Asmodeus

Arakhor's page

1,614 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,614 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Really? Even if you can't do it in your head, a few scribblings on your character sheet would solve that immediately.


I'm glad you liked it! It's always nice to know that someone else uses the stuff you make. :)

I'll take a look at the high-level maths myself and see if I can come up with some recommendations for you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That's a shame - I thought that they were better than ability penalties overall.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What's wrong with the conditions?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:
I am very much on the autistic spectrum.

So am I. I don't see how that's relevant.

Quote:
If Pathfinder 2e crumbles apart just because a GM opts for that...

Literally any game with a GM can fall apart if you aim to kill your players at any opportunity, because you always have that power. As such, any anecdote that starts with "I killed all their characters, therefore X is bad" is automatically suspect if every session is "I actively try to kill all their characters and usually succeed".

(Frankly, if you couldn't kill all their characters when you're the GM despite trying to, you're not just trying hard enough.)


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:
While I appreciate removing the slowed condition from the dying rules, I cannot help but think that the wounded condition will make it even easier for a gang of determined enemies to beat down on a massively-AC-debuffed, dying PC in order to finish them off once and for all. That is a tactic I have been using in my playtest games to force TPKs, and the new wounded condition will make it even easier.

You've literally been "forcing" TPKs and then wonder why why you have a 100% TPK rate??


Check the blog. :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Honestly, a lot of americans get annoyed with efforts to get them to convert to metric. As such, I think more people would dislike seeing metric in their pathfinder than there are metric uses that'd be happy to see the conversions.

That is certainly the lamest excuse presented so far.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You might want to run a spell-check over it next time before PDFing it.

I like your idea for awarding hero points for pushing on, rather than retreating. I also agree with you on trinkets.


I preferred Starfinder's approach where you could make income rolls with vocational skills such as Medicine or Computers.


I find that I need to enlarge the text on my phone to see the bold mode clearly. It's acceptable on the PC.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

The text about resonance in the blog seems entirely neutral to me, so I don't see how it can be interpreted as negatively as above.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Paradox games give away patch fixes and the like for free with every update. Their DLC are always optional and the visual content packs can safely be skipped.


Moro wrote:
Interesting. Every change you mentioned and labeled "for the better" was a removal of a restriction rather than the imposition of a new restraint such as resonance.

They were the first three things I thought of. Don't read too much into it.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Fallyrion Dunegrién wrote:
Stop trying to fixing the game by changing the world around it has ben working for decades.

Demi-human level limits, paladins only for humans and multi-classing never for humans were all ways the world worked "for decades". They changed, for the better too.


Lausth wrote:

I am not used to it. If it is problem i will try to use space bar more often.

EDİT:Sorry if it causes your eyes to bleed. That was not my intention.

Thank you. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lausth wrote:
<stuff>

Do you not know how to use the space bar after a full stop or question mark or is this just a stylistic choice?


pad300 wrote:
As it is, many people, including me, like magic being both impressive and useful in their FANTASY rpg. If Paizo goes forward with anything approaching the current level of "nerfing", I expect a drop off in Pathfinder players, approaching what happened between 3.0/3.5 and 4th edition. Which means Paizo is out of business, just like WOTC got taken over (and then released 5th edition - which PF2 is going to have to compete with...).

Hasbro bought out WotC nearly 20 years ago. What influence Hasbro had on 4th Edition is unclear.


Aiken Frost wrote:

While I somewhat agree with your points, I feel this in particular is wrong because it is taking the current playtest rules as final. There is a really easy way to resolve that problem, in my opinion.

First, make the bonus damage dice be determined by Proficiency alone. After that, while Fighter will be the undisputed master of, well, fighting, you could give the other martial classes somewhat parity of damage by using the good old class abilities!

Remember, every single martial class used to have things that would give them better damage in certain circumstances. Barbarians and Rogues had (and still have, if in a different incarnation) Rage and Sneak Attack respectively, Paladins had Smite Evil, Rangers had Favored Enemy and etc. All they have to do is fine-tune the damage with the frequency it can be employed.

But allowing Fighters to still keep the best, uncircumstatial bonus to damage should probably be a feature, not a bug.

You'd want to add extra feats to gain additional weapon proficiencies, once that TEML is much more meaningful for weapons, and maybe even grant a slight damage boost for using a magic weapon as well.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

"Standard" would be a better word than "basic" here.

I would agree that if the save results are written out in a line like that, the CS result should definitely precede the S result.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

SWSE did it that way too, such that your Reflex save also stood in for your AC.


A bit (a lot) of a sidetrack, but thank you. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wasn't expecting to get SWSE tips in this thread, but I'll take 'em! :)


It doesn't have the invested trait, so no.


Thanks for the index, DMW!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The trait bubbles should really be ranked by importance, rather than alphabetically, e.g. Outsider Evil Chaotic for demons or Enchantment Emotion Mental for the charm spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not the same without Tony DiTerlizzi's artwork, but thank you. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I own most of TSR's Planescape output, but sadly I never got to have a proper 2nd Ed game with any of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In Planescape lore, certain outsiders used to send mephits to each other, with each type of mephit conveying a certain "coded" message by virtue of their quantity or racial type.


Is that supposed to be a joke?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd rather steer clear of more icons. How about two sub-paragraphs, one for invested powers and the other for activated/resonance powers?


Gaterie wrote:
Arakhor wrote:
It does seem a little bit odd that the alchemist is the only class that needs resonance to power their abilities.

You think it's odd that non-magical-alchemy is centered around the management of a magical resource?

OK, but what other cumbersome micromanagement subsystem would you use for alchemy?

I think that we're a little bit off-topic now, but a class points system of course. It's one of the things Pathfinder is most notable for, after all.


Maybe fiends can still be head-canoned to perform a ritual to plane shift back to their home plane/layer, so that they're not totally bereft of travel options, not that that would matter for combat stats, of course.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It does seem a little bit odd that the alchemist is the only class that needs resonance to power their abilities. If you changed that, then you'd have the liberty to mess around with investment/charge mechanics, which I think are by far the most useful part of resonance.


I think that resonance shows great promise, just not quite as harshly as it's currently presented.


Well, as Bulk is already stated to be 5-10 lbs, picking half a stone (7 lbs) as a fixed point actually seems like a good idea.

My point about temperatures was that they only appear in that one section on temperature, hence an extra line or two would not make a big difference, especially as even just one of the near-full-page artwork just sitting around in the play-test can be adjusted if necessary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mixed up lbs and kg, but I had the right idea. My excuse is that I am indeed British, so we use either or neither as the case demands. :)

One stone is 14 lbs and is typically only used for weighing people. It would be about 2 Bulk.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

For the record, I think that having the powers mixed in with the spells is a really silly idea - either include them at the end of the class chapter or as a separate section in the spells chapter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
What is the formula for bulk to kilograms? Pounds?

5-10 for lbs; roughly 10-20 for kg. That one was easy.

Quote:
I can recall that some use the metric system and respect their choice but I don't see how that translates into HAVING to go to the trouble of printing dual stats OR requiring other material to be removed to make room for it.

How much content do you think would have to be removed by adding one to two lines in the temperature section and maybe a sidebar on common Imperial-Metric conversions? The answer is almost certainly far less than you think.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CWheezy wrote:
Unless the spells are actually organized I wont look any harder (alphabetically and not by level??? wtf)

I know - it's shocking that it's been done that way ever since 3rd Edition debuted. Incredible, isn't it?


sherlock1701 wrote:
Arakhor wrote:

Angelic Form on p111 grants you both darkvision and low-light vision. Why is this?

Acute Vision on p57 does this too. I still don't see why you would ever need both.

Low-light vision does't usually have a range associated with it. In the evening, a creature with Darkvision can see e.g. 60 feet clearly, but everything else is concealed due to the twilight conditions. A creature with Low-light vision can see as far as they normally could without issue.

EDIT: Nope, crossing my editions. There's no benefit whatsoever.

Indeed. That was my conclusion too.


Nobility Lore's ability to generate cash could be interpreted as a stipend from your wealthy family, I suppose.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gazebo, aka Treachery Demon? :)


tivadar27 wrote:
This doesn't seem hard to me. We, as players, have obviously done this over the course of a little over a weekend. Yes, it was a collected effort, but that can also be done with editors. Have individual editors assigned to the various sections and have them do reads just of those sections, maybe skipping to relevant details where appropriate.

Whilst that's certainly possible, of course, you can take it as a matter of fact from a long-term worker in the field that proofreading is never easy and that something will always slip through, no matter how hard you try.


I'd go one step further, perhaps, and just grant the related skill as a (trained?) signature skill and then allow you to make profession checks using that skill, as per Lore.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
T(°C) = (T(°F) - 32) / 1.8

I'm well aware of what the formula is, thanks. I do wonder though, if some people are complaining that they can't work with Bulk because it's abstract or too imprecise or it (allegedly) allows spears to be fitted into belt-pouches, why should they be expected to work with mental arithmetic on the fly? Surely the latter is far more difficult.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A potted description beside each spell, as in 3E or PF1?


Cantriped wrote:
The latter is a exactly what I would have suggested, bring in one last freelance (or otherwise previously uninvolved) editor to look the whole thing over with 'clean-eyes' and catch the obvious things.

By the time said fresh eyes got even halfway through the entire play-test, they would no longer be fresh eyes at all. These things happen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

I actually made the case early in our design to change to metric, but as you might have guessed, with the vast majority of the audience being based in the US we could not find a way to make it work.

That said.. the game works pretty smoothly if you call 5 feet equal to 2 meters, and then all diagonal moves are 3 meters.

Well, that works fine for linear measurements, as has been pointed out, but not for Fahrenheit into Celsius. Given that there appear to be only eight specific temperatures mentioned throughout the playtest (all in section on Temperature), it can't be that difficult to include eight conversions into Celsius. It would take up one extra line, two at most.


Having played 2nd Edition somewhat extensively, I can attest that listing spells by level rather than by name is really bad to find a particular spell in a hurry unless you already know what level it is.

1 to 50 of 1,614 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>