Marilith

Chief Cook and Bottlewasher's page

696 posts. Alias of diana ratcliffe.


RSS

1 to 50 of 696 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Magic weapons mostly have runes etched on them. (CRB 580). I expect PCs would normally spot them.


If you don't need them soon, the GMG is out in a month and will have a chapter of NPCs


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I believe that at 5th level you can only increase your 18 ability to 19, not to 20. Then to 20 at level 10, not to 22. I don't have the book to hand.


The game I was running (Reign of Winter) is on hiatus since players moved away. If I was converting it, I'd wait on changeling and dhampir in the upcoming APG. And benefit from the GMG and Bestiary 2 out by then.

I've felt daunted by GMing. 2e looks a lot less daunting.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Everyone is assumed to be literate. That's a huge difference.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

2 is circumstantial. E.g. use of detect magic. If the hazard is a magical trap then yes, if it's a random creature or perhaps a patrol discovering the group then no, because the character's focus is somewhere else.


In Knights of Everflame the bard says 'I play my violin' as an action, and takes her next action, and the violin taking 2 hands to play never comes up. Unless there's some mechanic I haven't noticed. She may be only casting spells, I suppose. I've been thinking maybe a penny whistle on a cord around the neck, 1 hand to lift it and toot


The idea that you only know about things you've encountered bothers me. Many of the traits are from mythology. And we know them because of storytelling, not just RPG experience. Surely every village in Golarion has storytellers. Featuring trolls as well as vampires and dragons and ghosts and the like. In fact, everyone is assumed literate, so have likely been reading stories. The classic abilities like regeneration ought at least be an easy knowledge check.


It doesn't compare it to 1e, though, and explain where it's similar and where different. I had the same thought on reading it, that, for trained, it's based of BAB= level. Gave me a point of familiarity for understanding the mechanics


Yes, as long as they are at least trained in the weapon. Plus 2, from being trained. (Everyone is trained in unarmed attack.)

Fighters benefit from starting at Expert, so get an extra +2.

As levels increase, the Martial classes get ahead by progressing in proficiency faster, but the non-martials don't fall as far behind as in 1e


You'd have to watch out for over specializing, so you don't end up with a fire witch and everything having fire resistance, or a cold-based witch and everything having cold resistance. Was this a problem with elemental based wizards and if not, how did they get round it?


So you think that panache and inspiration should be unique like the combat mechanics, not similar like focus? Okay. Makes sense, but I think it could be done either way.


Henro wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Henro wrote:

I’m not sure I dig two classes in the APG sharing the same mechanic. There has to be a way to make the investigator cool and interesting without just giving it panache.

Except there's the design philosophy of using 1 mechanic. So that once you've learnt the panache system for swashbucklers you can use the same system for any other class introduced with that type of mechanic. So players (and the poor GM) don't have to be thinking 'like the swashbuckler but different like this' for every similar class.

Like monks and champions using focus for very different outcomes but still both focus. Don't have to call it panache, but the mechanism should be the same.
Focus works differently for some classes but the name stays the same. Giving Swashbuckler and Investigator Panache but calling it two different things would be the opposite of that. Almost every martial class has their own unique mechanics anyway so I’m not sure why Investigators can’t.

I was thinking of the underlying focus pool of up to 3 points, if you spend one, take 10 minutes to recover it. Build up a range of abilities you can use. Is it very different in play between classes? Sadly, I haven't had the chance to play 2e, so I don't know.


Except in Golarion, a non-living patron has gone on to an outer plane and, if powerful, will likely have become a powerful outsider. So still existing and capable of being a patron.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Henro wrote:

I’m not sure I dig two classes in the APG sharing the same mechanic. There has to be a way to make the investigator cool and interesting without just giving it panache.

Except there's the design philosophy of using 1 mechanic. So that once you've learnt the panache system for swashbucklers you can use the same system for any other class introduced with that type of mechanic. So players (and the poor GM) don't have to be thinking 'like the swashbuckler but different like this' for every similar class.

Like monks and champions using focus for very different outcomes but still both focus. Don't have to call it panache, but the mechanism should be the same.


Someone else can get it out for you without needing to take off the pack. Still better in a bandolier or belt pouch


Unicore wrote:
The scenario is for a general fantasy campaign where the players start off in a new "undiscovered" land and build up some kind of homeland there.

Just checking. This would be anathema for a wild order druid but not for the other orders, right?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
Rysky wrote:

One person said they should have focused on the "most invested" (meaning not most invested in then normal sense but in this sense the extreme optimizers and theorcrafyters) players instead of everyone else, which prompted the next person to say that getting rid of said small audience because they're reducing the fun of the larger audience (which the original statement is pretty explicit about doing) would be a good thing.

Definitely not how I would have worded it but I can certainly understand it. What makes a player more invested over another? What makes you [general] more invested than me?

Players who are willing to dig into the rules and interactions and put a lot of time and effort into mastering them are more invested, as they have put a lot more time into the game.

Players who spend less time on building and more time playing may have put the same time into the game.


Tikael wrote:
I converted book 2 of Reign of Winter and it went well, party is just about to take on the dragon. Holding off converting BBEG since I hope to have the witch playtest by then. Items have been the hard part though definitely. I don't think I did a great job with them, at level 6 my party all has roughly 1-2 magic items each and about 80 gold, so a bit behind on the wealth by level table (but the missing parts are just going to be added to the horde).

When converting the PCs, how did you deal with the Mantle of the Black Rider, I.e. the ability gain it gives them?

(Although as my party has a changeling and a dhampir any conversion will have to wait for the APG)


Perhaps it's supposed to be the same but that line got left out. Mistakes happen. It may be in the errata that should be available today.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

At the moment we don't have a new edition half-elf or half-orc iconic. Might be nice to see one. If only one's new, we can't get both, sadly.


The spells dinosaur form, dragon form etc specify if you don't have space the spell is lost. I would guess the spell Enlarge is the same. Although they're Battle Forms, and Enlarge maybe be less restrictive. I'd go with giant instinct enlarge not working, but not being lost


I got into a similar discussion once, and found recipes for cooking a helpful analogy. It's a bit like having to find out that a courgette is a zucchini. If it 'adds pepper' you have to work out how much. It might say 'like Aunt's', which won't help you at all.


James Jacobs wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

As a follow up clarification, you suggest we wouldn't need new mythic rules to do it-

do you think if such entities were statted currently (given that Treerazer is 24, and the encounter guidelines only go four levels up) that PCs would be able to deal with them using the resources core to the game (level 20, +3 magic items?)

or

did you just mean it'll be easier to design than in the past for a pf2 math reason and tack a couple of extra levels on to bring CL 25+ into range when the time comes?

The second. It's going to be easier to expand the game, I think, beyond 20th level. We have no plans to do that at this time, but I don't think we'll need to do what we did with Mythic, which was to build a half-again entirely new game.

So you expect to be able to(re-)stat Baba Yaga or a similar being without needing new 'mythic' rules?

Cool!


Erez Ben-Aharon wrote:

OP here... I don't think that the table acting on that is cheating, and I'm not sure it plays out as some have pointed out here. I'll give a more concrete example.

P1,2,3,4 - creature is undetected to all, sneaking behind some barrels.
P1 - seeks the creature and manages to change it's status to Hidden.
P1: "So do I find anything out"?
GM: "Yes, the creature is now Hidden to you, but not Undetected."
P1: "Hidden?, so that means I know which square it is on and won't have to randomly target squares to find out?"
GM: "Correct".
P1: "So...which square then?".
GM: "Err... here" -> points to the square.
P2,3,4 - now have to pretend they didn't hear the conversation at all.

If the position has been narrowed down to 6 squares, say, they could always roll a d6


Sam Phelan wrote:

Hello Chief,

I'm sorry that some of your items were delayed. I have combined them all into one order and waived any additional shipping associated with sending you the delayed items. You should soon receive a confirmation email for this order. If you have any questions or concerns, please let us know. Thank you!

Have received my email, thank you


Placed 20th July

Started 2 subscriptions. Adventure subscription is fine, have received Fall of Plaguestone.

Adventure path subscription - have received 8081223 Cult of Cinders, but not my starting volume #143 Sun's grace. Also 144 and 145 were on the order initially, but have disappeared.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

P. 509 Treasure and rarity.
'It's best to introduce uncommon items as a reward fairly regularly but rare items only occasionally'


I started an adventure path subscription on 20th July, 7896063. I opted to start with 143, Tyrants grasp 5. Tyrants grasp 6 and Age of Ashes 1 were originally on the order, but have since disappeared. My order for Age of Ashes 2 has generated properly, but I'm still missing 2 books.

(I have received Plaguestone with no problems)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Most birds don't lay unfertilised eggs. Chickens are an exception


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Different words are slurs in different countries. Or even different parts of countries. You can't hope to know all of them everywhere, only do your best and say sorry when you get it wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fumarole wrote:
Hopefully Gaiman gets as much say in the series as he did with Good Omens. He's not the writer, though, so that's not a good sign in my eyes.

He was so closely involved only because it would have been a joint project with Terry Pratchett. He wanted it to be what Terry would have wanted.


What about the free modules? I ran 'We be goblins' in one session, and I expect the others are a similar length


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cori Marie wrote:
I was thinking of the country, not the city. America broke away from an empire that was also not squeamish about military conquest, and as far as I know, the British still haven't reconquered us.

You've got the Atlantic ocean, not a land border, though


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe it's practical. These are reference pictures for the iconics in other artwork. Perhaps the brighter colours will make the insert easier.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you have 1 healer, what happens when that healer goes down? I've always thought a secondary healer vital. Better still if everyone can do a little healing, in case there's only 1 left standing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Ediwir wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Not quite so simple. How about when some of the party level up, those who don't get their target reduced. You only need to work it out when someone levels, not every XP award
If you're suggesting the same task could have different DCs for different people, I'l warn you that kind of topic led to more thread closures in the playtest than paladin alignment could have ever done.
I think that "target" was XP needed to level, not DC.

Yes, I meant reduce the 1000 XP needed to level


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I didn't think I had suggested that, but I haven't spent time thinking it all through.


Not quite so simple. How about when some of the party level up, those who don't get their target reduced. You only need to work it out when someone levels, not every XP award


1 person marked this as a favorite.
j b 200 wrote:

From what has been said in the Oblivion Oath Thread it appears that Paizo has kept the way experience worked in the playtest for second edition. I.e. It takes 800 exp to level up, regardless of what level you are.

My concern is, how do I make this work for a mixed level party. For instance, the other night we had a party at the table of two 9th level PCs, three 8th, and one 7th. This happens because if someone misses a night, their PC doesn't get exp for that session, or if you die and roll up a new PC, they start at the minimum exp for the lowest level in the party.

Right now, doing exp at the end of the night is easy. I add up the exp for all the monsters they killed or other rewards, and then divide by the number of characters present. It's easy, that 2000 exp at the end of the night is worth a lot more for the 7th level PCs than it is for the 9th, since they need less to level up.

If the exp is based not on the Monster's level, but on the Party's this can become unworkable fast. For the level 9 PCs, each fight was worth 50 exp, because they were a level 9 equivalent fight, but for the level 7 PCs I have to recalculate because at level 9 encounter is worth a total of 300 at APL 7 instead of APL 9. Also how do I calculate the APL for a party like this? I know that exp numbers became comically huge in P1 by the low teens but having the monster be worth X exp regardless if you were level 1 or level 10 makes my job easier as a DM, especially at the end of a 6 hour gaming session.

It also makes encounter design more difficult. In P1 a CR 5 enounter is worth 1600 exp, so I just keep adding monsters until I have a 1600 and that should be about right. One CR5 monster, or two CR 3s or three CR2 or 4 CR 1s. Now I have to keep going back to another table that ells me how to calculate the level of the encounter depending on the level of each individual monster then compare it to the level for each individual PC level.

Much simpler to award everyone the same XP but lower level characters need less XP to go up a level. So 1000 for your middle characters, 800 or 900 say for the lower level characters and 1100 or 1200 say for the higher level characters. (800 is for fast progression in Oblivion oath)


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Shisumo wrote:

Ghouls appear to have a reaction they can use when they drop someone to 0 that allows them to rend the flesh (and eat it) of a nearby down creature.

Hero points have changed: 1 point allows a reroll of a d20, while all your hero points (minimum 1) allows you to recover from dying - putting you at zero and unconscious - without gaining the wounded condition.

That's a pretty big deal. In the playtest, the only use of hero points I saw was as a Get out of Death Free card. It was the cheapest use, and by far the most powerful. All of the hero point costs in the playtest felt backwards. Also, I like how it apparently doesn't get you up out of unconsciousness. Before there was too much of a Chumbawumba effect ("I get knocked down, I get up again...") It made the death and dying rules kind of pointless, because a hero point would be spent to ignore it and just get right back up.

Although the use all you have, minimum 1, seems to add some weird incentives. The more you've been holding on to the points, the less useful they are. I'm not sure I like that.

Means there's no point in hoarding them. Use them, save one for get out of death free.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I expect there to be either a codex (villain or NPC) or a section of NPCs in each bestiary because having stats for low-level guards and the like saves valuable space for writers in adventure paths and modules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The beacons lighting up along the mountain range in Return of the King. Because of the music, I think


About the minion limit - in one of the twitch streams Jason (I think) said they are considering having a troop for multiple minions.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Aenigma wrote:
75%? I'm so surprised at seeing so many people like the new way of building monsters. I have always thought monsters should have statistics more like PCs as they used to. But to my surprise people don't seem to prefer this nice old way.

They're too restrictive. All fey have d6 hit dice, good R and W saves and 6+ skill ranks per level. All of them. All animals have the same base - mammals, reptiles, fish. All aberrations. You should not be able to look at an aberration of all things, decide it's got roughly so many hit points, d8, so x number of levels and then know it's BAB, saves and number of skill ranks.

They don't offer any diversity for statistics within the creature types


You can react to other people's actions


Some spells have to hit the target. Spells like acid splash, acid arrow, and ray of frost are sort of ranged touch weapons. You aim adding your dexterity, just like a ranged weapon attack, usually against touch AC. Shocking grasp is a melee attack. In these cases you don't also get a saving throw.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Reading the playtest is...problematic.

The Beginners Box and Strategy Guide give me faith that the final rulebook will be a vast improvement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
How awesomely awful, and terribly terrific that this word choice has caused every tongue clucking grammarian out of the woodwork.

Plus people who think it a really bad idea to confuse inflammable and non flammable, because that's in fact dangerous


Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
I don't think I've ever seen a camel pulling a cart. I don't think horses could effectively before horse collars were invented. I don't think there are any camel collars.
Camels pulling a cart

Huh. I stand corrected ☺

1 to 50 of 696 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>