Oracle

Brondy's page

Organized Play Member. 55 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

You can't ready a spell, but i think you can hold a spell after you cast it without using a ready action(but i'm not sure of that).


15 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a thread that I would call toxic.
In the end, why we can not make comparisons between pf1 and pf2?? Let's drop the mask instead of hiding the true intentions.

In my opinion, any player has the right to make this comparison and it is a duty for those who play the playtest, as it is required by the survey, but it is also common sense.

We really got to the point where we could not say that pf1 is better than pf2. Let's talk clearly, it's because pathfinder 2 does not make a good impression in comparison.

Pathfinder 2e has the great need to take big steps back if it wants to be functional. Currently nobody I know wants to play with it. The problems of the game are not the contents but the system at the base, the comparison with the previous edition is essential.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

If you do not want people to confuse pathfinder 2e as an improved version of pf1, then developers should not set the goal of making a simplified and better game that remove several issues than the first edition do not you think?

For the rest, common sense says that pathfinder 2e = pathfinder 2.0 so I do not think anyone gets confused by saying 1.5. If you want to say that it's all another game is not true because it is based on the same classes, races and spells of pf1. If it was all another game would not use the name "Pathfinder" and certainly not set in "Golarion".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah it's much better just change from 10 minute to 1 hour and it's perfect.

Lyee wrote:

Why?

Treat Wounds is looking good and feels less video game.

The game it already feel like a video game, it seems obvious to me that it was one of the dev's goals to make it that way.

Otherwise it did not make sense to create the game using a treadmill system.


Alchemy should be more related to nature than to the arcane, since almost all the alchemical ingredients derive from nature including poisons.

In theory Druids should also be experts in potions and various concoctions, i like to see druids in the core with "Herbalism Nature Bond Variant" from PF1.


Ancale wrote:


As a replacement for item slots it's fantastic.

Why it's fantastic?

Mandatory item are more strictly(see table character whealth page 348)and magic slot still exist, only now are hidden, unless you have a GM that allows you to wear 10 turbans, 3 jackets or 5 bracelets and infinite resonance points...

The only change now it's the order with which you take the items and the numbers since everything is decided by the manual. It does not seem to me that first at level 1 there was the risk of getting them all.
Besides the fact that this precludes me different narrative choices like the possibility to create pc or npc whose strength is due to the magical objects and not to the level.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Palinurus wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the model of "consumables function without resonance, but are more effective if you spend resonance" has potential.

Like 1 RP spent when drinking a healing potion makes it heal more, and 1 RP spent when reading a scroll heightens it (otherwise it's cast at the level it was written at, say.)

I think something like this could definitely work - even if it was just for healing. I'd also incentivise boosting more powerful consumables if it was a multiplier rather than an additive boost. They'd still need to fix resonance for alchemists and add more points at low levels.
Alchemists just need to get a separate pool for their Alchemy stuff, like how Clerics got a separate pool for their channel so that they can do that without hurting anything else.

Or just remove Resonance system and we are fine...


If it were an 8-hour ritual, it would be good even if it heal full hit points, in practice a complete restorative Long Rest, but an hour is likely to be an easy method.
Furthermore, why should not the ritual cost a resonance point like a wand or potion? Since mechanically the resonances have been created to block this type of easy care.


Davor wrote:
Brondy wrote:


What about "short rest in disguise" do not you understand?
What's wrong with short rests? Again, you've failed to give details as to why that would be a poor design decision.

I never said there were any problems with the short rest. Just it makes no sense to do a ritual with the same purpose.

Again, what is there to understand?
Davor wrote:


PF1 had short rests. They were called "Everyone sit still for 5 minutes while I jab you with my wand."

This is all another story. If you want a replacement for the wand you do not create one for the short rest.


Davor wrote:
Brondy wrote:

This ritual is basically short rest in disguise, sound good but not a good idea.

Better add something like medicine/surgery skill as a better and mundane healing.
What's wrong with it? I mean, I get that you might not like it, but is there a legitimate reason?

What about "short rest in disguise" do not you understand?

"Cost - Uncommon Herbs worth a total of (whatever is balanced) x spell level
Secondary Casters - 1, Nature or Medicine "
In practice, this is a normal use of medicaments and bandages and it is called ritual for some reason, as if we did not have enough magical healing methods.


This ritual is basically short rest in disguise, sound good but not a good idea.
Better add something like medicine/surgery skill as a better and mundane healing.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
RealAlchemy wrote:
One problem I see with resonance is the potential storyline absurdity.

Is this really worse than the Monk being out of Ki, or the Shifter being out of Wild Shape, or the Swashbuckler being out of Panache, or the Investigator being out of Inspiration, or the Occultist being out of Mental Focus, etc.?

Short answer: Yes.

Long Answer: Yes, of course.


26 people marked this as a favorite.

I sincerely prefer "X-uses-for-day and X-rounds-for-day items" that a system disconnected from reality or an additional tool to check the inventory of PCs that is already controlled by gp and the benevolence of the drop granted by the GM.

One of the objectives of the game was to be the death of the slot items, but now we have acquired a table(character wealth at page 348) that tells us what items we must have and what quality at each level. I think it's better to go back to the magic item slots.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

The game at least at present is awful, i would say that a bit of negativity is a normal consequence. Those who do not become aware of it will probably find it difficult to read in the forum.

Actually a negative behavior I see in the "defenders of pf2" that easily go into escalation, criticism serves otherwise the game can not improve.


Maked on the fly.

Leadership Feat 7
Downtime, General, Skill
Prerequisite(s): Expert in Diplomacy; You must be leader in a party or have a position of command in a organization.

You use the Make an Impression (activity), as described in diplomacy section, to make an NPC a follower. The NPC must be of your class and have level = your level -5. You must continue to be the leader in a party or have a position of command in a organization in order to keep control over the NPC.
On success that NPC follow your order and get the minion trait.
On critical success the NPC can be of any class.

There is something to fix but it is feasible considering that the follower has only 2 actions and only if you use a verbal action to command him. Limited to your class only to avoid further imbalance.
Reading better among the feats, there is a similar old-Leadership feat, it's called Lasting Coercion but have only a duration of 1 week.

Lasting Coercion Feat 2
General, Skill
Prerequisite(s): Expert in Intimidation

When you succeed or critically succeed at an attempt to Coerce someone, they help you for up to a week or until their task is complete, as determined by the GM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually in this system Leadership can work, minions get only limited action and monsters/npc use a different system of progression.
You can eliminate the feeling of having a secondary pc. Balancing it does not seem difficult.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Princess Of Canada wrote:
Brondy wrote:


It seems to me a system that tries to satisfy the envy...

You took the words right out of my mouth. This new system seems to pander to people who are poor sports.

Why exactly are we looking to bring more players like that to our respective tables or encouraging them to remain ?

I really hope that is not the intent of the developers even though they are probably trying to collect all the scraps discarded from the d&d 5e groups.

Or maybe it's just laziness...manage the difference in level by raising all the statistics of +1 it's like going back to the stone age and looks a lot like a video game. It's how to spit in an eye to all the fellow developers(of other games like d&d 3.5/pathfinder) who have engineered to avoid such archaic and linear system using a more innovative one.

GwynHawk wrote:
Liegence wrote:
#3 is a deal breaker, honestly. This skill system makes zero sense. Stats being equal, why again would a 7th level sorcerer who may have never touched a flute in his life be statistically superior when using it to a level 1 Bard who has trained with it his pre-adventuring life? I don’t know how the devs got comfortable with “just add level to every skill”, but it greatly sacrifices realism for system and for what? It isn’t even really that much simpler than what we already have...

It's easy to see why this change was made. At low levels of PF1 the maximum range of Skill bonuses between characters is pretty low. As you get to higher levels, characters get more and more specialized, or rather, they simply STOP being able to even attempt skill checks that are challenging for their character level. By effectively capping Skill ranks at +5, PF2 ensures that higher level characters can still try to participate in roleplaying and exploration challenges, even if they're not highly trained or don't have a high attribute modifier.

As, for the system itself, let me quote a passage from page 142:

"Anyone can use a skill’s untrained uses unless some circumstance, condition, or effect bars them from doing so. You can use trained uses only if you’re at least trained in that skill and no circumstance, condition, or effect bars you from that use. Sometimes using a skill in a specific situation might require you to have a higher proficiency rank than what is listed on the table. For instance, even though a high-level barbarian untrained in Arcana could reliably use Arcana to Recall Knowledge regarding the breath weapons of the various colors of dragons, the GM might decide that Recalling Knowledge about the deeper theories behind magical energy of a dragon’s breath weapon might be something beyond the scope of the barbarian’s largely utilitarian and anecdotal knowledge about how to fight dragons. The GM decides whether a task requires a particular proficiency rank, from trained all the...

This is even worse. Not only is the system to tell you how your character should be but it is also left in the hands of the GM that the only thing that should not touch is the player's character.

However, there is already a tabel that says what can or can not be done by a trained or untrained character and is rather poor. This was the only excuse that could save this system but turned out to be a failure.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Luceon wrote:

I would like to offer a compromise with those of you who support the +1/level. I was wondering if you would be willing to agree with an adjustment to that mechanic to +1/every 2 levels. That's how D&D 4ed was, and I'm not a fan of that version, But surprisingly I think it could work well in PF2 structure due to the proficiency bonuses.

I think it works well for my purposes, because I rarely run campaigns past lvl 16, so it would max at +8, that bonus of +1 to +8 shouldn't eclipse the other type bonuses that much. The characters would have there other bonuses be more meaningful, like abilities, proficiency, aid and buffs etc.

What do you think?

Could you meet me half way, so to speak?

This is not a solution ... the problem of the system has never been "the bonus too high" so it is useless to divide by 2.

The problem with this system is that all the characters have the same bonus and that some statistics are arbitrarily raised without the player having a choice.
It is an obsolete or archaic system, we are in 2018, manage the difference in level by raising all the statistics of +1 is no longer thinkable.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Igor Horvat wrote:

Oh no!

Not this again.

Now it is on AC also?

I thing that this will give too much power to higher level characters over lower level encounters.

They will become too trivial.

the +1 per level needs to go ASAP.

flatten it down to +1 per 4 or 5 levels.

And remove it from AC.

Unfortunately, this game has taken the road traveled by the 4th edition, in my game group we have already started to call 4.75 as well as pathfinder 1th edition is 3.75. Ironic if you think that this game has been successful, thanks to the bad choices made on the 4th edition system.

The system forces you to assign unwanted points to make the mathematics stand out, i wonder what was wrong with the old system or even the use of other system like d&d 5th edition would be better. I already see that a good 50% of the community thinks the same way so there is still hope to backtrack.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Mudfoot wrote:
MelodicCodes wrote:
...why should the clunky fighter in loud full plate who's never snuck around before suddenly be able to sneak almost as good as the Rogue?

This is the difference between experience (=level) and training. The fighter has been sneaking around dungeons for a while because he's 8th level. Likewise the wizard has been riding a horse for years and the cleric has been climbing out of pits and the rogue has been sharpening his daggers and maintaining his crossbow. They're not Trained in Stealth / Handle Animal / Athletics / Craft but they've certainly done the basics often enough to have an idea.

And the fighter can't sneak as well as the rogue because he's untrained, Dex 12, in plate vs the Master rogue, dex 20, in leather. Difference is 13, so the rogue might get a crit success on the same roll where the fighter fails.

Sure, it doesn't work perfectly and I think the numbers could probably be changed a bit, but it makes some sense for many adventuring skills.

BTW, you're right about class feat chains. Way too restrictive.

The problem is just this ... The individuality of the character is sacred and must be respected. This system does not respect this commandment.

This raises certain questions ...

Why all the characters lv1 that having untrained skills have the same experience in all, ie +1?
Why at level 20 all the characters become lyrical singers? Have they spent their adventures practicing not only in singing but in all skills without leaving out any? How do you explain the experience of knowledge skills that can only be obtained by reading books?

There are no characters who have decided to deprive themselves of the experience of singing and stay at +0? Is it possible to be an asocial or a hermit and not to have experience of the skill society? Is it possible to make atheistic characters, unaware of gods, extraplanar creatures and divine magic, leaving religion at +0?

It seems to me a system that tries to satisfy the envy of certain players...


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Brondy wrote:

Profession: vampire hunter does not do well as a substitute.

I agree with the fact that "profession" sounds better than "lore" but I prefer something vague that allows me to do more tasks than just one.

For example, lore: vampire may be allowed to work as a vampire hunter, but can also perform other jobs as a vampire novelist or play a vampire character in the theater or work as a butler for a vampire xD.

Profession: Vampirism Scholar. Anything that needs to sound more like "Lore" can always be "Profession: something Scholar." If there are a lot of these it's probably best to stay with Lore, but I doubt there are that many.

Profession: Vampirism Scholar means that as a job you only do the student of vampirism and nothing else ... so there remains the problem of not being able to do other jobs like vampire hunter or vampire novelist etc ..


Profession: vampire hunter does not do well as a substitute.
I agree with the fact that "profession" sounds better than "lore" but I prefer something vague that allows me to do more tasks than just one.

For example, lore: vampire may be allowed to work as a vampire hunter, but can also perform other jobs as a vampire novelist or play a vampire character in the theater or work as a butler for a vampire xD.


So lore: vampire become trade/profession: vampire??


QuidEst wrote:
Brondy wrote:

If pirate archetype it's just to get feats with nautical/aquatic theme(that is not sure yet), what's the point of creating archetypes in pf2? It would be enough to grant everyone the possibility to choose these particular feats as normal feats.

Then it would be enough for the PC to define itself as a pirate, leaving space for the creation of real specializations (the archetypes of pf1).

I can think of a couple reasons.

- General feats should be general. The examples we have so far for sure are weapon and armor proficiencies. Those are things that come up very regularly, and are applicable to any character in any game. If you put all the nautical feats in general, and all the commerce feats in general, and the wilderness exploration feats in general, then most general feats don't apply to most games. Grouping them in archetypes keeps things streamlined and easier for players to find things.
- General feats seem pretty strong. Increasing your AC is a big deal now, after all. I don't want to trade out something that'll help me almost every round of combat for something that, while flavorful, will only apply when I'm in water. Trading out a metamagic option or an attack style is a little more fair.
- You only get five general feats, but in the ballpark of eleven class feats.

I'd be happiest getting both eventually, of course. Alchemist having a way to focus on weapons instead of bombs, for instance.

If these are really the reasons then things are worse than I thought.

In practice, are you saying that the pf2 archetypes are a cool way to avoid creating subcategories of general feats and passing them as class feats?
The class feats that are weaker than general feats has been confirmed?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If pirate archetype it's just to get feats with nautical/aquatic theme(that is not sure yet), what's the point of creating archetypes in pf2? It would be enough to grant everyone the possibility to choose these particular feats as normal feats.

Then it would be enough for the PC to define itself as a pirate, leaving space for the creation of real specializations (the archetypes of pf1).


Ryan Freire wrote:
Eh, they're naturally going to look like buckets of feats given that archetypes were just alternate class abilities and now those are feats.

No, now they are not just feats.

Class ability are very different from feats ... they replace spells, domains, sneak attacks and other mechanics and replace them with others.
The classes change so much that they seem like separate classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:

Um. Im pretty sure they're putting archetypes in, they just havent been previewed/spoiled yet.

In fact the framework theyve shown for pf2.0 is even MORE archetype friendly, as "class feats" are likely gained at the same levels across classes, archetypes an be created that may be applied generally to multiple base classes.

Yes, this is correct. Jason's Game Informer interview discusses archetypes in a decent amount of detail. The OP is misinformed.

Sorry maybe I did not explain well.

The name is not so important, but to clarify, the archetypes of pf1 are not the archetypes of pf2, despite having the same name.

In pathfinder 1e, they are true specializations that can completely change the functioning of a class. They are a kind of sub-classes.
In pathfinder 2e are just an add-on package or "buckets" of feats to choose from together with the feat normally granted. They are not extra feats. They are applicable to all classes precisely because they are not specializations of the individual classes. Some have compared them to prestige classes as they can be used to replace these.

We will never see cool archeype like an Unsworn Shaman or a Sin Eater ç_ç.

I definitely prefer the pathfinder 1e archetypes.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Big defect of pathfinder 2e is the absence of the main feature that distinguishes it with other RPGs including the 3.5 ... "The Archetypes".
I'm not talking about that crap pseudo-prestige class, who want to file it with the same name, but I talk about what made Pathfinder 1e really nice and easy to customize.
I'm talking about Feral Shifter, Weapon Master, Viking, Gladiator, Wild Rager, Sniper, Beastmaster, Evangelist, Witchguard, Archaeologist, Bolt Ace, Scrollmaster, Herb Witch ... etc ...

One can also overlook the construction of monsters or modifiers completely dependent on levels, it is a matter of taste, but the archetypes are what make pathfinder a good game and it is absurd that in the 2nd they are eliminated.
Then I think we all know that the pseudo-archetype taken by starfinder will never work. Everyone who tried them was unhappy and nobody I know spoke about it in a positive way.

Am I the only one to think so? For you Pathfinder without archetypes does it make sense to exist? Is it still to be considered "Pathfinder"?
Do you believe it is possible to take a step back and return to the old archetypes?


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Brondy wrote:

The proficiency system is not copied from the 4e?

D&D 4e has seems the same, it lacks only the mastery and legendary expertise and some other small thing.
I think they're sufficiently different with any resemblance very superficial (if there at all).

It does not seem superficial.

- They have the same name.
- If you are trained or expert, unlock new uses of skills.
- You can use weapons, armor and other items that match your level of proficiency without penalty.
- For each proficiency step you get a small bonus to the modifier.
- If you are an expert you do not need to roll the dice for certain actions as if you were taking 10.

totoro wrote:
I think they are almost the same in the same way baseball and basketball are almost the same. They use a ball and they have rules.

It's more like comparing Basketball with Street-Basketball.


The proficiency system is not copied from the 4e?
D&D 4e has seems the same, it lacks only the mastery and legendary expertise and some other small thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am confused, the goblins were not there also in PF1? Why everyone talks about it as if it were a novelty?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Rednal wrote:


Personally, I like being able to make characters who are only a little good in certain areas. For example, maybe they have one point in Profession (Baker) for roleplaying reasons, and a total bonus of +5. They're not really trying to be the world's best baker or anything - they just want to make some decent food when they put in a normal amount of effort.

Unfortunately it seems you can not do this, every skill is related to the level not to the choice of the player. We hope that after the play test, they fix it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
A Ninja Errant wrote:


True, I believe I just refuted it entirely. So not really a question, no. In PF1 the only difference between a class skill and a cross-class skill is a +3 bonus, and you can easily get around that with a trait. So it's barely related to class, and even that can be easily bypassed. I don't know if class skills will be a thing in PF2, but it doesn't sound like it. I'd be fine with that mechanic going away, it never really made any particular sense, just screwed Fighters more.

Again this is wrong.

In PF1 you not just get class skill, you get ranks points based on the class. For example, a rogue get 8 + int x level, precisely because the class is of primary importance in skills.
Now with this system you get rank = level x each skill.

Now I'm wondering if you're happy that any level X character has a +X bonus for all craft skills, even alchemy, despite being untrained.
Should I believe that all the characters, even level 1 also had experience in all types of craft?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
A Ninja Errant wrote:


Ah, classism is it? You should bear this in mind: skills are not directly related to class.

Please do not quibble, proficiency derives from the class. Of course there is also to consider the background and the feats, nobody questions this.

A Ninja Errant wrote:


A fighter can put all his ranks in Occult if he wants, a Wizard can completely ignore it. No skill is required or barred for any class.

You're wrong with this system the wizards can not ignore it. A fighter can not put all his ranks in "occult". He must do it. There is no choice.

I repeat this is a big issue in a role-playing perspective.
A Ninja Errant wrote:


A: Allowing high level characters to do things better than low level characters, and
B: Allowing all characters at an equal experience level to have a chance of contributing/not being useless in most situations, while
C: Still allowing focused characters to be special, because they have a better chance of success, and even some neat special stuff the untrained guys can't do at all.

A: I agree. But this can be seen as a defect. High-level characters who can do everything better than a low-level character is a bad policy.

B: I also agree on this. It is here can only be seen as a defect.
Why bother to create races or classes if all the PCs must contribute the same way in the same situations?

C: I do not agree here. A +1 it's a very little better chance of success. The only good thing is that untrained characters can not do certain things. But in my opinion this is not enough because in the execution of basic tasks there must be a difference in capacity.

Sure it's still all to be seen ... but it seems to me an unnecessarily complicated system you will need to have the tables in hand of what you can or can not do ... for now we can only hope.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:


- The crit system means that a +1 in PF2 is about the same weight as a +2 in Pathfinder.
- Getting training gets you +2 instead of +1.
- Your system is really broken. You're giving a fully trained character +40 vs. untrained at level 20. That's more than twice the difference in roll outcomes! It stopped meaning anything useful ten levels ago. Even the difference between trained and untrained at that level is so big that the two characters can never meaningfully roll on the same challenge. What do DCs even look like?

The ratio does not necessarily have to be the same as the one I suggested ... without considering that a legendary proficiency must be really difficult to achieve if it allows you to do things like survive in a vacuum.

Following your reasoning with the actual system you get a +20 with any class that is a +40 equivalent of the old system and without choosing which skill to assign the bonus(all skills get +40). It's not already broken for you?

Brondy wrote:


Ability scores are part of a character's skill- essentially their raw talent. I'm fine ignoring the equipment. A Wizard will probably have something like a +5 in Int more than the painfully stereotypical Fighter that gets pulled out for these examples. Mastery is available at 7th, so we'll assume our Wizard has it. There's a +9 difference without any feats or equipment, so untrained Fighter 20 can ID magical monsters like Wizard 11, because he's been fighting them for twice as long. That seems pretty fair to me. The Fighter still can't tell what spell is being cast, though, because that requires some actual study.

Yes raw talent.

Moreover, in your example you exclude a priori that a fighter can have an intelligence as high as a wizard.

However the point is that this is not about the experience so it is useless to talk about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:


The rogue who trains in picking locks, the druid who trains in natural lore, and the wizard who trains in occultism, WILL all be better than the comparable untrained character. They'll have higher bonuses from being trained

Here we are at the point of the topic "+1 for each step of competence is very little".

I repeat what I had written at the beginning...

"For me the solution is do something like that:
unatrained character get 0 x level, proficiency bonus
trained character get 1 x level
expert character get 1 x level
master character get 1,5 x level
legendary character get 2 x level.
And just remove the ridiculous flat bonus +1 for each step proficiency."

Fuzzypaws wrote:


they'll have higher ability scores in the relevant stats, they'll be more likely to have equipment to raise the skills in question.

So it is not really matter of experience of a pc but of ability scores and magic equipment.

Nothing to do with a pc's skills.

Tarik Blackhands wrote:


And ultimately, I am going to buy that a L20 anything is going to know some !@#$. They're essentially frickin demi-gods, living legends made flesh. They've been there, done that, and probably kicked down the door to several lower planes to body slam Balors and Pit Fiends for giggles. Saying that they didn't pick up anything about swimming/stealth/picking pockets/monster ID/whatever over their long, varied, and peril filled career is honestly more baffling to me than having a L20 fighter not able to tell what a Great Red Wyrm is because he didn't have know arcana ranks.

I'm saying that all classes should not have the same bonus. Not that they should not have any.

This means that a fighter will not have 0 in "occult", simply will not have +20 in the same way of a pc with a wizard class. If the fighter remains untrained in "occult" at level 20 he can always roll the die to identify the red dragon without a big bonus like the wizard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:


Brondy wrote:
So a barbarian level 6 can pick pockets better of a rogue level 1. Am I the only one who finds it wrong?

Well, assuming Dex 14 on the Barbarian and Dex 18 on the Rogue (a reasonable supposition), the Barbarian has a +6...while the Rogue probably also has a +6.

So, no, he does it about equally well. And no, that doesn't especially bother me because a 6th level Barbarian is a seasoned adventurer, while a 1st level Rogue...isn't. Experience matters, and the Barbarian may not have had to pick pockets a lot, but she's sure had some experience being sneaky by that point...quite possibly more of it than the neophyte Rogue.

I simply do not agree, the excuse of experience holds up to a certain point. So are you telling me that a fighter lv 20 has the same experience in all the skills (+20 to everything) of a wizard or rogue or druid?

Is it no longer credible that a rogue obtains from its experience a greater bonus in picklocks than a barbarian?
A druid does not get much more experience in "nature" than a fighter? Is not he in touch with nature more than a fighter in all of his 20 levels?
Do not you think that a seasoned wizard lv 20 has done much more "occult" experience than a seasoned fighter lv 20?

Of course then on the basis of the proficiency you unlock various uses for each skill but should also take advantage of the basic untrained tasks?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Brondy wrote:
I seem to have read somewhere that you can steal and picklock without being trained but maybe I'm wrong.
No, you can theoretically pick pockets without the skill being Trained, but traps and locks are Trained Only.

So a barbarian level 6 can pick pockets better of a rogue level 1. Am I the only one who finds it wrong?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
A Ninja Errant wrote:
Brondy wrote:

It's ridiculous that a lv 20 fighter has more occult knowledge then a lv 1 arcane caster. Even if he is not an expert he will be able to perform certain tasks more easily than a magician.

Is it? Normally for a fighter to reach level 20, he's probably seen more spells cast than the level 1 mage, met/killed more types of monsters, and used more magic items. Sure the level 1 has book knowledge, but the level 20 has way more personal experience with the arcane than the level 1 does.

Experience is different from knowledge. You can see magic items or spell in action but this not mean you can understand. Indeed fighter can't cast spells.

A Ninja Errant wrote:


I don't see people complaining that it's unrealistic that a level 20 Wizard can take more mace blows to the head than a level 1 Fighter, but that is the current reality of PF1

Actually people complain of that... but seems there is not a way to fix that. On the other hand, the hit points determine the strength of a character in combat and not his skill or proficiency.

In PF1 you can make a pc with 0 rank in spellcraft, why with this system you can't do that?? In PF2 level 20 pc have all +20 in all skill, making it impossible to create ignorant characters. This is a big issue in a role-playing perspective.

QuidEst wrote:


That’s not true, though. The level 1 Rogue with training is better at picking locks than the level 6 Barbarian who’s never done it. Picking locks is trained-only.

I seem to have read somewhere that you can steal and picklock without being trained but maybe I'm wrong.


The Big issue, everything scale with level, even skills(maybe even AC).

I don't like the difference in power between a character of level 1 and one of level 20 that always seems too big. Something that in others games(like d&d 5e) is less pronounced.

It's ridiculous that a lv 20 fighter has more occult knowledge then a lv 1 arcane caster. Even if he is not an expert he will be able to perform certain tasks more easily than a magician.

For me the solution is do something like that:
unatrained character get 0 x level, proficiency bonus
trained character get 1 x level
expert character get 1 x level
master character get 1,5 x level
legendary character get 2 x level.
And just remove the ridiculous flat bonus +1 for each step proficiency.


In my opinion "dex to damage" must be work like a quality of the weapon, not a feat.
The Dex builds have already been despised and devalued by new abilities and mechanics such as the power attack and weapon enchantment +X.

A large weapon with high dice damage has an advantage over small weapons such as dagger, shortsword or rapier. They need some simple use(without investment) or no one will choose them as a weapon.


I think a +1, for proficiency progress, is a irrelevant bonus e create only confusion.
The major problem in the modifier are the "levels". They replace the ranks but at this point it's better just start at base 0.

There is a risk that a level 20 warrior knows best the "occult" of a level 1 wizard or "nature" of a level 1 druid. I don't like that approach.

We are talking about a system that is already devaluing class features for Feats. I wonder if the classes have lost their meaning and will only serve as a requirement to have access to a list of "Feats".


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
TOZ, that link says that invisible/hidden creatures still threaten and therefore still flank. This is whether an invisible (or otherwise totally concealed) creature can be flanked. I believe the answer is no, because you cannot attack a creature that has total concealment from you. If you can't attack, you don't threaten; if you don't threaten, you aren't flanking.

That's what I think, but there are those who say that it is enough to threaten the square even with an attack with a 50% miss chance to flank, even if you do not know which square the enemy is in.

That's why I have a doubt ...


TriOmegaZero wrote:

Yes, you can be flanked even if the flanker is totally concealed from you.

Developer commentary here.

I don'see how this is relevant. In my question the enemy has total concealment, and not who attack.


Is it possible to get a flanking bonus if an enemy has a total concealment towards the ally on my opposite border? To clarify, in this case, the source of concealment is an illusory wall beteewn my ally and the enemy.

Fundamentally, Total Concealment allows the possibility of being flanked?

Another thing, is there a difference when it speaks to threatening the "square" and threatening the "creature"? The paragraph that speaks of "Flanking" seems to refer to the creature and not to the square.


Is it possible to get a flanking bonus if an enemy has a total concealment towards the ally on my opposite border? To clarify, in this case, the source of concealment is an illusory wall beteewn my ally and the enemy.

Fundamentally, Total Concealment allows the possibility of being flanked?

Another thing, is there a difference when it speaks to threatening the "square" and threatening the "creature"? The paragraph that speaks of "Flanking" seems to refer to the creature and not to the square.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is a faq...

"Your character actually has to cackle—probably in a strong voice, akin to the volume and clarity necessary for verbal spell components.

Edit 7/19/13:
If the witch is in a silence effect, she can't use the cackle hex.
If the target is in a silence effect, it is unaffected by the cackle."
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fn#v5748eaic9qox

So countersong should work.


wraithstrike wrote:


It was a nonaction in 3.5, but most GM's wouldn't allow you to make multiple checks. You got one stealth check and it applied for the entire round.

No, it wasn't. It was just a non-action if used as part of movement but from "still stand" was a move action.

I have already quoted in my first post..."If you don't move, it still takes you a move action to hide."
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040622a

I think that in Pathfinder should be the same, click on the flag FAQ to ask for a definitive clarification from developers.


blahpers wrote:


Action aside, it doesn't break much. Even if you use Stealth again, the enemy may not know where you are, but they certainly know where you were, and they'll quickly discover that the two are the same simply by using that information. Besides, ideally the player won't know they failed until the enemy makes it apparent.

Maybe breaks the mechanics just a little but I not like the idea of "infinite rolls". The rules should not allow it.

I prefer a FAQ to clarify, how in d&d 3.5, what kind of action is "hide" from stand still.


thejeff wrote:

I think we're arguing that very "in any other exceptional circumstance it would be a non-action", since that isn't actually specified in the rules.

Generally at some point, you're going to need to move into the cover/concealment, but what happens after that?

Per my previous example, Let's say I bluff/distract and get successfully into partial cover, with no one beating my Stealth roll. That uses my actions for that round certainly - stealth as part of a movement action.
Next round, I want to get a potion from my Haversack (move action) and drink it (standard) all while staying hidden (?).

Can I do that in one round, or do I need to use move actions for Stealth? Do I roll Stealth again this round? If I keep the old check, does it keep the old modifiers (including the -10 for bluff)?

You understand what I am asking. These are few questions I would like to have an answer.

But I really care about the case when I'm behind a total cover without having used the stealth movement yet.
At the beginning of my turn, I can use stealth action without moving? I mean staying in the same square. Should I use move action?

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>