Moon Pendant

Boomerang Nebula's page

1,156 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,156 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems to me the OP doesn’t actually know what they want, if they did the decision would be easy.

They don’t want to stop the game because they have invested too much time in it, but they don’t want to continue because it is getting too hard and therefore not fun. They want to be true to the AP even though that isn’t working. In a nutshell they have painted themselves into a corner where they can’t continue, stop or change.

They have reached this impasse because they are trying to keep their players happy, which is fair enough and I respect that. But now it is time for the players to reciprocate and make it fun for their GM.

My advice to the OP: make this your players problem to solve.


If it were me I would let my group know I was getting sick of running the game and see if any of the players have any bright ideas on how to make it work for everyone.

If that doesn’t yield a good solution then I would tell them that I’m finishing up early and then skip to the end of the adventure path. I would make sure they get at least one truly epic final battle that was really challenging and then wrap it up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A couple of thoughts:

1) If the party doesn’t have a face/leader then you could fulfil that role. The GM could bring you in as a captain looking for a tough crew that will lead the PCs onto the next part of the adventure path.

2) Sometimes it is great when the party covers the main roles because you can play whatever you want without hurting the effectiveness of the team. Maybe now is the time to try something really interesting that would normally be too niche for your group.


4) Inquisitors, judgement as a swift action gives decent to hit bonuses a limited number of times per day that makes up for 3/4 BAB. Plus if they have time to buff they have a number of spells to increase: to hit, damage, AC etc. if they can make use of their teamwork feats then they can operate as a reasonable substitute for a front line melee fighter.


@ Mysterious Stranger,

Possibly Supplier is a better term than Crafter. The other term I have seen on the boards for the same concept is Quartermaster. In other gaming systems you might see other terms like Fixer in Cyberpunk and Gadgeteer in GURPS. I used the word Crafter to reflect that manufacturing magic items in Pathfinder is really cost effective so many parties have that role filled.

I don’t agree on the Skill Master, but that might be a matter of semantics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I reckon there are at least 18 roles in the game, although clearly not all of equal weighting. The classic four character archetypes cover those 18 roles off fairly well but there are plenty of other combinations that do a better job. Of the classic four you can generally replace the rogue and fighter the easiest. A party of all wizards and clerics would be very formidable!

Here is my list of roles for anyone who is interested.

Character Roles

Battlefield Controller.
Typically a wizard, this character uses their abilities to change the battlefield conditions so as to be favourable to their allies and/or unfavourable to their enemies. This is effectively an indirect form of buffing/de-buffing.

Blaster.
Typically a sorcerer, this character specialises in inflicting large amounts of damage to multiple enemies, usually through area of effect spells like fireball. A Blaster that can inflict huge amounts of damage but is relatively weak defensively is sometimes referred to a glass cannon.

Buffer.
Typically a bard, cleric or wizard, this is a character who focuses on directly improving the mechanical abilities of their allies.

Crafter.
A character who builds or supplies equipment, which could be mundane, technological or magical to benefit their allies. This is typically the party wizard.

De-buffer.
A character focused on reducing the mechanical effectiveness of their enemies directly rather than indirectly through battlefield control or tactical means. The witch is the classic de-buffer character class.

Face.
This character is focused on the social interactions within the game. Any character class can be the face of the party but in practice it tends to be classes that favour high charisma scores like: bards, paladins, sorcerers and clerics.

Healer.
A character focused on healing damage and condition removal, sometimes referred to as the healbot. This is typically a cleric or oracle and other classes like alchemists and paladins can make good secondary healers.

Leader.
The party leader. This character is focused on getting the party to cooperate and pursue a common goal. This can be any character class although in practice most players will build a character that makes sense mechanically, for example they may have high charisma and/or the leadership feat. The Leader and Face are often the same character.

Melee Fighter.
A character focused on engaging the enemy in melee combat. This is typically a monk, barbarian, paladin or fighter. Melee Fighters often fulfil the role of Tank.

Ranged Fighter.
Typically a gunslinger, alchemist or archery focused ranger or fighter. This character specialises in dealing damage to the enemy from a distance.

Scholar.
This is a character who focuses on being very knowledgeable and sharing that knowledge with the other characters to improve their decision making. Mechanically this is a character that focuses on knowledge skills such as a bard or wizard.

Scout.
This is a character who specialises in finding potential threats and other things of interest without revealing their own location. Typically rogues and rangers make excellent Scouts.

Skill Master.
Also unkindly referred to as the skill monkey. This is a character with a large number of skills at a relatively high level. Their role is to fill the skill gaps within the party. Typical classes include: bards, rogues and wizards although other classes like alchemists, rangers and inquisitors can adequately fulfil this role as well.

Summoner.
This character summons, creates or otherwise procures NPCs to support the party. This is most commonly summoners or druids but can also be specialist wizards like conjurers or necromancers, or any character class with the leadership feat.

Survivalist.
This character helps the party find food, water, shelter and cope with various natural hazards. Typically, rangers and druids.

Tank.
A really tough character that is hard to damage and/or can take a lot of punishment. Ideally when in combat they are positioned so that they can prevent enemies from engaging more fragile party members like glass cannons (see Blaster). Tanks are typically barbarians, fighters or paladins and often fulfil the additional role of Melee Fighter. In some groups the Tank is replaced with summoned creatures that are uncharitably referred to as meat shields.

Transporter.
This character improves the mobility of the party. At mid to high levels this is usually wizards, sorcerers and clerics.

Trap Master.
This character is focused on finding and disarming traps and opening locks. Traditionally this is the province of the rogue, but other classes like investigators and rangers have archetypes that can perform this role as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@ Tacticslion,

You are welcome. Don't ever change!


Makes sense.

My experience is that archers are great at dealing damage but relatively weak at other things, although that can depend a lot on the build. A ranger archer could be an effective scout and have many decent skills whereas a straight fighter archer is just an archer.

Do your games tend to focus on combat? Or other things like roleplaying, exploration, puzzle solving, etc.?


Seems reasonable to me.

Are you also looking at the feat: Clustered Shots?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tacticslion, you are freakin awesome. Like Bruce Dickinson from Iron Maiden awesome. Which makes me wonder: is that you Bruce?


I like the lore, Golarion is an awesome setting. My favourite book is the Inner Sea World guide. Is Inner Sea Races comparable to that?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread has got me thinking that Pathfinder 2 should go down the steampunk route and just own that genre from an RPG point of view.

Fast forward Golarion a couple of hundred years and then it wouldn't feel strange to have alchemists and goblins as core. You could still have your wild areas that are more primitive to facilitate your standard D&D style quasi medieval fantasy games.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like "D20 Handmaid's Tale" is down there with FATAL on the list of "stuff I will not touch."

Agree. Whilst I like post apocalyptic and related settings for RPGs it is no fun playing the oppressed victim of those settings. I could possibly enjoy the setting if it was centred around being agents helping people escape to Canada.

I'm not sure if it was mentioned previously, I really like the Terminator setting. If PF2 could accomodate that I would be seriously impressed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If we look at the real world the natural relative abundance of silver to gold is about 19:1 but in recent years the perceived value is very different with an ounce of gold worth around 70 times what an ounce of silver is worth. China and Russia are hoarding physical gold, plus there is plenty of speculation on paper gold (script) by those who are nervous about the economy and want to preserve their wealth. There is far more gold script than there is physical gold to service the script, if the economy tanks people will try to cash in their script for physical gold which will drive the price of physical gold even higher relative to silver.

On Golarion (assuming it is like Earth) the ten to one gold to silver ratio would be unusually low compared to the relative natural abundance. Maybe that was caused by adventurers plundering vast ancient hoards and dumping large amounts of gold into the economy. Once that gold starts to circulate through the economy and the rich start hoarding and speculating on gold the price of gold relative to silver could climb very quickly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, we have a six person party. We can have three on watch while three sleep then swap. It lets us rest in dungeons or other hostile areas with much less risk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
So beyond the standard magic items, and stat boosters, i'd really like to see some of these other magic items bite the dust. Leading off with the ring of sustenance and all of its permutations. It should take more than a couple grand to kill sleep requirements and eating requirements dead. Cheap magic that removes environmental threat, supply management, and time management needs to go. PC's should have to think a little before traipsing off to the uncharted wilderness for an adventure.

I think 2,500 gp is too cheap relative to other rings. In our medium to high level parties everyone has one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like that alchemists are core and alchemy is more interesting.

I like the simplified action economy.


I think the timing for 2e is pretty much spot on.

Through a weird coincidence we had a chat about the possibilities of a second edition for the first time the week prior to it being announced by Paizo. Given we meet weekly and have done for years and have never spoken about it before it was almost like providence.


I think it would be interesting if Rangers only cast spells via rituals. They could have other abilities for in combat.


I've been playing RPGs since the days of AD&D and I have never played a system that I couldn't make work with some house rules. Back in the days of AD&D the list of house rules at our table was fairly long, only some of them were really necessary, the others were bolt on features (like hit location) from other systems that we liked and thought would make the game more interesting.

Over time I've noticed that the number of house rules we have implemented have become less as game design has improved. We had less for D&D 2e than AD&D for instance. The notable exception to this is gurps, because that system is specifically built with GM fine tuning in mind. For every other system: Cyberpunk, VTM, Shadowrun, Pendragon etc. we found that we were requiring house rules less and less. For Pathfinder 1e we have three very basic house rules that we use consistently at our table, that's it. For everything else there are already optional rules that cover what we need (we use crit cards and chase cards for instance). I expect when Pathfinder 2e comes out, because it is better designed, we will ditch even those last three and just play the game as it is written.


I'm optimistic that the new rules will be an overall improvement on the first edition. No doubt there will be aspects I'm not fond of, but so far so good. The question for me is: what do I do with my old Pathfinder books?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The good news as I see it is that the feedback from those lucky enough to be involved in the early play testing is overwhelming positive.

The negativity seems to be mostly speculation from those who weren't involved.

I am happy to see the alchemist in core and don't consider that to be evidence of bias.


Thanks for sharing


That's an interesting idea. What is your experience in practice?


I would like to see Pathfinder 2 step out of the shadow of D&D and become its own distinctive game. I'm of two minds as to whether going classless is the right way to do that.

I generally prefer classless systems with gurps 4e being my overall favourite, however since there are already plenty of good classless systems out there I don't feel like Pathfinder would be breaking new ground by going in that direction. When I see some of the suggestions here for Pathfinder 2 like: dumping alignment, armour as DR, Dex to hit with melee weapons and strength for determining hit points, it looks to me like we are suggesting recreating a high fantasy version of gurps. I don't want that, I want something new.

On the other hand I find classes annoyingly restrictive. It is difficult for example to recreate a character from fiction without ending up with a bunch of abilities the original doesn't have while simultaneously not being able to recreate abilities the character actually did have.

Maybe the solution is to turn the concept of class on its head. Instead of choosing a class first and then selecting from a list of class abilities, maybe there could be a system where abilities are defined first and then class becomes an emergent property based on the type of abilities selected. Once class is defined there is some fine tuning of abilities, you select equipment and then you are done. I don't know, maybe that is a dumb idea, at any rate I am sure the folks at Paizo will deliver something really special.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
If they are keeping the Fort/Ref/Will triad, I hope you can choose one of two ability modifiers for each, otherwise, cut to the chase and call them Con, Dex, and Wis.

Do you mean something like:

FORT = STR + CON
REF = INT + DEX
WIL = WIS + CHA


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't see why goblins need any stat bonuses. I would like to see penalties to both Wisdom and Charisma and no bonuses at all. There should be no mechanical advantage to playing a goblin, it should be a challenge and a roleplaying opportunity.

However, if the designers want the core races to be more balanced then goblins should receive non-stat benefits like resistance to poison and disease, bonuses to stealth (and maybe hide in plain sight), bonuses to bluff, climbing and sleight of hand, the ability to eat nearly anything, the ability to squeeze through ridiculously small holes, resistance to cold and fire, scent, dark vision, DR versus bludgeoning and falling damage, bite attack, etc.


Yes, quite a lot has changed over the years!


Zaister wrote:
Catharsis wrote:
As for nostalgia, tradition and inertia: D&D got rid of its THAC0, too. Progress is possible.
Actually they didn't. They just renamed it to BAB and inverted it: BAB = 21 – THAC0.

Thaco didn't work that way in first edition D&D, it was not always a linear progression so you had to consult a table. This link explains this in more detail.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/6164/how-do-you-calculate-thac0


I will have to check that out.


I'm not sure if this was mentioned already, I prefer the word essence over spell points.

What I don't like about D&D style spellcasting is that it is too predictable. I would prefer a system like this: characters have one essence per level. When a spell is cast roll 1d12. If the number of the spell level or lower is rolled deduct one essence and roll again. Keep rolling until all essence is gone or you roll higher than the spell level. Cantrips are level zero so you don't use up your essence. Spells known are determined by class and level. There are no prepared spellcasters. Metamagic feats increase effective spell level by one (so more likely to drain essence) unless a specific class feature says otherwise.


That's good, I didn't particularly like ability damage in 1e.


I hope status removal is easier in Pathfinder 2e. I would also like it if ability damage was easier to remove.


Personally I liked the way channel healing worked in Pathfinder 1e. It was one of the features that made Pathfinder interesting and not just a poor facsimile of D&D. I hope that channel healing, or something similar, is in 2e so that in-combat healing is still viable.


graystone wrote:
Boomerang Nebula wrote:

Or I could just be trite and say that: two wrongs doth not a right make.

*shrug* I don't mind being wrong if it illustrates that the other side is wrong too.

I was being facetious. Please don't take my comment seriously.


Touché


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The question as to whether being negative about negativity is itself negative is similar to the Grelling-Nelson paradox.

Or I could just be trite and say that: two wrongs doth not a right make.


Okay, so I have read through this thread and the obvious conclusion is that goblins have become socially acceptable because they make for good pets. Certainly they are less psycho than cats, even Cthulhu Mythos creatures are wary of cats.


Grumbaki wrote:

You know...I'll bow to the arguments made. You all definitely have got me thinking.

Plus...I suppose if AC means a combination of missing, and armor...then strength does make sense as it would punch through said armor.

Your suggestions make sense to me. Reminds me of gurps 4e.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gratz wrote:
There are a couple of problems with your assertions and even your example question is a strange choice, because most answers to that are probably independent from the playtest.

The only real problem is whether the group of play testers chosen is sufficiently random. As Fuzzypaws pointed out, participants of the play test are likely to be the most engaged people in the hobby so whatever question you pose needs to be independent of the level of engagement to obtain the most accurate results.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was thinking about the Pathfinder 2.0 play test and I was wondering how many participants Paizo would need in order to get feedback that is representative of the entire population of Pathfinder players. It turns out that the number is surprisingly small if my base assumptions are correct. These are my assumptions:

* There are 1,000,000 (1 million) or less Pathfinder players.

* The people within the play test are a random selection of the main population.

Then if I select the following parameters:

* A confidence level of 99%. Which means your answer is wrong 1% of the time.

* A confidence interval (margin of error) of 5%. This means that the true answer will fall within plus or minus 5% of the value obtained 99% of the time (since that is the confidence level selected).

Based on my assumptions and the criteria selected, it turns out that the minimum number of play testers required is: 665 people.

To put this into context with an example. If Paizo were to ask 665 play testers the question: should goblins be a core race? And the response was 80% "yes". Then they could be 99% sure that if they were to ask all 1 million Pathfinder players the same question the "yes" response would be in the range of 75% - 85%.

The parameters I have chosen may not be accurate, this website has a calculator which lets you vary the parameters.

https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm


*Thelith wrote:
And failing a will save is not willingness .

Really? That begs the question as to what will saves represent.


HammerJack wrote:
By labeling it "garbage disposal."

Yes, that's good! But where is the sales pitch?


How would you sell a cursed item like a bag of devouring?


Dαedαlus wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
Millenniamaster wrote:
Going by Shinigami02's logic, a toothpick has a 5% chance of piercing +5 adamantine full plate
I will say to this, that while technically true, unless you've got strength backing it you won't actually "pierce". This is only true of Adamantine though, because Adamantine Heavy Armor gives DR 3/- and I highly doubt a toothpick alone is going to do more than 1 damage by itself.
Well, did you use power attack?

Not relevant to this example. A strength score of 13 is a prerequisite for Power Attack.


In Pathfinder it is impossible to hit the wrong target with an arrow. Either you hit the intended target or miss everything.

Melee weapons and armour are not subject to normal wear and tear.

Cold weather clothing offers no protection against cold based spells.

Not saying I want these rules changed. Just commenting that they conflict with known physics.


You are looking at this from a human centric point of view. Humans already have high sensitivity to the ammonia like chemicals in rotten fish, body odour and dead bodies. The scent ability is the ability to detect and identify everything else as well, like a dog does. Actual useful stuff like rust under a car bonnet on a second hand car, trace acetic acid on a drug dealer, mould spores in a leaky roof, trace peanuts in a curry (if allergic) etc. These are not necessarily unpleasant smells.


The scent ability doesn't make you more susceptible to noxious smells, there is no penalty to fort saves for instance, it just lets you better identify scents.


I would rather have scent, you would get used to the weird smells, it's not like dogs are repulsed by strong smells. I can always just turn the light on if it gets dark.


It sounds convoluted enough to be a typical Asmodeus plan.

1 to 50 of 1,156 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>