Crab

Barathos's page

342 posts (379 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
pjrogers wrote:


PF1e is "juryrigged" because Paizo chose not to ever attempt a "rigorous and complete" rewrite of the CRB. At any time over the past 10 years, Paizo could have cleaned up the PF1e rules, but it didn't do so. Even now, Paizo could apply this "Build from the Ground Up" principle to create a more evolutionary PF1.5e that I would certainly welcome in place of the PF2e mess that currently exists, and I which I suspect many others would similarly welcome.

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Castle Mayhem wrote:
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!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I agree it's a bit weak, but it seems worth noting that all characters have fewer languages this edition. You appear to get starting languages, a single bonus one at Int 14+, and then nothing else without Feat investment.

So it's a lot stronger than it would be in PF1. I'm just not sure it's nearly as good as the other three options.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:

Everyone wasn't special at everything. Nor were they special in the same way.

If everyone can sneak past a guard, then the Rogue being able to do it stops being amazing. Everything else you state just demonstrates that the Rogue has invested in a lot of resources to be able to do the same thing as the fighter and cleric (succeed). What a critical success looks like in this example scenario has yet to be determined, so the rogue the benefit for the rogue being able to critically succeed is somewhere between no benefit at all to EPIC. More information is needed to know if the rogue actually is amazing or if he wasted a lot of resources.

Being a stealth specialist in PF1 means being able to succeed. If it means the same thing in PF2 then it's a waste of resources to invest too heavily in it.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Stone Dog wrote:

What I'm looking forward to is PF2 having more capable adventurers as levels increase. Fighters that can at least have a decent chance to sneak about without spoiling the whole groups stealth. A cleric who can manage to climb enough that the party doesn't have to drag her around like a lead weight. A wizard that can do basic first aid without killing a companion.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ezren the Wizard is out now.

edit: Not much to comment on.
I hope Acid Splash scales quickly, because 1d4+1 isn't worth anything after 1st level.

Does showing two different action types in a spell indicate it requires both actions or only one of the two possible types?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

  • Make a mixed high str AND high dex character worth playing for every martial class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
worldhopper wrote:

Funny, because at least 2 women in this thread have pointed out it sure didn't feel like a power fantasy. [insert that Shortpacked! false equivalence comic here.]

Also, 1e Seoni looked like she was about to fall on her dang face.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hmm wrote:
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."


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:

Fighter is, and should be, better at using weapons. Unarmed should be the Monks schtick - at least without significant cost to the fighter.

Therein lies Paizos dilemma, they can't please both of us.

I also believe that a weapon using monk should not be as good as an unarmed monk without a significant cost - as that should be the fighters bailiwick.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:

Wait, Why? one of the defining features of the monk is being the best unarmed combatant - any martial being able to match that is undermining (one of) the central foundation of the monk - IMO.

I cannot agree with you. (unless you missed a 'not' in there)

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]".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My plausibly incorrect interpretation is that it's instead of normal damage.

CRB, 6th printing, p200, Grapple: Damage wrote:
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:

  • Deal damage equal to your unarmed strike's damage die.
  • Deal damage equal to a natural attack's damage die.
  • Make an attack with your armor spikes, deal its damage die plus modifiers if you hit.
  • Make an attack with a light weapon, deal its damage die plus modifiers if you hit.
  • Make an attack with a one-handed weapon, deal its damage die plus modifiers if you hit.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

srd link to drake companion

They're not very good, and I think only certain archetypes can have one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

:) those typos

My girlfriend, she's much dirty.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The haramaki and armored kilt have 0% arcane spell failure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm not sure you can even really make a distinction between players and GMs, since (beyond a certain allowance for people who are still learning the ropes) don't most people alternate between the two roles?

Like when you GM for a group of people, it's generally understood that because you are enabling a game to happen for them to play in, you will eventually be allowed to play with those people while someone else GMs, right?

Like, sure, I GM more than I play, but I don't know if I would keep GMing if I never got to play.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Mudfoot wrote:

People say that options are optional...but if I can't play the latest AP without those options, they're not optional. I can obviously write my own stuff, and I can look up the 'options' on the PRD, but frankly I've got better things to do with my time. Paizo is/was supposedly a setting company that needed to do the Pathfinder RPG to support the Pathfinder setting (Golarion) so that it could continue to sell adventures. But if people can't use those adventures because they don't have (or don't want to spend all their time online looking up) the new splatbooks, Paizo jeopardises their core business, as surely as they would with a v1.5 or 2.0 or whatever.

{. . .}

What, aren't the latest APs perfectly playable with just the Core Rulebook and going online on the PRD in the event of having to run an NPC that is of a non-Core class or a monster that isn't in Bestiary 1 and not in the AP text? (Same with non-Core feats, spells, etc.)

Don't even need the CRB or B1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wouldn't delayed fireball go by "real" rounds, not timestop rounds?


10 people marked this as a favorite.

+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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While not true undead, dhampir are something you could be from the get-go.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's not a too much roleplaying problem, that's a too much railroading problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yorien wrote:


Quote:

...

A troll who doesn't get enough to eat over the course of a few days loses its regeneration and becomes vulnerable, though a single adequate meal will bring it back into fighting trim, and starvation itself is a common cause of death for trolls. Drowning a troll is also effective.

What's the source of that quote?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Weables wrote:

I think you're overreacting. would you stab someone in a jewelry store if they grabbed the ring you were eyeing there? No? Then you're a reasonable human being, and would just buy something else, and maybe be grumpy for a day.

Why would your character be any different?

My character kills people/creatures for a living and lives in a dog-eat-dog world, I don't.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Barathos wrote:
the acolytes haven't done anything wrong

[Citation Needed]

You don't get an Evil alignment for not doing anything. Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic ACTS cause alignment shifts, not thoughts.

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.
2. Having recently had infernal healing cast on you 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.".

Rynjin wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starbuck_II wrote:

Wait, why does killing helpless evil make it an evil act?

Helpless doesn't make them innocent. Only Innocent slain is an evil act in the alignment description.

Just because someone is Evil, doesn't mean they deserve death or that they're not innocent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe it's all a scheme by Asmodeus to gain their power?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
I say, tiefling Celestial sorcerer. With a katana.

Not enough half dragon-ness with a cursed eye (which has a power magical being sealed in it) who is destined to save the world.

Also, the katana needs to glow. Obviously.

All katanas glow from their keen edge cutting atoms in half /s


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darche Schneider wrote:

What if Cha did this..

"Decrease the cost of buying objects by a %, and increase the gain for selling objects by a %"

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cuup wrote:

This is something I think 5th ed got right with the introduction of rituals. At Will Detect Magic trivializes 90% of mystery-/investigation-themed adventure:

"I cast Detect Magic and look through the crowd of party-goers."
"No one in the room is detecting as magical."
"OK, I got through every room in the manor and Detect Magic."
"You notice the Mayor detecting as magical. Roll Spellcraft."
"30."
"It's Illusion magic."
Five minutes later...
"And I would've gotten away with it if it weren't for that dang at Will Detect Magic!"

Making Detect Magic a first level spell, but also castable as a ritual (10-minute cast that doesn't use any other resources) would make situations like these much harder to insta-solve, yet Detecting magic SHOULD still be something most spellcasters can always do. Giving it a 10-minute cast time stops it from being abused.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mykull wrote:
* 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


3 people marked this as a favorite.

- 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).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Funnily enough, a player of mine is working on a setting where elves are industrious and dwarves are about nature.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Barathos wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
60% to 80% a combat
You poor sap. Get a GM that isn't running a hack'n'slash diablo-clone.
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.

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?

Anzyr wrote:
Nope. There's a reason 80+% of the book is dedicated to combat.

It's because you don't need rules for RP.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
60% to 80% a combat

You poor sap. Get a GM that isn't running a hack'n'slash diablo-clone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saigo Takamori wrote:
Soilent wrote:
Saigo Takamori wrote:

Some people seem to miss the point of the modeling of weapon in Pathfinder: it's to make possible some typical character, not to relfect reality. Does an archer can shoot 1 arrow per second at 35 feets in real life? No, but we had some archer in litterature that could do it (Legolas, I'm looking at you). Can you reload a crossbow/ a musket in a few seconds? No. Heck, can you fight with a double-flail? Lol no.

It's the same thing with the Katana: was it a great weapon? No. But a lot of character out there use it with style, be it Morpheus who cut a car in 2, Blade, Kill Bill or anything straight from Japan. In that case, the goal of the rule set for the Katana is not realism, but to reflect how it is use in media to let player do it. And in media, it's a type of bastard sword that can cut anything.

Did you notice how none of those examples are from Pathfinder?

And your point is? I could say that the Dwarf from Pathfinder are, in fact, from Tolkien, that the Elf are also (with minor change) from Tolkien...

Edit: and don't forget: Pathfinder is a set of rule, Golarion is the setting. Pathfinder should not give you ''example'', it sould give you rule set to create character.

Clearly never read The Lord of the Rings.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"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

1 to 50 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>