Chief Cook and Bottlewasher's page

668 posts. Alias of diana ratcliffe.


1 to 50 of 668 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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

8 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 ☺

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.

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
You have currently pegged everything at costing a feat

Hmm.. I have seen this, or something like it, in quite a few places. Its interesting because I think we are using the term feat for these options because they are selected and applied to your character in a shared way.

What they do not share is an equal value. A class feat is better than a skill feat. An ancestry feat is not meant to be the same value as the others. I see a lot of comparison between the categories and that alone might be the biggest problem with using the word "feat" for all of them. Useful to learn the system, but the baggage from existing users applying to word to mean "a rule with a specified amount of power and utility" is a barrier to overcome.

Except humans can choose a class or a general feat as an ancestry feat, which kind of implies they are equal. Or else humans can get stronger ancestry feats than anyone else.

jonesy076 wrote:
Forgive me if i'm behind the times and these rule have already been changed or removed but adding level to everything is just silly and wrong. Why should my gnome sorcerer steadily get better at skills, and by default now maneuvers, that he's not investing in just because he's leveling? Why should I be able to better hit or grapple and pin a creature because i'm a higher level????? Still a gnome sorcerer....It's a silly mechanic. I don't want my character to get better at anything that I shouldn't be getting better at without resource and roleplay allotment. Am I missing or misreading something?

Essentially for convenience. So you are not over 20 points behind the specialist who invests when you both get to level 20. Because if you are then either the specialist always succeeds or you always fail, and writing the adventure becomes extremely difficult.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zi Mishkal wrote:

I don't know what Paizo's intent was... but I do know that I visited my two large bookstores in my town and found 20-30 copies of the playtest still up for sale. They're also still readily for sale online on amazon and

Which suggests either one of two things. One: their production line was far larger than intended or two: apart from the initial pre-orders, very few of the books have been sold. Which is not a good sign for the product's viability, imho.

Paizo printed copies to order. I placed a pre-order within the deadline so as to be confident of getting a printed copy (which fell through, and I wound up ordering from elsewhere, but that's beside the point).

I was not expecting Amazon to have stocks of printed copies. If Amazon and other traders have ordered printed copies in bulk that they're now not going to be able to sell, that's kind of on them for misjudging the market. And not really relevant for Paizo, I think

The problem with fighting your equal (i.e. 50% chance of winning) is it makes for a very short game (6% chance of winning 4 fights).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For a day's travel, table 9-2 (p 316) gives miles per day at a pace that's not exhausting. The paragraph says how to adjust for difficult terrain.

All your reflexes are trained for lethal damage. It's hard to override that. Still,I think you should be able to train (i.e. take a feat) for causing non - lethal. And/or lower penalties for master and legendary proficiency

I expect (or at least hope) there will be a troop template. Which I would expect to help with waves of attackers. And overall have a higher attack bonus than the individuals. I don't know how much higher it should be.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Strachan Fireblade wrote:

Keep in mind that Paizo spent a lot of time and energy developing what was created.

You can give impressions of your reading of the rules but to not even try the game is both disrespectful and hurtful to the developers. Imagine if you were one of the devs and read some of the opinions floating around these boards.

This is only one of a myriad of reasons you should try the game before giving feedback. When you respect others work, even if you don't like it, your comments will be respectfully listened too.

This is why the OPs comments are likely tuned out in this thread and there won't likely be a response by Paizo.

I would love to try the game but don't have a group to play with. My job at the moment is exhausting and I don't have the energy to find one. Don't appreciate being labelled disrespectful because of that. All I can offer is my opinion on understanding the rulebook. I'd like to think that's worth something.

Scythia wrote:
What concerns me about the Exploration mode stuff (won't have a chance to test it out until later this week) is that certain actions cause Fatigue which can only be recovered with the nightly 8hr sleep. Seems like making the wrong choice in Exploration mode will leave characters out of luck when Encounter mode hits.

Reading this in Exploration Tactics says take a significant break to recover. Which implies to me 10 or 15 minutes or so. The condition p. 322 says 8 hours, which, I agree seems unreasonable, and probably not adjusted for fatigue in the changed Tactics. I don't think it's intended.

You stay in exploration mode while moving through the dungeon, looking for hazards or enemies or interesting features. Up till (typically) a fight breaks out and you call for initiative. When the encounter is resolved, (typically the opponents are defeated) you return to exploration mode.
In exploration mode the PCs might be moving cautiously down a corridor, or looking around for hazards or signs of enemies, or working out how to open a door, or searching through a chest, or keeping a look out, ...

You can try and reverse engineer mundane items (formulas p. 188). Reverse engineering formulas for magic items would be harder, of course, but arguably possible

There are some NPCs at the back of the Bestiary p.119, 120. Not exactly like PCs though

As a specialist wizard you add an arcane spell of your school, and get a a school power. Which is call of the grave. So no.

In the glossary (appendix 2) under Spell DC -see Spell roll.

It's on the character sheet as calculated from Ability and proficiency, but you still have to know to add 10

Ancestries seems more appropriate for changelings, dhampir, genie-blooded, duergar, ...

If you cast a fireball, you don't want 2 different throws for those who failed and those who critically failed

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The casting of rituals has to be paced at a rate you can keep up. Each minute is likely less demanding than concentrating on a cantrip every round for a minute.

A lot guards will probably be fighters.

I'll do the maths in prep - my notes will have the 3 values AC and crit success and failure. Same for saving throws.I'll only need to glance at my notes.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
GLD wrote:

I feel like the cracks in the 3.X engine were becoming pretty prevalent and I was actually glad to see a lot of its relics be written out.

Honestly, if it's not a complete overhaul, what's the point? If you're just tweaking the existing mechanics then don't bother with a new edition. Just release a book of variant rules and be done with it. And they already did that with Unchained and sprinkled throughout a myriad of other books over the last decade.

If you have criticisms about the new game, go for it. But the fact that it's distancing itself from 3.X isn't a valid one in my mind.

If you just want more Pathfinder 1, well you're set. Between Pathfinder's ridiculous amount of official material, all the 3rd party stuff and all the fully compatible 3.5 books put out by Wizards (and that is well into the hundreds) you are set. There is more content than you could ever hope to absorb and the system is weathered enough that you and tens of thousands of other fans have produced a nearly infinite number of variations, house rules, extra content and so forth, to tweak the game into exactly what you want.

Except next year at GenCon there aren't going to be Pathfinder 1 tables for me to play my characters I've spent the past two years building at.

I'm going to either have to switch to PF2 (haven't seen anything to make me want to yet), switch to another system (or more of another system- this year I did 4 slots 5E, 4 slots Pathfinder, but I've played Shadowrun before and if I'm trying a game that's completely new, which PF2 is there are many other options out there), or just not go.

I agree- they could have done another Unchained ruleset, then they could have even made those rules the baseline for PFS going forward if that's what they wanted to fix.

But they wanted to toss everything out, babies and bathwater, and start fresh. So here we are.

I was watching one of the seminars from GenCon on Twitch (Paizo 18 and onwards, I think it was called) and I'm fairly sure they said there will be Pathfinder 1 tables next year.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Why can't we make like a hundred of these? All they are is "one of two ability scores, one skill feat, one lore skill". I mean, how many traits did PF1 have?

I think at least there should 1 per level 1 skill feat. One of the abilities would tie to that feat.

I'm also not happy at an adventure having such limiting backgrounds. Traits didn't restrict your feat choices.

carborundum wrote:

tldr I'm very annoyed with amazon and feel foolish for excitedly hoping it would arrive a while day or two early. They haven't done the one thing the were supposed to and our first playtest will be a month later now due to holidays etc. (plus no-one wanted to faff around with pdfs).

I'm very impressed, as usual, with Paizo and Vic doing all they can. Thank you! I'd be happy if amazon refunded the shipping costs (more than twice the price of the rulebook since I'm in Europeland) but Paizo's prompt compensation is of course welcome.

Lastly I decided I could go for another book and ordered from the book depository. It was dispatched the same day and will be here tomorrow. Unbelievable that amazon doesn't even seem to have inventory in the UK. They have really dropped the ball on this.

Agreed. I ordered through Amazon UK, got an e-mail about problems with stock, so I cancelled it and ordered through book depository. That was Friday,and it's confirmed dispatched today. Really, really disappointed with Amazon UK.

(It's in the post. Yay, am happy!)

I didn't mean to imply you did.

You're ahead of me reading the book,though. I haven't got the printed copy I ordered yet, and am finding using the pdf slow and tiring. Also, without a gaming group, I've little prospect of actually playing, so little incentive to start builds.

I will say that your group have developed a way of play under one set of rules, and now you're changing the rules, which is bound to cause some issues. If you were starting now with these rules, you would most likely find different solutions.

Paizo have said they're going to show play sessions from the module on Twitch, which will go on you-tube. Maybe wait and watch the 12-ish level game for ideas?

A stated goal is that at the highest levels the differences between AC, saving throws, skill checks etc will be less than 20, so as to avoid auto successes or failures (e.g.if the best PC can fail at the task, it's not an auto failure for anyone). That seems bound to push the numbers closer at 13. If supporting your play style means not fixing high level play, I'm afraid you're probably out of luck.
On the other hand, the gap will still widen, so it will come back at higher levels, so maybe patience and level up?
Not what you want to hear I know.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's comparatively bigger for the goblin to step over or around so seems reasonable to me.

If the NPCs have adventure class levels then yes but I don't see that all NPCs have to have adventure classes.

1 to 50 of 668 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>