Search Posts
To be fair, a whole lot of items in PF1 were almost useless from the moment you picked them up due to dc.70% of the content in PF1e was useless. That's not a reason to justify having useless content nowadays. . This is at least useful for a little while.
To be fair, a whole lot of items in PF1 were almost useless from the moment you picked them up due to dc.
Whispers of weakness for the win.
Ok then. Makes sense.
There's a part in Book 5 of Extinction Curse where the party has to cross a river with a DC15 Athletics check. The barbarian crosses, rolls, nat 1, and it turns out, well, nat 1 is still a success (the guy was ecstatic). The cleric followed... except the cloistered cleric was untrained in Athletics (and Acrobatics and...) Rolled a 13. Started drowning. One of the funnier moments in that session. (The cleric burned a casting of Fly in the end) Doesn’t a nat one reduce the level of success by one level? Did he have a 26+ bonus at that point? I figure he’d have to be at least in the teens(if you add some item or spell type bonuses,). Without them, what, 15th? To be able to score a crit on a 1 which would be reduced to a success. Because otherwise a regular success would be downgraded to a failure. No?
It’s not really broader than Nephilim.
Right, and Hags are fae, hence I brought them up.You mean... changelings?Those are part Hag. Right down to their ancestry feats, But it’s not like a nephilim but fae as it’s much more concentrated. .
You mean... changelings? Those are part Hag. Right down to their ancestry feats,
I’ve always wanted something vaguely like a Nephilim but fae focused.
Are monsters really the only thing that recall knowledge matters for? Other topics might have A relatively simple DC.
Making controversial topics and then argueing them to death seems to be one of RD's favorite pasttimes.Individual responses to everyoneTo be honest man, if you can argue against everyone in the entire thread at once like this, I don't really know what anyone is supposed to do to change your mind. Do you, like, WANT to argue about it? Or do you think someone has an answer that will satisfy you, and it just hasn't been said yet? Nothing wrong with testing the edges of a rule, and I don’t think dissatisfaction with assurance is THAT uncommon that it’s somehow. ‘Controversial’
There was a lot of bonking with a mace in between the party witch slinging spells when she moved away from my oracle. kept negating her stuff and the fighter and rogue bracketed the now grounded elvanna(greater dispelling) and walked on her.
My winter oracle did that with Source Severance against arcane spells, but I can see how your witch wouldn’t be able to do that.I will just say my winter witch was heavily focused on dispel and being Elvana’s antiparticle for the combat.Just finished the Elvanna battle. She went down when hit by three straight hits by a fighter and rogue totaling 300 points of damage. It worked in this case. Locking her stuff down a bit let the others clean up the riffraff then take on her.
Just finished the Elvanna battle. She went down when hit by three straight hits by a fighter and rogue totaling 300 points of damage. I will just say my winter witch was heavily focused on dispel and being Elvana’s antiparticle for the combat.
Just finished the Elvanna battle. She went down when hit by three straight hits by a fighter and rogue totaling 300 points of damage.
What I’d love is if there were an “archetype/dedication’” guide of some sort.I include them in my guides, but there are just so many now. I haven't been able to keep up with the last year. Use your sorcerer guide as a staple now.
What I’d love is if there were an “archetype/dedication’” guide of some sort.
In the middle of the Elvanna fight in ROW.i hope you had/have as much fun in that fight as my group did! Well, so far my Winter Witch is basically trying to hold serve on Elvanna, to negate her stuff to free up our other guys. Managed to dispel some of her more annoying buffs first round.
In the middle of the Elvanna fight in ROW.
That’s utterly ridiculous
It would be like the ‘new coke’ bit, leaving behind your core audience to chase a competitor’s audience.
Unironically, D&D 5e does feats right. You get a precious few and they're build defining, but you never feel forced to take one just to get to a baseline level of effectiveness. PF2 made too many things into feats, and it most results in false choices. Then sense motive needs to be split out from perception and either become its own thing or be rolled into the social skills.
In a level-based game, by level 5 you do have enough HP and AC from levels (so long as you pick the right class) that a cloth wearing monk can expect to walk through five pikes wielded by level 1 soldiers, slap those pike users silly and walk out, with a pause to use their Wholeness of Body. You claim to actually like the system yet say ‘one of the few things the system actually does w ell”. Really?
I just think the crunch went too far. There were some superfluous skills. Just not quite so many. Some things should not have been combined.
Non granular skills are less useful and less mmersive and more ‘video games’. And that CAN make sense, but it shouldn’t be the only option.
I’d list the skill consolidation as one of the solid negatives.Fair. I think if you want to double the list again to have more detail, you'd also want to hand out many more trained skills and skill increases. I'm not against it, but if you want characters that do a few things well, the consolidation works. Not double it but some things are weird. Sense motive and basic perception ring the same thing, for one example. If you’re a ranger out in the woods who barely interacts with people and is good and spotting things a long way off, you are ALSO an expert and picking up on people’s motives. There are other cases where to be good at one thing you have to also be good at a totally conceptually unrelated thing.
You missed the point. DF was trying to port every strength of fantasy monsters into the real world, while ignoring their weaknesses and how they are written into APs and the setting in general. In other words “if they existed in the real world without any of the weaknesses they explicitly have in the game world they’d totally dominate!”
Ok. Name positives then. Because you sure can’t tell: I’d list the skill consolidation as one of the solid negatives.
If I didn't like PF2, I wouldn't talk about it. I'm just critical of things I like.Seems really odd to hang around arguing on the forums of a game you don’t even like. Seems like poor usage of time.If you’re so convinced everything else is just better why are you even here?Where else should I be? Is this forum supposed to be a lifeless echo chamber where only minor disagreements, if even that, are tolerated? Ok. Name positives then. Because you sure can’t tell:
If you’re so convinced everything else is just better why are you even here?Where else should I be? Is this forum supposed to be a lifeless echo chamber where only minor disagreements, if even that, are tolerated? Seems really odd to hang around arguing on the forums of a game you don’t even like. Seems like poor usage of time.
‘But hitler’ is a poor argument which you shouldn’t be making.
The gun heavy setting is no less of a ‘theme park’
It can't be both?Guns are a genre issue, not a realism issue.Also very true. It seems that most of those who don’t want guns in their fantasy don’t want it for flavor rather than rules. At least from what I see.
Guns are a genre issue, not a realism issue. Also very true.
They also have no desire to be above ground, and breed slowly compared to us. The lack of reach and slow speed is also something they'd struggle to overcome. Once you start changing the characteristics of the race as presented you are no longer even having the same discussion. Part of the definition of elves is a low Birth rate. If you start snipping off bits and replacing them then it’s no longer even the same discussion. In the REAL WORLD long lived races tend to have lower birth rates.
And why can’t someone just wanting a simple class that is effective at what it does without complicated bells and whistles be a valid option?
Are you arguing to me or to Paizo? I imagine that they have more experience in the realm of publishing than I do. You can grab your soapbox, but I fear you won't find too many on your side to adopt more WotC policies. Brand name and momentum. That’s the reason,
Why should I have to buy two books to learn basic information about a monster? I'd rather pay more for a single book with a higher page count that gives me everything than a cut-back version with a required companion text. Decoupling the fluff makes refluffung easier.
So if they were weaker, they weren’t the same. How is it not artificial to start as a ‘baby monster’ and level up to a normal one?
More importantly: Is this the optional 3.x rules that let you have a monster ancestry with some sort of level adjustment to it? So you could be a level 5 Elf Wizard, or you could be a level 3 Drow Wizard because the Drow race had a 2 level adjustment accounted to it. So if they were weaker, they weren’t the same.
Why is it important to be ‘exactly that down to the last number”?If I'm playing a creature, once I hit the exact level where my soloing that monster should be a 50/50 toss-up down to dice and tactics, why shouldn't I have the exact same stats as them? If I'm looking to play as a monster, let me be that monster once I'm the right level. But you won’t be. You’ll be modified by whatever leveling you’ve done. Or you’ll have been massively overpowered. Or … Seriously? This is the argument you’re making?
Why is it important to be ‘exactly that down to the last number”?I don’t see why pf2’s structure couldn’t more or less accommodate a ‘monster turned into a class’. Have the ancestry . And a class which has class feats that expand upon that monster’s abilities in addition to the ancestry feats provided by the ancestry. Boom. Monster as class.It wouldn't work. The 3.x version had you become exactly that creature, customised with feats, skills, and spell selection. PF2's design doesn't allow for this sort of exact one-to-one translation because PCs and monsters share such different design philosophies. But he wants it to be exactly the same.
I don’t see why pf2’s structure couldn’t more or less accommodate a ‘monster turned into a class’. Have the ancestry . And a class which has class feats that expand upon that monster’s abilities in addition to the ancestry feats provided by the ancestry. Boom. Monster as class.It wouldn't work. The 3.x version had you become exactly that creature, customised with feats, skills, and spell selection. PF2's design doesn't allow for this sort of exact one-to-one translation because PCs and monsters share such different design philosophies. Why is it important to be ‘exactly that down to the last number”?
... I don’t see why pf2’s structure couldn’t more or less accommodate a ‘monster turned into a class’. Have the ancestry . And a class which has class feats that expand upon that monster’s abilities in addition to the ancestry feats provided by the ancestry. Boom. Monster as class.
So it feels to me like we are mostly in agreement on that. PF2 could potentially be played in a way where noncombat focused characters would be fun to play even though they are not very useful in combat. But that isn't how this game is normallyI think PF2 isn't well designed for a campaign focused on things other than combat. It doesn't have great rules for long stretches of play where combat doesn't happen, and spends so much page count on things only useful in combat that it doesn't sell itself to RP-focused groups the way other systems might. Actually, if I want to run one of those games I DON’T want a system that has strict rules for ‘social combat’. I want “generally workable’ but simple rules instead, every time. Social parts of the game constrained by a high level of rules would sap the fun right out of it.
Are you the player or GM in this scenario? Because if it's the former I wouldn't bother since your GM would likely be hard to convince anyway. Actually I suspect he isn’t. He tends to like cool ideas. Been playing with him for, gosh' twenty plus years. If I pitch something interesting which isn’t cheesy and out in left field ..
I don’t necessarily WANT to be able to use it consistently I just want to figure out what some of the opportunities might be so I can use them if they pop up.
It does say you can use recall knowledge with other skills that knowledges and lores, and I will be playing a charisma caster so off the bat I was trying to think of examples of what situations you might be able to use, say, diplomacy, intimidation, deception or performance for a recall knowledge? Can anyone think of any? Religion. “ Using an applicable Lore to Recall Knowledge about a topic, such as Engineering Lore instead of Crafting to find structural weaknesses in a bridge, typically comes with a lower DC. Your special interests can pay off! In some cases, you can get the GM's permission to use a different but related skill, usually against a higher DC than normal. The GM might allow checks to Recall Knowledge using other skills. For example, you might assess the skill of an acrobat using Acrobatics. If you're using a physical skill (like in this example), the GM will most likely have you use a mental modifier—typically Intelligence—instead of the skill's normal physical attribute modifier.”I used that example because it was in the text.
It does say you can use recall knowledge with other skills that knowledges and lores, and I will be playing a charisma caster so off the bat I was trying to think of examples of what situations you might be able to use, say, diplomacy, intimidation, deception or performance for a recall knowledge? Can anyone think of any? I’m just trying to get myself in the right headspace, so I’m collecting examples. It uses using acrobatics to judge the skill of an acrobat… could you roll intimidation to see if someone had been intimidated? Would you still use charisma for such a use or would it still be the intelligence bonus?
Well. Yes. The thought of ‘going rogue’ and being an oracle skill monkey had occurred as one branch.
|
