Honaire

Bruno Mares's page

Organized Play Member. 232 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 232 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Best drunken ever!


Rage on?!? I'm raging since 2018 march! Hahahaha!


Wow! I hope this to be as good as we wish! Specific sheets are amazing things!


So far, the playtest is going very well here!

The bantrid vanguard of our party is shining all the time!


Counting down the days to put my hands in the future best fantasy RPG of all times!!! *.*

Minor note:

Please, give the spellcasters the class feats they should gain at 12th and 16th levels where they gain spell proficiency. :D


Totally gaming in!!! <3 <3 <3


7 people marked this as a favorite.

To Mark and the other devs: Will the spellcasting classes still getting less feats than the other classes? This makes no sense. Everyone gets they proficiencies improving and still get feats, but when spellcasters do they need to "lost/give up" a feat? Too sad... :(


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I really want that items' DC should not be fixed by the item, but for the user power/level.

Just as a sword is more effective in the hands of a higher level character, also should all other items.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Liked the Flat recovery check.

It's simple and avoid the use of a DC table and have the same final result (maybe a little more dangerous, what I like), and also make all character more "heroics".

Keep this 1.5 way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that ancestries are all lacking something that they use to have.

The feeling is that Paizo just scattered their old racial traits from PF1 in higher level feats with few not interesting additions.

And my expectation was just:

1) Ancestries receive the same/similar amount of their old racial traits (with some game balance in rules)

2) Ancestries receive NEW very interesting feats to choose in their higher levels that give the sensation that our characters evolution (and options) is different from all other ancestries with some exclusive/good/fun choices.


Is Golarion a male or female noun?

And what about the other system's planets?

A friend said that a planet that support life is always a she, but that may not be true for Aucturn...


Sand *.*
Point *.*


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Shorter APs is a great thing!

Keep innovating!

And please, dare to write shorter Pathfinder APs later, specially higher level APs to achieve level 20! I'd love it!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Seems like a reasonable change, as you would just need one good description (with an example please) in the magic chapter for "basic saving throws", though if possible I would like to request, that every spell should also mention the spellcasting types that can access it. A symbol (not unlike the solution for Starfinder) would be enough, but make it so much easier to read and look for options.

If the players find a scroll of Fireball, I can't just look up Fireball I need to go to the various pages of spell lists to find out if the characters in the party can identify the scroll in a very short time or not, and who can use it.

And kinda linked to that, I have gotten a very strong feedback from my players that actually having to flip between the class chapter and the spells is very annoying, so if at all possible, I would like to request to put all those powers into their respective class entries. While it will not be that bad for Paladins, this will swell the size of the cleric chapter quite a bit, but personally, it would be a very welcome change.

Man, you fully read my thoughts (and the same thoughts of the two parties I'm playing the Playtest).

Please, Mark (whom reads all the blogs posts haha) and the entire devs team, listen to this guy! The powers scattered among spells is indisputably the worst thing in the book.


Andrew Riebe wrote:

I like this, but think it might be best to put it into the statblock itself:

Evocation, Fire
Casting [[A]] Somatic Casting, [[A]] Verbal Casting
Range 500 feet; Area 20-foot burst; Saving Throw [Basic] Reflex

A burst of fire explodes, dealing 6d6 fire damage to creatures in the area.

Totally agree.

Probably I'd change the wording basic saving throw for damage saving throw or standard saving throw.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

That's really good!

Please do something similar to Dedication feats. They all show a special entry with the exact SAME text. Please turn this into a standard rule, because there is no need to say the same thing multiple times and because we can gain more archetypes using the new free space.


I'm ok with heavy, medium and light armor giving the same AC (adding item bonus plus dex bonus), but so they should cost the same...

Also, the extra complication is too bad and go in an opposite direction for the game purpose. Please, unify and standardize that rules to become more player-friendly.


I agree to standardize half-ancestries in all ancestries.


Please list that high DC in the creatures' stats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I REALLY liked the new Dying Rules! Now they're really useful and serves its purpose greatly!

However, I'd make two little changes to make it less complex and even more meaningful:

1) A single hero point just throws that cool, useful rule in the garbage.

I'd change the Hero Point cost of Heroic Recovery to 2 or 3, to keep the rule nice and meaningful!

2) Also, I'd not change the character initiative. This seems unnecessary complex and may give a character "a bonus round" if he has acted before the effect that knocked him out and receive any healing to regain conciousness in the same round.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I REALLY liked the new Dying Rules! Now they're really useful and serves its purpose greatly!

However, I'd make two little changes to make it less complex and even more meaningful:

1) A single hero point just throws that cool, useful rule in the garbage.

I'd change the Hero Point cost of Heroic Recovery to 2 or 3, to keep the rule nice and meaningful!

2) Also, I'd not change the character initiative. This seems unnecessary complex and may give a character "a bonus round" if he has acted before the effect that knocked him out and receive any healing to regain conciousness in the same round.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's odd and bizarre that an expert (or better) character can't take 10 to climb a wall or something like that...

You SHOULD bring back take 10 and take 20 as standard rules. It's entirely necessary to keep the pace of the game.

And I doubt that someone will choose those Assurance feats forfeiting the other cool skill feats available.

At minimum, all characters should gain assurance for free at ALL skills in which they're expert or better.

An expert character having to buy a FEAT to receive something like a medium 5 on the D20? Didn't convince me...


In the preview blogs, we had a lot of mentions a about wording standardization, but that's not true in the classes feats. A lot of feats that should (and that really does that) give the same abilities to different classes, are a lot different in different clssses. They mean the same, but some write one thing in five lines, while the other write that in three lines.

You can double check all druid's and ranger's feats for animal companions and see that there are a lot of differences. (The same apply to paladin's steed and other feats that are mutual to two or more classes.)

Also, the class powers entries are showing different texts for the same rules between different classes. It's already hard to explain to players that you have spell points to cast powers that are spells. Couldn't you standardize those texts?

(That's just a nitpicking observatiin, but in the final Core Rulebook, this could be ajusted to improve the game to be more player-friendly and modular.)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Assurance is really terrible and we need take 10 (or take 20) back!


There is a suggestion to eliminate weapon potency runes (and the NEED of magic weapon):

In Equipment chapter, in the weapons entry, you say:

For each 4 points of your proficiency with the weapon, you add one extra damage die to its damage.

For example, the weapon damage with each class would be increased in one die at levels:

Alchemist, bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard: 4, 8, 12, 16, 20.
Barbarian, rogue: 4, 8, 12, 15, 19.
Paladin: 4, 7, 11, 15, 18.
Monk, ranger: 3, 7, 11, 14, 18.
Fighter: 3, 6, 10, 13, 17.

This seems very reasonable to me.

(I had already posted this suggestion in another similar thread)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is a suggestion to eliminate weapon potency runes (and the NEED of magic weapon):

In Equipment chapter, in the weapons entry, you say:

For each 4 points of your proficiency with the weapon, you add one extra damage die to its damage.

For example, the weapon damage with each class would be increased in one die at levels:

Alchemist, bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard: 4, 8, 12, 16, 20.
Barbarian, rogue: 4, 8, 12, 15, 19.
Paladin: 4, 7, 11, 15, 18.
Monk, ranger: 3, 7, 11, 14, 18.
Fighter: 3, 6, 10, 13, 17.

This seems very reasonable to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Erik Mona wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
Jason - small note. The character creation process can be confusing.

I think it's fair to count on a completely revised character creation process based on external and internal playtesting. Not that the RULES will change a ton (though some of them probably will), but the PRESENTATION leaves lots of room for improvement and will be a significant part of the revision process that takes place over the next several months.

Nice to hear that!

If possible, also keep in mind that the gear selection is hard to new players and boring/annoying to experienced players (beyond armor and weapons, everything is boring to have to choose). Since I can remember, this is the worst part ever in character creation.

Since the beggining of PF1 beta (actually, since D&D 3.0), as a GM I always had to create "basic kits" that cost a predefined amout of gp, with a predefined weight, with "all the basic, needy items to survive" to my players buy and "just write down" in their sheets. Otherwise, the character sheets always resulted with a big blank, empty items section.


I'm hoping to see some explanation about magic armor and Resonance Points.
Even after reading that a lot of times (like ten times) is not clear if we need to invest in a magic armor, specially in those that have property runes with an Activation entry.

Is absolutely not clear, and this may be critical to test the Resonance Points subsystem correctly.

(Also: really hopping for some critical update or new rule update for shields. If we can start combate with shield raised, considering that a combat have 3 or 4 rounds, we need to spend an action in 2 or 3 rounds, and this makes no sense for a too small AC bonus, specially one that do not stack with cover, which I can improve to +4 circumstance bonus with the same action that I'd use to raise a shield.)


For what I understand, as potency runes for armor and weapons don't have the invested trait, we don't need to invest them to receive its benefits.

Also, some property runes have the actavion entry. RAW, we need to spend 1 Resonance Point to Activate it. That's ok.

However, in Activating Magic Items entry (on page 376), we can activate only items that we have invested, as the Requirement entry says.

Spoiler:
ACTIVATE AN ITEM
Requirement You can Activate an Item you’re wearing only if you have invested it.
Cost 1 Resonance Point, spent when you start taking activate actions for this activity

You activate an item’s magical ability. Activating an Item is an activity that takes a variable number of actions, depending on the item. The activate actions required are listed in the stat block. You can spend those actions in any order you wish, provided you do so consecutively on a single turn. As soon as all activate actions are complete, the item’s effect occurs. If an item has multiple abilities that can be activated, you must choose which one to use each time you Activate the Item.
Some items allow you to use an activate action as a reaction or free action. In this case, you Activate the Item as a reaction or free action instead of as an activity. Such cases are noted in the item’s stat block (for example, “ Focus Activation reaction”).

So, shouldn't those property runes with a activation entry have the invested trait?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just passing by to ask for Orcs as a core race! (not in place of goblins, but WITH them!)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My biggest concern about Hero Points: game sessions are not a fix mechanical measure. In some groups, game sessions last between 6 to 8 hours, in others, game sessions last at maximum 2 or 3 hours.

The "fix" Hero Points concession should be based on some game mechanic, not something as random as "game session". Maybe 1 Hero Point per level, plus extra Hero Points per heroic deeds and the like, just like it was in APG. APG's way to give players hero points is very good so there is no need to change it.


Totally agree with the thread title.

All classes should gain 10 class feats.

Maybe, some could gain 11 (an extra class feat at 1st level).

The way it is, it's unbalanced and not all characters have the same number of options to make (despite the spellcasters lot of spells). We really like all classes to be "modular, balanced, equal in options."


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a big issue.

Think about a fighter wielding a shield that have to choose to spend his reaction to raise a shield (and receive DR) or to make an attack of opportunity is ok, but USING AN ACTION AND A REACTION to MAYBE use your shield is not so good and hamper the character fun and utility.

My suggestion is that the AC circumstance bonus from shield should be a passive bonus.

Maybe, just maybe, Shield Paragon should be a 1st level feat, at maximum.

But my real thought is that the ability to wield a shield and use it to gain AC bonus should be part of the basic shield proficiency.


This is a big issue. A fighter wielding a shield that have to choose to spend his reaction to raise a shield (and receive DR) or to make an attack of opportunity is ok, but USING AN ACTION AND A REACTION to MAYBE use your shield is not so good and hamper the character fun and utility.

The AC circumstance bonus from shield SHOULD be a passive bonus.

Maybe, just maybe, Shield Paragon should be a 1st level feat, at maximum.

But my real thought is that the ability to wield a shield and use it to gain AC bonus should be part of the basic shield proficiency.


LordKailas wrote:

Dwarves: 2 (bonus hp, speed penalty, extra abilityx2)

Elves: 1 (hp penalty, speed bonus, extra ability)
Gnome: 0 (speed penalty, extra ability)
Goblin: 0 (hp penalty, extra ability)
Halfling: -1 (hp penalty)
Human: 0

Totally agree with this.

Dwarves are the better ancestry.
Elves a little good.
Gnomes, Goblins, and Humans are "ok".
Halflings are waaaayyy worse than others.
Half-Elves and Half-Orcs are as bad as halflings, since they "don't receive" ancestry feats.

I'm ok with dwarves being better (haha), but all others should be balanced, specially halflings and half-humans.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just hoping that in the final CRB there are higher level options for ancestry feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just passing by to beg for orcs in CRB again. :D


I'm wondering how different will be a wizard with fighter dedication to a fighter with wizard dedication.

It's very likely that one will be stronger than the other in its original class' abilities.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thinking about the wording/layout improvement:

For what I saw so far, ALL dedication feats have the same special where You cannot select another dedication feat until you have gained two other feats from this archetype, so why not just make this a common rule and eliminate the need of writing this same special in each dedication feat?


Charon Onozuka wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
The most relevant statistical data on races actually played puts Goblins way ahead of Orcs.
Nobody here, in this thread, is currently suggesting Orcs instead of Goblins. We are suggesting having both.

Can I be the first then? >:D

Because honestly, I'd vastly prefer to see Orcs rather than Goblins in the CRB. Orcs have a connection to core (half-orcs) and including them seems natural to help define what a half-orc is. Not to mention that they're already going to be printing Orc ancestry feats that half-orcs can take, so why not just go all the way and include them?

Goblins on the other hand are psychotic miscreants who won't be allowed in my home games. I know they're popular, but outside of goblin-only campaigns they don't really make much sense in the standard adventuring party.

Make these my words too!


Totally agree with the thread!

PLEASE, ORCS IN CRB!!! :D

How cool will Paizo/Pathfinder be after that?!? It's over 9,000!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just totally want ORCS as a playable ancestry in the final rulebook.

PLEASE, make room for them! (Even if you have to remove goblins, haha.)

Mark, Jason, is there any possibility for that?


Mark Seifter wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Quandary wrote:
I think Average/Normal/Standard is better term than Trivial for "baseline 50% challenge for individual non-specialist".
I think I've been failing to communicate the statistics of this coin flip character. This isn't a character that's somewhere in the middle between a specialist and the worst possible character. This is a check that is roughly a coin flip (often 45%) for literally the worst character around. A character beyond which there cannot be a lower permanent modifier at that level. If even that character can make it around half the time, it's definitely not an average or normal check for that level. I do still think there might be a way to recast the name of the column that might work with people's expectations more than trivial, but it would still have to be some word that indicated it was extremely easy for that level.
How about "Easy." And save the word "Trivial" for referring to tasks that are so easy they don't require a check.
Easy, Low Difficulty, High Difficulty, Severe Difficulty, Extreme Difficulty? Hmm, I admit, maybe the Gordian knot could work there.

Maybe Very easy, easy, medium, high, Very high.

But those last are much best than the actual said in the blog.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Bruno Mares wrote:
Snares/traps can be an ok/nice/interesting option, but as a permanent/common/fixed/main class feature, you're doing totally wrong...
They are a nice/interesting option. They are not a fixed class feature.

I'm glad to know this! It wasn't clear in the blog post. Thanks for that! (And for the relief! Haha!)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Snares/traps can be an ok/nice/interesting option, but as a permanent/common/fixed/main class feature, you're doing totally wrong...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I also criticize a lot that archetypes should allow a character to change its class features.

IMO, you're getting the best thing that made Pathfinder Pathfinder and changing/twisting it in a bad way. The new idea is a good one, but those are not archetypes like we're used to see. The problem isn't that they are changing, is that we'll not be alowed to do the same customization like we always did.

What about a rogue without uncanny dodge? Ir a ranger without favored terrain? A fighter without armor training? And an alchemist without bomba/mutagen? Or even a druid without wild shape? That's what bothers me...

Hope you guys change it with the playtest.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folks,

Let's drop the "everything is called a feat" discussion, as it is not really relevant to this thread. Although I must say it is kinda fascinating watching all of you mirror the internal debates we had about 18 months ago when the issue was raised in house.

I also want to say that the archetypes in this book are quite experimental. There are not a lot of them (only 7 in the playtest book) because we really wanted to just get a proof of concept out there before putting them into wider use. The folks in this thread have already given us a few ideas on how we might change them.

This is why we playtest.

So there's another good idea: since "prestige" archetypes works exactly like other archetypes (except for the heavier prerequisites) you can totally remove the unnecessary prestige word. Please, unchain from the shackles of 3.5 legacy.

Also, the Special text at the bottom of dedication feats is totally unnecessary. You'd just say in the general/standard archetype rules that one can't select a new dedication feat until he have chosen three feats of the same archetype.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
graeme mcdougall wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Wandering Wastrel wrote:
Paizo Blog wrote:
A potion requires you to spend an Operate Activation action to drink it. A necklace of fireballs requires you to spend 2 Operate Activation actions

Urgh.

It's possible that I'll get used to this sort of phrasing, but right now it just seems... no.

The wording definitely cast Induce Greater Headache on me, yeah. >.>

Seriously, what's wrong with saying "A potion requires 1 action to drink" or "A necklace of fireballs requires a total of 2 actions to use: 1 to pull a bead loose and 1 to throw it."

Do we seriously have to overdefine every single possible action in the game? This isn't a computer program which requires that sort of thing for the machine to understand your intent.

If you really really have to define the actions, say Use Action or Operate Action instead of Operate Activation Action. Say Focus Action instead of Focus Activation Action. Etc

100% agree. It's really destroying the elegance of the 3-action economy. If Resonance requires this over-definition, then it's Resonance that should go.
The wording is completely unrelated to resonance, it's all a question of style and clarity. We originally had it as Operate, Focus, and Command, but Activation was added during editing to make it clearer. If people think it doesn't make it clearer, that's good feedback and it's easy enough to change if that's widespread.

That excess of overdefine all actions in game make me miss the days of swift, move and standard actions...

100% agree with Fuzzypaws. Please stop naming each action!!! You're just unnecessary broking the three-action system.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Mark, the only real reason I saw to call a prestige archetype a prestige archetype is because 3.5 Legacy. Any thoughts about that?

Why not just call it an archetype, since the rules looks exactly the same? (To identify heavy prerequisites we need just to read the prerequisites).

Also, the Special text is totally unnecessary. You should just say in the general/standard archetype rules that one can't select a new dedication feat until he have choosen three feats of the same archetype.

You'd save a lot of space to give us more new archetypes in the final corebook (and in future, new books).


Mark Seifter wrote:
Any unfriendliness to MAD characters in Starfinder vis-PF1 rests squarely on the shoulders of the initial attribute assignment; the level-up process is significantly more MAD friendly than in PF1, and the cornerstones are raising four stats and the diminishing returns. I imagine it might become a common houserule in Starfinder to use something akin to PF2 (add another free boost to each Starfinder race, a free boost to themes and increase the boost to +2, a +2 to key ability score from class, and a starting +2 to 4 stats) instead of SF point buy; I know I'm strongly considering it next time I run. That'll give you something more like Strength 16, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 18 for a starting vesk solarian rather than like Strength 18 Dex 10 Con 12 Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 14.

Another way to simplify and quicken the stats generation:

"You have 10 stat boosts. You can assign them all as you wish, except that only one ability score can receive more than three boosts. Now apply your race flaw."

(Humans advantage would be that they can choose their flaw.)

I guess this would be simple, fast, and player-friendly.

1 to 50 of 232 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>