| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know all those feats and class features that let you do things that any person could reasonably try? I'd delete them.
I'd suspect that the things I'd want rewritten for PF1.5 and the things each individual poster would want would be vastly different. One poster's PF1.5 is another poster's PF2.
I, too, dislike rolling a heap of dice in an additive system. I don't even like rolling more than a d20. Too many dice just slow down the pace of the game, especially if any players have dyscalculia.
I've gotta say, after GMing PF1 for 4 years, I still have to lookup almost every condition every single time one comes up in-game. The few I don't lookup are the simple (staggered) or the intuitive (unconscious, prone) ones. I'm not going to remember 42 conditions, nor 32, nor even 12. It slows down the game. every. single. time.
Seems interesting. A muscle rogue might be viable as a barbarian or fighter multiclass out the box. Finding out about the barbarian healer really just being a cleric is a kick to the face. There's no point to the medicine skill if a specialist can't deal with level appropriate challenges.
Why can't I be a half-dwarf? Think outside the D&D box!!!! Why not if the setting you use has them. It should be easier to make a half-dwarf feat than a whole race. Half-breeds all round!
I'd strongly prefer it if every martial were viable for every fighting style. Whether that's bows, weapon+shield, twohanded, reach, two-weapon, freehand, unarmed, thrown, crossbows, etc, or any dex- or str-based variation of those. Classes being intentionally worse at a martial style than another style is bad game design as it limits player choice and options.
Unless Fighty McMartial is better at and/or has more skills than Casty Wizard, even if skills let you swim up waterfalls, leap several floors vertically, climb across a flat ceiling without hands, and pick locks with a simple tap with your knuckles, it won't matter because Mr Wizard can do all that and more because magic. And I'm pretty sure Fighter gets fewer skill rank-ups than most.
Plus having a party where no one speaks the same language is one of those things that only sounds fun right up till you have to start playing with it. Could just have PCs start with common + racial language while most NPCs only have racial language.
Unless every PF2 NPC Elf you come across only speaks Elven and not common, it's still not really useful outside of maybe intrigue games. A thematically appropriate addition might be improving your Lore(elves) skill (assuming I've understood how Lore skill works) to reflect your upbringing in an elven culture.
I generally like this so far. It should make it easier to publish all my favourite planetouched/etc races. I'd definitely advocate for the extra 1st level ancestry feat (possibly with restrictions). The Elven Tongue option for half-elves seems incredibly weak, even compared to the not-exactly-strong alternatives. I don't think I'd ever pick just a single language ever unless something else was tacked onto it. This system might make it harder to make a half-giant ancestry for my homegame though.
I agree with you, but we don't know what higher Stealth proficiencies unlock. For all I know, that Rogue with Expert/Master/Legendary (depending on level) Stealth could be able to hide fully lit in plain sight, while everyone else has to stick to shadows and never be in plain sight.
That's assuming we don't need X feat to do [thing that anyone should be able to try and possibly succeed at]. And what we've learned about pickpocketing doesn't bode well for that.
Ezren the Wizard is out now. edit: Not much to comment on.
Does showing two different action types in a spell indicate it requires both actions or only one of the two possible types?
Merisiel the rogue is up now. Edit: Dex-to-damage confirmed for rogues with Finesse Striker class feature. The Disarm weapon feature seems unfun. It indicates you otherwise need a free hand to attempt a disarm.
You and everyone else are entitled to express their opinions. Being a woman doesn't make you any more able to confirm or dispute a character's confidence providing a type of power, which could be used in a fantasy context, this is in no way limited to feminine characters (see Schwarzenegger's depiction of Conan, David Bowie every day, or Dan Avidan in NSP music videos). Near any character would look like they would fall on their face in a still image depiction of a point in their walking cycle. A strut is preferable to a poor posture, especially on a high Cha character. The depictions of a premade character are of no consequence in tabletop RPGs, as anyone can make a character that looks anyway they like, including like old iconics, new iconics or your own character.
I don’t share the same assumption that near-nudity equals confidence. While I do like women to own their sexuality, I also like it when adventurers are dressed in clothes that allow them to adventure. Her garments are still a bit unwieldy to me — long enough to trip upon — but at least she won’t fall out of her outfit in the middle of battle. Fair enough. I'd rather have a confidence-based power fantasy than worry about how trip-prone an outfit would be in reallife. It's not the lack of clothes itself, but her obvious confidence in that state. Compare the strut and posture of PF1 Seoni to the slumped defeatest posture of the artwork above, her face says "I'm waiting in line at the DMV and someone just farted. All I can do is give them a sour look. I'm powerless to otherwise act."
Apart from the drawing itself being incomplete, she looks identical to her PF1 version to me. What's changed? She looks less confident to me. I could just be associating being scantily clad with confidence in your own appearance, as well as the placement of her lack of clothes and her sheer presence showing her to be the master of her own sexuality.
I'd be pretty annoyed if I was very proficient in Survival but I couldn't track without having some specific feat. That's pretty much the main reason I'd want survival skill in the first place.
I hope not, that'd mean it'd be intentionally overpowered in non-Golarion games. You could never meet the prereq membership in a non-Golarian game without introducing houserules, so it's a non-issue.
A Fighter using several of his feats and weapon training on unarmed/twf is a pretty significant cost. They can, in my opinion, by making the Monk more wis/ki based, and having many ki powers supplement the unarmed/martial aspects of the Monk. Then, while the Monk has ki to use, he can outdo an unarmed-focused Fighter. Either way, the Monk we got is just a heavily restricted Fighter to me.
Not true. A Fighter in PF1 gets better damage unarmed than a Monk. In my view, a fantasy Monk is a ki mystic first and foremost. Making another class better at being a """mundane""" martial artist than the Fighter would "[undermine] (one of) the central foundations of the [fighter]".
So almost everything that makes a Monk different from an unarmed-focused Fighter is optional? Sounds like a critfail on one of my favourite classes. Any martial should be able to be as good an unarmed combatant as a Monk.
My plausibly incorrect interpretation is that it's instead of normal damage. Damage: You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal. I view this as several different options:
The benefit of armor spikes is that they don't take up a hand, so you don't take a -4 penalty to grapple checks, and they deal more damage than most character's unarmed strikes.
They're not very good, and I think only certain archetypes can have one.
:) those typos My girlfriend, she's much dirty.
The haramaki and armored kilt have 0% arcane spell failure.
Huh, I'm the exact opposite. I'm bored as a player and have a great time as a GM. The main reason I'm ever a player is to find other GMing techniques and styles I didn't think up.
Don't even need the CRB or B1.
Could have the dryad's tree be a bonsai (or similar small tree in a pot). Just have them move it around as they will.
Wouldn't delayed fireball go by "real" rounds, not timestop rounds?
+1 to the "never heard of marshmallow fallacy" pile. A google search only turns up gibberish or some anecdote about a german thinking americans eat plain marshmallows in front of their tv. Nothing about what Derklord said to you was personal or an attack, master_marshmallow.
While not true undead, dhampir are something you could be from the get-go.
That's not a too much roleplaying problem, that's a too much railroading problem.
What's the source of that quote?
My character kills people/creatures for a living and lives in a dog-eat-dog world, I don't.
the acolytes haven't done anything wrong Burden of proof is on the claiment, so you claiming they've done bad things :) 1. Having Evil intent (which is just THOUGHTS) pings you as Evil.
Oh look at that, two ways to ping as Evil without actually being or doing Evil. Let's take Joe the peasant as an example of someone who has done no Evil but is still Evil. Joe wants to rape and murder his neighbours, not necessarily in that order, but Joe doesn't want to get executed or end up in pound-in-the-arse prison. Joe decides not to rape or murder his neighbours because he fears the consequences. Is Joe still Evil? F*%&ING YES! Only a phychopath and an Evil person would say "No.". This isn't carte blanche to kill anyone who pings evil, of course, but these people are your direct enemies. They're aligned with and guardians of a man you're sent to kill. 1. They're only "your" "enemy" because you've chosen to attack them for personal profit and power gain, incredibly selfish and Evil goals. 2. Just because someone is your enemy doesn't mean it's not Evil to kill them.
Just because someone is Evil, doesn't mean they deserve death or that they're not innocent.
Maybe it's all a scheme by Asmodeus to gain their power?
I say, tiefling Celestial sorcerer. With a katana. All katanas glow from their keen edge cutting atoms in half /s
Every party now has one max cha guy buying everything, while the rest of the party has dumped cha. The problem with buffing cha is it's already an amazing stat with the right build (several cha-to-X feats, class features, etc), but it's almost useless under other circumstances.
Have a "mystery-/investigation-themed adventure" that doesn't rely on magic? Perhaps they still detect illusion magic on the mayor but it turns out his clothes are just illusions because he's a nudist.
* When rolling for HP, re-roll any die that is equal to or less than your CON modifier. Better watch out for those high con wizards causing infinite loops :P
- If your deity would grant you proficiency with a simple weapon and you already have proficiency with it, you instead gain Weapon Focus with that weapon. - Fractional saves and BAB (I had it before unchained) - Classes that aren't intbased casters with 2 skills per level have 4 skills per level (pre int mod, racials, etc). - No XP. You usually level after 4-5 sessions, less at low levels, more at high levels, much less if you don't do anything worth a "session". Edit: - feats as a quest reward on occasion (example: you saved a martial artist's dojo from being destroyed by a rival dojo, he offers to teach you a thing or two about unarmed fighting, or you can get some petty gold).
Funnily enough, a player of mine is working on a setting where elves are industrious and dwarves are about nature.
Uh, if you aren't at least 60% combat, why aren't you playing FATE instead? Seriously, if your game isn't mostly combat, you've chosen the wrong system to play.60% to 80% a combatYou poor sap. Get a GM that isn't running a hack'n'slash diablo-clone. Hadn't heard of Fate, got into Pathfinder because it's free, easy to find players and its populated forums make it easy to learn. I might consider checking fate out. What are you doing in your games that you get >60% combat? I'm probably doing like 12.5% combat, 29.17% skills, 29.16% adventure, 29.17% RP. You do random, plotless encounters, right? Know a good fate forum? Nope. There's a reason 80+% of the book is dedicated to combat. It's because you don't need rules for RP.
60% to 80% a combat You poor sap. Get a GM that isn't running a hack'n'slash diablo-clone.
Did you notice how none of those examples are from Pathfinder? Clearly never read The Lord of the Rings.
"Two-Handed Weapons: What kind of action is it to remove your hand from a two-handed weapon or re-grab it with both hands? Both are free actions. For example, a wizard wielding a quarterstaff can let go of the weapon with one hand as a free action, cast a spell as a standard action, and grasp the weapon again with that hand as a free action; this means the wizard is still able to make attacks of opportunity with the weapon (which requires using two hands). As with any free action, the GM may decide a reasonable limit to how many times per round you can release and re-grasp the weapon (one release and re-grasp per round is fair)." -FAQ |