Ricle Peakes

Angel Hunter D's page

*** Pathfinder Society GM. 582 posts (583 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 16 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 582 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

I could see having to choose between tails and shifting, maybe even more powerful changes at higher levels, Fox shape, realistic likeness, even changing into other humanoids!

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope hexes are either not spells at all, or cantrips that give more slots, or a combination. The hexes were the big draw for me, and them not being spells was awesome in 1e. The idea of a Fighter MC Witch who just learned how to give a good stink eye (evil eye) really appeals to me.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
While one use per wand per day seems pretty restrictive, there is additional space for archetypes or feats to enable a character to get more out of their wands.
That would be seriously cool.

Aw man, I could totally see a swashbuckler/gunslinger archetype that let's them draw and fire off a wand in on action, or like one of those multi coloured pens that you need to slide the coloured bit down on, but for magic.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Being a robot

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

1: Errata/redesigns for things before there's technical debt and it can't be changed

2: a better FAQ/errata system. Random posts and clips from 4 hour streams, twitter, etc. Doesn't cut it. You have your own website to put things on! Put things there!

3: a way to get the Mount ability on something that isn't a horse (preferably at low levels). Elk riding elves, gobbo dog riding gobbos, Orc on a bear, halfling on a bird - these are a few of my favourite things.

Scarab Sages

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Edge93, it's obvious you have a very different experience with these games than me, and your way sounds awful to me. Finding the broken stuff on things that bypass encounters is so much fun
Out of interest are you playing PF2e? If so, why? It is diametrically opposed to your way of playing and PF1e is perfectly tailored to your way of playing.

Because they aren't printing more 1e Society. While it may be opposed to my usual method of play, if it's directly in line with my appetite for regular games where I don't need to GM.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bardarok wrote:
gnoams wrote:
Being grappled is only a minor inconvenience instead of completely shutting down spellcasters.
I dunno if I'd call a 20% chance to loose any spell with somatic, material, or focus components a minor inconvenience for a caster. Not a complete shutdown either though.

An 80% failure is pretty bad, I want to loose my fireballs, dangit.

Scarab Sages

That's pretty standard for Society, annoying as it is. I really wish they just added more tiers to the check instead of inflating the DC.

However, my first 2e PFS games went wildly different on difficulty - I think the writers are still dialing it in at this point. I'll give them benefit of the doubt for now, but we really should give this kind of feedback some the iron is hot.

Scarab Sages

CrystalSeas wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
If you don't have time to do it, you shouldn't be the GM.
eh?

If you do not have time to do the necessary work as the GM, don't be a GM.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Of course, one of the most INTERESTING "side effects" of undead now having constitutions and being affected by mind-affecting stuff and not having so many immunities baked into the role is that it's a lot easier now to have PC undead...

How long until we get a Geb book with PC undead rules, and who do I need to bribe to have season 2 of Society be about establishing a Lodge there?

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
Anguish wrote:
Wanna know what is extra work? A default-disallow rule. Now a DM gets to read every rule a player thinks they want to use.
You don't have to read a book to say no to it.

You just have to read everything a player wants to use...

Scarab Sages

Persistent damage is really strong this edition, and from going over the bestiary is more a concern for players than their foes.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

As a GM in PF1, I was horrified when one of the players in my group was reading off his spell list and named the spell Blood Money.

He never asked me. It had never come up in the campaign. He had seen it listed on hero lab and thought it looked "pretty cool" so he selected it.
No, no, no, sir. This is not how we do things.
So I like the default rule of not selecting things unless they're common. Saves me hassle down the road.

If you didn't specify sourcebooks, that is how it's done. Like, what?

Edge93, it's obvious you have a very different experience with these games than me, and your way sounds awful to me. Finding the broken stuff on things that bypass encounters is so much fun - even more when a martial finds a way to do it instead of a cleric doing meditation to prep the perfect divine spell or a Wizard grabbing a scroll they just happened to scribe. Don't bring entitlement into this, because frankly you sound like you're in that camp.

Temperans, you're absolutely right - that's a communication issue. I GM way more than I play, and the amount of bellyaching from other GMs is always surprising to me. We're running a cooperative game with agency, not a rail shooter, and we aren't writing a book.

And then when the GM has to spend freaking hours trying to make opponents that can survive whatever BS the players have access to (while trying to not cross over to the fine line where you've overtuned and players are dropping like flies) because every encounter is ROFLstomped by OP characters, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that it's a good thing to just have free access to whatever without needing to communicate with or check with your GM. Breaking encounters can be cool on occasion, but it's a flipping nightmare when it's the norm, especially on the GM (who, again, you seem to think should be the one to have to put in the work to pick up the pieces after the players do what they want. Which is...

As someone who had to GM for the first 5 or so years of my RPG time, I don't know what you're getting at. To me it sounds like a gas jockey saying having 3 grades of fuel AND diesel is too much to expect him to pump.

That's just part of the job, and half the fun. Sure, it can be a challenge. So is playing the game.

And I find myself agreeing with gorbacz for once, so between that that and the snow here I most conclude that hell has frozen over.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

As a GM in PF1, I was horrified when one of the players in my group was reading off his spell list and named the spell Blood Money.

He never asked me. It had never come up in the campaign. He had seen it listed on hero lab and thought it looked "pretty cool" so he selected it.
No, no, no, sir. This is not how we do things.
So I like the default rule of not selecting things unless they're common. Saves me hassle down the road.

If you didn't specify sourcebooks, that is how it's done. Like, what?

Edge93, it's obvious you have a very different experience with these games than me, and your way sounds awful to me. Finding the broken stuff on things that bypass encounters is so much fun - even more when a martial finds a way to do it instead of a cleric doing meditation to prep the perfect divine spell or a Wizard grabbing a scroll they just happened to scribe. Don't bring entitlement into this, because frankly you sound like you're in that camp.

Temperans, you're absolutely right - that's a communication issue. I GM way more than I play, and the amount of bellyaching from other GMs is always surprising to me. We're running a cooperative game with agency, not a rail shooter, and we aren't writing a book.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Franz Lunzer wrote:

Including the restriction "this book" isn't ambiguous, it is very simple and clear, and has to be a clear intention of the designers.

The spells from other books will be available, with your GM's permission, or through other options in those books, I'd bet.

Paizo intended to empower GM's in this edition, and I like that.
** spoiler omitted **

I still don't get people like you, empowered players was the best thing about 1e. The main selling point for me.

Scarab Sages

I just hope access isn't too hard for PFS. I really want to play a Champion Hellknight of the Godclaw.

Scarab Sages

I'm hoping to try out a Mountain Style Dwarf Monk that gets a Barbarian multiclass and goes for the Spirit Dedication. Raging Monk sounds fun.

Scarab Sages

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Richard Crawford wrote:

I want no errata.

Because I want a perfect product with no errors.

But, given the choice between a product with unfixed errors and a product with errata, I'll take the latter everyday of the week.

Paizo does not have a good reputation for their handling of errata in the past, and with PF2, it seems to be getting worse.

At least with Pathfinder, developer's rulings ended up split between the faq and the errata documents.

Now, we need to refer to random comments that they're making on whatever podcast or promotional video that they have appeared on.

Yeah,that part is especially frustrating because they have a central location to state those things on, the most official location, and they ignore it? Like, I knew they aren't organized great but it's not even funny anymore.

Scarab Sages

18 people marked this as a favorite.

I think errata would work better as a living document, not seeing it until a new print run really sucks.

Scarab Sages

Captain Morgan wrote:
Zman0 wrote:
There was another long thread on this and my best answer to it is that they expect you to craft the special shields out of different materials. The rules seem to support it RAW and RAI, though it isn't laid out terribly intuitively.
I'm gonna requote this because it is important and seems to be overlooked. A sturdy shield might be better than an adamantine shield or a Forge Warden, but it is not especially better than an adamantine Forge Warden.

I could use a link, I have no idea how to figure those stats and it really changes the Shield game, at least until mid levels of play.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Castilliano wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Because continuously and effortlessly oneshotting encounters gets boring after awhile.

I think everyone who wants their PC to have an ability should first consider whether they want to face that exact same ability. And would it be any fun?

It's like in the playtest when players were clamoring to hit more. That's the equivalent of asking to be hit more.
I want to disarm effectively = I want to be disarmed effectively.

Yet as a party, w/ tactics & maybe some forethought, you can outperform the enemies. Transmuter casts Physical Boost on the unarmed warrior who took an MCD to get True Strike while the Rogue's ready to Aid and you might just wrest that Staff of MacGuffinity out of the boss's hands. Or might not, because they other creatures want to be good at what they do too.

Asking to hit more no longer has any correlation to being hit more because enemies don't follow PC rules anymore. What we do doesn't have anything to do with what monsters do.

Scarab Sages

6 people marked this as a favorite.

But that doesn't matter if you never want to do it. Then it's just another consumable that never gets used.

Scarab Sages 3/5

I'm pretty sure that's AP territory, unless you're still small sized.

Scarab Sages

And then they'll have inertia stopping then from doing it in the future.

Scarab Sages

Gorbacz wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

Well shoot. Now I’m wondering if I should be doing accents at all. It’s like one of those fun things I listen to and practice for fun so NPCs can sound distinct.

I had never considered an accent would offend someone if just used, well, as an accent. I suppose that’s more of not letting an accent become a stereotype. But then, I guess stereotypes are considers faux pas even if it’s fantasy?

Oof

Being offended is their problem, you do what you enjoy, and if they are really bothered by it they can talk to you like an adult.

If you’re being offensive, you’re the problem.

Giving a character an accent to give a character an accent is fine.

Giving a character an accent/speech patterns to make them the source of a joke or relying on cringey stereotypes is not.

Rysky, how about we do each other a favour and never respond to each other again? It's clear that in every thread we're like positive and negative energy. I don't think we'll be able to stay polite, or even have a decent discussion, given our completely different ideological/intellectual bases.
Tee hee, you walked into it by yourself: which one of you is positive and which one is negative energy, then? :)

For the sake of politeness I'll leave that to other minds.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

Well shoot. Now I’m wondering if I should be doing accents at all. It’s like one of those fun things I listen to and practice for fun so NPCs can sound distinct.

I had never considered an accent would offend someone if just used, well, as an accent. I suppose that’s more of not letting an accent become a stereotype. But then, I guess stereotypes are considers faux pas even if it’s fantasy?

Oof

Being offended is their problem, you do what you enjoy, and if they are really bothered by it they can talk to you like an adult.

If you’re being offensive, you’re the problem.

Giving a character an accent to give a character an accent is fine.

Giving a character an accent/speech patterns to make them the source of a joke or relying on cringey stereotypes is not.

Rysky, how about we do each other a favour and never respond to each other again? It's clear that in every thread we're like positive and negative energy. I don't think we'll be able to stay polite, or even have a decent discussion, given our completely different ideological/intellectual bases.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:

Well shoot. Now I’m wondering if I should be doing accents at all. It’s like one of those fun things I listen to and practice for fun so NPCs can sound distinct.

I had never considered an accent would offend someone if just used, well, as an accent. I suppose that’s more of not letting an accent become a stereotype. But then, I guess stereotypes are considers faux pas even if it’s fantasy?

Oof

Being offended is their problem, you do what you enjoy, and if they are really bothered by it they can talk to you like an adult.

Scarab Sages

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, this is a nothing-burger.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
I think the society needs a weekly FAQ type deal to fix the most pressing issues and typos, because those games can't use house rules. For everyone else, getting a society FAQ would likely answer the most pressing questions and then they could house rule anything that's left until we get a reprint errata.
I know a lot of folks I gamed with would use the Additional Resources and clarification pages for the various product lines, and what they said for PFS, for "official" rulings in their homegames. The pages say they aren't official errata, but the counterpoint was always, "But it's on the site tho." It seemed to work out alright.

I haven't had a game where this didn't happen. I also think we need to come to terms with Society being a big deal and that it requires faster movement on rules and FAQs because of the pace and scale of it. I know one of my GMs biggest complaints about the system in Society play is that there's a lot if built in table variance that makes consistent play experience difficult - not counting actual rule issues that make the problem even bigger.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Asset forfeiture, that pile of gold/stack of money was clearly committing a crime, and will be used to buy the department a tank.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Alsolomir wrote:

The main reason that I feel they can accomplish the speed that they are now showing is because they set up a very intelligently modular approach to their classes. This allows them to create many options that won't break the game. This system is set up in a way that it is stable and requires minimal oversight to avoid disrupting the whole. As an example, there are only three categories of buffs; status, contingency and item. The multiclass options now require you to give up options to gain other options. The proficiency system always keeps players and monsters of the same level in a reasonable range of hit and miss success.

What I'm saying is that with a firm foundation you can fairly safely add features without breaking the system, with reasonable oversight.

With other aspects of the game, such as geography and history, they have 10 years of this world and can easily translate the ideas and changes they have created and changed over that time.

So, I think they have the system and background that allows them to put out new content rather quickly.

I think you're right for the most part, but we do need to keep an eye out for "technical debt," I think thats the term? So we don't have books upon books of stuff that rely on a mistake or just a bad rule that's easy to fix now, which results in nothing being done.

Scarab Sages

Claxon wrote:
Tim Schneider 908 wrote:

To clear a bit of the "it depends", let's look at this as a typical group of bandits in a hideout. If the party kills the lookouts in a combat that's not especially noisy or quiet, and hence likely was overheard inside, how much downtime would you allow while still running the next fight as planned? And if more extreme downtime was in play what kind of advantages would you give the enemies?

If I didn't have a more obvious ticking clock I've kinda been working on a 30 minute mark for your average human-level intelligence enemy who might have been alerted as the "Ok, they've stopped being worried and starting being very prepared" line, with my go to impact of delays being bonuses to initiative for the enemy & letting them use things like stealth for initiative & be in more advantageous spots (to reflect preparing an ambush) unless there's some obvious actions they could take.

I've always thought the amount of down time in dungeons was unrealistic. I never liked the concept of "we're resting in the dungeon". Even with things like rope trick, I've always figured that some enemy should spot this odd thing, know that they've been attacked (unless players went to great lengths to clean up the battlefield), and set all sorts of traps for the PCs, move anything important out of the base, or potentially just leave for another "secure" base location.

If an enemy not in the combat would realistically have a chance of hearing the battle the players probably shouldn't even have 10 minutes to rest. If no one is in ear shot of the fight, then maybe its 10 minutes before someone walks through the area.

I think "dunegons" are intended to be endurance runs with little down time. But that may mean running them with challenges of CR-1 or CR-2 enemies until you get to the boss. So players aren't topped off, but are still entering the boss fight with a chance to win.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, aren't those the CRs you should be running anyhow? I've been under the impression that on level challenges are supposed to be "boss" type encounters.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I had just assumed that the makers of Wandermeal had used all the gold I spent on it in 1e to merge with the Baker's Guild and standardize adventuring rations.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
KutuluKultist wrote:
They will not switch to a quality first strategy.
Errors are inevitable. Just because they exist doesn’t mean quality wasn’t strived for.

And just because you want an A doesn't mean you don't flunk out.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

For something that was supposed to be iconic they sure did drop the ball on Alchemists

Scarab Sages

I really hope to be making a Champion Hellknight once the Character Guide is out.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not happy about needing two books to find the info, but I'm glad we have the missing info - which I really hope an errata will include in the book when those come out.

Still, glad to see Hellknights getting support. I've always enjoyed them.

Scarab Sages

Sweet, can't wait. You make the best character sheets.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Podcast and social media? How about they put it on a first party website instead of tucking it away in other places. You know, the first place anyone would go to look.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
If I had Catfall I'd find ways to use it. The ability to casually jump off things is great.

Provided there are things to jump off.

Scarab Sages

MaxAstro wrote:

From what I understand, isn't the 2e release schedule so far very similar to the 1e initial release schedule? We are even getting the APG at the exact same point in the schedule.

@Angel Hunter D: I don't know if this is your intent, but taken together your posts seem to imply that if Paizo had spent longer on 2e, it would have resulted in a game that is closer to what you personally want.

I do not believe that to be true.

I know I'm not getting exactly what I want, but they keep making the same kind of mistakes and I was hoping they'd learned from the last decade. Some of this stuff is pretty basic, some of it I know is just that people enjoyed 1e for different reasons.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Wut

If you never use something, it's just as useful as not having it.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

They don't just post important stuff, a place to aggregate or officially post stuff is more what I'm thinking. If only they had an official online platform to reach their customers with...

Scarab Sages

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
One thing I hope for if they do Magus - give it a list with good touch spells. Like, really, give them the spells they need.

One thing I'm entirely confident of is that when they do the Magus, they won't give it a list. They will instead give it access to the arcane list with different slot and proficiency progression from the Wizard/Sorcerer and potentially allow access to specific spells on other lists via class feats.

No class is going to have a bespoke list in PF2, unless it's 3PP. There are four lists.

I know there won't be bespoke lists, I just ment whatever list they get better have decent touch spells.

I'd like to see the Arcane pool be bigger this time around - pool strike was cool but awful for example.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is something they've needed for a long time, centralized and consistent communication has always been a weak point of theirs

Scarab Sages

Skill feats are definitely dull for most skills until higher levels, but this isn't an aspect of the game being broken, just new.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
The only way you could possibly consider the 2e CRB to be a rushed mess is if you are completely unaware of the state the 1e CRB was released in...
I had hoped they'd learnt their lesson.
I mean, they did. Just looking at the classes 2e has exactly one class that's clearly inferior to the others. 1e... everything other than the Bard and the Paladin were clearly out of line in one direction or the other. Maybe you could make an argument the Ranger was fine, too.

They did better, but the same kind of mistakes are still there. And I fear that like 1e we'll be dogged by errors and oversights from the CRB for the next decade.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
The only way you could possibly consider the 2e CRB to be a rushed mess is if you are completely unaware of the state the 1e CRB was released in...

I had hoped they'd learnt their lesson.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Another rushed part of the core rules. Ugh.
Another?

I keep finding bits and pieces where things don't really work well and appear rushed.

Some of my problems may be PFS scaling, but on the whole my main impression of 2e is that it needed 6 more months of playtesting and developing with the full rules, and that really annoys me because the good parts are *so* good and I really like a lot about the edition.

Scarab Sages

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Absolutely, it's obvious that their work rate is outstripping their competence. It was obvious from the playtest.

The thing they do best are APs, and those are chugging along just fine.

1 to 50 of 582 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>