Marrowgarth

Alenvire's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber. 126 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.



1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I feel like poisons are still ok, but, nothing you should focus on sadly.

However, using dragons as your target is a bit excessive. It would be a better point if you used a average fighter and wizard DC's for those levels. As dragons are to this day, still not common enemies in AP's. (How I wish they would make a dragon oriented AP where you fought multiple per AP) Humanoids are still by far the most common enemies you will fight. So, a fighter 20 with legendary fort and 18 con would be a 32 ish. And a wizard with expert fort and say 14 con would be around 26. Those numbers are fluid but not every enemy runs around with runes that increase saves so its a fair number. A potent poisoner is only 1 feat and would give you a decent chance at optimal enemies for poisons. Wizards, Clerics, any other then fighters and champions really have a decent chance with only 1 feat expenditure. Not bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:
I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that the core rulebook for a game with a heavy degree of daily resource management (asymmetrical daily resource management, at that) should offer at least some semblance of expectations for how often a party is expected to be able to take a break from combat encounters.

Honestly, I have played a lot of table top games. This is a rare explanation in most systems. Most of the time, its the party takes a 'rest' and continues when they are ready when they choose. Honestly, I have never used the baseline for anything. Hell, the AP's rarely do also. Its always been up to the GM and party. Not every party is equal and not every GM should treat every party as such.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Xenocrat wrote:
Slyme wrote:
Unless I am mistaken, you have to use up one of your spell repertoire slots for every level you want a heightened spell to be castable at, other than your signature spells. That is pretty limiting, you may get more shots per day, but you get a small fraction of the potential versatility.
Yes, your actual versatility is only ten times as much as the wizard instead of 50 times as much if you received your full potential. I’m so sorry this is happening to you.

That's a opinion, and a bit aggressive for no real reason. Unless you have a reason that they are more versatile?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I dunno. Honestly the archetypes all leave out core elements of the classes. Its there to give you some of the benefits, in this case spells and a spell DC, while not giving you the full enchilada. I like that I can go fighter, MC sorcerer, or Sorcerer MC fighter and them play similar but very different strengths and weaknesses. I mean, a fighter 10 sorcerer 10 in PF1 was considerably weaker in both areas then Sorc/Fighter Figher/Sorc in PF2


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm just curious if anyone has a good reason for why they do purchases and cancellations in such a old and outdated manner?

You can sign up for a subscription. Add to a cart. Purchase online. But, when a order needs to be modified or canceled or a subscription canceled they have no better way to go about it then to email or post in the customer service section.

Don't get me wrong, I can see a reason for say messed up orders that were shipped wrong or damaged, but, why can't we get the basics of amazon or other online retailers where you can cancel with a few clicks online if its not been processed yet? Cancel a subscription now, and not when a customer service rep is available.

I never really cared or noticed until right now. Customer service is weeks behind due to unforeseen reasons. However, all its doing is causing them to get even further behind due to the fact they will now have to fix all the stuff that goes wrong with how far behind they are.

Paizo Customer service has always been great, but, that does not change the fact we should have basic online control of our orders/changes/cancellations.

I know this became more of a rant then a question, but, the question is still there. Anyone know why they don't have a more up to date online system?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Looks like I get my copy today or tomorrow depending on what UPS is doing right now. But, its at least in my town already. Excited and ready to go.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I find it funny everyone is talking about how this game should be more simple and easier to play then pf1. Me, I am hoping its not too simple. When you have simple systems you end up with simple characters, simple games, and simple just ends up being identical to other characters with just different flavor. If a rogue stabs for 1d6 and a fighter stabs for 1d6 does the rogue and fighter really matter? That is a overly simple example that I really hope is not a problem in pf2


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Draco18s wrote:

It falls under the same general heading of why I never took weapon enhancements like Flaming Burst. Most characters I built didn't build towards automatic critical hits, so 1d10 extra damage 1/20th of the time (0.275 extra dpr) was not worth a +2 equivalent cost.

And that's ignoring the fact that I have abysmal luck when it comes to actually rolling crits. I played a two year long campaign in the World's Largest Dungeon and rolled a nat-20 on an attack roll twice. Once against a thing that was immune to crits and once against a minion that died to my minimum non-crit damage.

Can it be useful in situations like those?

For me, Flaming burst was just a plus 1 with the pre req of flaming. But, I would agree if you need a nat 20 to crit then the burst effect is just a bad one. I only ever considered it in early to mid play games, and only if I have a a crit fishing build. Honestly when you can pick up improved critical you star coming across so much fire/cold/acid resistance I just don't bother with flaming or burst. Its not necessary half the time for those without resistance, and not enough for those that you would need the extra damage.

Last time I used it was simply because my GM gave me a Flame Tongue... Because its a flame tongue I was required to use it beyond where I would normally trade it out. Because come on, it was a flame tongue. That he made as a scimitar. On my crit fisher build.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I can't say what I want to say because of spoilers, and not know how to make a spoiler section. lol. But yeah, I understand the story fairly well now.

I did however Pick up the World guide after all. After this one I will probably stick with my normal way of doing it by picking up all the major books as PDF since they are rarely books I reference to need a physical guide. Gotta support the devs so they support my addiction.

On a side note, anyone know if we pick up the kingmaker kickstarter if it will be just a remake, or if they are pulling it into the current time line along with it being 2nd edition? Meaning will the map say savage lands, or some country from the end of pf1 kingmaker?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

This is making me worried about my Kingmaker all in backing. The company making kingmaker is Paizo right? As long as its Paizo and Legendary games offering the kingdom building rules and tools I am ok with it. Just making sure its not a 3rd party taking in the full responsibility for it like the mini's with this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
That can make for some cool loot. Getting 3 flaming runestones is a lot better than 3 flaming daggers

I Did not even consider that. Makes that random holy dagger +1 not suck at high levels anymore because you can transfer the enchant off it.

It also makes having a backup weapon for specific purposes easier to maintain. So that its not a choice of my +5 Flaming greatsword or my +1 holy undead bane dagger for undead. Or however PF2 is using its runes in the end.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
dirtypool wrote:

This goes back to the point of potential confusion over what the Doomsday Dawn and Rulebook were. They were not 2nd Edition. They were a loose version of the full Rules with hacked out systems that needed to be stress tested and a loose collection of scenarios that were designed to do the testing.

They can’t keep providing errata because they aren’t correcting/updating the Playtest Rules they’re incorporating those results into the 2e Rules.

My point was that the new rules just did not feel good. I get its not a real campaign and its not all the rules, but, the changes they showed us just did not sit well. What they showed us of magic was the biggest put off for my group. It felt like they were pushing a low magic fantasy game. And that system is one of the things they wanted us to test since it was defined. I don't know. Some problems have been changed, others apparently are still the same and intended. But, we still don't know the final product (which I had thought we would know most of it by now)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Alenvire wrote:

Someone said that PF2 is something altogether new and PF1 got better when they moved away from 3.5.

I felt like PF2 was... unfortunately similar to D&D 5th. Am I wrong? Honest question. Feel free to say yes or no, and if you feel like giving some reasons I would not mind.

The only similarities between PF2 and 5E are that both are simpler than PF1, and both reduce the power disparity between martials and casters. Almost every other thing is different, especially once examined in detail.

Just the fact that everyone adds level to everything they are trained in makes a huge difference from 5E, since it makes level matter an order of magnitude more, and I vastly prefer most aspects of PF2's monster design, just to pick two examples of huge differences between the two games.

Thats good to know. I had not directly compared the two and know fairly little of 5th edition. Thats one thing I LOVED about PF2 is that it felt like it will be a lot more intuitive with monster design to have differing party sizes. I liked the scaling effect. One of the things I purposefully tried to do was use the rules to run a 3 person group and it worked... moderately well. I suspect with the full rules it would have run perfectly fine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
NielsenE wrote:
You didn't do the first AP for second edition -- you did the campaign for the playtest. It was not designed first to be a "fun" or "balanced" campaign. It was designed to stress test various systems in different ways. Don't equate the Doomsday Dawn campaign to Second Edition AP. I do think Paizo did a poor job in communicating exactly what a playtest means and the polished publication for the playtest might have furthered that perception.

You misunderstand. I'm not rating the AP. I was not saying it was not fun or balanced or unbalanced or any of that. I am saying that the systems we tested we disliked immensely. Everything from the characters to the magic to the combat system was just unpleasant.

I did look up a little. Skills work differently and resonance is gone which sounds good. I feel like making untrained skills 0 and not based on level to some extent just means at high levels skills you have not trained will just be painfully horrible and will probably just be house ruled out if we pick up second edition. But I do agree, the changes did feel better but until we see how things like magic work I still feel like the game is going to be questionable. I and my party did not like the feel of low fantasy they seem to have pushed on magic.

Sadly I realize now that it appears that they are not gonna let us know what its gonna be like until after its released. I thought they would have a ongoing errata for us to test but it does not appear so. I really hope the game does well, but, right now I don't see much of a reason to change from PF1 and if I did it would probably just be back to dungeons and dragons 5th that I have not touched since 3.5. Still have high hopes though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Is it just me that personally does not care for the Eratta's? I like that sometimes things are not very well balanced. For example the summoner Eidolon was really buff (compared to unchained)but it was rarely played by my players. I never saw a problem with it. Same thing with stuff like the trait ancestral weapon. I always found that erratta's were excessive and took the shine off stuff and almost always made it less then useful. In other words I liked that there was the random really strong stuff. It's not like every character took ancestral weapon because of it.

I know this is off topic, and there should always be Errattas and Faqs to fix problems and clarify subjects. I just wish there was not so much heavy handed balancing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

So after my party did the first AP for 2nd edition we all lost all interest. It just did not feel good in our hands. I know there has been updates but I honestly lost so much interest in it that I could not keep up to date with the changes.

So, Now that the launch is announced for august 1st What is peoples current opinion of 2nd edition as we know of it and review of it. And if you would put whether you had a similar first impression and if it has changed and why, or if not I would appreciate that. My own lack of interest is making it hard to sell it to my players.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Yqatuba wrote:
Mine would have to be Iomedae due to a certain infamous scene in Herald Of The Ivory Labyrinth (not going to spoil it here, look at the Wrath Of The Righteous forum if you're curious)

I know this is cheesy, but, when I happend to recite the whole, May Imodea's light guide you or whatever it is, at the EXACT right moment to unlock her hidden armory, she became my 2nd favorite of the gods. Behind Desna.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Whats sad is pathfinder 1.0 was based on a system I love. I hate to see it go because they believe that they need to chase D&D 5.0. I honestly don't like a lot of aspects of 5.0 or pathfinder 2.0 and am sad that most likely the AP's for 1.0 are dead within 1 or 2 AP's.