Bluemagetim's page

Bluemagetim wrote:

To add here, ttrpgs generally dont play in realtime like a shooter or an rts.

You have a moment to talk with other players and formulate a plan of action.

So the solution is to slow down combat scene game play? I don't want that. I want the strategizing and coordinating to come on line with player experience, so that as they become faster deciding what to do, they get more options and thus the combat scenes don't slow down...but also don't stay repetitive level after level.

It depends I guess.

But I do agree with your second paragraph. If the table doesnt want a lethal experience the GM can and should make the game the one the table wants to play.

But low level play is also P2E play.
You just have a different experience at level 1 because your playing a character that has the minimum training and experience you could have as a pc barring level 0 alternate rules.

To add here, ttrpgs generally dont play in realtime like a shooter or an rts.
You have a moment to talk with other players and formulate a plan of action. That is an opportunity for strategizing and coordinating to overcome the odds. Or deciding its too risky and looking for alternatives options. Its a game with very few limits if the GM lets it be.

Yeah the means of gaining spells from your curriculum is still the same. Your staff however contains all spells from your sin so even if you don't pick any sin spells you still have all of them within your bonded staff, You don't need to have learnt the spells to cast them from a staff after all.

For example if lust picks sure strike and darkvision rank 1 and 2 as their curricilum selections with no other selections from the curricilum, Then their staff still contains.

cantrips: daze, message
1st: charm, command
2nd: charitable urge, stupefy

Oh wow. Thats basically sidesteps the need to learn sin spells to some

Bluemagetim wrote:

I knew runelord got the standard 5 at level 1 and 2 more per level up base but the wording for runelord specifically seemed like it just gave them all curriculum and sin spells.

Where?

I was hoping I could be corrected on this one. I dont have the rules available atm. That was just my impression last time i looked at it.

They gave us a clarification because we asked for one and Maya brought it to the design team.
No matter what your read was before the clarification I see that as a good thing.

Bluemagetim wrote:

Does runelord auto learn all spells from both curriculum and sin?

If so that already gives them more spells known than a normal wizard at the cost of not being able to cast non curriculum/sin spells against their anathema.

No. You acquire Curriculum and Sin spells as Spells Known in the same manner as a non-Runelord wizard.

Wizards choose 2 spells from the curriculum spells at level 1

I knew runelord got the standard 5 at level 1 and 2 more per level up base but the wording for runelord specifically seemed like it just gave them all curriculum and sin spells. I dont remember it saying to say to choose a number of them.

You know when I am playing a videogame like wrath of the righteous I turn off things like permanent death and make conditions go away after combat. The reason is because its annoying to manage those things in a videogame.
A ttrpg is completely different for me. Its a social experience where luck, tactics, the whims of others at the table all come together to create the experience.
I wouldnt turn any of those things off in a ttrpg.
Just saying I like the low level feature of vulnerability. I like that it becomes less prominant as your character grows out of those levels. I dont think there is a problem to fix because.

Besides some say there are no tactics involved? You need both tactics in the fight and a strategy going in.
Tactics need to account for the conditions.
If there are goblins with bows on a ledge and goblins with dogslicers at your level which do you stop first?
Take into account the deadly trait and the fact that bows can strike at range. You dont want to give them enough strikes to make luck become inevitability.
What does that mean when it comes to tactics? Not much because tactics are not going to level the playing field. But It means you dont fight without a clear advantage. Dont just charge in. Come in with a strategy to level the odds against you. Strategy, a plan, thats whats needed.
That might mean trying to use before combat ploys with deception stealth diplomacy whatever just to gain favorable positioning for some of your team.
Just to throw this in there. If a GM is auto nixing any reasonable attempts to level the playing field thats kinda bad on the GM.

Does runelord auto learn all spells from both curriculum and sin?
If so that already gives them more spells known than a normal wizard at the cost of not being able to cast non curriculum/sin spells against their anathema.

Champs can pick up expand aura at level 6, at lvl 10 it lasts a minute, and by level 16 its an on until you dismiss it.

Bluemagetim wrote:

Ectar wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

But if were talking about spells they never used finite resources to gain in the first place its not a penalty. Its more or less a class direction kind of like Occult casters have a different list to draw from than divine casters or primal casters.You wouldn't say those casters are penalized because one has this list of spells and the other has that list to choose from.

No reason to consider spells per day gains for the class as a tradeoff for the second of those situations. Its just a class buff from the normal wizard with a more focused direction that the player can choose from a number of runelord options.

Of course an Occult caster isn't inherently penalized compared than an Arcane one. Now, if that Occult caster lost access to ~10% of their available spell list, THEN If considered them penalized.

The occult list has some percentage less spells than the arcane and is just fine.

As long as there are sufficient spells to make the character that fits the theme that kind of runelord represents I wouldn't say its a veritcal penalty.
I would categorize it as a horizontal limitation though, and that can be meaningful even if I wouldnt consider a horizontal limitation like this equivalent to a vertical drop in resources. It is a limit on choice. I just wouldn't call it a reduction to the limited resources of the class.

I agree that the limit posed is primarily a horizontal one. But by not being able to access all of the good spells, your cap in potential effectiveness is inherently lowered.

As a very simple example, if Fireball is the best possible spell for you to be able to cast in a given situation, not being able to prepare it gives you a limit on how effective you could be in that situation when compared to a character who does have access to Fireball.

I think thats just the nature of making subclasses which is basically what runelords are. Each subclass is effectively set up to take on different sets of roles that a wizard in general can potentially take on (wizards make these choices too but runelords are just making these choices at character creation instead and cant buy their way into prohibited options). Thing is they are not less effective at the roles their spell selection allows for.

Bluemagetim wrote:

But if were talking about spells they never used finite resources to gain in the first place its not a penalty. Its more or less a class direction kind of like Occult casters have a different list to draw from than divine casters or primal casters.You wouldn't say those casters are penalized because one has this list of spells and the other has that list to choose from.

No reason to consider spells per day gains for the class as a tradeoff for the second of those situations. Its just a class buff from the normal wizard with a more focused direction that the player can choose from a number of runelord options.

Of course an Occult caster isn't inherently penalized compared than an Arcane one. Now, if that Occult caster lost access to ~10% of their available spell list, THEN If considered them penalized.

The occult list has some percentage less spells than the arcane and is just fine.

By that logic when the rogue gained Critical Success when rolling a Success on all 3 Saving Throws at level 17, we should have all assumed that it was "Too good to be true" and ignored it because that is silly but on the same end that also means despite not being said in any official rule. "This is too bad to be true." should also apply, making stuff like Champion's Blessed Armament work like old Blade/Shield Ally. While also making it a point to ask yourself. "Is this too good/bad?". Then you have to ask if Flurry of Blows was unfairly nerfed or why did Twin Takedown not get the same 1d4 cooldown.

I read the same rules and it was clear to me before this clarification that blessed armaments reads as the clarification emphasized.

Others read it and assumed it meant something else. Now that we have the clarification we understand which read was intended. And its a win for the game because we wont have tables running blessed armaments in a way that makes it needlessly pointless.

I would take from this that if your read of a rule makes the ability pointless and your table wont touch it? Dont run it that way no matter what unknown intent is behind the writing.

I only found about this today after starting a new job just yesterday. Time to celebrate by backing a very worthy cause and snatching a few jewels I could not afford before.

Congrats on the new job!

Well if were talking about spells the runelord has already chosen at their level and then saying well no some of those can't be cast due to anathema, well that is a penalty.
But if were talking about spells they never used finite resources to gain in the first place its not a penalty. Its more or less a class direction kind of like Occult casters have a different list to draw from than divine casters or primal casters.You wouldn't say those casters are penalized because one has this list of spells and the other has that list to choose from.

No reason to consider spells per day gains for the class as a tradeoff for the second of those situations. Its just a class buff from the normal wizard with a more focused direction that the player can choose from a number of runelord options.

Bluemagetim wrote:

Loss of flexibility is a meaningful limiter, but I wouldn't say it is ever equivalent to a vertical gain.

Is the opposite also true?

Does a significant increase in flexibility ever equate to a loss in vertical gain?

How many spell slots would you be willing to give up to acquire access to every spell of all 4 traditions?
If the answer is anything other than "I wouldn't ever give up any number of spell slots for access to that additional flexibility", then I think at some point there is an equivalency.

Youre kind of talking about giving up resources you have for access to spells you plan to select in your example and comparing that to giving up access to spells you dont plan to select to begin with to get more resources to cast spells you want to cast.

Thats not the same thing to me.

Loss of flexibility is a meaningful limiter, but I wouldn't say it is ever equivalent to a vertical gain.

Nah, nothing bad faith in taking an ability at face value, especially when other abilities function in the same way.

Like I said, we can be glad Paizo addressed the problem without trying to be weird about it or mad at people who wanted things corrected. Like everyone here is agreeing the outcome is good, makes the fussing kind of weird.

I wouldn't say it was bad faith, but it was not a read the designers intended and we know that now.

I think we can all agree this clarification is a good outcome though.

Thank you for the errata and clarifications Pathfinder Designers.

I had a sega genesis game back in the day where you played as 3 brothers.
You play the first brother until you die. Then you restart as the second brother. then the third if the second dies. Then its game over.

Sometimes deciding to engage was the mistake.

Low level characters are more unique in that they have a greater sense of mortality than they do when they level.

Someone is going to drop in harder fights where a GM isn't pulling punches. The creatures are just set up to do that, and GM rolls are notoriously crit heavy.

Errenor wrote:

If you are a GM and it's really-really exploiting, you can put a stop to this one way or the other.

I would honestly like to GM one day, but I'm just not sure I have the inclination for it you know? I have ideas, but I don't really know how to put them together properly enough for a campaign.. But, I can dream!

If your interested in trying it id say go for it.

Something I'm not liking about the idea of having control over two characters with one cast of dominate.

I wrote up a table top system years ago that used stat pairs of physical and mental stats. Things like turn order or to hit stamina ect..in the game was generally a combination of one of the mental and one of the physical stats.
I never attempted to run the system though.
The idea was to represent all actions as a combination of mental and physical abilities in some way.

Bluemagetim wrote:

For giving something more to int what if a number of "tactical skill feats" were introduced that represented using Int with a skill to take advantage of terrain or surroundings or leverage something to gain a circumstance bonus to something and you could only pick 1 per int bonus?

introduce a level 1 feat and an advanced feat for each skill?
any character with an int bonus would have a choice of these and advanced ones might have a prereq of a certain level and the first one in the line for that skill.

I'm not a fan, only because you're having to spend other limited resources to get the benefit out of intelligence.

I'd really prefer int give you something on its own.

An idea that's floated around before is letting someone choose between int, wisdom, and charisma for will saves.

Ignoring class specific abilities or desires/preference for specific skills, the mental abilities only increase perception and will saves both of which by are assigned to Wisdom in the default system.

Allowing someone to choose out of the mental scores which to use for will saves could help. It might mean you have a character with relatively poorer perception, but I think that might be acceptable to many people.

Ultimately I think a better but very different type of system might be to only have 3 or maybe 4 "ability" score.

Physical offense, physical defense, and mental for 3 ability version. Or the same but splitting mental into offense and defense for 4 ability.

With physical offense doing all ranged and melee attack rolls and damage rolls. Phy Defense doing all AC and HP, fort saves, and reflex saves. I think you can see where I'm going with this, but it's a complete overhaul of the base system and not something you could just bolt on.

Ah oh I meant the 1 per int was an additional tactical skill feat, it wouldnt take your normal skill feats to select one.

Probably though the deciding factor of whether or not this is even a good idea is in how the tactical feats are actually designed.

For giving something more to int what if a number of "tactical skill feats" were introduced that represented using Int with a skill to take advantage of terrain or surroundings or leverage something to gain a circumstance bonus to something and you could only pick 1 per int bonus?

introduce a level 1 feat and an advanced feat for each skill?
any character with an int bonus would have a choice of these and advanced ones might have a prereq of a certain level and the first one in the line for that skill.

Is Treasure Vault included?

It's listed here as part of the $30 Bundle level, but isn't listed at Humble Bundle's site

Your right it is not listed on the humble bundle site.

Nothing popped into cart for me, either. Adding the book manually comes in at the regular price and nothing seems to reduce it through the checkout process.

It showed up in the redeem code section and allowed clicking on 1 2 and 3 there after I entered my code.

I just redeemed $45 bundle. Should the physical book show up in may cart/side cart? I'm not seeing it.

This is what came up for me. When you are redeeming the code you will see a section asking you to click on 3 tabs 1 2 and 3. click on each and set anything that isnt already set up for shipping and payment info.

Claxon wrote:

There's also the interesting question of, if a hydra's head is cut off, and the rest of the body is destroyed via something like disintegrate (which would turn the body to dust) does the head start to regenerate the rest of the body? Does the pile of dust start reknitting into a headless body?

Interestingly, Disintegrate doesn't have Death trait (though it's logical as it should work on undead too). But still I'd rule the same: dust is dust, no regeneration.

And yes, death trait also beats regeneration. So simple Vampiric Feast is enough to stop worrying about all this hassle with heads and cauterization. Death magic for the win!

Oh wow, I hadnt even read the death trait till you mentioned it just now.

What it looks like with either shield blessing or with emblazoned armaments is they net you more blocks before breaking on average.

So stopping +1 damage from a single attack isnt amazing at first glance but when it means the shield takes more hits to break its actually pretty strong at letting you do what shields in this game are designed to do.

Seen these calculations, would you agree with me that shields break excedingly fast especially at higher levels? Isn't It absurd that my shield can barely last Two turns if i actually use It?

One thing about shields in this game is they just are not going to stop more damage than their hardness in a single block. So they really stop the most damage possible when you get more blocks in and that only happens when you block lower damage rolls from enemies and take the full hit from higher damage rolls and crits. That is counter intuitive and might take some people out of the role playing aspect of the game.

In your experience when you lose a shield that fast, like in 2 hits, are you facing higher level creatures and/or blocking incoming crits?

WatersLethe wrote:

I like it just fine. You get reliable access to a shield that you can use for blocking, no matter what loot drops or what shops or crafting are available. That extra point of hardness on an already Sturdy shield is gravy.

Also, blocking three strikes in a battle covers most battles, no? Not only is that a decent amount of damage mitigated, you also have your main class feature competing for the same reaction resource.

Anyway, looks like a matter of taste to me.

In my opinion It really doesn't, a champion with shield of reckoning and reactive shield should AT LEAST use two shields blocks every turn, and if you're not using viking's second shield then you're not gonna last more than three rounds.

Also, +1 hardness Is... Pathetically useless, with all due respect It could've been taken out completely

I guess the value of that hardness increase depends on the damage your taking at each level and how many hits till it breaks and finally how much damage mitigation do you need based on your HP at that level.

I rounded up to the nearest 10ths place since any value past the decimal means one more hit than the number preceding the decimal causes break.
Given that actual play is going to vary hits till break by the damage range in the high damage category and across categories with shields lasting longer for anything in a lower damage category and break in fewer hits for extreme damage creatures.

Shields are kinda amazing at level 1 for those with shield block, with level 2 and 3 being a pain point. Level 3 with shield blessing is a huge benefit.
One thing to consider past level 3. The +1 hardness is more important when it allows for more blocks before breaking which is not shown above.
For example level 4 above says the shield will stop 60 damage from 7 strikes by the time it breaks. Using a sturdy shield (minor) without shield blessing changes it to only stopping 48 damage from 6 strikes and then being unusable and having lower AC for a 7th strike.

The assumption above is only for strikes you actually can shield block so there likely is more damage happening in between the ones blocked.

This thread got me thinking about playing an ancient elf champ to get cleric dedication and emblazoned armaments for the status bonus to hardness by level 4. That would make the hardness on that level 4 sturdy shield as good as a normal level 7 sturdy shield. In fact this would keep you either on par or 1 under the hardness of the next stage of sturdy shield as you level.

Yeah I agree the concept of the hydra still regenerating heads even with none makes sense to me to. Even if the regen value is 0 I dont see a conceptual issue with it either.

The part of the text I think the OP was concerned about and that made it confusing is the line about needing to gain hp from regen to trigger a roll for regrowing heads. Its as if a gain of HP is required to trigger regrowth and 0 is not understood in general terms to be a gain. I think I understand it to now mean you make that roll when the hydra would normally gain hp from regeneration but it wasn't obviously that without this discussion.

Bluemagetim wrote:

MC pg 204 "Hydra Regeneration The hydra has regeneration (page 360) equal to 3 × the number of heads it has. If a hydra’s body is missing any heads and the remaining stumps have not been cauterized, the hydra attempts a DC 25 Fortitude save after it regains Hit Points from regeneration."

I think that last part might be more clear as "at the beginning of its turn." instead of "...after it regains Hit Points from regeneration."

Agree, But at the same time these things happen at the same step.

Start your Turn

Oh yeah. I was just going for alleviating the need to use gain HP language.

MC pg 204 "Hydra Regeneration The hydra has regeneration (page 360) equal to 3 × the number of heads it has. If a hydra’s body is missing any heads and the remaining stumps have not been cauterized, the hydra attempts a DC 25 Fortitude save after it regains Hit Points from regeneration."

I think that last part might be more clear as "at the beginning of its turn." instead of "...after it regains Hit Points from regeneration."

Right if someone offered me a job and it pays $0 I would think they were being a smart aleck. I would say you mean want me to do the work for free.
Normal language doesnt consider 0 a gain of anything.

Since a hydra regen doesnt fully deactivate until all heads have been both severed and cauterized I would treat that as though the min regen value even with no heads is 1 until regen is completely deactivated.

That might be confusing what a result might look like for the process that creates the result.

Bluemagetim wrote:

While mounted with nimble reprisal some interesting things happen. normally you can reach the 24 squares around you with a 5'' step from nimble reprisal but now that your striking from any of the mounts squares you can reach 32 squares.

Uhm. With context clues, I am guessing you are referring to a melee Champion taking a Step as part of Nimble Reprisal. As such, none of the GMs in my circle would allow a Step while Mounted:

Generally, the Mount cannot Step unless the rider takes an action to command it to Step. No Champion's Reaction includes Command an Animal...

It's the Champion's Reaction, so the Mount cannot act as part of it.

The Champion is mounted and, therefore, cannot take Move actions of his own except to use the Mount action to dismount.

Your right. It doesn't work RAW.

But it would increase the squares for retributive strike without nimble reprisal at least.

I'd like to thank you all foi r the partecipation, i'm tempted to play a champion for a following game but everytime i think about It i see nothing but problems.

-i get no progression, It gets boring when you basically gain NOTHING of value inbetween level 1 and 7 (1 to 6 feats suck and everything you Need Is already given at level 1)

-i wanna be a tank and play Someone big with a shield but now shield Champions get basically nothing for being shield Champions (worst remastered change ever, if i wanna play something i Will be able to spend Gold for It)

I would suggest going blessed swiftness at early levels, retrain later if you really want Blessed shield at higher levels. It gives a lot more to champion and allies early on.

At level 4 reach back to the level 1 feats, there are several good ones, you get to choose from a domain spell if you like the choices from your deity, if not desperate prayer, or defensive advance if you preferred your cause feat at level 1.
Another thing to think about is faithful steed. There are some unobvious and some uncertain gains from taking one.
The most obvious one is the movement speed while mounted and having an extra target with its own HP even if it cant take hits like you can.
But while mounted you now get to basically act like you are a large creature when determining what squares you can affect including justice reaction strikes. While mounted with nimble reprisal some interesting things happen. normally you can reach the 24 squares around you with a 5'' step from nimble reprisal but now that your striking from any of the mounts squares you can reach 32 squares.
Also call of the wild added a lot of mount choices to look at. I kind of like the elk with the justice cause.
How the aura works while mounted is iffy. I would see how your GM is going to rule it.

Go to [https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2191] unarmed attacks AON[/url].

So yes you can have your hands full with potions and kicks or head-buts or shoulder slams are still available for an unarmed attack or any other bodypart available to strike with.

As GMS we are both taking into consideration the mechanics of the creature (what thier abilites/weapons/spell set them up to be good at) and the narrative situation (motivations/predispositions/temperament, level of intelligence/awareness/knowledge) as we understand it to decide how creatures behave in combat.
So in that situation the best at defending allies and staving off damage to ones self is going to be a class that has multiple options they can use depending on how the GM has decided a creature should act.
I look at the champion and see a class that has a robust set of options from early level just getting more as they get stronger.
Other classes have options but not as many different ones.

I played a Barbarian in PF2 and the healer indeed had to pump HPs in my character to keep him and his awesome damage from going down.

I also played a Champion and I did not need that much healing, to the point of being almost self-sufficient. While dealing damage to my opponents and protecting my allies from it.

This has been what Ive seen with my group too.

The term used by OP that I think is a miss in terms of table top expectations was “wasted”.
That a tank in this game can waste creatures actions.
A defending character actually just mitigates rather than wastes a creatures actions.

Quick post, something i've Always thought but never have written down:

So, what's the deal with Champions? They're a tank, so if you hit em you waste time, but if you try to hit anyone else you're wasting time because they'll protect them, but what happens when the First proposition Isn't true? Prior to level Seven the champion doesn't have anything that truly makes him a tank, sturdy as for sure but It's basically a fighter and if you don't take lay on hands as a devotion spell it's literally a fighter, so, in that case the question would be, why wouldn't the enemy Just hit the champ? Sure it's not great but since the champion doesn't have great defenses It's not really a problem Isn't It? Both monks and barbari and are MUCH tankier than him at lower levels.

And that'e It, did everyone ever had a similar thought

PS: in case Sorry for any writing error and any tone error, i don't Wish to sound anything but chill in this case, been thinking about this because i May play a champion

My experience with a shield using champion player in my game was mostly positive, likely cause they kept their shield up most of the time.

The next character that gets up front to take heat is the barbarian. If he didnt have the champ reaction protecting him there would have been times where he would have gone down in our game especially at lower levels.
The rogue has a bow but gets into melee opportunistically and one time got crit almost killing him. Champ reaction saved him there too and gave time to get healed by the warpriest.

I would say at lower levels the champion has fewer tools to do their thing but still has key tools that make a difference.
Shield and shield block - plenty of classes can do this but it really does make a difference in staying power, got keep that shield up.
Champion's Reaction - this is kind of like a shield block you apply to allies because of the damage reduction.
lay on hands - built in one action heal for a focus point.
Blessed Swiftness! - this one gave my player extra movement which helped since they wear heavy armor but also that +2 to reactions based on movement for allies is great.

I would say the kit works. The rest of the players expect the champ to stay up and if he is getting pummeled thats when they start to worry.

Is there any reason to not just count the number of focus spells you have and make that your total focus points(limited 3 total)?

The rule still says 'might adjust for particularly hard'. It does actually say that. Overriding that rule with GM Fiat is a houserule.

This is what I am seeing as the core difference between how we understand this exact same section in the Aid rules along with why I think we cannot see eye to eye on it. I don't agree a GM deciding what is hard vs what is typical is overriding anything, That sentence tells me a GM is responsible to do exactly that decide.

The typical DC is 15, but the GM might adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks.

When I read this section I take from it the following. I will put in parens the parts that it seems to me you don't take from it that I do

A typical DC is 15 harder checks can have higher difficulty easier ones can have lower difficulty(Harder, easier, and typical is not defined, so it is entirely a GM responsibility to make a decision when the typical 15 applies to a situation or to adjust it higher or lower)

This passage tells the GM to decide as a rule when to use 15 or adjust it.
It seems to me you want Finoan to decide not the GM running the game. I wasnt trying to convince you to run it this way either, I was trying to point out a GM doing the work of deciding when something is typical harder or easier is not a house rule, it is the Aid rule itself.

Why you cant see what I am seeing - I think you are conflating this sentence with what is typical.

The GM can add any relevant traits to your

preparatory action or to your Aid reaction depending on the
situation, or even allow you to Aid checks other than skill
checks and attack rolls.

Bolding to point out the relevant part of the sentence.

QuidEst wrote:

Gotcha. They opted for "more than the minimum" and come up with a more interesting and unique approach to dragons so that we'd have more categories of better-differentiated dragons that are recognizably "Pathfinder". They probably could have done what you described, but it wouldn't really generate additional interest. Folks already have those ten available.

Then again, nothing prevents them from creating their own dragons to further distance themselves from the OGL.

Isn't that what they did with Monster Core dragons?