AsmodeusDM's page

58 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
AsmodeusDM wrote:


Namely, that is certainly breaking all manner of verisimilitude through its existence. An ogre is unlikely to fall victim to my deadly poison because it's a big hulking creature 9' tall with a high constitution and the endurance of a giant; but then the same deadly poison doesn't work against the frail elven king who is aged and infirm.....because he's higher level than the poison?

Isn't that basically the same as the same elven king having more hitpoints than an ogre because he's a L15 wizard vs a 4hd bozo?

No; because it's not like the wizard gains or loses hit points relative to your level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While my original post was more about the rules mechanics of the Incap rule (namely meaning that since higher-level creatures already have higher saves doesn't this mitigate the risk of such creatures routinely and easily failing saves vs. particularly debilitating effects) I must say that I also do agree with some of the points that have been raised about the game-play experience that this rule (and others like it) engender.

Namely, that is certainly breaking all manner of verisimilitude through its existence. An ogre is unlikely to fall victim to my deadly poison because it's a big hulking creature 9' tall with a high constitution and the endurance of a giant; but then the same deadly poison doesn't work against the frail elven king who is aged and infirm.....because he's higher level than the poison?

Hadn't really thought about it in those terms; and is does rub me strongly the wrong way.

Another interesting point I see being made a lot is about "taking down the boss too easily" or "but then the boss would just die." I'm just curious what the survival percentages of your bosses are in your games?

What I mean is, the PCs are victorious like what 99% of the time? I mean Paralysis spell or not; that monster (that boss) isn't making it out of the encounter alive is it?

I mean let's assume that in a typical adventure or dungeon that the PCs need to overcome a minimum of 10 combats/encounters. If the party has even a 10% chance of failing or losing those encounters the odds that they will make it all the way through those encounters is only 35%.

Clearly our party's in PF2 are not getting wiped or otherwise losing battles at this rate.

So then how often do the PCs actually lose a battle or get taken out or what have you. What's an acceptable "failure" rate? Is there one?

In order to give the party an 80%+ chance of successfully navigating 10 encounters in a row the odds of party failure on any single encounter has to be a measly 1%.

So given that; basically KNOWING that you are going to win anyways I don't understand how/why it's more fun to beat on a creature's HP for 5 rounds.

Put another way; it's the final fight of the big adventure. The big bad boss villain moves up to the party and smack the fighter. The two-handed pick wielding fighter goes next and amazing crits with his first attack (nat 20!) and second attack (nat 20!); they roll extremely well and the BBEG is dead!

Was that encounter, by your definition, lame?

Should/Would you as the DM somehow fudge that encounter and secretly give the BBEG more HP because it's "cooler" if the PCs get beat up a bunch?

I just don't understand what kind of game experience it is that you are hoping to have in this game.... you just want to roll dice and pretend that they matter?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

There have been a lot of good points raised about preserving the action economy of a single creature ("the boss") vs. a whole party's worth of actions which are excellent points.

Still, given the design of PF2 if you feel the solution to making a "boss" interesting is to:

- Make it immune to the types of spells that are specifically designed to deal with single high-power targets.
- Give it much higher AC, Attack bonuses, and Saves than the PCs
- Give it a boatload of hit points.

Then I guess I just have to respectfully disagree with you and the game designers.

A Hobgoblin General is a level 6 creature; a Severe encounter for a group of 4 level 3 PCs.

PC's are likely to have ~ +9 attack bonuses vs. the HG's AC 25: a 25% to hit, which drops to 5% for any secondary attacks.

The HG's saves aren't too far behind (Fort +12, Ref +15, Will +13); and even with an 18 stat a spellcaster is going to be at DC 19.

This means that in order to "preserve the challenge of the fight" a martial or spellcasting PC is going to be lucky to do anything but miss in 66% to 75% of the rounds of the fight.

In a 4-round fight; maybe 30-40 minutes of play you might hit once or land one spell.

Maybe that's GOODMATH(tm); but it sounds painfully boring and uninspiring to me.

In a complete shift of opinion to the majority of you; I (as the DM) loved sinkorswim effects specifically to save the group the chore of having to hack and chomp their way through some monster's copious amount of hit points. Granted, their saves were better so they were still the underdog there to land one, but when they did it was awesome for the PC and the party.

It's so STRANGE to me to think of a group of PCs, a PARTY, being *upset* because someone in their group (a wizard or cleric say) successfully dealt with a powerful foe in a manner that saved them from the danger of a combat with said foe.

Like; what would that even look like in character?

*Powerful devil appears from the darkness before the party*

"Now Cheliax will have it's revenge you petty interlopers!"

*Wizard casts disintegrate and blasts the devil to dust*

Party: "Awww come on man; I wanted to fight that for a few rounds!"


THe main reason this is nice is because it allows spellcasting PCs to use their Hero Points to re-roll important spells (the same way their martial companions get to re-roll their important attacks)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I was definitely implying and leaning towards the "contrived narrative" vs. "emergent gameplay."

As for spells and Incap effects; we were not just looking at spells but specifically monster abilities (like the ghouls, but also medusas) as well as our party's monk who in the course of this discussion realized his Stunning Fist has the Incap trait meaning he can't use it against the type of enemies he'd most prefer to use it against (tough foes... who cares really if you stun 1 one of the six lower level foes).

Additionally the incap rules seems arbitrary. Hideous Laughter cuts into a foes actions, limits their reactions and can even remove all their actions for one round, but it is not Incap. The Slow spell removes actions (even on a successful save), but it is not Incap.

Maybe they feel there is a difference between Slow 1 and Stun 1; but uhhh there is not.

In discussing this with my players and thinking of options to alleviate it; we brewed up this possible house-rule based on the Character class expert save class features (like Juggernaut) but in reverse.

Incapacitation: If a creature is more than twice the level of a spell; it treats Critical Failure results as Failure instead.

In this way you solve two issues:

#1 the Crit Failure results are really the worst offense of the Incap effects, so you eliminate that result and still let the PCs get some effects with their spells.

#2 It means you also eliminate the extreme swinginess that happens when a high-level foe just happens to hit that Nat 1 and may end up with the Crit Failure effect anyway.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:

I am a little thorn about the current boss fight mechanics as they scream "xp only for blood" right into my face. Of course it can be quite anti-climatic if the bad guy falls victim to the very first save, however it can also be quite anti-climatic when your whole party knows that in order to bring that enemy down you need to wear down every single of his HP, spending yours in the process. No other way or outcome possible.

Exactly all this.

The issue is that for years in the attempts to create "the perfect climatic cinematic ending" to their linear adventure DMs were forced to come up with all ways to fudge and cheat in order to "keep their cool boss/final villain" alive so that they could have a "proper cool final fight just like the movies!".

In order to facilitate this, instead of cheating... PF2e just codified it into the ruleset making it so that every boss fight will be grindhouse affair where every PC will "get a chance to contribute" as you are forced to smash your way through hundreds of hit points.

blurg.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
K1 wrote:

I don't see any issues with ghoul and lvl 2 or even 3 players.

A character fortitude save will be

1d20 Lvl + const + prof

Now, here's the maximum outcome:

Lvl 3 Expert Fortitude character with 16 const = +10

20% chance to fail

...

And here the lowest

Lvl 2 trained fortitude character with 8 const = +3

55% chance to fail

Between a +10 and a +3, the middle would be +7, which is 35% failure chance.

To me seems pretty balanced, if we consider we are talking about lvl-1/-2 enemies.

The problem is that ghouls are level 1; so once the PCs are level 2 the incapacitation rules kick in and all PC saves are treated as one degree higher. So for your example of a PC with +10 to save; this means that their 20% chance of Failure gets improved to Success (which means nothing happens). Only on a natural 1 (where the nat 1 rules apply) does the PC actually fail.

Similarly with your +8 with a 55% chance to fail; this individual on a roll of a 2 gets a 10 which is a failure... which gets upgraded to a Success (which again means nothing happens). Only a natural 1 from the PC will result in a Failed save.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Narxiso wrote:
Conversely, a number of incapacitating foes would be more dangerous than an equal level encounter of nonincapacitating foes, something that 5e focuses on.

Right so isn't the inverse true? Meaning that since ghouls (or medusae, etc.) are 'balanced' including their incapacitating traits; once you have mitigated that be being high level I have to assume that a good deal of their "challenge worthiness" drops off.

e.g.

A party of 4 level 1 PCs fight an encounter vs:

2 ghouls (level 1, 40xp each): 80xp
2 goblin pyros (level 1, 40 xp each): 80xp

These are equivalent.

A while later, now the PCs are level 3, you still want a moderate encounter:

4 ghouls (level 1, 20xp each): 80xp
4 goblin pyros (level 1, 20 xp each): 80xp

The PCs save are a few points higher so they are 10% more likely to save vs. the goblin pyros burning hands and other spells... but as for the ghouls the PCs are 95% to pass all of the ghouls saves.

It seems to me then that the effective challenge of the 4 ghouls is drastically lower than it would seem because so much of their combat effectiveness is tied to their special abilities.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well it also means that like a monk can’t stunning fist a creature a level above him; basically you can only use your stunning fist when you are fighting a bunch of riff raft which when it doesn’t even matters they much


2 people marked this as a favorite.

While playing a dungeon I made with my group they encountered a pack of ghouls; as they were level 3 PCs there were a number of ghouls. We were about half way through the fight when I noticed that the ghoul's paralysis ability had the Incapacitation trait so I checked the rules (figuring it might be like it is for spells; more than double). But for items, creatures, etc. it simply means if the target is higher level than the creature then the Incap rules apply.

i.e. once you are level 2 you are (essentially) immune to ghoul paralysis.

What I don't understand is, why? I mean as you level up your stats, proficiency, item bonus, etc all increase dramatically meaning that the odds that a level 3 or 4 (or 5 or 6 etc) PC fails a DC 15 ghoul paralysis save become ever lower and lower and lower.

This is true with all "hoser" type effects in the game (medusas, basilisks, etc.).

PCs naturally become less and less vulnerable to these effects due to the ever increasing nature of their saves.

Why have this rule then? Why make the PCs suddenly immune to the creatures powers once they are a single level above it; it essentially makes the monster nearly pointless and really rules out ever using the monster as duo, trio, or group later on down the line once the PCs are a few levels higher than the monster.


Tweezer wrote:

I'm not really sure which part of the ending you guys didn't like.

Sounds like your players were dissatisfied with not being heroic, which I get, but going for optimal efficiency isn't really heroic.

It's cool if you just needed to vent - I'm just trying to figure out Why.

Yeah just a random statement of a surprising end to an adventure ending in both a double un-climatic ending (both in terms of the town being blown up and the fight being a bit more of like a mugging)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well we wrapped our final session of Plaguestone last night and didn't quite get the ending that anyone expected.

For starters in the previous session after making their way through the numerous severe and moderate encounters of the main level of Spire's Cradle and finishing off the alchemical drudges in the main laboratory the group, out of spells and beat-up decided to retreat and rest up before assaulting the final bottom level of the dungeon the next day.

The next day (and session) they returned to Spire's Cradle went into the lower levels, defeated the Amalgam creature, easily fought past the big bats, and then engaged Vilree the Alchemist in her underground layer.

It was there that the party was dismayed to learn that.... the town was already destroyed.

You see in the adventure ( as written) Vilree has sent one of her alchemical drudges off to trigger the explosion which will destroy the town as soon as she learns of the PCs intrusion. She informs them of this with some boxed text as she lays dying post-fight; a sort of "you think you've won.. but *coughcough* I'll have my revenge.. You'll be too late!!" then the PCs are supposed to run back and save the town.

There are numerous ways she is informed of the PCs approach, but the killing of her alchemical bonded servants alerts her of their death and so the prior day when she began notice the destruction of her servants she set her plan in motion.

Alas by the time the PCs learned of this it was of course far too late.

(I will add that my party didn't really care since they felt no real sympathy for the town and wondered why they were so helpless anyways. Additionally they wondered why Vilree spent months concocting some super alchemical bomb hidden in the town when she could have very easily taken her hordes of level 3, 4, and 5 monsters and just completely ravaged the town at-will... but I digress)

Since they couldn't save the town, they decided to at least avenge it and decided to end the threat of Vilree once and for all.

Combat followed and after playing PF2e for a while the group has begun to learn that just spamming attacking isn't the best option as many people on this forum routinely remind us of.

With that in mind, the fighter dropped his axe and Grabbed Vilree. He then kept her Grabbed (and even Restrained a few times) throughout the rest of the battle while bashing her in the face with his shield.

Flat-footed from the grab, the rest of the party was able to pile a lot of damage on her. And between wasting actions trying to escape the grab and taking attacks of opportunity from shield bashes from trying to do maniuplate actions (like pulling out potions); Vilree didn't do much.

Her big alchemical behemoth beast tried to save it's master; but there wasn't a whole lot it could do to free Vilree besides just try to attack the fighter as best it could.

We imagined it as the big strong fighter just kinda holding the small elf town (Grab) and beating her in the face with his off-hand shield... until the rest of the party joined in and surrounded her and wailed on her until death.

Not exactly the kind of Heroic Fantasy we were going for.

Everyone agreed that the tactic of grabbing and/or keeping her prone was very effective. But everyone also agreed that it both felt strangely cruel and violent (even more so than just hacking with weapons) and also very very non-heroic and even pitiful for the villain of the story to be dealt with in such a manner.


But that's the rub of it right? At the end of the day, combat and it's presumed lethality is really just all at the discretion of the GM and their whims at that moment.

I'm not talking about straight cheating fudging (aka misrepresenting a die roll), I'm talking about fudging by omission or by omission.

The best example I can think of in PF2 (as well as in PF1) is how monsters (including intelligent ones) treat downed PCs. Knowing that a heal spell will bring a PC back up into the fight the "smart" play of any reasonable intelligent humanoid foe would be to completely eliminate a PC once set to dying.

e.g. you have two creatures at the same initative; one attacks a PC and crits her down to negative and Dying 2. The second creature strides over and makes two quick Strikes to finish her off.

That's not even game-cheese that's actually roleplaying; namely that's how PCs would certainly handle their tactics vs. foes that had healing capabilities.

But GMs (myself included) will typically do ANYTHING but that.

We'll see the PCs are all down on HP and realize that each monster can just use their AOE attack and it should finish the whole party off... but we'll instead choose to use a claw/claw/bite attack routine ... knocking one PC down but leaving the others up.

I'm not really complaining here, I'm just saying that trying to act like the GM is some impartial referee and just "playing the monsters as is" is pretty much a bulls*** argument.


Squiggit wrote:

Yeah, while I think it's about off topic from the main thrust of the OP, the discussion of tactics is less about "don't let these enemies use optimal tactics" (especially since, as established, this isn't even a very good tactic most of the time).

It's more about adding layers of verisimilitude to a setting by translating the personality of enemies into fighting styles. It's just like in a video game, there are enemies that are more aggressive, more defensive, suicidal, enemies that work together and so on.

You could figure out the best strategy that every enemy could employ, but that would be... kind of boring.

And specifically to that end I do enjoy verisimilitude in roleplaying games; specifically when rules and mechanics back up and dictate a certain course of action that necessarily leads itself to advantages.

The best example; say you want a monster (say a wolf) to fight like a wolf...pack tactics, pulling the creature to the ground, surrounding it and attacking the downed foe... that kind of thing.

You could

a.) simply describe that's the way the wolves fight

b.) not describe much about the wolf at all and leave it up to the player/DM to decide it

or

c.) you could grant the wolf a cumulative +1 bonus to hit a foe for each other wolf adjacent to itself target and have it do an additional 1d6 precision damage to a prone target.

In other words. It's a
[Roleplaying]
[Game]

I believe that both elements should inform one another; there's no inherent bonus or penalty to the orcs attack in the manner described (other than the questionably tactical bonus) so I see no reason why you would play otherwise.

I mean what's the game rule on what INT you need to be to seek a flank or to go for a disarm? At what point (as a player) would your belief be unsuspended if a foe of Int X began doing Y type of action?

Perhaps, as a prior poster mentioned, shaming people is the answer:

"but the fellow players and I will embarrass a player who fights out of character"

Perhaps shaming the DM is the best option. /s


puksone wrote:


Just out of curiosity, what classes/builds you guys play?

Dwarf Fighter

Dwarf Cleric (Warpriest)
Humans Sorcerer (Occult list)
Goblin Monk


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Didn't expect this much conversation over my post.

One thing that came up a lot is "orcs wouldn't fight like that" or "look at their INT they wouldn't do that" or "that seems like hivemind tactics"

I'm curious how many players out there have ever had their DM (or group) disallow on action they took because it wasn't in-character for their character or race?

Or not a allow a PC to move to flank because their INT was 6?

Also, not sure what groups you guys play in, but my group plays in total mind-link level when we are planning our turns even if we are hundreds of feet apart in the dungeon.

Forgetting (for a moment) the effectiveness of such a tactic (someone did the math and it seemed like it's actually lower DPR, but again I believe the point of the tactic is to target softer targets such as the casters or in chokepoint scenerios).

Also, lastly, not white box but this happened a bunch throughout the Plaguestone adventure.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

We are 2 months into the game now and due to the nature of PF2 and it's 3-action system we've noticed a trend that seems to repeat itself in combat often.

When the PCs are fighting a foe that outnumbers them (say a gang of orcs); the best pattern of play seems to be for the orcs all to essentially spring attack. They Stride, Strike, and Stride away.

They maintain a spread out formation (to minimize AOE effects and the ability for a PC to engage multiple foes at once).

Each turn the gang of orcs will all chain spring attack into one target PC until that PC is slain.

Occasionally the first orc will sacrifice his Stride away to instead set up a flank for the rest of the orcs for the rest of the round. So essentially 7 orcs all get to flank with just one of their allies since they just take their turns in line to wack at the PC who is flat-footed.

This behavior is even more obvious when the PC is doing something like holding a doorway or stairwell against a more numerous foe. By Stride,Strike,Stride the mosnters essentially all get to make their melee attacks against the PC who is guarding the narrow frontage.

Yes it's true; the monsters don't get to make their follow-up attack at -5; but honestly we've found that secondary attacks unless you are 2-3 levels higher than the target are pretty useless (to say nothing of the third attack).

Anyways; it reminds me of an old 3.x RPGA encounter at GenCon years ago where the fight was vs like 6 Ogre Skirmishers who all had Spring Attack.... except its like every fight.

Of course there are fights where the PCs are the ones who are the many vs the one big bad... but then they just tend to do the same tactics themselves; so it plays out the same just in reverse.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

-Being prone doesn't grant you any bonus to your AC vs. ranged (it just makes you flat-footed)

-You can hide, even while being observed, as long as you have cover or concealment.

- Flanking, Prone, etc. all grant the same non-stacking penalty status of Flat-Footed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I hiked the Appalachian Trail last year. I ate primarily dehydrated meals, jerky, and super dense compact foods (think Peanut Butter).

I assure you this is a misprint :D


I guess that in a game where you get so many choices there is like one thing that every class gets that says “does not matter what you do, you do this”

All barbarians get Rage and it just.... works
All rangers get Hunt and it just works
Etc.

Clerics get Heals and ..... it’s limited and tied to Charisma.

Like I just don’t get it.

Like imagine if everything g else in the game was the same but change the Rangers Hunt to 1+int modifier per day. Wouldn’t you feel that it was odd and out of place?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lightwire wrote:


Sure a lot of the cleric feats make use of or modify the divine font ability, but there are also others you can take if you like. Nothing is forcing you to use divine font as anything but a bunch of spells in your back pocket, and I’d wager you’d still end up with an enjoyable character. Personally I don’t have an issue with having 3+ extra uses of something equitable to a max level spell. Modified in the way that strikes my personal fancy. And after I run through those, we’ll I'm still a full caster who might be a reasonably dangerous martial combatant. I don’t think I’m going to run out of juice until long after any other caster does.

Any caster has the same issue on limited use things per day. And honestly I don’t think any of them are as well off as the cleric is in this regard.

Well and that's why I'm trying to figure out what gives:

The Cleric in Pathfinder 2e is essentially the same class as the cleric from PF1. You get some armor and weapon proficiences, reasonable hit points, meh number of skill choices. You are a full caster and then you get some number of Channel Energy/Divine font abilities to heal the party and/or do damage to undead.

I don't understand how that's balanced (or fun) against a Druid who no longer has a limit on their wild shapes per day or a Barbarian who can rage every encounter or a bard who can use bardic music over and over again or a monk who can now (potentially) dimensionally leap every encounter.

Like pretend you were converting a party of 5th-level PCs from 1st ed. to 2nd ed.

"Barbarian! You can rage now every fight; and it lasts for 1 minute each time. No more tracking rounds of rage; just go ham dude"

"Druid! Remember how you could only wild shape once per day? Well guess what now you can wild shape; and as long as you have time minutes to regain your druid power you can wild shape again. You can do it dozens of times each day!"

"What about me???", says the cleric.

"Well remember how you had armor and 3rd level spells?"

"yes!"

"you still have those!"

"Okay, awesome"

"And remmber how you had channel energy and you could use it 3+your CHA modificer per day?"

"Yup, what is it now???"

" ONE plus your CHA modifier per day!"

"ummmm.... okay... and what else????"

"Ummm.... nothing... that's it. I mean you get a bunch of class feats; but so does everyone else. Actually because you're a caster you get 1 less class feat than the non-casters because..."

"Ohh okay. Can I remake as anything else please?"


swoosh wrote:
+11 to hit and 18 damage sounds like a level 3 or 4 enemy. Level 1 characters taking a lot of damage from enemies several levels higher from them seems standard.

Shrug... not sure what the level of the monster was. Just know they were in the first encounter of the adventure and also used several additional times throughout part 1 and 2


Long story short, not sure if I'll ever be able to wrap my head around the idea that a cleric can cast dozens of dozens of Appearance of Wealth spells per day; but somehow is only casting a handful of Heal spells.


My group is pretty good about keeping their shields raised; quickly recognizing that with a lot of the creatures having over +10 to hit and ACs above 18 that the third attack (and usually the second attack) just isn't worth it.

But even with a shield raised the AC 21 fighter is still getting hit over 50% of the time from the +11 to-hit creature dealing 1d8+4+d6 acid wolves.

Also moving away is fine; but only if your movement is better than the creatures.

Also with no attacks of opportunity it's very easy for me to move the monsters around the battlefield with impunity, set up flanks pretty much every turn and focus fire down individual PCs.


I’m interested to see how builds play out, but I wonder how many clerics will follow almost the same route as yours; stacking focus powers ASAP to get to 3 focus points and several spells as quickly as possible.

My guess is a lot.

Also I’m interested in learning more from folks about what their in combat experiences are like. We don’t do APs normally (too linear) but because we are new we are playing plaguestone.

At level 1 when the higher go folk had about 20 to 22 hps they fought several ordinary encounters where the monsters did 18 damage per round.

At level 2 they fought some bushes and one crit on an air attack and did like 22 to almost the whole group... and the. The other 2 bushes in the encounter put out another 20 damage or so.

Maybe our experience is different; but seems to me like hps drop really fast in this game. Our feeling is that without a constant supply of in combat healing you are pretty much out of action after 2 or 3 hits, to say nothing of if the enemy gets a crit.


Well. Play a cleric and see.

Over half the feats in the clerics lineup require you to spend Heal or Harm spells to trigger or use them.

After 1 or 2 encounters when you are out of heals and now your class feats don’t work, meanwhile everyone else has their full capacity of powers and abilities; see how much fun that plays out.

Or maybe you all just play constant 15 minute adventuring days, in which case.... yeah cleric is fine, probably OP.


As a quick aside:

The best implementation of healing I've seen in a game has been in the 4th edition of D&D. If you aren't familiar, any class classified as a "Leader" got access to a special kind of healing power.

In 4e you had daily powers (aka 1/day) and encounter powers (aka 1/encounter or 1/5mins). But the healing powers were a bit different; they were 2/encounter (instead of the usual 1) and eventually became 3/encounter.

Additionally, similiar to PF1 you had your Standard Action, Move Action, and a Minor(Swift) action. All the healing powers were Minor actions. Meaning a healer character (such as the cleric) could still move, attack, and heal someone.

The wonky bit about 4e (that many people throughly disliked) was that your ability to be healed was tied to Healing Surges; everytime you got healed, it cost you a healing surge. When you were out of healing surges you (essentially) could no longer regain hit points. This meant that even though the cleric got two free heal spells every fight (or every 5 minutes) they couldn't just heal people up to full forever because after a few cycles of this you and your party members would be out of Healing Surges and no longer able to benefit from Healing.

However....

PF2e has turned the head on this paradigm.

All prior mainstream RPGs have always treated HP as a essentially limited resource. In old-school games you only got HP back from magical spells or items during the course of the day; in PF1/3.x you had CLW wands but it was still somewhat tied to the idea of a fundamentally limited resource.

PF2e is the first mainstream game that essentially says you can heal up to full as many times as you'd like throughout the day; as long as you have the time to do so.

Healing abilities in Focus Pools and mainly the Treat Wounds skill ability really speak to the ability for a party of adventurers to really "go all day." In fact, if you had a power consisting of say a Fighter, Ranger, Monk, and Champion they would never theoretically need to stop adventuring except due to the need for the mortal body to sleep.

Thus it's strange to me that a party above can "keep the healing and adventuring going" all day. Meanwhile, a party with a Cleric (and perhaps no one with Treat Wounds) would run out of hit point recovery after 1 or 2 encounters and need to "rest up" for the day.

That problem also speaks to Treat Wounds/Medicine probably being almost a skill tax (as I'm also sure that 90% of parties will have at least one person with Ward Medic and Continual Recovery), it's like the new Perception.

Also even the name of the ability: Divine Font suggests to me a pool or resource of your deity's energy; a basin to be emptied and re-filled.

Instead of being tied to Charisma I would have preferred Divine Font simply operate as follows:

You have a special separate Focus Pool (the game already kinda does this with Positive Luminance spell). It starts at 2 points and lets you cast an auto-heightened Heal spell. You can Refocus by spending 10 minutes in prayer/meditation as your divine connection refills your energy to regain 1 points.

You could of course create feats to improve and enhance this special pool (instead of silly stupid trap feats like Healing Hands).

If there's a concern about the use of spamming Harms you could include a little addendum.

Special: If the Divine Font pool is used to cast a Harm spell instead of a Heal spell the maximum points available in the pool is also reduced by 1 until the next time you make daily preparations.


I like this line of reasoning, however, in the presence of so many other healing options I don’t think the cleric would ever be relegated to the role of healbot. In earlier editions if the cleric didn’t take Cure spells then short of consumable items you weren’t getting back HP. In this edition they finally broke that reliance by including numerous options for healing including renewable non-magical healing in Treat Wounds.

Additionally, the cleric is just one class of 12 so it’s a safe assumption that the game wasn’t designed to presume that you’ll have access to the clerics level of healing during an encounter, right?

Also maybe I’ve been playing for a longtime but Paladins also always had Turn Undead and I think of them as just as much anti undead as a cleric (maybe even more so) but they don’t have any kind of turn/channel ability.

In the best case situation of game design a player should feel excited to do their thing, even if it’s healing another player.

Also as a limited resource you are highly incentivized to get the most out of it; when I first read the Heal spell I was excited to see the three action modes. But in play I’ve found that anyone with access to Heal really tries not to use the single action version because it’s almost a waste of Heal slot given the low healing potential. This is a problem that only gets worse as the game goes on at level 1 it’s d8 vs d8+8 a difference of (duh) 8 average. But by 4th it’s 32 different and 7th 56 etc. so as the game goes on it’ll be even more pointless to use the single action Heal.


I did miss rebuke death; but that’s not the crux of my point.

My point is about the nature of the games design, understanding hit points as a resource/tension mechanic and how this divine font ability interacts with that.

Let’s rephrase it.

Why does the cleric get a bunch of random extra Heals?

They are fundamentally a full caster and similar to the wizard and sorcerer and druid, they have options to get focus spells just like the wizard or sorcerer or Druid . The wizard doesn’t get bonus auto-leveled magic missiles, nor the sorcerer. The Druid doesn’t get 1+Cha free charm animals per day.

As has been pointed out a lot; the game doesn’t require a cleric to function and Plenty of other healing options exist.

Indeed the existence of this ability is highly variable. A cleric (perhaps more focused on strength and con) might only have 1 or 2 heals, whereas a different cleric with 18 cha could even have 5 bonus heals.

This is unlike any other mechanic in the game.

Even classes with a so called “secondary” stat (wis for monks or cha for champions) are only impacted by that stat if they choose to invest class feats in power and abilities that key off that secondary stat.

So then why is this ability here and why does it operate on an entirely different axis then the rest of the game?


Put another way....

Why is rage no longer a x/day mechanic? Why are lay on hands and wholeness of body focus spells instead of x/day abilities?

I’m just wondering why this singular mechanic was chosen to be limited in use and scope.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Every caster class except Sorcerer/Wizard and Cleric has access to a form of "infinite" healing. The champion and monk have access as well to a form of unlimited healing.

Why is Divine Font stuck in this odd-place as per-day ability? It's essentially just Turn Undead from earlier editions, meanwhile Bardic Music, Rages, Wild Shapes, Ki Powers, Lay on Hands, etc. are all now essentially unlimited either without qualification or via Focus Pool spells.

Between Focus spells such as Lay on Hands, Wholeness of Body, Soothing Ballade and the use of Treat Wounds; HP should be viewed (essentially) as an encounter resource.

While it is possible to not have the needed time to fully heal-up and Refocus between Encounters, I contend that entering a Moderate or Severe challenge fight in PF2 with no Focus Points and already sub-maximal HP will quickly result in numerous Unconscious/Dying PCs. Given the ease of access (even via Skills that anyone can take) to HP recovery, the intention then is to more or less treat HP as an Encounter resource to be utilized during the Encounter to avoid going to Dying and then restored promptly post-combat with little overall resource loss.

Why then, in this environment is the Cleric the only class noted above who has no option for any sort of "Encounter" or "Focusable" healing other than taking the Medicine skill?

The response of "to free the Cleric of the burden is healing" is a bad argument. For starters, the game has clearly made it easy to play numerous other characters that can heal, so that already alleviates the Cleric of that responsibility. Secondly, the class gains specific access to special Healing-centered powers and feats clearly indicating this is a thing they are supposed to be able to be good at. Lastly, many players enjoy being a healer and the cleric has a long tradition of being that go-to class for such players.


Since they both grant a circumstance bonus to AC, is it correct to say that if you have a shield (raised) you gain no benefit from lesser or standard cover?


These have all been really interesting points; thanks everyone. Can't wait to explore the system further!


Vlorax wrote:


All characters can also trip/grapple etc, rogues can debilitate targets.

This was an idea we discussed after the session; especially as you no longer need improved trip or improved grab to even begin to make these a viable option.

However, both Trip and Grab require a free hand which seems pretty likely to only be the case of the one-handed fighter specialist; every other combative character (sans monk) is likely to have a sword&board, two-weapons, or a two-handed weapon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Those are all excellent points and I certainly concede that fights did tend to get "bogged" down in 3.x/PF (although I believe that was mostly because of full-attack vs single attack).

While dynamic movement and zipping around is great; it is a bit disheartening to be a melee-centric character and feel very incapable of "protecting" or even giving a disincentive to your opponent once you've engaged them however (unless you are the fighter of course).

In our example games, it was bit sad to see the warcleric engage two orcs and then have those orcs simply walk around said dwarf and continue on their way to pummel the sorcerer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Background:

This past Friday my gaming group (all of us 20+ vets of RPGs mostly D&D 3rd and 4th, PF1) got together to make characters for PF2.

None of us had played the playtest or really paid it much attention, but we ended up picking it up at Gencon and have been rabidly consuming it over the past two weeks.

Due to time, I ended up picking up the Plaguestone adventure to ease the first "demo" run of the game.

We had a great time, we loved the action economy and the character creation was robust and a lot of fun. Skills are integrated well and we love the holistic proficiency mechanic.

After the game in our post-first session discussion came up. Our party consisted of a Fighter, Cleric (warpriest), Monk, and Sorcerer, so the only character with an Attack of Opportunity reaction was the Fighter (and I believe no other class can start with such a reaction).

The first several fights all featured creatures that didn't have the Attack of Opportunity reaction as well.

Due to the lack of attack of opportunity, PF2 combats felt like they lacked texture. By texture I mean a certain amount of "stickiness" that characters possess, especially when you 'base' up an opponent by getting them into melee. In prior versions of the game everyone had the opportunity to at least take a free swing at you if you chose to leave combat with them; PF2 has no such mechanic (unless you are a fighter).

As a result, when the monk or the warpriest got in the face of creatures to "protect" the sorcerer (or other vulnerable NPCs); the enemy was able to simply move past them with no consequence. Additionally, the character were able to move around any kind of "frontline" of the enemies and simply engage whatever foes they so desired.

It felt considerably less tactical than I expected due to this effect. Movement and who you engage didn't seem particularly important since you could just stride to whoever you actually wanted to engage and do so with impunity.

A quick look through the bestiary seems to indicate that the majority of creatures do not have AOO and as a result its very easy to "ignore" most creatures on the battlefield; casters or ranged attackers (for example) can simply use their abilities despite being in melee with impunity the great majority of the time.

We've only played the one session; so I'm interested in what veterans of the system who have played considerably more PF2 think of the above scenerio and whether or not the game gains tactical texture in other ways or if it's intended to be a bit more of a chaotic free-for-all?


Long-story short...

-Party of 5 playing through Rise of the Runelords

-Throughout first adventure, 2 party members were usually MIA

-3 characters struggled a bit, but made it through Adventure

-Because there was only 5 of them, and they pretty much hit every encounter, they are level 5.

- Post-adventure during "downtime season" the other 2 party members want to use it to catch-up to the rest of the party.

- 5 level 5 PCs for next adventure.... which is targetted for level 4 PCs..

thoughts on what is best approach to resolve any potential issues?


Not sure if this has been discussed on the forums (search didn't reveal anything).

Has anyone though about or even tried implementing the following rule:

Top-Tier classes use the Slow XP Progresion
Mid-Tier classes use the Regular XP Progression
Low-Tier classes use the Fast XP Progression.

Similar to the older versions of D&D where the thief required only 1250 xp to reach Level 2, while the Wizard required twice as much (2500).

Used in this manner, a low-tier class (like a rogue for example) would routintely be 2 levels ahead of his wizard and cleric companions.

I've seen options for balancing the powerful classes vs. the weaker classes (different point buys, etc.); but never this.

I guess the question is, is this enough to balance out the tiers?

Assuming the game was played "as if" you were using the normal XP chart. If the APL was 3 (so you are starting to fight ogres, groups of orcs, etc.) would you rather be a level 2 cleric, or a level 4 rogue?


Brian E. Harris wrote:
Does Ultimate Campaign add more levels?

I don't believe so no.. but consider that "expert" maybe takes you from level 4 through 11 or so.... the old BECMI progression was what? 36 levels? so you need to compress it down a bit more to fit it into 20. But I figure level 4-11 is kinda the "sweet spot" of OGL based games anyways... before spells get out of hand and everything starts to kinda fall apart in a traditional sense (aka in the Dungeon beating down monsters). Maybe moving away from that kind of play around the level you get spells like Teleport anyway, is a good idea.


One of the main "issues" with APs that I have is that being more scripted and heavily plotted than your typical dungeon crawl... they start to put some strain on the chassis of the core 3.x (or even core D&D period) framework.

A classic example of this is when the PCs are in the middle of an exciting chase/hunt to stop a killer before he can commit his next crime... but then realize they are out of hp, spells, and need to go rest.

In a typical dungeon-crawl game this isn't so much of a problem (even if it does lead to the 10 minute adventuring day) but during an AP style adventure (which I love for their amazing plots and intricate storylines) it can create some serious dissonance between the needs of the story vs. the needs of it being a game.

Trailblazer ( an OGL rule system tweak ) helps eliminate this, somewhat, by providing several mechanical changes (which do at times resemble some 4e-isms) that basically allow for more plot-centric play. Notably it allows most spells/abilities to come back after a short rest time (suggested as 10 minutes) eliminating the need to "go back to town and rest for 8 hours in the middle of the adventure" problem. It also uses action points... similiar to hero points, but more common.... to serve as a form of "plot protection" currency; allowing PCs a bit more survivability from the random happenstances of die-rolling.

I've not merged the two systems... although I have read the TB rules extensively. Just wondering if anyone had any "on the ground" experience from using any/all of the TB rule subsystems in their Pathfinder games (particularly the APs) and how well that went? Heck, even if you haven't used them and just want to theorize and spout hypotheticals, I would appreciate the discussion :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.

With the 2013 releases of Ultimate Campaign and Mythic Adventures... it seems to me that Paizo (on purpose or not) has essentially created a Pathfinderized version of the Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, Immortal progression path from the 80's basic sets.

Basic = Beginner's Box
Expert = Core Pathfinder
Companion = Ultimate Campaign (with Domain and Henchmen rules)
Master = Mythic Adventure
Immortal = ??? (insert possible Epic Book here) ??

Personally I think that's pretty cool and would be a great way to introduce new gamers through that "old-school" experience while still keeping to and using a modern, supported, and thoroughly fun game system :D


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I use Nethys's Random Item generator "City" creation tab. It generates the minor/medium/major items available for sale that week.


So if you get multiple items (say multiple subscriptions) the shipping costs don't rise linearly?

AKA right now it's costing me $6 in shipping for one $14 module. But if I got the $14 module AND the deck of item cards AND the Pathfinder Companion... the shipping would be... closer to $18? or more like $7-$8?


the trailblazer rule set addresses this issue by essentially returning the PC's to full HP after 10 minutes of rest. it calls the use of clw wands both a go tax but also very smart play. no wands allowed? PC's will just stop adventuring when their spells and hps run low (hence 15 minute adventuring day). with wands in play? PC's will spend as much money as necessary to acquire one...

its kinda a lose lose propositionand definitely shoots the whole "strategic use of resources"concept right in the foot...which can make dungeon crawling based games kinda lame. for a more plot/event/time sensitive game...auto healing and/or clw wands can be a godsend because then the PC's don't have to stop adventuring just as they are about to save the day...just because they ran out of spells and hps.


Excellent point.... although I do like to support my FLGS.. but the free .pdf is nice..


I just wanted to make sure I wasn't miscalculating the costs involved with a subscription.

With the discount offered by pre-ordering/subscribing it seems I can get a PF AP module for ~$14. However, it seems the cheapest shipping option is another ~$6 raising my total cost to $20/module... or the same cost I could buy it in a local retail shop. (or buy it from Amazon for $14 and get shipping for free)

Does this seem correct? Or am I missing something


I just wanted to make sure I wasn't miscalculating the costs involved with a subscription.

With the discount offered by pre-ordering/subscribing it seems I can get a PF AP module for ~$14. However, it seems the cheapest shipping option is another ~$6 raising my total cost to $20/module... or the same cost I could buy it in a local retail shop. (or buy it from Amazon for $14 and get shipping for free)

Does this seem correct? Or am I missing something


I've seen posts on the board showing SS with good CON scores?

Why?

In the fused state your CON becomes the Con of your Eidolon.. so even if you have CON 18 or 20 at level 1 , your Eidolon still has a CON of around 13 or so and hence your Fused-form's CON score would be 13.

What part am I missing?


HangarFlying wrote:
Perram's Spellbook is precisely what you need. You can print the spells out on a paper size that is most convenient to you (playing card, index card, half sheet, etc).

I saw that... Perram's is a little too detailed :D

I know I know... I feel like Goldilocks here :D


Hi all,

Are there any spell sheets available (for free or for purchase) for the released Pathfinder classes that list by level all the available spells for that class (Core and the extra books would be a nice plus).. but ALSO contains a bried "cheat sheet" for that spell.. such as casting time, components, range, short description of effect, type of save, SR y/n? etc?

I'm thinking of something along these lines:

http://dragonfang.com/archive/dungeons/first/spells_oa_shu.jpg

or like this:

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spellLists.html

but with it being more useful for a certain class and with little checkboxes to denote which are available to you, etc..

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