King Ezelgar

Bobson's page

Goblin Squad Member. RPG Superstar 7 Season Star Voter. Organized Play Member. 2,916 posts (3,877 including aliases). No reviews. 6 lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Organized Play characters. 15 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,916 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:

So, there were 400 people at the banquet with 4 sets of 100 spoilers handed out, right?

Assuming each individual person had a 50% likelihood of not submitting due to laziness, trusting others to do it, disdain for gamified things, forgetting to take theirs, or just losing it.

That's a ~6.25% for each spoiler number to be totally dead. Over the whole 100 spoilers we would expect to see about 6 missing.

If that 50% likelihood number was correct, we don't deserve the bonus spoiler dump.

It's looking like this math is roughly correct, just based on what's still missing. It might be informative, though, to go through and see how many different pictures of each card got posted. There'll always be the people who didn't post because they saw it was already up, and people who took multiple pictures of their card, but it could provide some constraints around that 50% estimate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
malcolm_n wrote:

I'm reaching out to different sources I know, but no luck so far on the last few cards. 6, 20, 26, 50, 51, 72, 85

transcribed list

I believe the text of 13 and 84 have been provided, but without pictures. So pictures of those two would still be useful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
tqomins wrote:

Jason just posted Spoiler #69 to his twitter: here.

Undead | Sorcerer Bloodline
The touch of undeath runs through your blood. Your family tree might contain powerful undead, like a vampire, or perhaps you died and returned a bit different.
Spell List divine (page 309)
Bloodline Skills Intimidation, Religion
Granted Spells cantrip: chill touch; 1st: harm; 2nd: false life; 3rd: bind undead; 4th: talking corpse; 5th: cloudkill; 6th: vampiric exsanguination; 7th: finger of death; 8th: horrid wilting; 9th: wail of the banshee
Bloodline Spells initial: touch of undeath; advanced: drain life; greater: grasping grave
Blood Magic Necromantic energy flows through you or one target. Either you gain temporary Hit Points equal to the spell's level for 1 round, or a target takes 1 negative damage per spell level.

A clearer picture of this can be found here.

Same person also posted #36 (recently found), #58 (new), and #25 (also recently found).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

By my count, between this dump and this one, the only ones still missing are:

6, 10, 12, 13, 20, 25, 26, 36, 40, 50, 51, 58, 69, 72, 74, 76, 84, 85, 92, 93, 99


I'm running my group through The Harrowing, and even though we haven't gotten very far, I've already run into a few things I can't figure out. I'm hoping someone has either run into these, or can point me at some examples.

Storykin: If a storykin is destroyed "their essences float intangibly through the realm". Does that mean that the body dissolves/melts on death, or is it just the animating force that leaves it? Related: Can PCs tell that storykin are not normal humans or monsters?

Harrow cards: If a card is relevant, but has no obvious effects (such as giving the PCs a bonus to saves they haven't made yet, or penalizing the monster if the PCs do something they haven't tried), should I just tell the players, or make them figure it out (and thus possibly miss out)? I know either one could work, but I'm hoping that one or the other has worked better for people in the past.

Bernaditi:

Bernaditi challenges the PCs to catch him in a lie. As written, they get five questions, and the GM isn't give guidance beyond "almost invariably lies". Per Crystal's original draft they get three questions, and the GM is given more guidance. Either way, it doesn't give me anything to go on in response to the PCs doing something like "I grab a random harrow card and hold it behind my back and ask him what it is." No one knows what the card is, so he can't detect thoughts, but it'd be just stupid to guess randomly.

I answered "A harrow card" to that one, but it left my players wondering what keeps him from truthfully answering "I don't know" in response to anything he doesn't know. Any suggestions here? How can I make this a reasonable contest?

Finally, any character references or advice for RPing Brambleson? I have a hard time wrapping my mind around how he talks and acts.


54 people marked this as a favorite.

I entirely understand wanting to push the rules and see how far is too far, and where they are going to break. That said, my group was begging me to wrap up the playtest and go back to our Mummy's Mask game by the end.

I had high hopes for PF2 last summer, but the playtest burnt through a lot of my trust in Paizo's vision.

Quote:
The rest of the design team and I are going to be a little quiet over the next couple of months as we finalize parts of the game and get it ready to go to the printer. Once that hard work is done, you can expect us to start showing off the final version of the game.

I think this is the worst thing you can possibly do for those of us who left the playtest with a bad taste. Instead of letting that opinion sit for the next several months, post about problems that were identified and the kinds of thing you're considering to fix them. It doesn't need to be a final "Here's what PF2 will have!" preview, but just insight into "Here's something that was identified as a problem, why we think it was problematic, and how we're thinking of fixing it."


I'm getting ready to run my players through Heroes of Undarin, and the rules for creating characters for this chapter are confusing me.

1) What is the 100 gp the characters start with for? That seems way too high for only purchasing mundane items. But the "Allocating Magic Items" section says "These are your options. Period."
2) Is there a reason for characters to avoid doubling up on ancestry or class? Or is that just a general "we want variety" line?
3) If there is a good reason, do the half-human heritages count as human for this purpose?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Last week my group started Mirrored Moon, with the DC changes from the 1.4 update. I have a party of 6, but the two who are doing the searching have perception modifiers of +14 and +16, and survival modifiers of +10 and +15. (Everyone else is lower.)

Under the old numbers (DC 25 perception or DC 23 Survival), they needed to roll a number between 8 and 13 (depending on player and skill) in order to succeed, which makes critically succeeding and getting the important clues to a location possible.

Under the new numbers (DC 30 Perception or DC 27 Survival), they need to roll between an 11 and a natural 20 (depending) in order to succeed, which puts critically succeeding almost out of reach.

Are my players just significantly less optimized than they should be? Am I missing some key modifiers? Or did it just get that much harder to actually do this?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I plan on ignoring the "Once every 7 days, reduce the party’s total Research Points earned by 1." line. If you do that, then everything works out perfectly fine.


Requielle wrote:

* How, exactly, does the professor lock himself up every night to protect everyone - if he can free himself in the morning without help, his evil alter-ego can free himself at night.

- I gave up and just whimpered sadly in my GM chair.

I did the same thing. It's also unclear whether he just locks himself in the basement, or whether he chains himself to the cot... but either way if he can free himself, what's the point?


I resolved it as a reminder that they are on a clock, but not the specific number of days left.

They also ended up leaving the tomb the day before the Night Heralds even got to it, let alone got through it, so they were well away.


I spawned them as greater shadows, but I also realized partway through that I wasn't giving them full HP - I was just using whatever token they happened to be copied from.

Upon further review, I think you're right that they'd be regular shadows, but they'd also have the full 42 hp.


When trying to get to the Chessex page in the store (from this one), I get asked to log in even if I'm already logged in (as if accessing account information), and then it just keeps redirecting to the post-login page over and over.


Alchemic_Genius wrote:

Change Precise Bomb to a 1st level alchemist feat

//friendly fire negation is extremely important to how an alchemist functions, and it's unfair to punish them by making them wait until 6th level before they can actually use their main tool

What alchemist wouldn't take this feat at first level? What else could possibly be worth not taking it (to the rest of the party)?

Not that I disagree about it being needed far earlier, but I'd rather see it baked in somehow.

Quote:

[3rd] Research Field (replaces Empower Bombs)

At third level, an alchemist chooses a specialty field of alchemy to pursue. Each research fields gives the alchemist a free alchemist feat at 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th, and 19th level, ignoring their usual level prerequisites, based on their chosen focus. The level a specialist gains the feat is listed in parenthesis, the level any other alchemist can select it is listed in brackets. The available fields are:

I like the idea of specializations, but to work with the rest of the system it either needs to replace the feat they'd normally gain at those levels (as bloodlines do) or just be a feat chain (as druids, bards, etc). Personally, I prefer the feat chain - that means that an alchemist who wants to primarily specialize in bombs, with a minor in poisons can take mostly the bomb feat chain, but drop back to grab the first one or two poison ones on other levels.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Honestly my biggest complaints about the Paladin are flavor-related. Like I do not like that Paladins are not compelled to protect the innocent (like explicitly the code says you don't have to) and I really dislike how we have to take a feat to be able to say literal devils, vampires, liches, and demons are not "legitimate authority."
PF1 Paladin Code wrote:
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents

Honestly, I think the new code is much clearer about everything without sacrificing any part of the old code. Nothing in the old code says that the paladin has to go out of their way to protect innocents either. And the old code also would require treating the ruler of an area as legitimate authority, regardless of whether it's a devil, lich, etc. Unless, of course, you argue that no evil creature can ever be legitimate authority, and thereby trigger Yet Another Paladin Argument...

Also, I think you're misreading the new code. Try reading the second bullet with this emphasis:

Quote:
This tenet doesn’t force you to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice your life and potential to attempt to protect an innocent.

In other words, if the head of the local thieves' guild tells you that he sent someone to burn down an orphanage, you don't fall because you chose to assume he was lying and not follow up on it.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Some from column A, some from column B.

I'm also in software, and while FangDragon's process is a really good and safe one, it's also overkill for a company with a team the size of Paizo's. However, a pared down version scaled for Paizo-size would be appropriate to have.

I'm not going to go into as much detail, but for a team of 2-6 people, I would expect the following as a minimum:

  • Production environment with scheduled and gated releases (i.e. there needs to be a concrete list of what's changing, the lead needs to sign off on it, and it takes place at a defined time when people are on hand, preferably non-peak hours.)
  • Some form of backups for everything important. (This can just be source control or deployment artifacts for code, plus some kind of database backup.)
  • At least one redundant/low-usage server that can be pressed into use as a replacement for any other server as needed. (This doesn't need to be an immediate fail-over, but should be able to be brought into use in 6-12 hours, tops, depending on what needs to be installed.)
  • Some form of alerting to know that there is a problem. (As often as Paizo employees are on the forums, this could just be powered by them reporting an outage via email, but something automated is better.)

    Given how important the website is to Paizo, I expect them to be well beyond these minimums in many ways, and I really can't see how _anything_ should be able to take out a modern website for almost a week, short of a cascade of failures.

    I do hope we get a post-mortem, at least at a high level. If it really was a major disaster on that scale, I'd love to be able to learn from it.


  • 2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Colette Brunel wrote:
    Especially Noteworthy Recurring Problem #6: Erroneous Knowledge is Not That Fun: Erroneous knowledge from critical failures might work for a beer-and-pretzels, light-hearted game, but it simply has not been a hit with any of my players thus far. Indeed, erroneous knowledge has sown nothing but annoyance, mistrust towards the GM, and feelings of resentment. Furthermore, I personally find it quite difficult to present erroneous knowledge that is actually plausible and actionable without it being too contrived

    I don’t know if anyone else has mentioned this yet, but erroneous knowledge can be trivial to implement in a useless manner.

    1) “The monster is vulnerable to cold.”
    2) “The monster is not vulnerable to cold.”

    By definition, one of these is true and one is erroneous, and there’s no way to differentiate which is which, so the feat is satisfied. It’s also useless information as-is, which makes the feat useless, but at least the GM doesn’t have to stress about making false stuff up on the spot.


    Lord_Malkov wrote:

    Personally, my main gripe is that the +1/lvl very rapidly diminishes things like proficiency bonuses, ability scores etc. Just mathematically,these flat bonuses inevitably shrink in comparison to one's flat level bonus.

    And since these are the things that come from character choices in class,feats, etc. the system actually diminishes the sense that a player has made meaningful choices along the way.

    The level bonus makes other bonuses numerically a smaller percentage, but since everything (except static DCs) scales at the same rate, the fighter having +3 on attacks on top of his level will still be 15% better at everything than the wizard with +0.

    If monsters didn't scale the same, then it'd matter. But since you get the exact same results from an equal-level encounter regardless of whether everything has +level or not, it doesn't end up mattering that the +level becomes a larger single bonus than everything else.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Tactic Problem #8: Why does detect magic get an exception to spellcasting being fatiguing? Why not all cantrips? Why can you repeatedly cast this one spell, but not concentrate on something like dancing lights, which only provides light until you stop concentrating? Why can you not use sigil to mark your trail, or continually cast guidance on the person watching for traps? All three have the exact same actions required as detect magic, so there's no logical reason to be able to cast one of them repeatedly but not the others.

    Obviously, this is to make the "I walk around looking for magic" tactic viable, but it doesn't make sense for the spell to be an exception by itself.


    Google doc?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Yay, updates!

    This one doesn't cover the shield/hardness/dent confusion (my current biggest issue), but it does have a bunch of good fixes. It's good to see that the playtest isn't going to be a static "test everything, then we'll make all our changes" one. Looking forward to next week's update!


    That's a good catch, both in that that the essences are actually mentioned in the back of the book (on the Know Direction podcast, someone said they weren't actually printing that cosmology, so I didn't look), and that remove paralysis is misclassified.

    Can you share your lists?


    Off topic slightly:

    Mathmuse wrote:

    As a GM, I found that unidentified items are a pain. When the party finally had time to sort the treasue, they asked me about the details, but their notes are terrible. What is the sword with an ornate hilt? Let me see your treasure list. Okay, the sword is listed between the gold idol and the seven blue potions, so let me page through the module until I spot the idol. The sword must be the +1 elven orc-bane longsword from the next room, B12.

    I just tell them the room number whenever they fail to identify loot (due to time or bad rolls). Then they mark that down with the item, so i can look it up later. "Sword with an ornate hilt (B12)". The room numbers mean nothing to them, so it doesn't give away anything, but it makes tracking it down later much easier.


    Jumping is not a good example here. The rules for that are covered by the Leap action (page 308) and the Long Jump use of Athletics (page 147).

    Leap wrote:

    You take a careful but short jump. You can Leap up to 10 feet horizontally if your Speed is at least 15 feet, or up to 15 feet horizontally if your Speed is at least 30 feet. You land in the space where your Leap ends (meaning you can typically clear a 5-foot gap if your Speed is between 15 feet and 30 feet, or a 10-foot gap if your Speed is 30 feet or more).

    If you make a vertical Leap, you can move up to 3 feet vertically and 5 feet horizontally onto an elevated surface.
    Jumping a greater distance requires using the Athletics skill (see pages 146-147).

    So just about everyone can automatically Leap a 10 foot pit.

    When you're trying to do a Long Jump, the DC is 5+distance.


    Marco Massoudi wrote:
    Tamago wrote:

    OK. I think I saw the rules about item damage at one point, but I assumed that a fungus was not an item, so I didn't think those would apply here.

    So, how exactly does this work? If it has hardness 6 and I deal 6 damage, then nothing happens. If I deal 7, then it takes a dent? Or does it become broken, since there is no dent value listed? Or is it just destroyed outright?

    If it's broken, what does that mean for a fungus to be broken?

    If you deal 6 to 11 damage, nothing happens.

    If you deal 12 to 17 damage, it takes a dent.
    If you deal 18 damage or more (in a single hit), it is broken and the hazard no longer functions.

    Take note that in the case of the Mindfog Fungus any fire damage m
    does an additional 10 points of damage!

    I think this isn't actually right. I think it's supposed to be:

    0-5, nothing happens.
    6-11, one dent
    12+ in a single hit, it takes two dents and breaks.

    I'll certainly agree that the item damage section is poorly worded, but I think the "shield takes 10 damage and 2 dents" example is showing that if it takes more than twice its hardness, it still only takes two Dents.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Some other ideas I had while reading this thread:

    * Resistant to
    * Shielded against
    * Unaffected by

    The one advantage Bolstered has over these three is that it becomes possible to just say "Bolstered" in the context of an ability and one can assume it means against that ability (even if it sounds a bit weird in context). None of these others can do that - they'd all need their prepositional phrase in order to not be confused with something else.


    I'm having the same problem, it's not just you.


    At least preliminarily, I would be in favor of making Untrained rolls be at half your level instead of level -2. If you really don't know anything about it, you'll get marginally better because you're that much more experienced, but it won't keep pace with everything else.


    Ok, I can see what you're saying. But does that mean your premise is that a wizard should have to allocate spell slots between "useful in combat" and "useful out of combat" each morning? With the ability to make an out of combat slot an in combat one if necessary?

    How is that fun? That's a large part of why I never wanted to play a prepared caster. I either didn't prep combat spells, and had very little to do in a fight, or I prepped buff and combat spells, and didn't have the slots for misc. utility ones.

    What's so bad about letting the wizard be able to do both?


    DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
    GRuzom wrote:
    Joe Mucchiello wrote:
    This is not really an issue. Just plan your 4 free boost around the boost. Wizards will want Int. Sorcerers will want Cha. Rogues will want Dex. It's not really a big deal.

    It's not a "problem" - it's something I don't like. I don't always want to have Rogues based on dex, sometimes I'd go for Int or Str.

    But it should be MY choice.

    So don't put any of your free boosts (you get a lot of them) in Dexterity. You end up with a Dex of 8-14 depending on if your ancestry had a free boost or penalty in Dex.

    But also I catch your point.

    Now if Key Ability determination could be chosen by the player rather than decided by the game that would be interesting, especially for rogues. So you could be a Strong thuggish rogue, a Dextrous classic rogue, a street Tough, a rogue Mastermind, a roguish Savant/Master trapfinder or Charming conman.

    That's really a failing of the Rogue class, rather than of the system. As written, the PF2 rogue pushes you very heavily into being a Dex rogue (agile weapons, stealth for initiative, etc), but there's hints of other builds possible (the four 1st level feats are Str, Dex, Dex, Cha).

    I'm not sure there's any other class that doesn't either only have one solid choice or that doesn't gives you the choice between Dex and Str.


    Shields are for fighters who want to help the rest of the party, rather than just do a ton of damage themselves. Aggressive Shield can make your attacker flat-footed, helping the rogue. Shield Warden will keep your friends from being hit, which is especially good if it prevents a spellcaster's spell from being disrupted. And so on. Plus, negating damage means less healing is needed, which leads to a longer day or more healing for other party members.

    There's not great choices for a shield at every level, admittedly, but I'm moderately sure that if you put a boss or spikes on your shield, it counts as a second weapon for things like Double Slice, so you're not really missing out.


    Colette Brunel wrote:
    Leaving slots open is different from a wizard shuffling around already-filled slots, thus letting the wizard be prepared for any situation.

    How is leaving slots open not still letting the wizard be prepared for any situation?


    It's a single +2 to the stat you need to do your class well. Why would you not want it? If you turn it into a free boost, almost everyone who knows how to be effective will apply it to that exact same stat, and people who don't know how (because it's their first time playing) may choose something else and be less effective (and thus have less fun).

    If you really want to play the 12-Int wizard who barely knows how to cast a spell, or the 10-Cha bard who just can't get anyone to like them, then you're almost certainly playing in a game where the GM can just let you do that.


    Sorcerers have the same number of spells as wizards. Each class has a lot of flexibility in their spellcasting - it just takes different forms. Wizards are very flexible in what they cast (they can prepare a lot of different things and with a feat, even swap them during the day), while sorcerers are very flexible in how they cast (spontaneous heightening, casting any spell at any time).

    And that also assumes you compare them to a wizard. If you want to take divine, occult, or primal spells instead, then you're far more flexible than any of those casters.


    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    There's the Form Control feat at 10th level that makes them last an hour, at the cost of it heightening to one level less than maximum.

    Also, the shapechanging spells or wild shape itself don't give you any ability to communicate with other animals, so the duration is irrelevant to that.


    Arachnofiend wrote:
    Rysky wrote:
    Doesn't seem so bad, and each attempt takes 10 minutes.
    It creates a paradigm where any event where the GM doesn't put the party on a strict timer the Wizard essentially has his entire spell book available to cast spontaneously. Wizards were pretty busted in PF1, but I don't think there were any level 4 options for the Wizard that limit the kind of stories a GM can tell that severely.

    How is this any different from a PF1 wizard leaving a slot or two open every day? They could then spend 15 minutes and have any spell in their spell book available to cast.

    The only difference I see here is that the PF2 wizard doesn't have to choose between "Do I stay flexible or do I ensure I actually have something to do?", which seems like a good choice to not have to make.


    Hiram_McDaniels wrote:
    Meanwhile, I notice that Charm Person and Sleep still come online at level 1 for Wizards; those spells can end an encounter in one round and impose no penalty whatsoever.

    Charm can end an encounter at first level if you're fighting a single humanoid foe... and they fail their save even with the circumstance bonus (and +4 goes further than it used to). Sleep only will end an encounter if everyone quietly walks away from the sleeping creatures, or you cast it as a 3rd level spell instead. Even given that, I'm not sure that being attacked won't wake them up.


    Voss wrote:

    It's better than animal. You _wield_ a weapon (not even attack), congrats, lose all totem benefits.

    What the flip is an Animal Totem barbarian supposed to contribute against fast, far or flying enemies?

    And on your non-rage rounds, you're reduced to punching. And even when you are raging, the animal totem attacks don't scale.

    Animal totem basically makes your barbarian very monk-like. A monk is also useless against fast, far, and flying foes. A monk also doesn't wield any weapons. And a monk's fists also don't scale... but then again neither do weapons. (You can get magic weapons, but you can also get handwraps of mighty fists which will also help the barbarian.)


    Draco18s wrote:

    This. I just loaded up my current PF1 character and I have a 20 CHA (at level 6), so I do indeed have 2 bonus first level spells. If I'd had a sorcerer and was 10th level, I'd have 8, 7, 7, 6, 4 (32 spells total).

    In PF2 it's 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 (15 total).

    32 vs. 15 is a BIG difference.

    It's not always 3, 3, 3, 3, 3.

    Sorcerers get 3+1, 3+1, 3+1, 3+1, 3+1. They get one slot at each level from bloodline.

    Clerics don't get any bonus spells, but do get channel energy so they don't need to prepare (or burn spells for) healing. So they can use the spells they do have for more interesting things.

    Bards don't get any bonus spells, but they get composition cantrips and they were only 6th level casters before.

    Wizards also get 3+1, 3+1, 3+1, 3+1, 3+1 if they specialize, or they get to recall a spell of each level (which works out to the same thing) if they don't.

    Druids are the only ones that seem to lack something extra, although that could be buried in their Order and feats where I haven't seen it yet.

    --------

    20 vs 32 is still a significant difference, but it's not as bad as it seems at first.


    I also ran Kingmaker with that conversion a few years ago, and I also recently started running this AP for the same group. I haven't seen one yet, though.

    I'd like to think I'm capable of creating one, based on the excellent example and commentary in the Kingmaker version. But I barely have time to prep each week between sessions, let alone revise them in a fun and balanced way. So I'm just running the by-the-book version for now as a way to judge whether I really need to adjust it or not. So far, it hasn't made much difference either way.


    BigDTBone wrote:
    Scribbling Rambler wrote:

    Kickstarter really only helps if money is the issue, and every indication is that the issue is just workload.

    And before anyone says "hire more people", realize that there are open job postings.
    Not to suggest that I know about Paizo's specific hiring strategies, but there is a big difference between hanging the proverbial "now hiring" sign and aggressively recruiting targeted candidates to fill a particular role in your company.

    I'd have considered applying if it was 3-5 years C#, with Java as a plus, instead of the other way around.


    venysnizel wrote:
    Also, I know there is something going on in the camp where there is no teleportation or spells of that nature near the World Engine. Is this only in the direct area of the World Engine? I have a PC who I know will be using Planar Binding and I want to make sure the spell won't be affected in a weird way. Thanks!

    I was wondering what you meant, and I just read far enough ahead to find it. I think this is just applicable to the area inside the monastery once it's been called down by the world anchors. The H group of rooms. That has a forbiddance effect, which (among other effects) "seals an area against all planar travel into or within it. This includes all teleportation spells (such as dimension door and teleport), plane shifting, astral travel, ethereal travel, and all summoning spells. Such effects simply fail automatically."

    So they can't teleport into H, they can't shift dimensions to get to H, and once they've entered it, they can't dimension door, summon monsters (unclear about calling spells like gate, but flavorwise they should be blocked too), or use other similar effects. An already summoned creature is not affected other than by the alignment-based damage on entering the area (same as the PCs).

    If there's another spot that affects teleportation, I don't remember seeing it.


    Zhangar wrote:

    I think the answer is yes, the PCs should be eating shots whenever they're not behind cover. That'll make them nice and paranoid until they finally pass the check to notice where the shots are coming from (the snipers get stealth checks at -20 + distance bonuses (so net -7 + 1 per 10 ft) to remain hidden), at which point the PCs may be storming the cathedral.

    I think the snipers are sort of supposed to force the party to go into that building before they bring the the "real" cathedral out of the First World.

    Good point on the stealth checks and the reason. I'm probably going to assume that the snipers don't take notice until the PCs get inside the inner fence and that their shots don't alert the whole camp, though. There are a lot of things that are around to spot and kill intruders and would keep piling on. Has anyone compiled a list? I need to make listing out what forces are where and what they respond to a priority.

    I kindof like the idea of making it a stealth mission until something goes wrong and it turns into a Charlie Foxtrot. Now, how to convey that...


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    venysnizel wrote:
    Any tips on the types of answers he would give/conversation he would have before leaving?

    My group just encountered him there - I just spread out his dialog a bit, and didn't have him really answer any questions.

    -------

    A question of my own: How far can the snipers in G1 see? Can they take potshots at the PCs anywhere in camp? Rifles have an 80' range increment, and can shoot up to 10 range increments away, so they can shoot 800'. Given that it's only 450' from their tower to the edge of the map, and given their elevation, it seems like they can attack anywhere that isn't directly behind a building.

    How did you all handle this? Do the PCs have to keep dodging 1d10+6d6+6 potshots the whole time they're running around camp?


    I'm disappointed in myself for not getting together a full submission.

    Enjoy the game!


    This is strange... I really am intrigued by this game, but I keep failing to come up with a concept that I'd actually want to finish fleshing out. Maybe I'm going in the wrong direction? I have a partial Arcanist//Magister who wants to know how magic works and maybe learn the secrets of the Great Crystal some day. I have a Bard (Archivist)//Investigator who is about more general knowledge and skills - the "I can provide information on anything" type. Maybe I should come up with something that's more beatstick-y or faith-based. Not that there's much time left.

    How do you feel about in-game Harrowing, Rednal?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Kchaka wrote:

    For the record, a well build Monk, with at least one base unarmed damage improvement while still at medium size, be it from something like Powerfullbuild, Improved Natural Attack or wtv, with an easy increase to Huge size, would have:

    Lv.8 (Normal) 1d10 = 5.5 Dmg* --> Huge -> 3d8 = +13 Dmg* -> Gargant -> 6d8 = +27 Dmg*
    Lv.8 (Improv) 2d8 == 9 Dmg* ----> Huge -> 4d8 = +18 Dmg* -> Gangant -> 8d8 = +36 Dmg*

    Lv.12 (Normal) 2d6 = 7 Dmg* ----> Huge -> 4d6 = +14 Dmg* -> Gargant -> 8d6 = +28 Dmg*
    Lv.12 (Improv) 3d6 = 10.5 Dmg* -> Huge -> 6d6 = +21 Dmg* -> Gargant -> 12d8 = +51 Dmg*

    Lv.20 (Normal) 2d10 = 11 Dmg* --> Huge -> 6d8 = +27 Dmg* -> Gargant -> 12d8 = +51 Dmg*
    Lv.20 (Improv) 4d8 = 18 Dmg* ----> Huge -> 8d8 = +36 Dmg* -> Gargant -> 16d8 = +69 Dmg*

    *For comparison, a Longsword (1d8) does, on average, 4.5 damage (4 or 5).

    This chart of yours is all wrong. First of all, you're missing the Large size category. Secondly, doubling of dice isn't ever part of the progression. A Medium monk would do 2d10. A Large one 4d8. There are no explicit rules for sizing up 4d8, but you can look at the Improved Natural Attack progression and decide it's just a doubling of the 1d10 track, so a Huge monk would go to 6d8, and a Gargantuan monk to 8d8.

    The other things you're not factoring in here are the flat damage to hit and the value of attack bonus. At a minimum, the fighter (for example) at level 20 will have a +5 weapon (with +5 of other useful properties), +5 from weapon training, and +2 to hit and +4 to damage from the Weapon Specialization feats (assuming they don't take better ones). He'll also have +1 to the crit mod of their weapon and automatically confirm crits. By contrast, the monk will just have +5 from an AoMF. And that assumes both characters max out their Strength scores, which is much easier for the fighter than the monk (due to less competition for resources).

    Ignoring strength and size bonuses to keep the math simple, a gargantuan fighter with a longsword would have a +32/+27/+22/+17 to hit and do 3d6+14 (19-20/x3) damage. An equivalent monk would have a +23/+23/+18/+18/+13/+13/+8 to hit and do 8d8+5 (20/x2).

    The damage formula per round is:

    The damage formula is h(d+s)+tchd.

    h = Chance to hit, expressed as a percentage
    d = Damage per hit. Average damage is assumed.
    s = Precision damage per hit (or other damage that isn't multiplied on a crit). Average damage is again assumed.
    t = Chance to roll a critical threat, expressed as a percentage.
    c = Critical hit bonus damage. x2 = 1, x3 = 2, x4 = 3.

    Assuming an AC of 36 (which is average for a CR 20 monster), h is (32-36 = -4 -> -20% -> 80% to hit for the fighter's first attack, and (23-36 = -13 -> -65% -> 35% to hit for the monk's first attack. s is irrelevant here.

    Fighter: .80*(24.5)+.1*2*1.00*24.5 = 24.5 average damage
    Monk: .35*(41)+.05*1*.35*41 = 15.0675 average damage

    But wait - doesn't the monk get more attacks?

    Fighter progression: 80%/75%/70%/65%
    Monk progression: 35%/35%/30%/30%/25%/25%/20%

    Plugging those in produces 24.5 + 23.275 + 22.05 + 20.825 = 90.65 for the fighter and 15.0675*2 + 12.915*2 + 10.7625*2 + 8.61 = 86.1 for the monk, who misses a lot.

    If you're fighting a AC 30 monster (-6 AC), the monk does better. The per-attack damage is about even (28.175 vs 27.9825), but the monk gets more hits in (even their worst has a 50% chance of hitting).
    Plugging these in, the fighter does 112.7 damage in the round. The monk does 176.505. On the other hand, if you're fighting an AC 42 monster (+6 AC), the monk may as well go home. (61.25 for the fighter, 19.3725 for the monk)

    Also, keep in mind that this is without any useful optimization. The Fighter is only using his longsword one-handed. That means he's not two-handing it for 50% more strength on his four attacks compared to the monk. If they're both using Power Attack, the Fighter's not benefiting more from wielding it 2H, but benefits from the damage more because he has more attack bonus to burn. Neither one took any useful feats, and the Fighter gets many more feats than the monk.

    In other words, a suboptimal fighter is at least as strong as a monk. If you think otherwise, you're welcome to enter the DPR olympics I linked.


    Hmm. I'm tempted to grab hold of all the rules on magic and twist them, with an Arcanist//Magister from SGG. One half mixes sorcerer and wizard, the other half mixes everything else. His eventual goal would be to discover new laws of magic or something like that.


    Seranov wrote:
    Advanced template, probably.

    Yeah, looks like it. The advanced template is probably the most powerful single "level" to gestalt with, and it just gets stronger the more stats you need.


    anthonydido wrote:
    He's not trying to take Crane Wing as the free style feat. He's wondering what the prereqs for Crane Wing are aside from Crane Style since he will have that already as the free feat. He is wanting to take Crane Wing as a regular feat choice.

    Whoops, my bad. Sorry, Ssyvan.

    In that case, anthonydido's right. The text (of the feat, spell, class ability) always takes precedence over the summary on the table, simply because it's more detailed.

    1 to 50 of 2,916 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>