AsmodeusDM's page

There is a REALLY cool monster in there; "Lurker in Light." Small nimble skirmisher fey, that hides/invisible in bright light and summons other fey.

Except, as is a common issue, they put the encounter/fight in a 15'x15' room. Literally 9 squares. Half the party couldn't even get LOS to the monster because they were all standing in the next room and coudln't get in.

PF2 has all this new mobility and feats that allow you to do all these cool tactical things; but they get this trend (it even goes back to Rise of the Runelords) of sticking these encounters in these tiny rooms.

I get that in REAL life; a 15'x15' office would be totally acceptable; and anything larger as "just an office" would be unrealistic. But the interest of the GAME are being sacrificed here for more verisimilitude here and it just never works out.

Instead of a cool dynamic fight; it felt like a bunch of people trying to squeeze into an already crowded elevator.

*womp*womp*

Or in other words; if a player uses Avoid Notice and the encounter starts say in a long empty corridor; and the PC goes first in initiative... are they hidden?

The rules suggest that you "might get a bonus to your Stealth check if you have cover" implying you don't actually NEED cover to use Avoid Notice.

So what happens mechanically? And what does that look like in the fiction?

Summary: If hit points are expected to be at or near full at the start of each encounter, and recovering hit points is a non-resource draining activity, why go through all the hoops of recovering them outside of combat?

I'm trying to understand what role hit point recovery has in the game right now. Previous editions of the game were built on the assumption that hit points would dwindle over the course of multiple encounters and that only magic (a limited resource) would allow characters to regain hit points (outside of long-term rest&recovery).

In 3.x/PF1 the CLW wand was "discovered" which was technically a "limited" resource (being a charged item) but was barely a cost past level 6 or 7.

At this point in the game you would typically heal up after each fight thus removing the entire "long term hit point ablation" that the game's resource management was built upon.

This proved somewhat useful, however, for many DMs and certain types of adventures (especially strong narrative-based adventures such as PF APs). The typical hit point depletion model was strongly tied to the dungeon-delving model of the game and didn't necessarily work well with narratively-driven adventures with tight deadlines and strong time-pressure.

The classic example of this would be the heroes assaulting the necromancer's tower before he can complete her ritual which will awaken all the city's dead. Even if the DM tried to properly balance the adventure around the PCs resources, it's entirely possible that due to the random nature of the d20-based game that the group just runs out of hit points before the final fight vs. the necromancer and either has to go into a fight that they know they will lose, or go home and sleep for 8 hours while the city falls to ruin.

Enter PF2 where-in they make 2 important realization and design decision:

- Given any opportunity to do so; PCs will heal to full after every fight. This just makes strong game sense.

- By assuming the PCs are at full hit points it actually makes the adventure designer/DMs job a lot easier. 1. you can design encounters easier because you know the PCs will be at full hp and don't have to try to account for how weakened/depleted they will be. 2. it's easier to pace your adventures because you no longer have to worry about your PCs having to leave your adventure location in the middle of their heroics to go back to town and sleep for 8 hours which often strains credibility and creates all sorts of headaches to try to manage deadlines and what all the NPCs are going to do with 8-12 hours of time until the PCs return.

To do this PF2 used a number of non-resource depleting focus spells (Lay on Hands, Soothing Ballad, etc.) and of course Treat Wounds.

That's all great.

The dilemma comes in when you consider what this free healing takes: time, often a lot of it.

In PF1 with a wand of CLW healing 5.5hp per use; you could heal ~55hp in 1 minute; more if you allowed wand sharing and/or had multiple wands. Thus an entire party could heal to full in several minutes; perhaps 10 at most.

In PF2 healing via focus spells might require several iterations of healing, refocusing, healing ,refocusing, etc... this might take 30-60 minutes.

Similarly using Treat Wounds might require several iterations which could taken 30-60 minutes and that's assuming you have Continual Recovery and Ward Medic, otherwise it could take multiple hours.

This is where the dilemma comes up....

- Your game assumes PCs are at/near full hit points each encounter.
- Regardless of game design, PCs given the opportunity will heal to full.
- You give PCs options to heal for "free" [using no limited resources]
- This takes 30-60 minutes.

So now you have your group of PCs taking ~45 minute break between each combat encounter in your adventure.

This creates a number of problems; mostly related to pacing and tension.

If you are in your standard dungeon crawl; if your PCs are able to happily take a break in the dungeon for up to an hour the game doesn't feel that dangerous or realistic.

If you are in a fast-paced/sensitive timeline driven adventure; it strains all realism that you could have your group of heroic PCs just sitting around for 30 minutes between each fight.

The counter to these points has often been:

- Use random encounters
- Don't allow them the time to heal to full

Those are great ideas; and they've worked for 50 years. But they work assuming an ablative hp model.

In PF2 your game is balanced that your hp is at full; if you interrupt a party who is weakened with a random encounter or they move along to the next encounter at half hit points, with several PCs with the wounded condition.... you are going to see some seriously high death rates amongst your PCs (and I imagine a lot of frustration).

And that's just the game mechanics issue; the pacing issue is a much more important one. Many PF APs are written from a certain sense of urgency and "heroic" style play; having your PCs resting for up to an hour after each combat encounter breaks up that sense of drama and tension and creates a lot of work for the DM to figure out how the dungeon/site they are active in responds to the PCs intrusion during the hour or so they are resting.

So....

If healing is free anyways; and the game is built upon the idea that you are at full hit points and if taking significant time to heal creates a number of design/pacing issues why do these time requirements exist?

Why doesn't healing just occur automatically or on a much shorter timeframe (say several minutes)?

What does the game GAIN but having it take 20,40, 60+ minutes to heal up to full after (almost) every combat?

Without getting too much into the why’s Initially just wanted to understand the problems a rule like this would create and which ones it solves:

Basically on attack rolls you follow the following rules:

Crit: double damage
Hit: regular damage
Miss: half damage
Crit fail: zero damage

Also as a tangent thought: in order to speed up play ever so slightly perhaps instead of roll dice->half for Miss it’s a static value such as avg. result/2 or Minimum possible damage.

Eager to hear how this violates the very soul of the game and will bring certain death to all of pathfinderdom :)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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

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?

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..

Playing Pathfinder after playing 3.x for years and years...

A few things jumped out at us on our first play and just wanted to make sure since it's these "little differences" then can really catch you.

1. Undead and Constructs are not immune to crits?
2. Undead and Constructs are not immune to sneak attacks?

3. Undead don't all use d12 for HD and get CHA instead of CON for hp?

My group just rolled up two new characters from the APG (Alchemist and Summoner) and three questions popped up. I tried searching but couldn't find anything so my apologies if these have been asked.

1.) An Alchemist infusions? or whatever they are called say they lose their potency if he loses possession of them. But can the alchemist "feed them" to another character?

2.) Summoner spell list. Stone skin, fire shield, etc. at level 3. Does this mean that potions of Stoneskin and similar other "potionable" spells of the level 3 summoner list are now available for use/creation/purchase?

3.) Relative autonomy of the Eidolon. If I command the Eidolon to go "set off a death trap" does it obey without question, does it have a personality to speak of? I hate to say it.. but the Summoner description of the Eidolon is a little 4th editiony to me.. it's all focused on the crunch of the KEWLNESS.. rather than having any description of the exact relationship between summoner and eidolon.

Thanks!

Am I correct in looking at the Monk's BAB chart that a monk at a high enough level is more accurate when making multiple "unarmed" attacks then if she made a single attack?

i.e.

If a monk moved and then attacked at 20th level that attack would be at +15 BAB, however, if the same monk took a full-round action to Flurry the highest attack would be at +18 BAB?

I just picked up the SCAP Hardcover at GenCon a few weeks ago and can't wait to start running it in little under a month.

I have a couple of questions though about the large number of deaths that I'm seeing reported in these forums.

1. When your PCs die (especially in droves or the same PC repeatedly) how do you handle raising? Do you just rely on Raise Dead spell? If so, from whom/where? and how do the PCs defray the cost of 5,000gp especially if the total costs are 10k or 15k for several deaths?

2. With all these deaths occurring, do you find the PCs falling behind in levels and having even a MORE difficult time with the challenges resulting in more deaths (and keep on repeating till the PCs give up)?

3. When a PC DOES die, what are some good suggestions for getting the player/PC back into the adventure and action as quickly as possible without making death seem like a completely trivial thing?