heart is designed to answer a problem I don't have. It is unnecessary, and adding further complications at this stage just makes it more unwieldy and ugly looking.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Lets be honest I don't think min/maxing is the reason anyone opposes resonance. I'm an optimiser, I optimise in PF1, I've optimised in Vampire, Traveller, Shadowrun and every other game I have played and I will optimise in PF2.

It's much more about maintaining a playstyle - there aren't many games structured like PF1 , it has a pretty distinctive 'feel' and the way magic items work is a central part of that. I am not aware of another system where I can be tricked out in magic items by level 6-8 and I love that, I don't want that aspect to materially change.


Kimera757's probably as close to the only RAW I'm aware of. Probably breaks after 2 increases though.(Although I do think it should get the bonus HP as it does actually increase in size, and the construct bonus HP are based on size with no real qualifications - I can't think of a good reason why it wouldn't)

Cr is not an exact science, one option though is to create your monster, making the adjustments for size and then compare it to the monster statistics by CR maybe add a bit for the increased reach?

1 to 50 of 3,817 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>