Cottonseed PFS PbP (2E)

Game Master Redelia

It's one of those things where I can't give good advice until I get to experience the system firsthand. Too many theoreticals are going around right now.

I will mention it's hard to min max a single skill. It's also impossible to bomb most skill checks, since at worst you start at a [level - 2] bonus.

Heightening spells work differently than in 1E, since you need to prepare or memorize the heightened version. At first I didn't understand it but now I realized they just wrapped the higher level spells into the basic spell, so my bard doesn't have to learn Charm Person, Charm Monster AND Mass Charm Person.

I only just got to Advancement and Options. (I'm having my phone read the Rulebook to me at work--DON'T TELL!)

I'm still trying to parse a lot of stuff myself, not to mention I've not gotten a chance to actually play yet. I did finally make a playtest character last night but I admit that I used Herolab Online to cheat a little since the layout made it a little easier for me to understand what I was looking at.

I'm considering running "Kill Bargle!" Originally from Ye Olde Red Box (my first D&D adventure), and represented in the last physical issue of Dungeon Magazine as soon as I get around to it.

I was thinking about limiting it to Ye Olde Red Box/Rules Cyclopedia rules. Wherein you can play play as human fighters, human clerics (Known World Immortals!), human (universalist) wizards (Magic-users dammit), human rogues (Thieves! They're all back-stabbing thieves!), dwarf fighters, halfling rogues (Thieves! We hates them forever!), elf fighters (with the wizard archetype/dedication) or elf (unversalist) wizards (with the fighter archetype/dedication).

I might allow monks (mystics) and druids (humans only of course). Both were options in the Cyclopedia.

If you do allow monks mystics, I'd love to try it out. I have a human monk mystic who will become a cleric of Calistria as soon as I get a chance to multiclass. I mean, pick up archetype class feats.

Calistria? Who's that? ;)

There's an update to the rulebook. Haven't really gone through in detail but those playing goblins, alchemists, bards, druids, rangers, paladins, sorcerers, and rogues should take a look as there are critical updates for them.

Thanks for the heads up. They don't want to download for me, although I note there is an "updates" file that presumably has the changes in it.

Thanks for the heads up. They don't want to download for me, although I note there is an "updates" file that presumably has the changes in it.

I've been having this issue, but it seems to be browser specific for me (Using a gen 1 Windows Surface), the App version of IE cannot download anything at all from paizo, but when I use the desktop version it is all well and good.

This was a desktop, running chrome. Still, in the end I clikc on the link, wait, and then click again and it worked. Finally. It was behaving pretty oddly earlier though.

There are tweaks to abilities and clarifications. While there are about twenty "critical" updates none are game breaking, mostly tweaks to how abilities work or character creation changes.

I can probably post them here in a spoiler if folk are interested, I don't think that is against any rules.

I do recommend downloading the updates document, because that will add it to your downloads and you'll get a notification email every time they add something new to it (assuming you have that option turned on in your account settings). It sounds like they'll be making rules updates like this throughout the playtest period.

The pregens are also available to download on that page now; we've got the Alchemist, Barbarian, Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Sorcerer, each at levels 1 and 5.

For a Titan Mauler barbarian it says that the character has access to a large version of his weapon. I assume he still has to pay for it. How much damage does a large version do? Where is that in the rules?

So this came up today in our Playtest. The secret trait (pgs 144/293) on skill checks. My question is mostly related to the knowledge and gather information checks, which are untrained.

Is a GM going to be mass-rolling 5-6 checks for each PC every-time there is a check of that nature just to keep things secret from the PC's? This seems impossible in F2F and frustrating in PbP (you would need a bunch of pre-formatted rolling blocks ready for every game). It also means that every check like that is going to be nailed, unless the DC's start getting bumped higher to counter.

It's good that they give the following as an opt out, but how is everyone going to try to handle secret checks?

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

I think that in person, they intend it to be that a player will say they want to make a check and then the GM rolls it in secret. This would obviously be a huge slowdown in PbP, so I will probably roll blocks of them. I already have a document with prepared blocks of rolls for my players' initiatives and perceptions for PF1, though.

GM TOP, I just started this conversation in the games I am playing here.

I have GMed 4 FtF games of Arclord's Envy so far and each of them opted for open rolls. In part, this was because some wanted to watch and understand the mechanics better and in part so as to not risk slowing a game that was already affected by pauses to check rules and slightly later starts as players worked out fine points on their characters (pregen or player generated).

In each case, I had no issues with how the players had their characters respond. One situation with a critical fail, success, and critical success regarding information at a single point in the scenario led to some amusing roleplaying.

I plan to develop a system to gather information from players before the start of play and to have them provide multiple D20 roles that can be used in such situations so that I can try the secret roll version more and see how it affects the game.

For now, as a player, I am happy to go with whatever the GM decides.

I really dislike secret rolls in general, and think these are a mistake, so I am going to keep them secret so that I can provide better feedback.

For a Titan Mauler barbarian it says that the character has access to a large version of his weapon. I assume he still has to pay for it. How much damage does a large version do? Where is that in the rules?

Found my answer here

...

Is a GM going to be mass-rolling 5-6 checks for each PC every-time there is a check of that nature just to keep things secret from the PC's? ...

I find some things can be issues or not based on technique rather than rules.

For example, in the above case of secret knowledge checks, you could roll a dozen such checks for each player and notate them on a note at the beginning of each session, then as the session progresses, you cross off check results as they are needed. Very fast during gameplay, and can be done quite subtly too.

Just a reminder that Secret Rolls were a thing in PF1 (and every edition of the game.) The new aspect is in the official vocabulary. For example, in PF1 the GM ought to roll a PC's Appraisecheck in secret by default, but it's not a vocabulary word.

The important part here is that places where they are new, and where it affects the game, get cataloged and posted in the Playtest forum

I've never seen appraise used in a PF1 game, either as a player or as a GM. The only PF1 secret roll I've ever seen is disable device, and even that I'm not a fan of. And yes, I plan on seeing how they work so that I can give better feedback than just 'secret rolls- yuck.'

Disguise checks should be secret in PF1 too, I believe.

Trap Spotter definitely needs to be as well.

I do see a point for a few secret rolls (it keeps the suspense higher for one) but I'll have to see how it works for me.

I'm just wondering if the RAI is to have everyone roll all the checks or just when the character is looking into something? Either way, if things crash and burn I'll try to get it mentioned in the forums over there. Thanks for that link!

Really, many rolls in PF should be secret, IMO. Perception, Diplomacy, Sense Motive -- there's a lot more mystery about the result if I don't know I got a 2 and think I'm being quite persuasive/perceptive/wise instead. I like the idea behind the mechanic.

Using spoiler tags, provided your players honor them, can handle many such secret rolls, especially if you just say "Secret Roll 1" without labeling what its really for. A few of those randomly thrown in may work just as well.

I can't agree with you on that, DoctorEvil. I want my players to know what their diplomacy roll result was before they talk, because if they rolled really well, I want them to try for an amazing speech. If they rolled a 1, I want them to say something ridiculous.

I don't like what hidden rolls do to the trust between players and the GM.

The problem is that players roll poorly on a Perception check, know the roll was rubbish, and then start hatching alternative plans and work arounds.

I would also note that with regards to Diplomacy, these rolls usually come AFTER the player has engaged in speech, rather than the roll be the trigger for speech.

The problem is that players roll poorly on a Perception check, know the roll was rubbish, and then start hatching alternative plans and work arounds.

True, but that's on the player, not the system. Your PC doesn't know you rolled a 4. They think they've done well.

Generally, with diplomacy, I roll after their speech because I'll add circumstance bonus/penalty based on what the player said. Sometimes, an awesome/terrible enough speech, or one mentioning the right/wrong thing, might not even need a roll.

You don't need to roll after their speech to do that. The player rolls, they look at their roll and base what they say on how they roll. Then they give you their roll plus their modifier. Then you as the GM add or subtract anything for a circumstance bonus, and use that to adjudicate. I find it very jarring when a player makes a wonderful speech and then rolls a 2. It just is really anti-immersive to me.

You don't need to roll after their speech to do that. The player rolls, they look at their roll and base what they say on how they roll. Then they give you their roll plus their modifier. Then you as the GM add or subtract anything for a circumstance bonus, and use that to adjudicate. I find it very jarring when a player makes a wonderful speech and then rolls a 2. It just is really anti-immersive to me.

When that happens, one element the player said reminded the NPC of her second cousin, whom I miss to this very day and now you've reminded me of it and NO I AM NOT GOING TO DO WHAT YOU WANT ME TO DO BECAUSE THE PAIN IS JUST TOO REAL NOW THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

Randomization is part of the game.

Organized play is a little different, as we must play by the book.

In a home game each group can decide for themselves what they like for a style. My organized play life is a lot different than my home game.

Immersion and game are both noble goals, and they're not mutually exclusive.

Shifty wrote:

The problem is that players roll poorly on a Perception check, know the roll was rubbish, and then start hatching alternative plans and work arounds.

True, but that's on the player, not the system. Your PC doesn't know you rolled a 4. They think they've done well.

Which is one of the reasons I use block perception rolls a lot in PbP.

And yeah, it usually means a lot of traps are discovered and things are found, but they often still need disarmed which can even sometimes create opportunities for entertaining efforts to bypass them. Plus then you don't get the 'please roll perception' response of 'oh no there is a trap somewhere let's change how we are acting!'

The other reason is purely to MOVE THINGS ALONG. So many groups get bogged down in searching doors, floors, walls, rooms, ceilings, oh wait under that table did we check there?

Yep, GM TOP, I tend to have a block like that I roll at every room entrance, even ones where there is nothing to find. However, I clearly label the block as perception, and each player's roll. I want them to check, and point out if I forgot any bonuses.

I wonder if we should collate a PBP feedback document for Playtest like a certain lodge in NH did? Make it easier for the Devs to follow our feedback, and give them a real tangible document full of our observations in each category.

Hmm

It wouldn't hurt. They might even appreciate it. :-P

That is a good idea Hmm.

On the 'secret' skill discussion point, I made up a quick reference table that shows all the skills with that trait. Anyone is welcome to use it or copy and edit to their preferences.

Secret Actions

I expect once a PRD of some sort is up, stuff like this may be less necessary. But for now it's a lot easier than opening the pdf and searching through the pages. Though it may be a nice idea to suggest a table like this in the Game Mastering or Skills section of the book.

On the 'secret' skill discussion point, I made up a quick reference table that shows all the skills with that trait. Anyone is welcome to use it or copy and edit to their preferences.

Secret Actions

I expect once a PRD of some sort is up, stuff like this may be less necessary. But for now it's a lot easier than opening the pdf and searching through the pages. Though it may be a nice idea to suggest a table like this in the Game Mastering or Skills section of the book.

This is a helpful resource, thanks for sharing it! There are a couple actions in other chapters of the book that are labeled as secret; would you consider adding those as well? The two that I know of are the Seek action and the Recognize Spell skill feat. I haven't searched exhaustively so there might be more.

Oooh, yeah I forgot Perception stuffs. Ugh. Why is that not with the skills? That's really weird in my mind. Added!

Hmm, I like the idea of a feedback document.

GM TOP, thank you for the table. That is quite useful.

You don't need to roll after their speech to do that. The player rolls, they look at their roll and base what they say on how they roll. Then they give you their roll plus their modifier. Then you as the GM add or subtract anything for a circumstance bonus, and use that to adjudicate. I find it very jarring when a player makes a wonderful speech and then rolls a 2. It just is really anti-immersive to me.

First, secret roll won't mess that up for the player.

Second, and more importantly, that 2 does not need to be how good the player was, as it can handle other factors, such as the possibility that their wonderful speech gets entirely negated because the target took offense at some aspect of what the pc said.

For example, if the player mentioned the target's son, well too bad the target just found out the son is dead and now the pc's comment seems rather inconsiderate.

Generally, even a really good speech can sound bad under the right circumstances, which can be manipulated.

Yes, a secret roll will mess that up, because then the player won't know whether to try to speak well or poorly.

When I'm crafting an argument I complete my dialogue and then put in the skill check. I rarely go back and edit what I was saying based upon the result, even when I preview and see a terrible roll.

I don't do a skill check, preview it, then craft what I'm saying. Especially since I could roll poorly, think I failed miserably but still have gotten the success due to a low DC or due to a circumstance bonus being applied by the GM from my excellent argument.

There's some spots in Rose Street where secret rolls are suggested.

...I found the mechanic a bit clunky at the four tables I ran, but we were also playing (or in my case running) the system 'new'.

When I do a Diplomacy or Intimidate roll, I write the best one I can, then do the roll.

If the roll goes badly, I'll append to it with something insulting or derpy that undermines it, usually with an internal monologue appended to it, something like this:

Gah! Why did I say that? That ruined everything! I hope nobody noticed.

This whole debate breaks down to a trade off between immersion and storytelling. Not knowing your rolls leaves you, as a player, in the same 'fog of war' state as your character, but at the cost of being able to tailor your role-play to the effects of the roll. I'd say that either approach has merits and it really depends on the priorities of the group. To force all groups to adhere to either approach would be the only mistake in my mind.

Just my 2 cents.

As a GM I'd prefer players say what they think their character would say. Even if they roll poorly, if they gave a nice speach them I'll possibly add a circumstancial bonus to it. Likewise someone doing a "I use diplomacy", rolls a 20, and provides no text, is likely to get a bit of a penalty to the result.

As a player, I'm quite happy to add a bit of text as Caro suggests above, or for a really bad roll have something odd happen (coughing fit in the middle of the presentation for example).

Yes, a secret roll will mess that up, because then the player won't know whether to try to speak well or poorly.

That assumes the player is like you, doing it your way.

You gave reasons for using one methodology. I gave options for negating all those negative reasons without doing it your way.

Because your negative reasons are certainly things to avoid, but not everyone is happy with your solution.

Latest playtest update is up

Errata / Update V1.1 Dtd 27 AUG

They've redone death / dying

plus made a number of other corrections / updates

Redelia, could you please set me (and alias Hanzo) as inactive, thank you.

I'm sure its been gone over before (but my search fu failed) but so I am about to start finally reading the playtest rulebook, is there a consensus on a good path to the classic fighter/wizard gish magus playstyle for 2.0? I'm thinking of fiddling with it but was curious if theres a good start point for me to begin theorycrafting.

Edit: never mind. I'm going to just start with Bard

Wizard with a Fighter class-archetype or Fighter with a Wizard class-archetype perhaps?

Start with Wizard with 16 Strength (or Dex.)
Get Fighter Dedication at level 2.
Get the Magical Striker feat at level 4.
Cast True Strike and use the Magical Striker feat to enhance your weapon.

At least that's what I've heard. I'll be playtesting Monks with Cleric Dedication to see if I can recreate my Sacred Fist idea.