Ricle Peakes

Angel Hunter D's page

FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 452 posts (453 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 15 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 452 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

Am I the only one who doesn't want optional rules? I pretty much only play society and those are things I never see.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
ASSURANCE: TREAT DIE ROLL AS 10, GET BONUS. TAKE 10!
If just hope it's better defined than take 10 was, so many people ran it so different I just stopped using it in my games.

I always understood it as, rather than actually roll your d20, just pretend you got a 10.

I must admit I have trouble imagining any other interpretation.

It wasn't the interpretation of the numbers, it's when and what skills that gave me headaches (can I do it on Disable Device, Perception, Diplomacy? I've heard everything from yes to no and all sorts of shades of grey).

Assurance sounds a lot cleaner, and I have high hopes for it being clear. From what Mark has been saying it sounds like it, but we'll see once we get some GMs using it.

Scarab Sages

I will be torn between a monk or something with the cavalier dedication - mounted combat is one of my favourite ways to play 1E and the style feats looked really fun.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
ASSURANCE: TREAT DIE ROLL AS 10, GET BONUS. TAKE 10!

If just hope it's better defined than take 10 was, so many people ran it so different I just stopped using it in my games.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
I hope mounted combat gets spiced up, more mounts need the "mount" rule or a way to gain it.

The list of mounts is my least concern.

I want to be able to charge with lance and shield. And I can't. I don't think that its asking too much to be able to charge with lance and shield.

Yeah, that's another big one. No Lance and Shield, only riding horses. Mounting up looks boring and not very good.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Moreland wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
So does that mean that Yoon is going to be like 12 forever? I was looking forward to angsty teenage Yoon.
Maybe. We haven't had to cross that bridge yet, so it hasn't come up. We might just leave Yoon in P1 and make a new kineticist iconic like we've done with Fumbus if we do a kineticist in P2. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Noooo! Yoon is awesome

Scarab Sages

I hope mounted combat gets spiced up, more mounts need the "mount" rule or a way to gain it.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

Just for the record, Sacred Geometry is not broken in the sense of "it's overpowered" (although it is), it is rather broken in the sense of "it does not do what the designer intended it to do" - past a certain level, the chance of it working actually becomes 100%.

In cases like that, I would think errata would be absolutely warranted.

8 ranks is all it takes

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd Revise a few things.

1: Unified terminology - no more weird wording, make it consistent.

2: Remove Feat Taxes, make more feats scale.

3: Clarify "Take 10" and make it explicit, I see far too much variation on this when playing.

4: Clarify Mounted Combat, it's a bit of a mess. (actually, beyond there being so few good mounts in PF2 I was largely happy with it there).

5: More Style feats for classes that aren't monks, makes martias more diverse.

6: consolidate skills. Some skills are practically infinite (profession, craft, etc.) and others don't need to be separate (Arcana and Spellcraft, for example). Would not reduce skill points to go with this.

7: Make lighting rules not a mess.

Scarab Sages

CorvusMask wrote:
Well call me surprised, Absalom actually gets featured in AP ._.

For being "the city at the centre of the word" their big products don't do a lot there.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Neutral_Lich wrote:
[this is like a knife ban just because some people use it wrong you don't ban everyone from using it and the people who do it bad will find another way to be bad so in the end it just serves to hurt good people
I actually don't think this is anything like the debate around the sale and ownership of real life weapons, but I don't think making that comparison is going to get you any sympathy if it did. Plenty of people are actually for restricting real life access to weapons.

It's a very similar argument because it involves base assumptions about people. I agree with him, max sympathy points.

Scarab Sages

Kalindlara wrote:
In addition, I think this is the first time I've seen kitsune placed alongside aasimar and tiefling, let alone strix, for power reasons.

There are a lot of really strong kitsune builds, where the racials are key to it. Definitely on par, but with slightly weaker stats.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
So, what's the advantage of the "actual framework and advancement" beyond that warm fuzzy feeling that all ducks are in their rows?
a consistent world with rules reflecting the in world reality, in a way that makes sense, with minimal ass pulls to make things work, and not having players asking to make characters using npc rules.

*consistency* is no value in itself.

Having rules reflect the world reality would be fine if Pathfinder was a fantasy world simulator, but it isn't. It's a ruleset for telling stories, and as such, the less these stories are constrained by some arbitrary limitations, the better. And any and all limitations should serve only one goal, namely making the game more fun.

Poking yourself in the eye while spending 1 hours statting one Antipaladin 13 NPC that will die in 2 rounds and then agonizing over whether you didn't forget about some obscure ability that NPC got at level 11 is not fun. Well, unless you're a jobless masochist.

Ass pulls are virtually what RPGs are about, unless the ability to wing things in order to make the game fun, rules be damned, is lost upon you.

If consistency has no value then we dont need rules at all. That's what rules give us, that's all they give us over straight narrative.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My plea: Make mounted combat good on more than just the horse. (hope I haven't posted this before)

Scarab Sages

Dasrak wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

If Lore gets used, it will almost certainly be as one of multiple options to beat the same check, probably at a lower DC.

On top of that, most Recall Knowledge can be done untrained, so it seems much less likely you'll get hung up like you did in PF1.

While true, I do feel that any discount that would actually make this appealing would be a bit over-the-top for untrained lore checks by Int-based characters. Untrained is only -4, which is already counteracted by having 18 intelligence, which means that an 18-int character essentially is like a 10-int character who is trained in every lore. This creates a problem: any DC discount that makes lore good for a 10-int character will make it rather obscene for the 18-int character that can abuse having essentially omni-lore.

One possible solution is to make it so lore is no longer a check; if you happen to have the right lore, you automatically succeed where others would need to make a skill check. So in the case of the OP example, anyone could make a Religion check to identify things about Torag's faith, but someone with Torag Lore just automatically knows those answers. That would make lore its own mechanic, though; something similar but not quite exactly like a skill.

That sounds perfect, I could get behind a system like that.

Scarab Sages

Captain Morgan wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
I don't think lore will play nicely in Organized Play at all. I already run into the situation where we miss a lot of the story because nobody at a table of 6 has Profession: Librarian or something else like that, and I see tables without basic stuff like Knowledge: History all the time too. Now there are infinite versions of that and we have fewer ways to increase it with more limited skill use... I don't see it working. The big draw was I could play any character at any table and that wasn't entirely true before but looks to be impossible now.

If Lore gets used, it will almost certainly be as one of multiple options to beat the same check, probably at a lower DC.

On top of that, most Recall Knowledge can be done untrained, so it seems much less likely you'll get hung up like you did in PF1.

I'd like to think so, but I have some serious doubts. And from what I've seen of past and playtest DCs being untrained won't really be useful at all past the first few levels.

Scarab Sages

I don't think lore will play nicely in Organized Play at all. I already run into the situation where we miss a lot of the story because nobody at a table of 6 has Profession: Librarian or something else like that, and I see tables without basic stuff like Knowledge: History all the time too. Now there are infinite versions of that and we have fewer ways to increase it with more limited skill use... I don't see it working. The big draw was I could play any character at any table and that wasn't entirely true before but looks to be impossible now.

Scarab Sages

Mudfoot wrote:
That line about "you can usually skip rolling and assume the characters succeed against trivial DCs" wouldn't be needed if people could just TAKE 10 which would get rid of half of this nonsense.

Ah, take 10. The most controversial and widely varying rule I've ever seen. No two GMs seem to run it the same.

Scarab Sages

Are we accounting for weakness proc'ing multiple times? I thought the numbers were high until I saw that. (though that highlights the problem with identifying monsters).

Scarab Sages

Actually without the Mount ability there's no point to riding a bear (and small sized riders are common in 1E). I'm just very disappointed with the majority of mounted options because they seem to have the opposite of synergy (skornergy if you've ever played Warmachine).

Scarab Sages

Mounted combat as a whole is unintuitive, needlessly difficult and convoluted, unrewarding, and unfun.

I love mounted characters, PF was the first RPG that I ever felt mounted combat was not just good but fun too. I love mounts, from my Roc rider and my buddies Bug rider to my Snake rider and my Wolf rising monk. Hell, some druids and prestige classes even made horses cool. I get none of that in 2E, none of the fun or shenanigans - not even the power ones, just the silliness of riding a bug that's too dumb to let allies through it's square when I'm knocked out, or being able to use Entangle and still melee things, or just saying "yes, I ride this ugly thing" or "my mobility bird takes the magic carpet ride with me on its back, I'm not using my crop of ant haul to get to a party"

My first test of the system was "can I use a mace and ride a bear like one of my favourite tabletop characters? (and not suck)" I couldn't when the rules first dropped and I can't now. Learning that a Shield and Lance can't even be done well is even worse, in 1E I did that from bird-back.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

Honestly, I'm happy beyond measure that the "Monsters NPC aren't built from the same Lego bricks as PCs" direction took hold. Having just emerged from an adventure path finale where I spent 6 hours building i.a. 3 PF1 high-level classed enemies statblocks using HeroLab only to have one of them die in an instant (heal + Reach Spell vs. undead can be brutal) and the whole final fight taking LESS THAN THE TIME USED TO BUILD THE STATBLOCKS I'll sell my kidney for a system which will make coming up with high level opponents more time-effective.

I don't care about the fact that having NPCs not use PC classes prevents all the little tiny duckies in my brain from falling into correct rows and sitting pretty. Never had much of these ducks to begin with, anyway.

That sounds so weird to me, nearly everything is consumed faster than its made. Food, adventures, television, books. All take more time to make than consume.

Scarab Sages

Yeah, this really needs to be fleshed out early.

Scarab Sages

Replace "animal companion" with "horse" and you have a question, riding anything else gives you 2 actions and it has 2 to move with (ground speed only)

Scarab Sages

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Charon Onozuka wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
IIRC one of the bits of lore about Elves is that they very quickly adapt to/are changed by their environment. Like it's been 3000ish years since the Elves came back from space and already some of them have gills and are living underwater.
Then why aren't elves the dominant and most widespread race in Golarion? Like, I thought the whole point of humans was that they were adaptable/skilled and thus were able to settle all across various biomes despite being shorter lived, less magical, and not as strong as some other races.
It's cultural, not genetic. With super long lifespans, Elves are not in a hurry to do anything in particular.

Humans are just a flash in the pan, really.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hexes are harder to map out,so it won't happen. PF2 is all about designer ease of use, not much else.

Scarab Sages

Everything I've seen has indicated that the playtest solved high level play by removing it and stretching levels 1-10 out to 20, so why not just be honest and say you can't develop past level 10?

Scarab Sages

And I see a bunch of people say stuff like "I guess they'll never have 10 minutes to rest" - which to me says that party concealment/fortification is another niche that could be done in myriad interesting ways. Ie. Distractions so the healer has time to heal and the crafter has time to fix shields.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

I think it taking 10 minutes and targeting the whole party are the absolute most rock solid parts of the design and that is the last thing I would want to change.

I love the Darkest Dungeon-style "each PC has something to contribute to the post-fight rest", and I love how it all takes 10 minutes so that no one is waiting on anyone else. I would want to double down on that paradigm, not change it.

Interesting post encounter options are awesome, and we need more. I'd love to see a crafter so good at fixing shields they can even patch up the wizard's Shield cantrip, and other fantastical feats (that don't need to be Feats necessarily)

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:
Leafar Cathal wrote:

Treat wounds allows a more diverse party without a cleric. A Bard, a Druid or even the Fighter can take the role of a healer now, just need to invest some WIS and take the skill as at least trained. Which is way better than having someone to play the Cleric just for having more than 15min adventure time.

Like ENHenry said, Time is the resource here. If you're in a dungeon and would like to spend two hours to be full HP, well, a patrol will find you eventually. The BBEG won't let the group patch up for two hours straight. Maybe the GM will roll random encounter chance once or twice per hour while the party is resting. Or maybe you won't even be able to rest, because there are loads and loads of zombies nearby.

Said that, I feel like treat wounds now totally outshines the resting 8 hours HP recovery.

Pathfinder, as evidenced by its APs, has evolved far beyond just dungeon delving. Few adventures offer the time constraints that those arguing as the "cost" imply. If time-pressured adventures and plots were so prevalent, the 15-min adventuring day would never have existed in the 1st place.

The new Treat Wounds mechanic effectively negates the idea of having to adventure while injured.

As I stated previously, I'm all for mundane means of healing. I believe there should be a Treat Wounds mechanic. However, the pendulum has swung waaaay too far in the other direction. It effectively breaks immersion on any level, even allowing for hit point abstraction. I accept it, grudgingly, in a video game but not in my tabletop RPGs.

As written, Treat Wounds is closing off narrative areas and stories as much as it is enabling PCs to "press on". And as you state, the 8-hour rest is effectively rendered useless.
[/QUOTE

If you want time sensitive games play some Society, real and narrative time constraints abound.

Scarab Sages

Azih wrote:

Guessing at motivations is fun as long as we're not serious about it and remember that none of us are mind readers.

The negativity around Paizo using multiple means of communication is... odd...

It's 2018. Everything is scattered across twitch, youtube, facebook, twitter, instagram, websites etc etc etc.

Just because everyone does it, does not mean it's a good thing.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:

Okay, let's make one thing clear: Jason was talking about a +50 bonus to Acrobatics, and how there are no opponents in Pathfinder which need those kind of bonuses.

That is categorically false in the first place. Every Great Wyrm dragon in the first bestiary has a CMD over 50, even the great wyrm white dragon (kinda sounds like a KKK title to me... ^^) with a 51. There are numerous monsters and AP bosses which have CMD's over 60.

So, yeah, bonus stacking to an absurd degree is problematic (and much moreso in Diplomacy than Acrobatics, IMHO), but also somewhat asked for by existing game design. And it comes at the cost of being less optimal at other things, which is how I personally like it.

Sometimes I wonder how well these guys actually know the game.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think we need more skill feats, we need more exciting skill feats - most of the ones I've seen are buying back base functionality from 1E. I want those legendary feats and new uses, with an expanded base function otherwise we have the same problem we did with 1E animal tricks (every new trick made the base animal less useful)

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lyricanna wrote:

I don't really like getting dragged into yet another debate here, but I feel the need to chime in with one observation that no one seems to have pointed out yet.

Suppose you're having one of those days where you just straight up never roll above a 10. Mathematically, there is nothing stopping a streak like this from happening with a d20.

How does the game keep you from feeling irrelevant? In PF1, with a bit of tactics and some help from the friendly wizard or bard, you can hit on a 5, and still have a 50-50 chance of succeeding. In contrast, PF2 is remarkably stingy with +1 (due to their value) so you hit on an 8 if you can stack all the +1's and conditions. Thus Bad Luck Brian is whiffing on 3/4ths of his initial rolls and has no chance with his second or third attacks.

Sure the average damage is roughly the same, but the miss chance is far higher in 2e. Hence the game feeling far more random.

Despite using a d20 my girlfriend might as well roll a d4 for initiative with the numbers she gets. She looks like she'd have a bad day in second edition

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, we gotta go whole hog on this for every race or it's a wash. I even get weird looks when I say "my elf is from Kyonin, he left because of the racism against his half elf son" gods forbid if I mention Castavorel. And that's just elves, my Ouat monk requires a brief lecture too usually, and that's no shenanigans on my part people just tend to assume racial monocultures if you don't tell them upfront - a complete world map and the ethnicities would be great, I'd be happy with just the inner sea getting done well in the core book.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've run a lot of Dark Heresy, and they have a Fate Point system that's like Hero Points - I really liked how they capped out at a number ( I.think 5 was the highest), automatically refreshed each game, and you gained them my finishing a campaign (like a book in an AP) but lost 1 permanently to avoid death (and you could do that even if you spent all your points, it removed the "slot").

I found it worked pretty good, and wasn't overbearing. PF2 isn't quite as lethal, but it's a lot closer than PF was.

Scarab Sages ***

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh God, that sounds terrible. No thank you. Every example you have on changing a scenario punishes players for using a character's abilities - especially situational abilities that do not come up every game (like object reading). A GM tells and facilitates a story where players have agency, and that comes before your desire to keep things on the rail you want. If someone puts in the effort to have a +56 grapple I sure as hell won't tell them "sorry, plot powers activate and he slips away"

And even if your a good GM there are bad GMs who will abuse that. With current GM fiat I've seen scenarios change from a fun romp to a hallway of murder-holes.

Scarab Sages

You're forgetting that just level to a skill results in failing every level appropriate check and there's not really any good ways to be great at skills.

Scarab Sages

Mergy wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not going to continue talking to someone that is going to call my playstyle badwrongfun. Gatekeeping isn't cool.

Oh no, I disagree. Better toss out buzzwords.

Scarab Sages

Mergy wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Mergy wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Mergy wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Monsters have such large hit values I dont think it'll matter that much
If the monster is hitting easily, maybe he would like to crit for often as well.
Good thing the monster's enjoyment of the game is a non factor
My enjoyment as a GM is a factor. Crits are fun on either side of the screen!
I GM all the time, when I GM I am absolutely NOT there for big numbers or crazy crits, I am there to run a fun game and let the players get their hero moments and forget our dull, almost-30 lives. I have yet to see someone getting their face smashed in have fun, unless they were built to have it smashed and keep going.
Fair enough. You and I can enjoy GMing in different ways. I'm not sure I like the implication that I'm wrong to enjoy critting while GMing, but maybe that's not what you mean to say.

You dont have to like it. I've rarely seen a crit happy GM run as well as one that isn't, that kind of fun is for the players.

Scarab Sages

Not mechanically compatible,but It'd be nice to use old stuff with new mechanics - but that doesn't look possible as we're seeing here.

Scarab Sages

I like it, hours of twiddling thumbs gets dull

Scarab Sages

Whatever prices are in, we can handle decimal points - we do it with real money all the time

Scarab Sages

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Probably because Organized Play is one of the biggest draws of Pathfinder (at least in my area). If the system isn't consistent and doesn't work well enough to be done "out of the box" it really impacts that amazing organized play environment that Paizo has set up. Frankly, without PFS I wouldn't even be playing and every rule I see I have to evaluate with regards to the PFS environment - and that's where designer intent matters and houserules don't mean anything.

Scarab Sages

Mergy wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Mergy wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Monsters have such large hit values I dont think it'll matter that much
If the monster is hitting easily, maybe he would like to crit for often as well.
Good thing the monster's enjoyment of the game is a non factor
My enjoyment as a GM is a factor. Crits are fun on either side of the screen!

I GM all the time, when I GM I am absolutely NOT there for big numbers or crazy crits, I am there to run a fun game and let the players get their hero moments and forget our dull, almost-30 lives. I have yet to see someone getting their face smashed in have fun, unless they were built to have it smashed and keep going.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mergy wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Monsters have such large hit values I dont think it'll matter that much
If the monster is hitting easily, maybe he would like to crit for often as well.

Good thing the monster's enjoyment of the game is a non factor

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
wakedown wrote:
thflame wrote:

The official reasons for sorcerers not being able to spontaneously heighten were "analysis paralysis" and unlimited spontaneous heightening being OP.

I don't buy either reason..

I buy into this.

In organized play with a bunch of semi-strangers, there's that guy playing the sorcerer.

And everyone's been taking their turns pretty expediently, now it's his turn, and he hasn't been spending the time thinking about what he'd do when it wasn't his turn - he was too busy on his phone, or getting a beer.

Now that it's his turn, he hmms and hmms for minutes trying to decide if he should empower this, or maximize that. Maybe he even takes out his phone's calculator app for a couple minutes.

I suspect a lot of changes were to codify a character before it begins play at the table to reduce the amount of things you could decide upon after you sit down and then your turn comes up. This makes everyone's organized play experience better when the person who has a hard time deciding has a lot less they can do when their turn comes up.

You get egg timers for those games and people stop dicking around on their phones pretty quick

Scarab Sages

DerNils wrote:

I was equally puzzled by this choice of loot, or any loot at all that can't be used in this module. I mean, when we next meet them, they are Level 9! Are they expected to be interested in the piddly Level 3 item we gave them, or an Owlbear Claw Trinket? 2 Adventures and 8 Levels later?

I mean, this is the Equipment they get at the start of the next module
one 8th-level item,
two 7th-level items, one 6th-level item,
two 5th-level items, and 250 gp to spend
on additional items.

There is absolutely NOTHING you can give them they can not just buy thrice over.

Are they at least of an uncommon or higher rarity? That's the only way I can think of making that kind of stuff useful

Scarab Sages

It's so dull I'm having a hard time getting people for a playtest game and I don't blame them

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

They're so dull and gaining racial stuff feels weird. I'd rather we get them all by level 5 and get most of them at level 1.

1 to 50 of 452 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>