White Dragon

Bandw2's page

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber. 6,774 posts (7,141 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 10 aliases.


1 to 50 of 947 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

how about instead make the other cantrips 1 action spells? :P

they have MAP right?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Sin_Dark wrote:


As for the Hell Knights, they are Hell Knights! Where's the hell powers? At this pointy they are just people in spooky armor that yells at kids to stay off their law (Putting it mildly). You can't tell me after all these years they haven't learned a hell trick or two to up the ante? I mean one of their lvl 8 Feats grants them what the Fighter got at lvl 3. And for a organization that HATES Chaos they don't get anything to harm it until lvl 12.

woah man they're hellknights because they overcome hell, only order of the gate likes hell powers and they're well mostly casters with crazy hellpowers.

their members can be any lawful including LG. they use their name as an intimidation tactic and to show they aren't messing around. they don't however have any strong ties to hell.

reading up on them, they started as a group of vigilantes that gained legitimacy from their king. They see Hell itself as a Beacon of Functional Order, one that society should form to become more like or at least as a beacon to what order can do to even the worst societies, at the same time hellknight initiation requires you to kill a devil and overcome the fear of hell and then use it against those who fight against order.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

honestly longbow being unwieldy against targets close to you makes perfect sense to me.

those bows are big, and are likely to smack onto thing a lot more than a shortbow, and just due to their size are a bit more hefty. you can't exactly snap shot with a longbow as easily as a shortbow.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Saldiven wrote:
zer0darkfire wrote:

I think the second casting would override the firsts "fall after next action" since the next action prevents you from immediately falling with the same line. I know this isn't a card game, but in most games, you resolve chains in reverse order, so the second and third jump spell checks would happen before the firsts.

If the implications of what you're saying are true, that means if your next action is to cast fly, you'd still fall because you haven't met jumps condition of finding solid ground to stop on.

I have to disagree. PF2e has no system for action stacking and reverse resolution. We only do exactly what we are told to do by the rules.

If you cast Jump, regardless of what your next action is, you fall after completing it, unless that next action specifically provides a protection from from falling.

So, yes, if you Jump, fail to land in an appropriate spot, and then cast Fly, you still fall. But, since you have a Fly speed while under the effects of the Fly spell, you could use a subsequent action to use the Arrest a Fall action.

I very much disagree with this being RAW or RAI.

it's written in the way that most easily saves space, but doesn't say anything about forcing you to fall regardless of any other effects.

if you're being forcefully levitated, you cannot use this to negate the hostile effect and land back on the ground.

english is filled with subtext because being overly verbose is tiring.

"You must land on a space of solid ground within 30 feet of you, or else you fall after using your next action."

should more or less at most verbose probably read like this

"You must land on a space of solid ground(i.e. anything that can hold you weight, not just dirt) within 30 feet of you, or else you fall as normal after using your next action."

if falling is not normal for your current situation you continue doing whatever is normal. if you jump to a 2 foot wide plank of wood(ground this is not solid) you don't immediately fall off the plank, but must make an acrobatics check to stay atop it(as normal).

and so if you use jumps in a row, you would fall except your next jump is still waiting for you to perform your next action and is momentarily preventing you from falling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

if you are only using a buckler i can imagine you being able to drink a potion but not if your hand is at the back of a kite shield.

just saying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Some or all of the Lost Omens World Guides archetypes are Uncommon, with Access like "You are from Absalom." Outside PFS, is there any decent definition of "where you're from"? Do I have to have been born in Absalom to be from there? Or to have lived there in recent years? Or both? If it's not by birth, can I be from more than one area?

you have to be from there enough to convince your GM to allow you to use that material.

in all other contexts it is irrelevant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

these are really unimportant statistics

i'm glad i just noticed this thread...

krazmuze wrote:
1. Tell that to DPR optimizers who have long ignored that the encounter is over before they achieved their average damage with reliability. All I was doing here was adding a deviation to their same average damage number.

DPR is a heuristic for determining if your build could be a bit better, it's not something used to know how a fight will go. you can use it when looking at live damage versus DPR(as a heuristic) to see if you need to pull out your big guns or not, but beyond that, it's not a "live" thing.

you can also use it to look at DPR in different situations to see how your character should try to drive the fight. like rogues who's DPR is needed from flatfooted, and so you should look into the easiest way to reliably get flatfooted.

like how is your DPR when chasing someone who's faster? how is your DPR if you go for a 2 move then grab versus 2 move strike, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Penthau wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Penthau wrote:


There is also nothing in the wording of Detect Magic that exempts it from line of effect rules, which apply to all spells unless otherwise stated. It is listed as simply an emanation with a 30' radius.

oh then you can cast it inside a cup and get a cone shaped detect magic. if the source is your hand or something just pull up your sleeve.

hell you can easily use any obstruction then, like casting it from behind an open doorway to easily determine location...

Except the source isn't your hand, the spell is an emanation, which emanates from your square in all directions. https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=357 Find a single rule that exempts detection spells or emanations from line of effect. Maybe there can be some disagreement on what constitutes a barrier to line of effect, but if it's a barrier, Detect Magic isn't going through it. So yes, you could stand in the hallway past an open door and restrict the area of effect into the room, assuming the wall is a barrier, which it would be in the vast majority of cases.

So would being in a chest be a barrier to line of effect? How about in a drawer of a desk or a secret compartment in the wall? The rules say that an opening of an square foot stops something from being a barrier to line of effect, none of which would apply to any of the examples above. https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=359

you could crawl inside your bedroll then. :P

if the ementation is outside your bedroll you can do some weird things by burying yourself.

more or less the point being putting a moveable controlled mundane barrier around yourself you can change an ementation to a cone of rather fine granularity. perhaps a tent with a 1x1 foot opening.

anyway the best option is still just to manually search a room and use read aura.

example
say you set up a 5x5x5 tent with one side open and use detect magic, if the sides of the tent block the emenation, then you reduce the detect magic effect into a cone more or less from your square. so in a 5 by 5 square room you can get:

YYYYY
XYYYX
XXTXX
XXXXX
XXXXX

where Y is squares hit by detect magic, X is squares uneffected, and T is the tent. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Penthau wrote:
nick1wasd wrote:
Penthau wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

detect magic isn't stopped by lead anymore only locate is as far as i can tell, its also stopped by running water o-o...

in fact locate, other than lead lined drawers probably does exactly what people want "locate magic item not in my possession" *shrug* i don't see where it outlines what kind of criteria you can and cannot sort by, but it'll probably be up to your GM.

As far as I can tell, protections against detect magic are as simple as the drawer itself. The +1 dagger is out of line of effect in the drawer, so it wouldn't be detected inside it. So putting it under a thin false bottom should protect it from detection. You would have to find it by searching.
There's nothing in the wording to denote light of sight required for DM, it's just a true/false state that's only fooled by an illusion school spell of a spell level higher than that of DM. So if it's in the next room on the bed in the hotel, it'll ding as long as it's close enough. So if you enchant the drawer with some hiding spell, that should do the trick as long as it's not an archmage trying to find it
There is also nothing in the wording of Detect Magic that exempts it from line of effect rules, which apply to all spells unless otherwise stated. It is listed as simply an emanation with a 30' radius.

oh then you can cast it inside a cup and get a cone shaped detect magic. if the source is your hand or something just pull up your sleeve.

hell you can easily use any obstruction then, like casting it from behind an open doorway to easily determine location...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
krazmuze wrote:


Basically it exposes the gamblers fallacy, the extent of an encounter being short runs of die makes them highly variable luck. It does not matter that your later die rolls will balance out your luck when you already lost a bunch of encounters. Just like gambling the best you can do in that case is stem your losses. The short runs of bad luck WILL worsen your win/loss on an individual basis.

your method is relying on the gambler's fallacy for protection, that statistically you're still safe for X number of rounds, a +1 could save you on the first round. the gamber's fallacy is relying on statistics to ensure a win.

a +1 on any given roll has a 5% chance to change the outcome on a simple flat check. on anything with basic saves or strikes it changes what would occur 10-15% of times. a gambler's fallacy is when you try to predict what will happen over a course of a game. a +1 has a 10-15% chance every roll to make a difference.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

detect magic isn't stopped by lead anymore only locate is as far as i can tell, its also stopped by running water o-o...

in fact locate, other than lead lined drawers probably does exactly what people want "locate magic item not in my possession" *shrug* i don't see where it outlines what kind of criteria you can and cannot sort by, but it'll probably be up to your GM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Atalius wrote:
Does a Chaotic Neutral character work? How does one act?

you in general balk at the law, at least thinking laws personally hamper you but this belief might also extend to other people, so you might think people would be better off in a freer less stuck in stone society.

the good parts of chaotic are supposed to be free and quick thinking and self reliance.

one of the anathema of Gorum is to prevent conflict through negotiation, in general his edicts are to push yourself and fight head on.

Blave wrote:
No, you can't have strength 18 as a first level cleric. The optional flaws are are part of the ancestry selection and you can't boost strength twice during any one character creation step.

also this is 100% correct, for instance it turns a dwarf ancestral bonuses to Con, Wis, Freex2 + charisma flaw and 2 free flaws.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Draco18s wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
even taking your example seriously, you CAN just stow it all and go through it meticulously later. nothing about my second sentence was a straw man, even worst case scenario you will still be able to find out what is magical, just can't do it if you're under time pressure.

The problem though isn't actually the 30 scrolls in the book case (the 30 scrolls, for reference, was from the room description). Its the fact that Detect Magic can't even narrow the magic down to the 5 foot square the book case is in without meticulous triangulation tedium and why the +1 dagger in a desk drawer throws the whole process out the window.

THAT'S the problem and THAT'S the reason Read Aura isn't a solution and why your quip is a straw man. The rules don't offer an "out" that narrows down where the magic is and makes the players tediously manipulate their positioning and what objects are in range in order to get the effect that was built into the spell in PF1!

yes, you seem to have a problem with an intended consequence due to a rule change.

you must actual search for the room, figure out what is worth keeping and figure out what is magical later, or do a manual search while casting read aura. it's not impossible to find magical items like you seem to think it is, it's just not a flick of the wrist.

at higher levels, you can tell items are base of higher grade materials to narrow it down even further. you detected magic, found it came back yes, you search around and find a ring, do you keep it? cast read aura on the spot, etc?

what would you do if the drawer in PF1e was lined with lead? miss out on a dagger i suppose.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Paradozen wrote:
The GM rolls checks you never get to see more often than before

this omg this, my players definitely keep trying to roll for things and i have to tell them its a secret roll due to degrees of success.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:

AC isn’t what it was last edition. I would argue Fleet is a better defensive feat than any armor proficiency, because it effectively amounts to an action tax against opponents of same speed (a great deal).

AC in this edition is relatively even with attacks in terms of progression, which means that a +1 bump matters more, but also there’s no way to put yourself in “can’t be hit” territory, pretty much ever. 90% miss chance due to ac just isn’t feasible against even level -1 opponents in this edition.

You’re far better off moving or avoiding damage other ways, meaning taking advantage of your actual AC value less than you would in PF1 (where you effectively stand still the whole time and take all the attacks)

Is it an important stat? Sure. Is it at necessary and value for investment as last edition? Not even close.

i actually agree, but i'd still put dwarves as the best casters stat wise, can start with 18 int, 16 in con or wisdom, 14 in dex and the other. you can use the spells fleet step and longstrider as premium defensive spells. but still light armor helps a lot when you do get attacked.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

1d6+1 is always better than 1d6... it's not like you ever rolled a different dice, these calculations assume you're rolling a dice once when you compare a 1d6 versus 1d6+1, like a rolled a 4, now compare 4 versus 4+1, etc...

like this doesn't make sense.

Most DPR calculations break down when you start dealing with applying conditions, etc. like a rogue relying on feint to get flatfooted, or flanking is even more unpredictable. how much of your DPR is wasted due to overkill? etc.

variance isn't the issue with DPR calculations.

to top it off, pathfinder reduces the randomness, since you get bonus damage dice instead of straight mods. as you level you'll have 2d12 then 3d12 etc...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Draco18s wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
oh no, you have to actually use detect magic, and then search the room manually and use a different spell to confirm your results... oh no.
Nice straw man you built up and tore down, there.

and what exactly was your "thirty scrolls" example? I was being satirical and self aware.

even taking your example seriously, you CAN just stow it all and go through it meticulously later. nothing about my second sentence was a straw man, even worst case scenario you will still be able to find out what is magical, just can't do it if you're under time pressure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Mellored wrote:
If you took damage when you cast spells, that could balance out the extra HP. Or maybe gain a condition, like enfeebled.

this is just straight up a kineticist

Artofregicide wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
gnoams wrote:
Go for it, casters are gimped in Pf2 and con adds a smaller percent of HP than it did in Pf1 and is no longer tied to the death mechanic. Giving them those extra HP wouldn't be game breaking at all. Cha adds to a lot of skills, con adds HP, fort, and that's it. The class would be receiving a loss in utility for a boost in survivability. Try writing an archetype for it.

They are only gimped compared to 1e, comoared to other classes in 2e they fare fine.

Fort is the bigger impact imo. Given how devastating failing fort saves is now in many cases ;)

I don't think a con main stat would break the game, but I would also ask... why.

I mean everything is only comparable of compared to anything. They're weaker than most martials by a long mile in 2e, especially pure casters, but I wager as more material comes out it'll balance out.

To Paizo's credit, the gap is exponentially smaller and the classes ate absolutely better balanced.

It's just casters got nerfed a little too hard, but later content or houserules can fix that.

full casters have aoe and shine in that regard. they're just not single target monsters anymore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Ubertron_X wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:


If you didn't specify sourcebooks, that is how it's done. Like, what?
a lot of people, myself included use the D20PFSRD site and it's not really easy to search for what's inside any given book. many people, myself included started playing by using the site.

Most of the time it is all about clear communication. When GM'ing I usually specify the allowed source material upfront, so everything is clear and all players have the same source material available (usually the books or PDFs I own). For example when I started our Rise of the Runelords campaign I limited the players to just the CRB and the APG and everybody was fine with it.

Keep in mind that no GM in the world will have memorized everything that has ever been published (and which can usually be accessed on the D20PFSRD site or the Nethys archives), so before my adventure path gets ruined by cheesy class combinations and poorly written feats and spells I reserve my right to restrict the players to manageable levels.

That is not to say that players can not deviate from those restrictions at all, e.g. if they want to use a different class, however everything will solely be down to GM approval then (and I usually request the player to either own a hardcover or the respective PDF if I do not own the source material myself, so I can have a look at the additional content).

right, but since people rely on the website and there's no real way to get everything from a book, you can't puruse the material, making a source book as a requirement usless, as there's no real way to tell what is from what until you go to that specific entry.

in this modern digital age, restricting to source books isn't that easy to do for some people.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

why is this in homebrew now, no one has been suggesting homebrew... this is more rules discussion.

I think the thing people need to realize is that Detect magic has had part of its utility put into read aura. Detect magic is a simple yes/no in 30 ft while read aura can let you start going through various items that seem magical and confirm those items individually, and at higher levels use it on multiple items at a time.

Quote:

READ AURA CANTRIP 1

CANTRIP DETECTION DIVINATION
Traditions arcane, divine, occult, primal
Cast 1 minute (somatic, verbal)
Range 30 feet; Targets 1 object
You focus on the target object, opening your mind to perceive magical auras. When the casting is complete, you know whether that item is magical, and if it is, you learn the school of magic (pages 297–298). If the object is illusory, you detect this only if the effect’s level is lower than the level of your read aura spell.
Heightened (3rd) You can target up to 10 objects.
Heightened (6th) You can target any number of objects.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Angel Hunter D wrote:


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

a lot of people, myself included use the D20PFSRD site and it's not really easy to search for what's inside any given book. many people, myself included started playing by using the site.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
krazmuze wrote:

This redditor is doing a leveled combat simulator (50 rounds)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/dau1pq/p2e_simulator_dev_upd ate/

The charts currently do not have the deviations/variance bounds as he has to figure out how to chart it, as things quickly will start overlapping and blurring together. Which is pretty much the point of giving the deviation ranges, is to show that options blur together. If you want accuracy you have to give the deviation ranges, giving a more precise average calculated to the Nth decimal place is not more accurate information.

deviation is frankly, not useful information. it adds what most people already know that the damage will be above or below these numbers in actual play.

since you cannot replace a d20 with d10+5 or some such, there is no part of a build that should take this into account. you cannot make a build accounting for luck and so having the deviation isn't that useful.

besides i think the most useful stat is still rounds to kill and how your rounds to kill compared to your enemy's, which using DPR/DPA as their basis.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

remember you can use read aura to determine a specific items magicalness.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Cyrad wrote:
Magical chainsaw sword rune? O-oh my.

there's no way the action to activate it isn't going to be like pulling an engine cord.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

yes and if you add on haste it's 0,-5,-10,-10,-10 :3

bobrossw wrote:
Sorry to resurrect this post. My GM seems to still believe it's -0,-0,-5,-10 despite multiple posts to the contrary. Wouldn't bother me much except it's the reason he's houseruling in a fairly punitive fumble system on attacks, arguing that two attacks per round for monks/rangers is plenty. I'm wondering if someone can direct me to an official ruling somewhere?

you know if he thinks -0,-0,-5,-10 is too much you should just tell him to house rule it to the above instead of making a fumble system XD


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
krazmuze wrote:


average DPR cannot answer these questions, it cannot tell you how performance overlaps.

i mean it can if you run simulations for 4 rounds... most analysis do look into start up time especially considering rangers who need to use an action each time they switch targets. so calculating which build is better at dealing with multiple targets can give you insight into who you should target in a fight. someone bad at switching targets should focus the big guy, while someone who has little loss from action economy should clear the small guys first.

basically, if you're thinking DPR calculations are just how much damage can i do in prime conditions, you are severely underestimating the types of calculations many people do and what their purpose is.

likewise many people try to calculate rounds to kill as a metric, which is highly based upon DPR calculations. if you're in a fight with many lower leveled enemies at what point does trading hunt prey for raise shield change the ratios of rounds to kill for you versus them from one being more beneficial than the other.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
krazmuze wrote:

The everybody I speak of is the million clerics I already simulated, spefically to put the law of large numbers to work and remove the noise from the low number of clerics.

And when you do that analysis you realize it is mathematically the case that accumulating infinite results for a uniform die results in a gaussian distribution. I already showed that a million results returns the exact same mean that the fractional odds analysis will prove. So the million results can have normal statistics applied and obtain precise results. Thus rather than showing the histogram I can calculate the sigma, and it will have to do for illustrating this histogram since this is a text forum

Since I am interested in the 95% range of the histogram I will take 2*std

The trained WIS+4 cleric has a 65+/-15% chance of succeeding at healing their party at each break.

mean(mean((randi([1,20],40,1e6)+7)>=15))
std(mean((randi([1,20],40,1e6)+7)>=15))*2

The trained WIS+3 cleric has a 60+/-15% chance of succeeding at healing their party at each break.

mean(mean((randi([1,20],40,1e6)+6)>=15))
std(mean((randi([1,20],40,1e6)+6)>=15))*2

Thus the variance of the die means that bonus +1 modifier results in a range similar to the average odds calculation as if using a bonus -2 to +4 modifier. There is significant overlap of the 95% range of the histograms, thus only the very (un)lucky will see a difference in these builds.

So lets use histogram analysis to come up with build advice where people will see differences, they will not have to worry about the lesser cleric build outperforming them at the game store and get into arguments about how DPR advice is wrong because they have not had the experience that this was better than that.

The expert WIS+4 cleric has a 75+/-15% chance of succeeding at healing their party at each break over a level

mean(mean((randi([1,20],40,1e6)+9)>=15))
std(mean((randi([1,20],40,1e6)+9)>=15))*2

The trained WIS+0 cleric has a 45+/-15% chance of succeeding at healing their party...

DPR is a heuristic, not an in depth analysis. it was never meant to be accurate, just a way to compare various builds and their efficacy in certain situations.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Saedar wrote:

Hot Take: Blood Money and similar problems (from anyone in the group) should just be resolved by tossing toxic people out of your group. ez

Like... Seriously, people. Just talk to the people in your group. If someone is notably disruptive, tell them to take a hike forever.

i mean, someone taking blood money isn't toxic, but it can be harder to ask a player to take a spell off their list than requiring they ask you first.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

honestly, just slap "uncommon" on that bad boy and give him 25ft fly speed, either a GM is prepared to deal with flying or isn't.

I don't think you should gimp the race nor make it complicated by giving them all these debuffs or what ever. flying isn't a combat problem, so you shouldn't be balancing their combat statistics around having flying.

also i think 4 hit points at level 1 is absurd, should at least be a 6.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Excaliburproxy wrote:

Well, PF2e is now the kind of game where you will essentially never generate a narrative where a swashbuckling hero will disarm his arch-rival since the game disincentivizes the swashbuckler from ever trying in the first place and 95% of idiots who try will fail and waste what was probably their best chance at effecting the narrative that turn.

he then steps away and uses a scroll to teleport out.

most of the time, i'd say these sort of things are actually just "grapples" that involve a sword. in fact i'd say you mostly see trips into grapples where the enemy throws down their sword with yours at their neck is more common.

disarming really only ever happens against people who seem to think they're good with a sword and really aren't. I also think people shouldn't just casually be able to do it.

if you and your rival both have a 50%(or better on your first attack) chance to disarm, how long until it just turns into a fist fight as you both disarm each other. you don't need a weapon to disarm someone.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

i feel like you shouldn't be able to trade away excess ability scores, you have extra so you can play as round of a character as you want, you don't need to dump a stat anymore because eventually you just have excess stats.

being able to trade that away for mechanical benefit seems to go counter to the entire reason you have that extra ability boost.

I would agree, that if your players are feeling short on feats, just give them an extra feat at those levels with no cost in ability boosts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

easiest way to create a forest fire though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Itzi wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

i'm using that android app on my PC thanks to an emulator, so i don't think that that is much of an issue.

I don't really care about SaaS i just don't like it being through a browser i want an actual software package using my CPU not their server to run.

I totally understand that. I've been in IT (and software development) for a number of decades now and from a user perspective, I much prefer a simple run-time on my machine.

From a developer perspective, though, I completely understand why they've gone web-based. In fact, just this last year, we (the company I work for) just finished the final transition from an in-house developed application (in C++) that we've used for years to a web-based replacement (still in-house).

From a development and system-support standpoint, there's no contest - I'll back web-based any day. Particularly for a company with only a few developers, I totally get where LWD's shift comes from.

i too have IT and software development experience, and know why they did it, still nothing i want from it. it's just simply now a severely worse product than others out there, while HLC was the best, imo.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

i'm using that android app on my PC thanks to an emulator, so i don't think that that is much of an issue.

I don't really care about SaaS i just don't like it being through a browser i want an actual software package using my CPU not their server to run.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

talismans are stuff that you find in loot, and less stuff you go out and buy


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I don't think a point system where you're doing hand math should ever go above 50 points, I would try to rebalance a system where any character has somewhere in the ballpark of their level to twice their level (plus caster stat) spell points to use.

then instead for prepared casters have a number of slots you can fill and the spell levels determine how many slots they use. (and they have to choose what spell level to prepare the spell at, no heightening)

spontaneous caster just has their spells known like normal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

yeah i do have to say i like the art from the blog post or whatever with the alchemist and the tian xia hobgoblins, the ones in the bestiary just don't look like their anatomy was planned out before drawing the picture. the face and mouth don't look like they have bones underneath and the hands look out of proportion to their legs.

the hobgoblin soldier from the entry above it though has art i really like.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
swoosh wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
could fairly easily do something like killing an entire goblin village if only a few of them have been attacking, etc)

No, not really. Killing innocents because it's more expedient than figuring out who's actually guilty is very distinctly evil.

This isn't an issue of alignment being convoluted. There's no way you can reasonably twist the idea of just killing everyone in sight because it's easier as a good action.

imprisoning them isn't an option either(for the purposes of a trial), and so at the very least you drive them out. if a town is consistently harboring individuals who are threatening the safety of people from your town, the town is a threat. and well you can't really force people to leave if you aren't willing to rough people up and burn down some homes; or atleast beat them down until they are forced to kneel before the laws of your city.

the point is there are no good options generally in city v city conflicts as the burden of upholding habeas corpus is simply untenable.

the lawful good's options would be to ignore the threat or punish the threat, and i don't think a truly lawful good individual could let a crime go unpunished.

a neutral good individual would choose to find a way to create an end to the violence by forgiving crimes.

and so i think a lawful good individual would conceivably believe their only just option is to attack and possibly kill people from the town, they of course want to limit it, but will do what needs to be done. because they're not attacking the people, they're trying to attack the town, the society.

this is because to them, their current beliefs and society are more worthy of their good deeds than everyone equally. this is what separates someone who is lawful good and neutral good in my eyes.

once again, mind that they could ALSO just as likely think that trying to get a peace treaty going is a good idea, but only if they believe it possible or likely to be upheld. and then if their treaty isn't upheld, what is their only recourse but to attack where they live, they can't merely defend themselves forever.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Cthulhusquatch wrote:

is that what Lawful Good means? Well.. I suppose it is a good thing I prefer Chaotic Neutral and Neutral Good. I don't have to tear down someone's house and make them homeless in order for an unproven benefit to everyone else to happen.

Sorry, Tanner.. but we really can't have you dropping the property values around here. It will improve the city to make you homeless. And since you being homeless wouldn't be good for the city.. here is a ticket to Cheliax.

more or less, the law doesn't see individual people and so you're good, but often being tied to do things that aren't good to this particular person. and I mean, they'll probably pay for the property, but not have a chance to keep their house. (also it was a hitchhiker's guide reference)

(note i just mean A lawful good could do this and still be more or less lawful good, not that all lawful good acts this way. so one that particularly emphasizes the weaknesses of lawful good, could fairly easily do something like killing an entire goblin village if only a few of them have been attacking, etc)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Cthulhusquatch wrote:

I'm not sure why so many players want to roleplay as racist serial killers and mass murderers.. and I'm not talking about the goblins.. I'm talking about those that want to execute all goblins for being goblins.. and that accuse all goblins of being evil.. as a pretense to execute them. Same with gnolls, orcs, and others.

I can understand it if you are literally playing an evil character with that shtick.. but not a supposedly good one.

LG Character: I'm going to wipe out all of those "monsters" and "animals" because my culture told me they are all evil.

Just.. doesn't work.

i honestly disagree with this, but just in that Lawful good is "justice for the sake of society", the kind of people who would tear down someones house if it meant the entire city would benefit from the newly constructed bypass. So lawful good can definitely ignore asking questions if expediency would benefit the society.

all of the alignments have a problem and lawful good's is ignoring the little guy. it's a good that is locked in it's ways, because it's trying to support those ways.

lawful good and harsh punishment seem to go hand in hand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Jek wrote:

When in Golarion did this happen? I mean, there were stats for them, but... as a serious race? The 2e rulebook describes them like they're some persecuted minority.

I haven't kept up with all the adventure paths, but last I checked they were still psychotic little monsters that were so insane that it bordered on idiocy. And sung about turning babies into stews.
And certainly didn't have a tendency towards GOOD, or a... prove themselves worthy to the world complex.

It's like reading about dryads cutting down forests to make room for parking lots.

as far as i can tell, it seems like the 2e entry is written from the perspective of non-evil goblinoids and the bestiary and the like do still make mention of there being evil goblins out there. so it's more like they're included because they're very paizo, but there have definitely been many nonevil if chaotic goblins.

bestiary wrote:

Goblin

These small humanoids have green or gray skin and large heads with wide ears. While some goblins are civilized and have worked hard to be considered upstanding members of humanoid communities, most are impetuous and vicious creatures who delight in wreaking havoc. These goblins think nothing of slaughtering livestock, stealing infants, or burning down a building purely for momentary delight. They revel in playing malicious tricks on taller humanoids, whom they call “longshanks.”


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I'm really in favor of the familiar being sapient and thus doing what it wants when not commanded. so just make it want to help you independently of issuing it commands. just have your desires align and it'll do helpful things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Worldmaker wrote:

I'm beginning to find myself wondering if its worth bothering.

By which I mean converting my current ongoing campaign (which has been ongoing since 1981, and which survived the transitions from 1E to 2E to 3.0 and 3.5 to Pathfinder...

Now, its natural that with a campaign of this advanced age and complexity we've accumulated a lot of "extras." House rules, third party material, things adapted from other settings, other rules systems, and so on. In prior conversions all of this stuff was pretty easily done when it came to conversion.

Somehow this time its been a struggle. We've got feats that no longer exist in the game, we've got spells that are gone, we've got entire races and classes that are no longer around.

The players were looking to switch to the new rules, but right now its looking like we're all going to take a pass on it just because of the daunting nature of the conversion.

Don't get me wrong, we think the new rules are an improvement in many ways, but so much of the new rules are utterly incompatible with the old ones -- and cannot seem to ever be reconciled, that I am wondering.

Am I alone in this feeling? I hope not.

yeah from 1e -> pathfinde 1e, things only generally got more rules, but they've taken a few things out and moved them around, and whatnot.

I'd recommend, if by campaign you mean multiple new parties in the same world and not the same characters the whole way through, that you instead wait until you make new characters to convert. there'll be more material available then, more races, extra rules, etc, and there will be less character -> character converting except for important NPCs and the like which can be changed as needed to suit the campaign anyway.

if you wanted to press the issue, you could have the current character's arches end sooner rather than let the campaign carry on, but only if players want to play in the new system.

Pathfinder 2e isn't compatible with 1e and that's hopefully to get some of the old systems deep rooted mistakes removed.

I'm in a pf1e campaign and we have no desire to convert right now, but will be looking into it after we're done.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
It'd be a really spiteful GM to try to rule that the floor isn't ground.

I don't agree: ground specifically refers to a solid surface of earth. Look at the synonyms once: earth, land, dirt, field, landscape, park, sand, soil, terrain, turf, arena, dust, loam, sod, terra firma... SO I wouldn't fault any DM for reading the word the by it's definition. If the stance meant 'flat solid surface', it really should have said that.

Lets face it, if someone said something crashed into the ground you aren't going to look for it in a building or on a boat.

i disagree with your disagreement, ground is quite often used to mean just whatever you are standing on. "he fell on the ground" doesn't mean he fell specifically on dirt, but all the way down, as opposed to catching himself or only slightly. to be sure, the term "he dropped it on the ground" makes perfect sense on the deck of a ship, and generally means what is mostly just used to put on furniture and to be walked upon. it's a context sensitive term to relatively mean what you walk on and nothing much more.

ground is a general term meant for an unspecific type of thing you can stand on, the most the word ground assumes is that the surface is more or less in an orientation to be stood upon. for instance, if you said a solid surface(or just surface), then you could do mountain stance while climbing, if you said you must be standing, then you could do it while balancing on a beam, if you said dirt or unworked stone you'd then get exactly your interpretation, but instead we have ground.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I've started work on it so far, haven't gotten everything planned out, but I need to sleep.

a few things I'm worried about, Is dragon scale armor too good, or should it not have a prerequisite?

should the ancestry feats gained from the archetype only allow you stuff from half your level ago

should I maybe have level 17 feats?

is the Draconic element system to hard to understand?

what's the easiest way to give them the dragon trait and explain that they can still be slept and paralyzed?

Breath weapon? i feel like it should either be on the archetype or a 5th level ancestry feat. If i move all the crazy activatable abilities over to the archetype I can give the "class DC" to that thing and remove it from dragon's racially.

So far I only see breath weapon and frightful presence as candidates for using a DC, any other things?

I plan on size feats to give 1 size, and then additional natural attacks and traits on those natural attacks, such as reach. then also a slowly increasing status bonus to melee damage.

where the hell do i fit in the elemental damage on jaw attacks? i'm thinking a 9th level feat with primal dragons gaining it on all natural attacks. I want more feats that behave slightly differently for the different heritages.

what should possibly go into the flavor text at the top?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

well, how in the company of dragons booklet does it might give us some insight.

basically, have it so you can take ancestry feats to get higher levels of bigness with improved flight and natural attacks as riders. other feats would have to do with natural draconic resistances and the like. so you can focus on being really big, or staying smaller and gaining more abilities you'd imagine a dragon to have.

THEN also have a draconic archetype that in essence trades some class feats for access to more ancestry feats, and then also the dedication could have some average skills attached to it you might expect the average dragon to be good at. and then also it should have some of the more powerful dragony options tied specifically to the archetype.

that's how I hope they do it anyway.

basically in company of dragons has some archetypes that can be applied to almost all base classes and then also had a few class specific ones, and then also a class specifically for dragons, but i feel with ancestry feats with an optional dedication, you can cover all your bases.

this basically allows someone to play a small sized dragon their whole career or go full super deadly breath attacks and colossal size, while doing crazy imperial dragon stuff if they want, etc.

although in the company of dragons had this malleability because they made "true" true dragons, that are less permanent and more effected by their ego than normal true dragons. so if they have a lot of "experiences" they get bigger and more confident if they want to, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
keftiu wrote:
A firearm-based one, obviously.

NO PLEASE LORD DON'T, we don't need guns to be stuck on a specific archetype again. seriously, no one ever used guns unless they were a specific class, I really don't want to see a repeat of that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:


Notable exception being of course Linguistics, the one and only skill where dropping an occasional point or two and not keeping it maxed made any sense.

climb and swim were fine not maxing as well. you don't need to necessarily climb on the ceiling, but just be good at climbing ropes and cliff walls, and swim is to not drown. survival as well if you were using it to subsist, you only needed +5-+10 for fairly decent chances to feed the whole party in a day. Ride as well, basically any skill that had flat DCs and weren't opposed you could get away with just putting a point or two in if they're class skills or a few more if they weren't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

i feel racial archetypes and template archetypes could be done by simply having an archetype that replaces a few class feats with ancestry feats and gives some additional options especially for higher level feats.

Personally i like the idea of classless archetypes or archetypes that can apply to any class, and so i like the idea of archetypes that give the user skill sets in to really specific things, say rituals to summon demons, maybe a skill set that's really good at breaking and entering, or just being a really good talker.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Zapp wrote:
Rysky wrote:

You have to pay someone to put all those links and then check and make sure they work.

And then recheck and redo any time you update the book.

You do realize they didn't have an actual person manually adding them all in, and then keeping them up to date?

Right?

... yes you would need a real person to put them in and check and make sure they're working.

you make a link to a chapter or mini chapter log, you don't like have manual triggers to page numbers... they work on the same basic at the TOC except the links bring you to that specific one that's under like 4 sub categories... so they don't need editing unless something changed the chapters, etc.

1 to 50 of 947 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>