Bastien Beau's page
Organized Play Member. 182 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.
|


3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Hey that seems fun !
My turn !
So I'm a Nomadic Halfling with the Street Urchin background and I decided to be a Fighter.
So since I'm Nomadic I speak Common, Halfling and ... let's say Dwarves.
For the first feat I will go with Sure Footed since I expect to fight a lot on roof or other uneven places in cities.
STATS :
For : 10
Dex : 18
Con : 14
Int : 10
Sag : 14
Cha : 12
Skill :
Trained in Acrobatics
Trained in Thievery
Trained in Society
Trained in Stealth
Trained in Deception
Lore : Underworld
I'm not quite strong so I will try to pick agile Weapon and go down the dual-sword fighting style. I will try to make up my lack of damage by having two attack that have more chances to hit.
So I pick Double-slice as first Class feat. After that I will pick something to use distance weapon because there is nothing for twin fight at level level 2, then Twin Parry at level 4.
For defense I will most likely go with light armor, probably Studded leather since I have hight Dext and I expect to sneak and hide. Maybe try to get on in Mithral to avoid the check penalty.
At some point I will pick "DISTRACTING SHADOWS" and "Very Sneaky" so that I could use this rountine in fight :
- Hide behind someone taller than me (easy, and not restricted to allies)
- Move to get to someone that lost sight of me because of the previous action.
- Use double-slice on the flat-footed guys. (Does it still work for the second attack in double slice though ?)
Edit : (I just noticed that doesn't work, unless you are gobelin with the "Very Sneaky" feat).
I'm too lazy to found something else.
Almarane wrote:
Hmm... a Keen-Eared Elf Street Urchin Fighter. My dices are feeling classic today.
We definitely know each other !
Friend or foe ?
Probably foe.
I may have been someone that had to steal to survive but I despise brutish people. I may start has Chaotic Neutral, but the more I will witness bad people doing wrong to innocent, the more I will stand against them. Probably ending Chaotic Good (depending on how you view alignement though).
Some kind of mix between Robin Hoods and Batman.
Rogue would probably have been way better though but I kinda can pull it off I guess.
Maybe teaming with an actual Rogue is the better solution.
Anyway that was fun to test this randomization.
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I disagree with some point but I am on Phone so it is not easy to write.
My group never had cleric and did things without much troubles. No one though it is mandatory to have one.
Secret roll are usefull when you want to avoid the "I rolled High so my info is 100% safe". Once the players all rolled knowledge. Only one got a false information but they didn't know it. I used it also for perception check when searching hidden stuff.
They don't think fighting is static. Quite the reverse in fact. Fighting being dynamic is one of the first good thing they pointed out.
So far they liked the bestiary.
About the book search : new system = You don't remember things Well.
PF1 needs a lot more book tracking at start. We Forget it because we played for years but PF2 is really easier for people that weren't "infected" by PF1. (I'm not saying that in a bad way but my english knowledge is lacking to accurately explain that)

4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
magnuskn wrote: All reasonable points from your perspective, but one of them I want to address
Gorbacz wrote: 3. I don't abdicate the power, I merely am not interested in exercising it, or in spending the time necessary to judge whether I need to use that power or not. Rule 0 should be used to fill in gaps in rules and to make The Rule of Cool take precedence before RAW, it should not be used as a hammer to punch out imbalances of the system. Oberoni Fallacy and all that.
We're meeting to have fun, not to argue whether Matt's emergency force sphere is OP or not. There's absolutely no fun in such arguments for us.
I think that is one thing you cannot get away from. You, as the GM, are not a player, you are the arbiter and storyteller. Hence you have to do arbitration sometimes. I'm not saying that your approach is "wrong" or anything, but very different from my personal take.
You missed the point.
If you need to constantly homebrew things, you would be better just making a system on your own.
PF1 is so broken that I saw tables with so many homebrew that I doubt anyone would reckognize it as Pathfinder.
And they didn't did that for fun. It was literrally HELL for them to spend weeks creating something that fix issues without creating new ones and easily doable without rewriting most of the books.
GM ruling is fine. I use it a lot for narrative purpose. But when people stop every 10 minutes to complain about the 10 level Rogue that somehow can manage to nova 200 damage on average each round several times per day, there is indeed something that went wrong somewhere.
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I'm currently watching 7 groups self-exploding because PF1 is unbalanced and players get mad that some can "break the game" by combining things that probably weren't intended to combo but it is somehow RAW.
Then their anger make necessary for the GM To balance things on his own.
And he needed to do so much work / research to try it but the rules are so massive that he eventually gave up.
He doesn't gave up just the balance thing.
He gave up roleplaying game as a whole.
So. Yeah. Balance things a bit please.
Or at least make it so the game is more homebrew friendly. And pf2 seems (seems) more easily homebrewed for me.
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I think you miss a bit the diversity objective.
I am fine with abilities class locked as long as there is a way for other classes to have a weaker version or a slightly different version in other classes.
Like a Fighter dual weapon being somewhat different from a ranger or Barbarian dual weapon.
I am not fine with chain class feat that lock you in one path after your initial selection at level 1 or 2.
Since every time you can select a class feat there is also the "next feat in the chain" that become avalaible. You are almost forced to take it every time (because starting again with low level feat to take another path feels underwhelming).
It's not true for each class on the same scale but some are really focused like this (Looking at you Paladin. There are only 3 Paladin build that seems workable. I may be wrong though)
Overall I still like playing the Playtest.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The Once and Future Kai wrote: A long time ago I put too much work into a homebrew d20 System Racial Trait Progression ruleset that I never completed. Looking over the Pathfinder Second Edition Ancestries I find myself instinctively going back to that creative space and thinking up additions to it.
So... Here's a thread for all of us to brainstorm options that we'd like to have added to the Ancestry/Heritage system.
Allow me to start with some adaptions from my old homebrew ruleset.
Feat: Bite Back the Bile (Reaction); Level 1; Common
Traits: Half Orc / Orc
Trigger: You are afflicted with Poison or the Sick condition.
The demands of your body cannot compete with your bloodlust, you push back illness or poison until you can afford it. When this feat is triggered, you may delay becoming sickened or poisoned by 1 round. This delay lowers duration of the poison and sick condition by 1.
So you can use this reaction each round and have 0 impact from the poison. It may be fine in fight (because you need to choose between that and another reaction) but outside it would be too powerfull I guess ?
I would say the duration of the poison should not decrease for that round. Or maybe add something like "You can use this reaction only when there is a visible hostile creature engaged in fight against your party" or something like that.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
Feat: Stoneborn Resilience (Reaction); Level 1; Common
Traits: Dwarf
Trigger: You are reduced to 0HP by a critical success.
As the strongest metal is forged in hotted fires so Dwarfs stand resolute against the greatest adversity. When triggered you do not gain the dying condition, instead immediately gain 1HP and temporary hitpoints equal to your constitution modifier x your level. You are bolstered against the source of the critical success.
Bad wording at the end. It seems like it make you immune to the triggering attack which would be silly.
"You can't use this reaction twice on the same trigger each day" is more clear I think.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
Feat: Wannabe Gremlin; Level 1; Common
Traits: Goblin
Some Goblins just want to watch the world burn, others just want to watch from the shadows as a carefully planned prank ruins someone's day. When you roll a Success or Critical Success on the Disable Device action while Unseen, treat the number of successes as doubled.
So - what homebrew Ancestry/Hertiage feats have been percolating in the back of your mind?
Kinda OK I guess.
Some idea of mine :
_______
Feat: Peace Keeper (Reaction); Level 1; Common
Traits: Elves, auditory, lingual, concentrate (?)
Trigger Initiative is rolled.
Elves live long enough to know both the value of life and that most fights are meaningless, starting often with misunderstandings.
You can roll Diplomacy for initiative when facing intelligent foes. At your turn you may try to Make an Impression at the cost of 3 actions with a -2 penalty. If anyone before you acted hostile toward the other party the penalty is -4. You can chose to not make an Impression if anyone used action with the attack trait but you MUST do it otherwhise.
If there is a leader you roll against his DC.
If there is no leader you roll against the highest DC.
Success : Resolve the current turn. If no one attacked after your turn the fight stop and you can try to talk to Resolve things peacefully. The starting attitude of the other party is hostile.
Failure : no effect
Special : The GM may rule that in some case it is not possible to succeed (like opponent have clear orders to kill anyone without negociation).
Personal note : It would work as a skill feat too. Maybe even as a basic action "ask for cease fire" or something.
In this state it doesn't Feel really elve like.
_______
Feat: Curious about everything; Level 1; Common
Traits: Gnome
Gnomes tend to be obsessive with one subject but some prefer to learn a bit about everything.
You are trained in all Lore skill.
_______
Feat: Excentricity (reaction); Level 1; Common
Traits: Gnome, auditory, concentrate
Trigger: Someone critically fail to Make an Impression check.
Gnome are often seen as weird and people more easily accept that they act strangely without thinking too much about it.
When someone fail to make an Impression you may try to Make a deception check to make diversion.
Success : The target is so distracted by your acts that they forget what didn't please them before. Their attitude don't change toward your party.
Critical success : The target is Actually impressed / interrested by What you did and his attitude toward your party increase.
Failure : no effect
Critical failure : You somehow annoy the target and his attitude decrease one step more.
In any case the target become bolstered against this effect.
______
Well I don't really have good ideas...
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Making it scale with proficiency would work better I think.
Kinda like unchained skill but proficiency in place of ranks.
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
You manage to say exactly What was on my mind but I didn't manage to explain it as clearly as you did.
Thanks.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I'm in the middle of chapter 2.
My players are motivated but it is hard to schedule games when you have work and family.
A chapter take around 2 sessions it seems and I would be Lucky if I can play every 3 weeks.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Mark Seifter wrote: Tamago wrote: I think I saw this suggestion on the other thread, and I liked it. The DC should be based on the level of the creature you're healing, rather than your own level. For most cases this would be the same thing, but it would allow for high-level NPCs being able to easily heal the party, or low-level PCs struggling to save a high-level creature. That seems more interesting to me.
Natural Medicine could very easily just become, "You can perform the Treat Wounds action using the Nature skill instead of the Medicine skill."
No need to reinvent the wheel, and characters who are better at Nature than Medicine will find it quite useful. Noted, thanks! Sooooo a random healer can heal a level 1 arrow wound but "somehow" the same arrow wound on a level 20 suddenly is an impossible task for 98% of all the Golarion Healers ?

3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Ahlmzhad wrote: pauljathome wrote: I've played a druid with animal companion at level 1, 4, and 5.
The level 4 was a bit of a special case. The druid was primarily a wild shaping druid and he took the animal companion specifically to see if it would be of any use at all.
My opinion based on these actual playtests is that the animal companion is neither under powered or over powered. Even the low powered companion had its uses
With the level 5 druid the bear was a good contributor, bringing the druids contribution up to being on par with the martial characters.
Given that the animal companion effectively adds ONE to the actions taken I certainly don't think that it dominated the game nor made the druids turn take too long. Most of my thought process was deciding what Team Druid did. Actually doing the actions was simple The animal almost never bothered attacking twice. Usually moved and either attacked or used its Work together benefit together with a single attack).
The level 4 companion actually went a bit better than I thought it would. About 1/2 the time it wasn't worth the action to actually use so it just stood there. The rest of the time it was worth the action (usually for its work together benefit more than for its attack).
Didn't take much damage as the GM didn't feel like wasting attacks killing it :-).
Had a reasonable level of power for a single class feat (my level 4 feat went to better wild shaping). I didn't find it over powered particularly. They always function as another PC. My problem is that the AC doubles the number of actions one player has, and so they wind getting twice as much time in each combat round as the other players. Which leads to a lot of discontent from the other players. I Feel like you play with jerk.
It is the first time I saw anyone complaining about that and I played with more than 50 people.
What is the next step ?
"When the mage use a spell the ennemy must roll a Save. It take more time than when my fighter hit with is sword" ?
Utterly ridiculous.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
First time I ever found people Actually thinking it is hard to count diagonales. It never was an issue in any game I was.
Smurf.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
graystone wrote: thenobledrake wrote: By which I mean the time limit existing is less likely to elicit a response from a participant in the story along the lines of "...that's goofy." We'll have to agree to disagree. In a 'we don't know when the ceremony will start so we have to hurry' situation, taking a 1/2 hour nap is more 'this is goofy' than the wands: it's like the video games that give you an 'urgent' quest but has no enforced timeline so you can put it off. It's a very narrow road to walk to make the longer wait make more sense with a time limit.
As to the rest, it seems like optic.
Deadmanwalking wrote: The thing is that using Treat Wounds is only free in terms of money (well, you need to buy a healer's kit, but that's a negligible expense). Doing it reliably requires a fairly decent skill investment, and also a fair bit of time in many cases (and takes more time the less you invest in the skill). Both are significant investments, far more significant than the money required for a Wand of CLW is at 10th level in PF1. I don't see it as an investment but more a requirement now: what party isn't going to buy a healers kit [the whole party can use it] and is there a reason for anyone to not max out the skill? it's the new perception skill that most everyone maxed out.
Deadmanwalking wrote: It's also not unlimited Close enough. By the time everyone crit fails, the other resources they have will be out and they need to rest anyway. Again, why wouldn't everyone take the skill for free rolls?
Deadmanwalking wrote: And then, of course, there's the thematic element: Using a dozen Wands of CLW is a bit odd and not supported by the fiction, while having a medic patch you up between fights is intuitive and supported by the fiction. I'll disagree on thematics. Using magic seems far more in step with them than a few bandages, some spit and a 10 minute break makes all the wounds go away. A med patch works in sci-fi and mundane adventures but that's not pathfinder. 'Fiction' doesn't... If that is your problem just reflavor it as a Ritual that everyone learning medicine (the art of healing) learn.
You are a Monk ? Said you learn to boost others ki with some time and increase healing.
You are a cleric ? Throw some religious pray.
Fey Sorcerer or druid ? Suck healing power from Mother Nature.
Fighter ? I have no idea but ultimately I Will found one.
Anyway if the flavor is the issue it is not an issue.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
John Mechalas wrote: MaxAstro wrote: I do agree that Hero Points feel like a cheap "get out of dying free" card, and I don't like them. I especially don't like how the "dodge death" ability is SO good that no sane PC would ever use the 2-point or 3-point abilities. "I can reroll one attack, or I can save my life three times? Huh, tough choice..." Hear, hear.
Remember in PF1 how you could do really fun and cool things by spending one point, but it cost two points to rescue yourself from death?
So now we've reversed that, cut down on the cool things that you actually can do, and in compensation we give them out for things like "bringing food for the group" and "taking notes". First time seing anyone saying that Hero Point were good in PF1.
I played with maybe 50 players and each time that was removed out of the game faster than light.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
For myself I am both trying To help the dev by adding idea but also nurturing myself with the really good houserule that people far more talented than me post here. It Will improve my GM skill in a lot of way.
So ironically the game being disapointing is a good thing for me in some way because it make a lot of people coming with interresting Fixes that can be used somewhere.
See you next year anyway.
Smurf.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
StratoNexus wrote: Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote: My issue is that the examples given in the corebook don't go above level 5-8 for difficulty.
So when you diagnosize a "level 13 DC" you end up with a number but absolutely no idea at What it is expected to be.
Let's say you want some bridge to challenge a party and you found out that the DC should be 28.
Some of the harder to pin down challenges for higher level parties are really just scenery to level 13+ characters. Is a bridge really a challenge at that level? That isn't to say I wouldn't consider something bridge-like for the setting that could have challenge attached to it, but I would have the event in mind and then set the challenge based on that, rather than picking a DC and trying to fudge an event into it. Most environmental issues will be trivial at higher levels. Earthquakes and meteorites seem like a cool thing that could occur once in a campaign. I fail to see how getting "locked" into a difficulty for those is going to really be a problem?
"Watch out, tomorrow is Tuesday, meteorite dodging day!" "Locked" in the idea that anything you set up as a higher challenge should be obviously harder.
So it become a new reference. But a SUBJECTIVE one. Two people won't agreed about "What is harder between X and Y" since it is a personal bias.
And the more you play the more you have those reference scattered accross every level and it become a nightmare to imagine a next one that would fit in the good level difficulty without breaking versimilitude created by the previous challenge you set up.
Smurf

3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I agree on the principe.
My issue is that the examples given in the corebook don't go above level 5-8 for difficulty.
So when you diagnosize a "level 13 DC" you end up with a number but absolutely no idea at What it is expected to be.
Let's say you want some bridge to challenge a party and you found out that the DC should be 28.
Great.
Sooooo ?
Is the bridge in rumble while a tornado is here ?
Is there a lava stream that splash against it ?
You could say "whatever if it works" but the more you play the more it is difficult. Because you always need to think about something believable to explakn the increased difficulty while not creating inconsistencies. And no guidelines.
Example of jump (random number just for the though):
DC 10 : x feets
DC 15 : x+5 feets
DC 20 : x+10 feets or x+5 feets with slippery edges.
DC 25 : x+10 while there is a earthquake.
DC 30 : x+10 while dodging meteorites rain.
DC 35 : x+10 in a tornado... ? Is that really more difficult than the meteorite ? No idea. You just Pick it randomly because you need it that time and then you are "locked" in this for the rest of the campaign.
DC 40 : Jump to the moon ??
I read myself and I Feel like I don't make any sense but I totally fail to properly translate my issue in english :(
Smurf !
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Charon Onozuka wrote: Thoughts on Multiclassing:
Why does Paladin Dedication grant proficiency in all armors when everyone else only increases existing proficiency?
Multiclass feats granting straight HP increases feels wrong to me. Seems like a tanky character who wants as much HP as possible is now forced to pick up some multiclass.
1/day abilities: I hate these with a passion. By my count, we've got 4 of these now, Barbarian Rage, Fighter Attack of Opportunity, Paladin Retributive Strike, and Ranger Hunt Target. Either grant the class feature or give nothing, don't clutter up a character sheet with 1/day abilities that don't feel rewarding. Especially considering that most of these don't even make much thematic sense, ("I'm a barbarian that can only get really mad once before I need a nap in between.")
THIS.
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote: Dasrak wrote: Couple of suggestions:
*Treat wounds should use the medium DC based on the highest level of the targets. This doesn't make a difference when healing party members, but could be significant when healing NPC's.
*You buffed the read aura spell to match the change to the identify magic skill actions, but not the mending spell to match the faster repair times.
+1 to Treat wounds being based on the target's level rather than your own.
I understand the reasoning behind using the medic's own level, but from an aesthetic perspective, it feels nicer that it's easier for a high level medic to easily heal low-level NPCs, or a particularly difficult challenge to perform surgery on an injured, but otherwise powerful Dragon. I understand the DC in a game perspective, but I don't get it ingame.
Why is it harder to heal someone that took an arrow at level 10 that is was at level 1 ?
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Great update so far.
Still waiting for :
- Rebalancing Ancestry Feats (selecting 1-3 at first level that scale like cantrip as you level up)
- Broaden the Classes by adding more feats (but that could wait for a book after the rule book)
- Suppress some Feat Taxes so that you could go one path (inside the classe) then dipping a bit in another path.
Currently you are nearly forced to just "pick the next feat in your path" so there is not really a choice. Or at least not enough.
- More example for the DC table. I got number, great, but story wise what is considered "Level 14 medium acrobatic check" exactly ?
- I would do my usual joke about the Nymph in the Bestiary but it seems my last comment was deleted so ... was it because of that (harmless) joke ? I got no notification.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
TPK is easy in every game if the GM is actively trying to do it.
I could kill party of level 6 with just one monster of FP4 if I wanted to in some case.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Colette Brunel wrote: While I appreciate removing the slowed condition from the dying rules, I cannot help but think that the wounded condition will make it even easier for a gang of determined enemies to beat down on a massively-AC-debuffed, dying PC in order to finish them off once and for all. That is a tactic I have been using in my playtest games to force TPKs, and the new wounded condition will make it even easier.
According to the playtest rulebook, "only the most vicious creatures focus on helpless foes rather than the more immediate threats around them," but then, how are PCs supposed to survive those vicious creatures exploiting the wounded condition?
I cannot help but think that every sorcerer is going to multiclass into paladin, completely ignore the code of conduct due to the explicit lack of penalty for doing so, and then enjoy their medium armor. This seems like a ridiculous state of affairs for sorcerers.
Since when was it difficult to kill a dying PC ?
In PF1 you are dying at -1, and assuming a medium Constitution of 14, nearly anything can kill you in 2 hits.
And that is if you were at -1 to begin with.
In reality you are at 5, then someone hit you with 20 dammage and you died instantly with absolutely no hope at all (unless a Breath of Life avalaible).
Or do you mean making the "healing the down guy again and again" is way more dangerous ?
In that case, yes, it is the case.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
At this point you could just build a totally new classe flavored as Oracle or Inquisitor.
I Will probably redo 80-90% of the classes (basically suppressing tax feat and adding more interresting reaction. Probably a bit more of iconic capacity "free"), make Ancestries feat " Take 3 At 1th level that scale as you level up" and boost (very) sligthly spells.
Also nerf the bestiary.
I Will most likely steal your Ritual idea.
35 people marked this as a favorite.
|
John Lynch 106 wrote: Apparently Paizo can't tell us because to do so would bias our feedback Instead they want us tilting at windmills and only afterwards will they tell us what the point of anything was. You are becoming more and more toxic by the days dude.
Take some nice vacation, breath, remember this is just a game with an absolute 0 impact on your life and take it easy.
Even if it end up as the worst game ever there is no reason to be this upset.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
John Lynch 106 wrote: We've been asking the first question since day 1. Still haven't gotten an answer. I don't expect this thread to be any different. You got an answer in the last blog.
" But it's equally important to the data collection process that playtesters not know what those goals actually are until the test is over, since to do so any other way would bias the results."
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Shield.
The proper rule made them as resistant as toilet paper.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
It's a mix between the Ritual Healing Suggestion and the Bandage of Healing suggested on another topic.
Personally I think whatever idea is better than the current state of the game so... yeah. Sure. I would use it.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Some though about magic identification :
- "Read Aura" give some hints in 10 minutes.
The potion would label as "necromancy school" so you know it is not invisibility or shield.
Though it needs some heavy steel balls to drink it with just that knowledge.
So you can narrow a bit "We need healing but this is divination school so let's put it aside for now"
- Alchemical item are identified in 10 minutes (But it take a consumable if I recall Well ?)
- It may sound silly but I think a lot of potion could juste have their name written on it. Whoever made them probably don't want to mix them up with poison.
Well if it is ancient the writting may have gone off.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The Once and Future Kai wrote: LiquidLeoc wrote: This is my first time posting here, just to endorse this idea. This needs to reach dev ears. Thank you for making your first post here! I saw someone (not me) bring it up on the developer's twitch stream on Friday but it was one of the questions they missed. I'm thinking of creating a twitch account so that I can ask myself. I would use my account to do it but I am not sure I can with the hours delay between USA and Europe.
I am very curious to know if they ever read this thread and What they think about It.
In the stream he just said "MoAr hEaLiNg SpElL" so I am a bit worried about them not even looking at the tons of alternative that people post here since week.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Doktor Weasel wrote: Leedwashere wrote: But it boils down to one of two options: Fix the prices or fix the HP. My original post champions the second, while your proposal champions the first. Both can work equally well for the items by themselves, but the latter potentially requires fewer systemic changes. But as long as one of them is implemented, it will be sufficient for me. I'd think the best solution would be to adjust both prices and the healing. Some prices are bad, 1,200 gp for a potion is nuts. Maybe if it was a raise dead item like the Elixir of Rejuvination it might be worth the price. But for healing? No way. Even for 100% of HP. And as you found out, adjusting just one variable makes the other go nuts at the extremes.
My general assumption for price for healing items is that 1 use items like potions should be more expensive per healing received than wands (just not 1,200 gp). I see them having different uses. Potions are for quick emergency healing in combat. In combat the incentive is towards something fast with a lot of healing in one shot. Wands on the other hand, can be ok in combat, but might be best used for between-fight healing when time isn't as essential but maximizing the value is. Guzzling a six-pack of potions between each fight just isn't the most practical method of healing. Or potentially the role for between-fight healing could be moved to something else entirely (like magical surgical tools or bandages that work over 10 minutes or so) and have wands as the versatile switch-hitter of healing items that can do both well.
Another way wands might be able to be balanced is by adjusting the number of charges depending on the level of the wand. For example 5 for a 1st level wand, 10 for 2nd, 15 for 3rd and 20 for 4th. So changing only that and assuming a modifier of 4 and single targets would give:
- 1st level wand, 5 charges 27 gp: 8.5 hp per charge, 42.5 hp total, 1.57 hp/gp
- 2nd level wand, 10 charges 72 gp: 17.5 hp per charge, 175 hp total, 2.43 hp/gp
... Maybe new items like :
- Bandage of healing (lesser)
3 actions to put.
After 10 minutes the wounds under the bandage Heals up to 10 hp.
- Bandage of Healing
3 actions to put
Same but up to 30 hp.
- Bandage of healing (greater)
Blablabla ... 90 hp.
For the price I have no idea but less than potion so that potion are for emergency use in fight while bandage are useless in fight.
....
Well that is kinda just short rest with GP cost though.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Belisar wrote: Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote: I would just prefer that Feats also auto-scale (To remove some remaining feat taxes. Looking at you Animal Companion) and players able to select more feats (around 5 should be fine) so that they could 100% go in a set of feat skill (like archery) but still can pick a few outside of it to be more diverse.
Alchemaic, this is another example.
This call for auto scaling feats so you could take more feats from a different class you multiclass into without losing the full progress advantages in your primary class. But this literally means, you spend less time in your primary class but want to rip full benefits of that class like you weren't dabbling into other classes. Why should a primary class feat auto scale, when you do not focus on your primary class and instead dabble into other classes to rip benefits from them?
Again, if a char wants to diversify and studies/trains different fields of expertise he can only do so at the expense of his primary class. Even in Golarion, the day has only that much hours. I sincerely don't understand how you managed to not understand What I was saying To the point you reached a nearly total reverse of my intent.
I want people To :
- Take more feats INSIDE THE CLASS so that you could be a swordy Paladin with a bit of mount ability, or a bit of shield. Or a shield specialist with a bit of sword. That would make 12 différent Paladin build instead of the 3 currently in game.
- Have feats that Feel like feats. New actions / réactions (Like a Monk reaction to trip opponent
- Multiclassing would still means less Class Stuff but that may be a bit overpowered so maybe you need to change Multiclassing system as Well.
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
A lot of month ago I spammed the resonance thread with "If you want charisma appealing make it so it boost items, not limiting them".
So I am now waiting for my official notification of Paizo hiring me.
*sit in corner and wait*
Note : they also should look at Intel. It is the new dump stat right now.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The Once and Future Kai wrote: PossibleCabbage wrote: I strongly prefer "Barbarians do archery in one way, Paladins a different way, and Bards in a third unique way, all of which represent the identity of the class" to "everybody can do archery just like the fighter." It seems like "I want to do it like the fighter" is what the fighter dedication is for. That's fun. It'll require a mountain of new feats...but they'll be meaningful and flavorful. It will also provide ample incentive to multiclass. It would definitely give me something be excited for in each new splatbook. I also prefer it like this.
I would just prefer that Feats also auto-scale (To remove some remaining feat taxes. Looking at you Animal Companion) and players able to select more feats (around 5 should be fine) so that they could 100% go in a set of feat skill (like archery) but still can pick a few outside of it to be more diverse.
Right now there is only 3 Paladin build and that make me sad.
Also racial feat that auto scale selected at level 1.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
99% of mythical Heroes have either god blood or magic artefact to support them.
Yet somehow people here seems to think that "Mundane should be doing stuff without magic at all"
It's kind of weird.
Like asking "my fat Mormont should be deadly than the dude who use technology and have a AK-47"
Technology is to make people more efficient.
Magic is Golarion technology.
Use it.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Vidmaster7 wrote: graystone wrote: What do we want Martial characters to be capable of?: I want them to start an 'anime' and get better from there. I could care less what is realistic. What I want is what would look awesome in a movie/show I was watching. 'move, swing sword, swing sword' isn't exactly nail biting, edge of your seat excitement. Now let me grab a goblin by the neck and beat another goblin to death with the still struggling first goblin and that's something I'd want to watch. I swear like 95% of what you say makes me want to argue with you. I don't think your realize how many times I just have to pass it over for my own sanity. Welcome in the club.
Here is your member card.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
HWalsh wrote: Lyee wrote: HWalsh wrote: Disagree, do not want.
I don't want easy free healing in PF2.
I like the idea of player characters not healing up to full after every fight. I like player character healers to be more than an unnecessary convenience. I like PF2's healing situation as-is.
I do not like the idea of a 5e-style short rest.
Players do not like being reckless with characters they've invested time into, often emotions too, sometimes money for books/miniatures.
So, your players will heal up after every fight. That might be using the cleric's spell slots. If the gold/resonance system lets them, that might be with wands/potions. If Stamina/rituals fill its place, it might be with that. If not, maybe they get 2-3 hireling clerics to top them up. Don't allow that? Maybe a splat book two months after PF2's release has a really good medicine skill feat that players almost auto-take to top up. None of those work? Maybe they retreat to rest every encounter or two, and you have to keep figuring out how the plot supports that.
Players, simply, are going to find a way to be full or near-full HP for challenging encounters. Stop trying to fight against that and mutiliating PF2 in pursuit of fighting it. Work with it, make systems that let it be smooth and not thematically silly (CLW poking got towards thematically silly).
I support rituals. Or stamina. Or both. Or short rests. Or healing surges. Or potions being really effective. Or medicine skill being improved to handle most out of combat healing. Or anything that solves this problem. At the moment, it's in a terrible spot. Players will huh?
Yeah... I recommend you go check out the custom pf2 game I'm running. They totally don't. The game's going just fine. Most players will.
You can't take a pecular table and say "It works there so do it as the general rule".
One of my table has nearly 0 magical items despite being level 8. They feel lucky if they found a potion of CLW. But you Will never see me saying "My players like being nearly homeless Dudes. So my system works at all table".
It is (I think) very likely that most players Will rest each time they can and the more they know the game the more they seek way to abuse the system to make it easier.
I myself prefer HP not being easily Heal though. But I could tweak Ritual to make it harder and only partial healing.
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: magnuskn wrote: Rob Godfrey wrote: that then leaves casters playing a superhero game...while martials are a complete waste of a party slot. So we already HAVE a super hero game, just martial casters aren't allowed to play it. Which is why it makes more sense to bring martials up, rather than casters down. Or perhaps both.
Since another common complaint is how hard it is to play or run the game at high levels. Cranking up the power another notch by bringing martials up to caster craziness is just going to make that aspect worse. Right.
Bringing martial up to casters would be "Hey folks, remember how you can totally break the game with some classes ? You can do it with all classes now"
Which would be... Well... "interresting" I guess.
Until the GM suicide.

7 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Lyee wrote: Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:
You got it wrong.
Climbing a tree is always the same DC not matter the PCs level. Once you set a DC for something it won't change as long as the conditions are the same.
So your PC would become better and better at climbing that tree to the point you don't even need to roll to succeed.
The issue however is that the game made the GM think backward.
Usually I would look at the PC modifiers, then deciding how hard it should be and then looking for appropriate challenge.
"They have +8 climb but I want it to be fairly challenging so I pick a DC of 20 and then look at a table to found something around that (Ok the wall need to be like this or maybe it is like that but with this special circumstances)"
But right now PF2 is :
"They are level 10 so I must put something level 10 to make it a bit challenging. It is DC 27. Now I need to improvise an explication for this difficulty"
It looks pretty much close system but as you try to use it you Will see that it is not at all.
Sure, that's what they say happens. But you didn't read the post you quoted very well, he's not arguing against the rule book, he's arguing against actual play using the Paizo-given adventure.
From what I've seen in actual Paizo-written, Paizo-published content, all DCs are scaled to your level. If there was a tree to climb for those level 9 characters, it would be DC 24 at the lowest.
It's all nice saying that it makes the GM think backward, but when it makes Paizo think backward and publish backward content, there is a serious issue. If Paizo can't use their own system there is indeed a huge issue that need to be adressed.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I would like more :
- 1 Fixed boost
- 1 Boost in a selection
- 1 flaw selection
Example :
Elf :
Fixed Boost : Dext
Second boost : Chose between Intel or Wisdom.
Flaw : Chose between Constitution or Strengh
"Elf are gratious and cunning but their body is weaker than most"
(Alternatively, boost could be "Intel or Cha" if the setting is more like "elf are really curious and likable" than "old wise dudes")
Dwarf :
Fixed Boost : Con
Second boost : Str or Wisdom
Flaw : Dex or Cha
"Dwarf are strong, both mentally and physically, but aren't the most agile or social people on Golarion"
So that the race stay a bit more "flavor oriented"
(Because an elf with boost in Strengh seems weird To me. Although there are fictional world were they are strong as hell because magic in blood) but it opens more classes (Dwarven druid)
Or maybe just " Pick 2 Boost in this 3 ability List and one Flaw in this 2 ability list".
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Well as you said, by raw, nothing prevents the player to abuse the system and make more money.
So :
1/ Let the players break the game
2/ Report how unfun it was on the survey
3/ ????
4/ Make a sacrifice to Satan so that the dev would actually notice it and change the rules.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I am seriously torn on this topic and can't find a proper answer.
On one side I am fairly "simulationist".
If someone is in a stormy ocean really far of the cost and no boat in sight he is probably dead.
Trying to climb a perfect smooth wall barehanded ? Auto fail.
My players are totally ok with that so it is fine for my table. I also use a low magic setting and the only full caster in the party isn't really optimizing to break the game.
One the other side I totally understand people that want to do Olympian stuff. That is also very cool. I would like to play it too sometimes but I disagree a bit for the scaling. I would say Heroes become "Mythical heroes" at level 12-15. Not earlier.
But again my personal tastes are kinda far from the Pathfinder Norm
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Also Ritual effect could differ based on the primary caster.
Nature : Heal + remove disease effect (if disease level inferior)
Occultism : Heal + remove curse.
Religion : Heal + effect based on deitis
(I also considered curse removal but that would be redundant with occult)
Arcana : Heal + ... something ?
Also things like :
- Monk Ritual (Monastic Lore or something like that)
Cost : x rare incenses
For 1 hour everyone sit down around the monk in meditation. He alter the flow of the Ki of each person to heal them.
Effect : Whatever healing effect + a conditional boost to one Save for x hours.
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Cellion wrote: I strongly support healing rituals in some form. My own preference would be to minimize randomness by removing or reducing the variability of the skill checks while making the healing output more consistent. After all, you're investing serious time here, so it'd feel terrible to flub it! Personally, I think a ritual that restores 1/2 max HP to each character and takes 10 minutes to execute would serve the game well.
---
If resonance needs to stay in the game, I'd also support removing resonance from consumables but making the healing ritual take 1 resonance point from each PC who participates.
10 minutes Feel a bit short for my faste.
I would say 1h for full effect but a feat could drop it to 30 minutes for half effect (if you are concerned about being interrupted).
But things like that are just a matter of taste. I totally could see 10 minutes working at some tables.

9 people marked this as a favorite.
|
My main problem is that :
- Some option feel very weaks.
- Some class are like "pick one path and stick with it until the end" (Paladin choosing sword or shield or mount) and then you just take "The next feat in the chain" which kills build diversity. You don't really have a choice because doing otherwhise would be super unoptimized. And this game is already hell for optimized character so...
- Some feats scale and some need you to invest in the "next feat in the chain" to keep being relevant.
- Ancestry feats.
Some idea to fix that :
- Pick between 3 and 5 Ancestries Feats at level 1 (whatever would be balanced) and make them auto scale with level.
=> Make more sense that your natural abilities that you already (And always) had increase in place of suddenly appears from nowhere.
- Remove all Ancestries Feats gaigned by leveling. Chose Class Feats instead.
=> Allow to poursuit one "main path" while still grabbing a little of others things => More build diversity.
(Maybe broken with Multiclassing though)
- Change the feats chains that are just "You gain one more dice on the habilitie you already have + ultra minor side effect". Make them just one skill that auto scale with level.
(Side note : That may reduce the build diversity unless you have a ton of these kind of feats)
=> Skill you pick must be impactfull. Like giving you a new action or reaction and not just "+x to thing you already have"
That would need a lot of work though. And invent many new class feats to chose from (like a reaction to trip opponent for the monk under some circonstances or whatever else).
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
That is Actually a nice suggestion that is both easy to implement in the game and add some nice flavor.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Unicore wrote: willuwontu wrote: So we're ignoring the existence of untrained and expert proficiency I see.
Really it should look like this
- Untrained - Roll Twice and take the worst
- Trained - Roll Once
- Expert - Roll two times and take the best
- Master - Roll three times and take the best
- Legendary - Roll four times and take the best
Lets break this down by math. Lets say this is a skill check with a DC of x+11, where the x factors in all of these characters bonuses by level, equipment, attribute and any other conditional bonus so that only proficiency exists as a modifier between them.
Here are the numbers:
** spoiler omitted **
Long story short, being untrained in a skill is a terrible idea if you are ever going to have to roll that check for something that is a life or death situation. Especially because your numbers are probably going to slip even more from not having the equipment or the attributes to keep it at optimized levels. (This is true in the game without either of our suggestions, but yours definitely makes it even more so - instead of having a 40 % chance of success, the untrained drops to 12.25%)
Looking at a more difficult task DC 17+x, the numbers do exactly what you expect:
** spoiler omitted **... I like math.
Math is not Boring.
Math is life.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Gorbacz wrote: Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote: Gorbacz wrote: It's not insane. The DM takes the skill DC table and tells you what the DC is. It's pretty much like 1e/2e used to work. You all whippsersnappers are just spoiled by your "this is the DC for walking on a 4 inch wide slightly slippery ledge while the wind is 39 mph, the temperature is 211 F and the moon is in crescent phase" tables 3e brought. My issues :
- Insane table variation. Endless discussion about "are you sure ?"
- Immersion Breaking because players Will ask ten times per minutes "What is the DC again dude ?" And won't be able to decide if an action is worth it on their own.
Like he want to handle his war horse in front of a dragon. How could he known how the GM Will rule it ?
Maybe the GM Will say "The horse is level 1 so it is Level 1 DC but Extreme because of the dragon" (18)
Maybe the GM Will say "Well it is the LVL 10 dragon that frighten the horse so High level 10 DC" (27 !!!!)
Or "Let's look at the Intimidation DC of the dragon" (25)
Or ANY NUMBER between 18 and 27 because the GM may be like "level 1 horse, level 10 dragon so difficulty 5 Extreme (25) ... No. 7 but just High !" (23)
And the player can't possibly know without asking each freaking time
Note : I may have missed some info on the Handle an animal DC though. That's exactly how 1e/2e D&D and dozens of systems which leave setting the difficulty to the GM work. The difficulty in those games is set by the GM using guidelines s_he is given. This removes both the need to quantify every possible use of a skill in rules, but also allows the GM to adjust the difficulty based on the situation.
The GM can then set the DC accordingly. It may be lower, if you're trying to handle a horse in front of a non-threatening drgaon. It may be higher, if that's an angry red dragon. It may be lower, if that's an angry red dragon BUT your horse has been through literal Hell and back with you AND you your horsey knows it's a do or die time, because... I have no issue with "there is a base DC but you can change it according to circumstances".
But as it is there is no base DC at all for the most part.
And since the game tell you that DC for the same task doesn't change over time you need to track every time you made up a "base dc" to use it again maybe 5 months later if someone tries the same thing again.
|