Waldgeist

mach1.9pants's page

RPG Superstar 6 Season Star Voter. Organized Play Member. 1,101 posts (1,208 including aliases). 5 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd be sad, it's something that is very 3E/PF, it makes sense too. Making some sense from DnD's weird AC system.

Grand Lodge

Same here, I'm in NZ and is cost me maybe twenty US more, but I don't trust Amazon for this sort of thing.

Grand Lodge

Tangent101 wrote:


And yet here we are playing Pathfinder, not AD&D. ;)

Just because something is "the way it's always been" doesn't mean that has to STILL be the case. Paladins now no longer require a 17 Charisma minimum. If memory serves me correct, Rangers are no longer limited to Neutral alignments. Advanced Dungeons and Dragons became just plain old Dungeons and Dragons. ^_^

Mr. Gygax felt it was too late to change things. But he was also talking several significant changes. Also, he is wrong about "not as confusing as it may now seem" - because ALL of my players have had issues with this. Some of them are quite intelligent. One manages to frequently mess up my evil GMing plans with spell use that I didn't anticipate. And hey, what Mr. Gygax wrote in AD&D isn't canon - if it were, we'd still be playing AD&D. :)...

I don't disagree with changing it, as I have DnD for DnD - I'm just saying I can;t see it changing, thus my 'good luck'

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Xunal wrote:

Does sound like an interesting change in game mechanics.

I like the idea that spells get better as your caster level increases.
Sounds a lot better than cantrips being little tiddlers no matter how powerful the spell caster is.

I take it that there will still be the basic difference between INT based wizards and CHA based sorcerers?
(i.e. books and versatility vs. a limited selection of spells that are ingrained)

"AD&D 1st Edition Player's Handbook" wrote:
It was initially contemplated to term character power as rank, spell complexity was to be termed power, and monster strength was to be termed as order. Thus, instead of a 9th level character encountering a 7th level monster on the 8th dungeon level and attacking it with a 4th level spell, the terminology would have been: A 9th rank character encountered a 7th order monster on the 8th (dungeon) level and attacked it with a 4th power spell. However, because of existing usage, level is retained throughout with all four meanings, and it is not as confusing as it may now seem.

Gary Gygax thought it was too late to change in 1978, good luck with getting it changed forty years later! :-)

Grand Lodge

I think you'll find that Amazon have sold all their standard Hardcovers and only have, Deluxe and soft cover atm. It's the same on the .com site. That could change tho.

EDIT: Misread, sorry! On .com it only shows soft and deluxe, maybe .uk is out of softcover allocation and .com hardcover? Basically I don;t know. I do know that some limited pre-orders from Amazon have been disappointed in the past, but hopefully Amazon have sorted those issues.

Grand Lodge

thorin001 wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Honestly, I kind of lean toward the simplification that 5e did, by simply specifying saves by ability score only (no more Reflex, Fortitude, or Will). That could be combined with the PF2e proficiency system to grant grant the -2, 0, +1, +2, +3 and level to the actual save roll. Makes the save system work like all the other systems in the game, and enables a bit more varied effect designs with 6 save options instead of 3.

5th ed only thinks they got away from Fort/Ref/Will saves. Con, Dex, and Wis saves are still far, far more common than Str, Int and Cha saves.

Yeah those other saves very rarely come up. I'm not sure but if the difference between what is a good save for your class and a bad save is closer than PF1 going 4e style won't be necessary I think. If there is still a huge gap then sure

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems PF2 is very much trying to cut down on the number of terms you need to know. Getting rid of lots of class features etc calling them all feats. Bye to different action types, they're just actions. And anything that is a magical power is a spell.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mbertorch wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:

I think they're saying Int Cha for gnomes and Dex Int for goblins, yeah.

Int Cha would actually be okay for Golarion Gnomes. It would move them fully away from the "reskinned Dwarf" space, and emphasize both their inherent curiosity and their extroversion. And it would mean we wouldn't have so many races with +Dex and could get more than just elves with +Int.

Hmmm... That'd be interesting, but I'm working off the assumption that they want to keep it one mental bonus, one physical.

EDIT: also, gnomes were not a + dex race.

I hope that the designers don't restrict themselves to arbitrary rules like one physical one mental bonus for the sake of symmetry. It opens up a much larger design space if you can go for any two that seem right. With the other floating bonus, you can cover what you want on an individual basis. Although I guess having three mental bonuses is not great for any class with the way spells etc work, but three physical makes that race default for basic warrior types. So maybe no two physical bonus races? Dunno.

Grand Lodge

I wonder if arcane spell failure for armour is still in?

Grand Lodge

TOZ wrote:
How many more times will incantations be linked in this thread? Find out next time! :D

To prove my old school credentials shall I start linking ritual rules that were available in TSR era rules? They've been around for a long time, just not in core rules and available to all classes - 4E was the first mainstream 'DnD family' game for that.

Grand Lodge

Mark Seifter wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Kiln Norn wrote:
So my only real concern here is with Heal. Define willing creature? If my friend is unconscious is he willing?

In 3.X an unconscious target is always willing.

I doubt that is changing in pf2

We are changing that because it's potentially really creepy, particularly worded that way.

Very good point

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Just for those who want reference, this is how the 1 or 2 action version of the heal spell scales:

Lvl 01: 1d8+
Lvl 02: 3d8+
Lvl 03: 5d8+
Lvl 04: 7d8+
Lvl 05: 9d8+
Lvl 06: 11d8+
Lvl 07: 13d8+
Lvl 08: 15d8+
Lvl 09: 17d8+
Lvl 10: 19d8+

The 3 action version:

Lvl 01: 0d8+
Lvl 02: 1d8+
Lvl 03: 2d8+
Lvl 04: 3d8+
Lvl 05: 4d8+
Lvl 06: 5d8+
Lvl 07: 6d8+
Lvl 08: 7d8+
Lvl 09: 8d8+
Lvl 10: 9d8+

Those are the healing numbers, and damage numbers for the three action versus undead, there is also these numbers for damage

1 or 2 action damage versus undead
Lvl 01: 1d8+
Lvl 02: 2d8+
Lvl 03: 3d8+
Lvl 04: 4d8+
Lvl 05: 5d8+
Lvl 06: 6d8+
Lvl 07: 7d8+
Lvl 08: 8d8+
Lvl 09: 9d8+
Lvl 10: 10d8+

Grand Lodge

james014Aura wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
james014Aura wrote:
Heal spell question: If we heighten it and use the the 3-action version, did we just waste a high-level effect? Or does heighten override the reduction to just casting modifier?
Heighten modifications are applied to whatever the spell did before.
I'm sorry; I don't think I understand that entirely. Does that mean a 2nd level area heal would be 1d8+casting modifier?

the first level, three action radius heal does modifier healing /damage. When you heighten the level it says you add 1d8 to that per heightened level. Think of the first level radius version doing 0d8+ mod if you like

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Heal spell looks complex and confusing, so much so the Blog writer got it wrong as far as I can tell.

"Heightened (+1) Increase the amount of healing or damage by 1d8, or by 2d8 if you're using the one- or two-action version to heal the living."

So if healing using the radius 3 action version OR doing damage add 1d8, if you are healing using the touch or ranged (1, 2 action) then add another 2d8

This gives these variations as a level 2 spell
Touch heal 3d8+mod, 1 action
Touch attack 2d8+mod, 1 action, required touch attack success
Ranged heal 3d8+mod, 2 actions
Ranged attack 2d8+mod, 2 actions, save half
Radius heal or attack 1d8+mod, 3 actions, save for half damage

None of those is "So a 2nd-level heal spell heals or damages one target for 2d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier"

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah it's very 13th Age. One of the things I like about the system

Grand Lodge

edduardco wrote:
Stone Dog wrote:
I'm still in favor of halflings getting Wis for their tenacious spirit and gnomes getting intelligence for their keen minds. All small races getting Charisma seems bland
Seconded

Yeah me too, and if only one can change - INT for Gnomes, there is just so much previous on that it needs to stay the same. Tinker gnomes. Illusionist gnomes. etc etc

Grand Lodge

Thurgon wrote:
Crayon wrote:

Historically, in D&D, the Cleric didn't select her spells - her Deity did. She could pray to be granted a particular set of spells each morning, but what she actually got was determined by the DM.

While this would undoubtedly beunpopular today, it did help compensate for the small number of spells per day as the DM could ensure that the character always had spells that would be useful on a given day.

Historically? What edition are you referring to, I’ve played all but 4e, still have them all and I don’t recall this in any of them.

Yeah DM's have never selected the clerics spells. Of note, depending on your interpretation, clerics had spell books in the original OD&D.

"BOOKS OF SPELLS:

Characters who employ spells are assumed to acquire books containing the spells they can use, one book for each level. ..."

This wasn't specifically applying to Magic Users, just flat out stated

Grand Lodge

12 people marked this as a favorite.

So the Buhlman Universal Role Play System... ?

Grand Lodge

Just say NO to NEGATIVITY!

O Positive all the way! Keep your Rhesus negative-ness

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some of these look like paper critical gashing injuries, rather than the tiny paper cuts the OP was talking about!

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kenneth.T.Cole wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Also, Paizo did not purchase the rights from WotC. OGL is a perpetual, open, royalty-free license.

OGL allowed the publication of supplements referencing the rules, but did not allow republication of the rules or alteration of the rules. Republication required express permission of WOTC (now Hasbro).

I seem to recall Pazio saying they "secured the rights from WOTC to republish existing rules." That was very important because otherwise the OGL clearly stated they couldn't do so without that permission. Perhaps there wasn't a financial aspect to that agreement, but I think there was a contract.

Ken

You've totally got it wrong there, Ken. I think you maybe mixing the OGL with the bastardised GSL issued, eventually, with 4E - the tardiness and restrictiveness being a reason lots of publishers didn't support 4E. The OGL gives you the entire 3E core rules to do with what you want, thus there are dozens of games based on them. Pathfinder is just one.

Grand Lodge

"Be stable. Be dependable. Be a dwarf!"

Made me think -

Be Pure! Be Vigilant! Behave!

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm interested how the damage on a miss is going to work, fighter's feat wise. There was a lot of push back in 4E about that. Would a poisoned blade still apply poison damage? I guess it would, but maybe not if it is a failure and poisoned blade (etc) only does poison damage on a success.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's very cool to see my name in the patrons list in a new product, for patronage almost 10 years ago!

I've not read my 5E version yet but the original was awesome and, along with EZG's review, I can't wait.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For those of you, like me, who had the 20th in their calendar - it appears pre-orders have been pushed back to the 27th. There is the option to pick up from Gen Con, and the pre-order still ends on May 1st

http://paizo.com/pathfinderplaytest

Grand Lodge

Leedwashere wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I figure the right way to do it is with ancestries, since a weapon used by people in your neck of the woods is not "exotic" to you, whereas a weapon in common usage halfway around the world would be "exotic" to you if you've never seen one before.

But it's really not necessary (or appropriate) to mythologize "Eastern" weapons and armor these days.

Building off of this, the way the proficiency system works makes the simple-martial-exotic paradigm basically redundant. Make it all weapon groups. Your ancestry can give you proficiency with some weapon groups, your background can give you some more, and your class can give you some more (even if there's some overlap). No need to give fighters 'all simple and martial' when you can just say 'pick X number of weapon groups' instead. Let it be a custom set, no need to have cookie-cutters.

I like this too, it reminds me of old school DnD. Just make sure the proficiency lists are bigger than what you used to get in 1E!

Grand Lodge

I like the 5E multi class spell progression, and I hope PF2 does similar.

What I really like is this quote "Prepare spells like individual bullets filled with different viruses" I mean what? Virus filled bullets, where did that come from? :D

Grand Lodge

Lucas Yew wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
We basically have a similar idea to what you suggest here, where we give examples of what tasks might be by level and elsewhere some suggested DCs for tasks of those levels (with several gradations within each level, to help GMs decide), but we go a step farther and have a significant discussion about the fact that you shouldn't scale...

Yeeessss... Climbing an oak tree in normal outside conditions should have a concrete DC, not scaling magically up by 10 (arbitrary number) just because your level is 10 higher. Well, it seems my greatest fear with PF2 is alleviated for good.

----

Edit: P.S. At first glance I thought the OP was bashing "concrete", fixed DCs away. Sorry for being mistaken, as it seems it was exactly the opposite!

Thankfully no game I know had ever done this, but (as the OP stated) a lot of GMs have mistaken a plain chart of DCs as how the game works. That's why I love the personally voiced sidebars in 13th Age, replacing thoughts behind the rules. It really helps GMs grok the system. I'd hope the eventual PF2 GMG goes do into this. Or blog posts here!

Grand Lodge

I play 5e atm and the second way is how is done there, it fits with the rules style. But for PF2 I prefer the old/current system - it fits more mechanical complexity

Grand Lodge

Hythlodeus wrote:
so the resonance caps are high enough that they don't matter anyway?

I think he's saying they only matter when you spam some limited resource item, such as wand or potion of CLW many times over.

Grand Lodge

SorrySleeping wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:

I hope resonance is one of those 'extreme rule versions' were they have a more conservative backup plan, because I cn already tell, this will not be popular during playtest.

'Lore' being an untrained skill however, makes sense and we houserule that on our tables since, I don't know, knowledges were a thing. You lived your whole life in that village? Good, roll Knowlede (local). What? You haven't invested a rank in it? Sorry, you have no idea where the grocery store is.

Some knowledge checks were DC. If you have neutral int, you can take a 10 on something like knowing where the grocery store is.

That being said, I do hate the idea of untrained/trained skills, and glad to see it go.

I'm the opposite I like some untrained/trained skills. Knowledge local is not one of them admittedly. But sword smithing for example? No way anyone could do that untrained, unless you put a -10 modifier or something on it.

Grand Lodge

12 people marked this as a favorite.
mach1.9pants wrote:
Chaotic_Blues wrote:
Please tell me there are multiple exp track options. I never was a fan of the fast xp progression track.
it sepulchre be very easy to cater to your desired rate of advancement, just change the retired do per level from 1000. Level every 500, 600,...2000 xp. Changing it to 2000 means you know it will take twice as fast as normal. An advantage of the new xp system.

Jeez never post from your phone....

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not a simulationist game tho, but a crunchy game based of good ol' Gary's research of his local library and a few, old inaccurate books. I'm with you on the naming, I care, but not enough that I think it should be forced on everyone else with forty odd years of DnDism and corporate knowledge. Just change it for your game it's mostly fluff (renaming) :)

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chaotic_Blues wrote:
Please tell me there are multiple exp track options. I never was a fan of the fast xp progression track.

it sepulchre be very easy to cater to your desired rate of advancement, just change the retired do per level from 1000. Level every 500, 600,...2000 xp. Changing it to 2000 means you know it will take twice as fast as normal. An advantage of the new xp system.

Grand Lodge

Ancestry is both, it was specifically mentioned as such in one of the threads - enabling more design space

Grand Lodge

Gloom_The_Wanderer wrote:

So streamlining actions to make 7 different kinds of action down to action and reaction, but making almost everything with about leveling into categories of feats. Not sure if this is really streamlined. Feat choices are one of the things that turns my wife away from playing much.

I think it has potential, but I hope the playtest can refine this.

What I'd hope to see by the community is lists of feats to take to achieve XYZ character, to make it something easy to follow for those who want the crunch without the research. In fact I'm sure builds like this will come out.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Subparhiggins wrote:
thflame wrote:
May I request that Feats be sorted in the final book based on what Classes/Ancestries/etc. they apply to as opposed to strictly alphabetical order?
I agree please put them in different sections. At the very least they'll be separated by charts, but having a 1, 2, 3 kind of set up with each type would definitely be easier for players to sort through.
We have some ideas about how to order things. My absolute favorite for ease of building was Jason's idea to put the class feats by level instead of alphabetically (with a sidebar giving them all alphabetically). That way you can directly compare the newest feats at your new level (not that you can't go back and take a lower-level one if you like) and that single change more than tripled the speed at which I can choose my class feats.

That layout worked fine for the 4E and 13th Age Corebook

Grand Lodge

gustavo iglesias wrote:

There is some granularity possible between "skills go from +0 to +11 max" and "skills go from +0 to +45".

Things do not need to be black or white. Grey is a nice color.

in 5e skills to from +0 to +17, because skill monkey classes can take expertise in skills. But yes from my reading of the blogs and replies, PF2 will be some point in between

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Erik Mona wrote:
ulgulanoth wrote:
I would hope that the first bestiary contain at least the vast majority of the monsters from the first 3 bestiaries, otherwise the game is going to be too lean.

I'm guessing a truly credible version of that book would be at least 600 pages.

Are you willing to pay $60-70 for such a book?

I'm genuinely interested in people's answers, because to tell you the truth I am strongly considering a base monster reference that is significantly larger than Bestiary 1's 320 pages.

So... don't be shy about your opinions, please.

I'd much prefer, at least the initial bestiary, to be large. And using the space for not only more monsters but more info. If you are pushing for closer this to Golarion, extra fluff would also be appreciated. Tactics, society, where they tie into the Golarion world.

Grand Lodge

Charlie Brooks wrote:
I'm willing to bet a large sum of money that folks on this thread are making some incorrect assumptions as to how shields work.

Change SHIELDS to PF2, and we've got most threads here covered! But with little info, let the rampant speculation continue! :)

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

The way 5e did it though, it makes it so that you never feel like you really are high level when you are high level.

In Pathfinder...when you are level 9 and go up against Goblins...you'll be killing them left and right.

In 5e...if you face 5 of them you could be dead!

When you are level 20 you should FEEL like one of the most powerful characters in the world. In Pathfinder, you normally do. Some Moreso then others...which some have a problem with (casters being super powerful compared to the martials).

In 5e...nope...you can still be taken down by a group of low level 1HD goblins. No real heroes here...

So you really think that in 5e a group of five goblins could take down a single ninth level PC? Because that's not true. A group of twenty five may be a challenge, depending on circumstances - at ninth level a party is looking at a hundred goblins as a theoretically dangerous encounter. But, tbh, most parties would still cream that many. Bounded accuracy extends the range enemies are relevant, but not forever.

The skill check thing is very relevant tho, outside of bards and rogues the d20 is most of the result. Max ability is twenty, so +11 without expertise doubling proficiency bonus. The plus side to this is that DCs don't go so high that you can't give it a try, if proficient. I play 5e but have used 2d10 for skill checks to make the die less important.

Grand Lodge

Considering one of the three areas of the game is downtime, I'm hopeful crafting is getting a good rehash in the new rules. I think they can go a little wild with them as there can't be many people wedded to the old rules and no holy bovines there to slow change and improvement.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:

This is a great idea. It keeps attacks, skills, and saving throws (plus other things, I guess) in the same ballpark. So it's easy to have things like skill substituting saves, or attacks, and so on. "Roll reflex save, or acrobatics if you have X feat" Same goes with confronted skills. "roll perception vs illusion caster level" for example.

If this rumor is true, I like it.

Soory, I had to chortle. I made basically the same post about the previews we were getting for 4E, everything unified so DM could call for whatever vs whatever they liked for any situation. Didn't work out that way in game sadly!

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yup I went 5e cos of the grind of math and slow combats. I'd even deleted the Paizo forums from my favourites tab. But this has brought me back in, as I love the options of PF. So watching excitedly, what has been said so far seems like PF2 is more for me (options but simplicity) than it is for hardcore 3.x/PF1 players!

Grand Lodge

Kain Gallant wrote:

What I'm thinking will happen is something like this:

- Every character gets a feat (like General feats) at 1st level and every 2 levels afterwards.
- Fighters get a combat feats at 1st and 2nd level and every 2 levels afterwards.
- Fighters *also* get a "class" feat at 1st level and every 2 levels afterwards (which replaces stuff like armor training, weapon training, bravery with class-specific options).

This was my take on it too, no more class features just feats as you level up

Grand Lodge

So do you have an ETA on this arriving, by any chance?

Thanks

Grand Lodge

Chuck Wright wrote:

Ahhhh... Mach is Sqn Cdr Flashheart!

I did not know this until now. :D

I'm a secret squirrel!

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

5E PDF Is a GO!

Thanks Froggies :D

LINKY UPDATE 3

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah there is already tons of 3P 5E stuff, just not official. I'm M1.9P and Sqn Cdr Flashheart :D

The post was written by ENW's owner, Morrus. Because, bnasically, every time a thread came up about a new 3P 5E product people would go 'oh is there licencing?' and/or 'taht's got to be illegal'. But it is neither, no licencing or any 5E specific OGL nor is it illegal. Big names such as Frog God Games (necromancer Games), Kobold Press, Legendary and Goodman Games have put out 5E stuff.

So hopefully this'll get the 5E treatment as well, but (either way) I'm in with leather bells on!

Grand Lodge

silverhair2008 wrote:
Has anyone seen or heard what the requirements are for the license for 3pp for 5E?

As I mentioned on the KS comments, there is nothing yet. But you can use the same 'techniques' to make Swords & Wizardry to do 5E stuff. It is not illegal, as long as you used OGL terms and avoid trade dress/marks. For ex the Necro Games 5E stuff uses the term 'tactical advantage' instead of just 'advantage'; and the monster stat blocks have a slight different layout.

1 to 50 of 1,101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>