Red Dragon

AnCap Dawg's page

58 posts. Alias of tuffnoogies.


1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Saedar wrote:
GM Stargin wrote:
Really it's solid. Even the alchemist might not be underpowered, just a general utility/support character with some combat capability rather than the good at everything character that the 1e alchemist was. Though that might be a controversial opinion.

This kind of breaks down, though, considering that (imaginary number) 80% of the rules are directly combat-related. That signals to the players that contribution in combat is the largest part of the game. Being less able to contribute in that realm is a serious detriment.

It would be similarly weird for the barbarian to exist in a game that was 80% social encounter rules.

80% of the rules are about combat because that is the most detailed part of the game. It in no way means that 80% of the game is combat.

Wheldrake wrote:

But... why does the DM call Ted a "dope"? <g>

Because he didn't have resistance to slashing.

Lanathar wrote:

What do people know about the success / popularity of 2E so far?

Honestly I'd say it's too early to really tell. There's a lot of people that are trying it out and may decide it's not for them. OTOH, there's a lot of people that are waiting until the product line is more fleshed out.

I prefer theater of the mind, but my players prefer the mat so we compromise and use the mat.

Unicore wrote:
Kyrone wrote:
Redblade8 wrote:
Are the Iconics for these 4 classes the same as in 1E?
Only the witch iconic is confirmed that will not be changed, and was confirmed that at least one of the other three will change and that we already saw it the LOWG.
Is that the blonde holding a potion/extract on page 5? an investigator perhaps?

Isn't that the alchemist from 1e?

That's how I read it.

Salamileg wrote:
Anecdotal and perhaps a little off topic, but I've found the difference in perception between here on the Paizo forums and the PF2 subreddit. Over there, I've seen numerous threads where people see Sorcerer as the worst caster, with no reason to play an arcane sorcerer over a wizard. And obviously the opposite is the case here.

I've noticed the same thing. I figure that probably means they're pretty balanced.

Ravingdork wrote:

There are no stars. The PCs brought them crashing down years ago with the misuse of a powerful artifact.

The immeasurable devastation, unending darkness, and eldritch horrors that were released from the fallen stars have long since turned the world into a post apocalyptic wasteland of survival horror.

It is now up to the PCs to somehow undo the calamity they brought forth upon the world. Their actions are opposed by the once benevolent and world spanning Church of Stars, now corrupted into fanatical death cults that have seen their gods' true forms.

That sounds kind of fun, actually.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
AnCap Dawg wrote:

Care to explain why you engage in a thread just to say you won't engage in the thread?

I answered your question. I can't give any thoughts on whether I feel P2 gave a different spell compared to classic (whatever that is, I presume P1). I even said why but you clipped that from your quote.

I engaged. You just didn't like my answer.

Zapp wrote:
Tender Tendrils wrote:
Everyone so far has addressed the issues, but then you choose to interpret those answers as being unrelated.
Could you please give your thoughts on whether you feel Pathfinder 2 offering a quite different spell compared to classic spheres of flame?

No. It's a new edition. Sometimes that means details of spells change too. Check out Detect Magic.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Val'bryn2 wrote:

Thank you, everyone, for your replies. I disagree with the view they should be in the GMG, from 3rd edition to Starfinder, they've always been in the bestiary, monster manual or alien archive, but that would have been a minor issue if they had released the GMG in a timely manner. It's bad game design to directly reference rules you won't be publishing for half a year.

I suppose I was thinking of baseline orc as just racial modifications, like how goblins have a race write-up in the Core Rulebook, and example monsters in the Bestiary. At any rate, it'll be fun to make some NPCs now.

Where are they directly referenced?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samurai wrote:
I don't know the official answers, but we have usually used 1 hour for a torch and 10 minutes for a candle.

Those are some short candles.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Nah b&!~*!~!. You can gather the same magic components and just pray to Gaia. Bam magic.
If Gaia is a real-ass conscious being-
Doesn't need to be, you can pray to Good and bam magic, you can pray to Gaia and bam magic.

If that's true then can't you pray to trees and bam magic?

Luke Styer wrote:
nicholas storm wrote:
Seems kind of reckless. He could end up killing a low level character or hit a high level character causing his own death.
He killed an innkeeper with this stunt tonight. The innkeeper was a member of a shoggoth worshipping murder cult in an isolated, lawless village, so I didn’t really press the issue, but it sort of felt like murder.

Sounds like murder to me. Even evil people have a right to life. Now if he was in the middle of killing someone, it's not murder so much as defending others.

NobodySpecial wrote:
Wands = useless, I mean, c'mon, ONE casting a day then maybe, MAYBE, a second use then destroyed or broken. What's the point of even having one? Spellstaffs are really limited but at least they have some flexibility in casting charges which are good in a pinch.

I agree. One per day seems really limiting. I guess they're for spells that are quasi-ritual, like Alarm before you camp at night or something. That saves a spell slot for fights.

One per encounter feels right, but then they'd compete too much with focus spells I guess.

What exactly was the reasoning behind Divine Font being based on Charisma anyways?

Pepsi Jedi wrote:

Sorry it was the bestiary Bugbears that they didn't like. Was thinking one and typed the other. They're wanting to go with skinnier more sinister looking Bugbears.

My bad. Mistype.

Too bad. I kinda like the Bestiary Bugbear.

Samurai wrote:
In my opinion, it's no more powerful than freely letting Prepared casters just choose which spell levels to prepare a spell at each day.

Prepared casters have to try to guess what spells they'll need to heighten during their daily prep. Sometimes they have a good idea of what the day will bring. Often they don't. Spontaneous casters can heighten as they need to. I think it's a pretty big deal to always have the spell you need heightened.

As I said, at 3rd level it won't make much of a difference. At 20th that's a *huge* advantage.

Samurai wrote:
How would you mark and remember "Today X is my signature spell"?

Your signature spells don't change daily. Put an asterisk next to one spell per spell level in your repertoire. That's your signature spell.

Letting spontaneous casters heighten all their spells freely is a significant power boost that will only get more noticeable at higher levels.

But, hey! It's your game. Do what's fun for you and your group.

Samurai wrote:

So here are my changes so far for P2. They cover a wide range of topics, from fixing the Alchemist's Research Fields (including adding a new one: Toxicologist), to adding a General feat for multiclassing, to fixes for lots of spells, and a new Condition: Entangled. I also included the Errata that we know about so far at the end, so you have 1 source for all the changes from the core book. This is version 1.0, and I plan to update it as needed. I welcome any feedback and questions about why I made the changes that I did, or suggestions for more changes, or concerns for the ramifications of these changes.

Samurai's Pathfinder 2E Changes

You really like spontaneous casters.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Well, fighters as well as champions, barbarians, and monks (with investment) can exert a zone of control as can monsters for whom that is part of their deal. I don't think we need to give AoOs to wizards, hedgehogs, and owlbears to make combat tactical when it should be.

Maybe owlbears. You can make a good case for most melee-based animals having AoO since a lot of them learn to "fight" by hunting for their dinner. That being said, I think the less AoOs the better. It's a major contributing factor in how slow combat was in 3.5/PF1.

I've been wanting to play an angelic that maybe devotes into paladin. I'll probably save that for when aasimar is available.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
State of confusion wrote:
PFRPGrognard wrote:
Yeah, Second Edition is so bloated already. I'm going back to Pathfinder 1E where it's easy enough to have a core only game.
Not sure if serious or not.

Not sure if serious or not.

Was it intentional that the triggers don't include attacks on the champion itself?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thebazilly wrote:
Takamorisan wrote:
Problem is that we are missing a lot of customization options. So they need to publish the basic material.


I can guarantee that if Paizo wasn't publishing at this rate, we'd have a "should Paizo speed up" thread instead.

I vastly prefer 2e's publish rate to 5e's.

Mellored wrote:

How is the balance between classes?

Which ones are feel over/under powered?

The game's only been out for a month. It's still too early to tell how the meta will shake out.

Do monks ever get unarmed attacks better than simple weapons?

Franz Lunzer wrote:
Yesterdays show was canceled.


I don't see this posted. Was there not an episode this week?

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:

I do not like the way that money has been changed in the game.

Two reasons:
* - It is an obstical to converting older material.
* - "Grognard-ism" Long time players may not react well to fighting an epic battle to win the princely sum of 150 silver.

How are others feeling?

I think it's more of a flavor change than anything. I've wished D&D was on the silver standard since the mid-80s - about the time Matthew Broderick was bragging about having a purse full of copper in Ladyhawke.

viemexis wrote:
AnCap Dawg wrote:

I don't think the magic traditions is needed at all and I wish cantrips were just lumped in with spells in general.

I'm sure there will be a plethora of fan-made sheets in the near future.

Did someone mention fan sheets? The simplified spell sheet on the character sheet I made might be to your liking.

It is! Very much so. Thank you.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
CyderGnome wrote:

Prior to 2nd Edition, a Goblin walking openly into most any town or village was asking to be killed rather quickly unless there we’re extreme extenuating circumstances and it could somehow convince people to pause long enough to even think before releasing the hounds. Now Goblins have become the party ‘s comic relief...

What’s the in-world explanation?

Where have you been? We hashed this out a year ago.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I found it more useful than the 3rd sheet.

I'm mildly disappointed in the spell sheet. I honestly can't figure out what all the boxes in the "spell slots per day" section are for. And I would have preferred putting innate spells and focus spells somewhere else so non-casters wouldn't use the whole sheet for those little sections. I don't think the magic traditions is needed at all and I wish cantrips were just lumped in with spells in general.

I'm sure there will be a plethora of fan-made sheets in the near future.

EDIT: Just noticed the "spontaneous spell slots remaining" note. Probably would have figured it out if I were making a sorcerer or bard.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:

Not that a critical mass of people now have their books, I want to ask a general question.

Is Pathfinder 2 a better game then its predicessor Pathfinder 1?

Hey I have an idea! Let's invite an edition war! Those are always fun.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:

An Orc Oracle from the Mwangi culture would be pretty cool... An Orcacle, if you will.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

In case anyone didn't know.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Dwapook wrote:


Fairness / Selflessness

Freedom / Selfishness

This is deeply wrong. Selfishness and selflessness are about Good and Evil not Law and Chaos. Someone can easily be Chaotic Good and utterly selfless, or Lawful Evil and utterly selfish.

This right here is what's wrong with alignment. People can't agree on what the different aspects mean.

Sure it can be useful as a shorthand, but in the end it causes more arguments than it helps to avoid. We only have 35+ years of experience to show this.

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Actual query here, are people thinking hero points are worth the hassle?

Again, actually asking this it is not rhetorical.

The occasional re-roll is nice to have. I usually forget about them at the time I need them though. I'm hoping I can at least think of them if my character's dying.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
mrspaghetti wrote:
Do Hero Points carry over to the next session if you don't use them?

No. They are a per session resource.

Of course, I suppose that even that would be up to GM discretion if you do something weird such as end a session in mid-combat.

They carry over in Oblivion Oath.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Jason the man... or the dragon...Whichever he prefers really.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I never understood the no metal armor restriction. Isn't metal natural?

Now that's a crunchy blog post! Thanks for all the spoilers, Mark. The gogiteth looks pretty horrifying.

I've ordered Age of Ashes and Fall of Plaguestone. I still haven't decided which one I'll run first. A lot's riding on it as my group still likes 3.5 and I'm trying to win them over.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

Focus pools may be capped at 2 or 3 points? Not sure what the deal is there, but Logan made a comment that seemed to imply it.

My first thought when he said this was maybe he was thinking of hero points. I think in Oblivion Oath they're limited to 3, but that may be because they have so many Jason didn't want them spending 5-6 on stabilization rolls. I also seem to remember something being said about a focus power that cost 5 focus at one time.

Or maybe Logan just worded it funny and we're reading too much into it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
AnCap Dawg wrote:
So living near Paizo means the street date doesn't apply to you? I'm confused (and jealous.)
From now on this will be referred to as the "down the street date" ;-)

And real estate prices for nearby houses will go through the roof!

Ngodrup wrote:
FowlJ wrote:
Accidents happen, my dude. It probably doesn't actually have much to do with being near Paizo, and instead a mixup with shipping or the game store.
Not a mix up, and quite a lot to do with being near Paizo - they started shipping already, and this guy got lucky and was near the top of the pile, most likely. So it's arrived already, cause it didn't have to travel far.

Ah. Got it. I thought they had an onsite storefront or something. If they shipped it across the street that's obviously an honest mistake. Who would ship something that close on purpose?

Technotrooper wrote:

The guy's overall opinion on PF2 was:

"A super huge shout-out to Paizo and all its employees. You guys rock. 2E looks fkn awesome. I hope people got hyped from this thread and some pre-orders went down, because these books are pretty damn awesome, and 2E looks great."

No doubt. I'd say the same thing if I got my books 2 weeks early.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

So living near Paizo means the street date doesn't apply to you? I'm confused (and jealous.)

nohar wrote:
i still don't quite understand how xp works in the new system...the playtest rules didn't explain it well to me and since doomsday dawn didn't award xp i never got to see any examples in action...hopefully the final rules will do a better job of making me understand...

I'm a bit confused about it as well. I was hoping Stephen would go into more detail about that, but it got skipped for juicier parts that would be interesting to more players.

It seems weird to me that it only takes 1000xp per level instead of an increasing amount each level.

Seisho wrote:
that would be the same as for an normal attack

Well that's not so bad, then. I was under the impression that the penalty was only for melee attacks. I'm still not a fan, but at least it's not penalizing some classes and not others.

David knott 242 wrote:

We already know, from the most recent Know Direction podcast. Most spells take two actions to cast, so the only way to cast more than one spell in a round is to cast one of the rare single action spells.

And what's the penalty to the spell roll for casting that second spell?

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>