Kobold Devilspeaker

Ckorik's page

Organized Play Member. 1,660 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,660 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Ravingdork wrote:


I would LOVE to see a developer response to this since I think, RAW, you are absolutely right, but I nevertheless don't believe it was ever the developers'intent.

PF1 - however same issue - and Return of the Runelords volume 1) part 4 page 51.

Spoiler:

Awarding experience points for this portion of the
adventure can be tricky, since if the PCs fight and defeat
numerous initiates, they would in theory earn much
more XP than if they adopt a more peaceful or stealthy
approach to securing Baraket for themselves. To offset
this complication, when the PCs gain control of the Sword
of Pride, they should earn a story award of 1,600 XP. This
story award should be reduced by 400 points for every
Order of Resplendence initiate they had to kill along the
way, to a minimum award of 0 XP if the PCs kill more than
four initiates. In addition, the PCs should not earn XP for
killing more than four initiates during this adventure.

If you would rather not read adventure text - the gist is that they recommend an xp cap for certain monsters and to award xp if they are avoided.


Temperans wrote:
Detect Evil being at will was needed because Smite Evil had so few uses.

The simpler - and much more elegant solution to this - would have been to just have smite *not be used* if it was attempted to an invalid target.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:

Sometimes a DC is set because that's the intended objective difficulty and there is no particular expectation being made of how likely the PCs are to succeed.

Sometimes a DC is set because the desired chance of success is known - effectively it's just saying "there is an X% chance of this", but allowing for outliers and not calling for a different die roll than players are used to. That's what DCs that scale relative to the level of the character making the check are.

Well that would be cool if the devs didn't emphatically state that wouldn't happen in PF2 adventures (there wasn't a "society might be different" or anything).

I feel like this is the same argument - had over and over - there seem to be two camps playing the game:

Camp 1: Wants to level up and be better at what they do - even to the point that they are the best and can easily do what others have a hard time doing.

Camp 2: Wants every single roll to be a nail biting challenge.

I mean PF2 is already geared at camp 2 - does recognizing a pattern really deserve to get harder because you are higher level?


Aenigma wrote:
Wait a minute. Is General Azaersi portrayed just like the First Edition hobgoblins in Lost Omens World Guide? If that's the case, then I would be very sad. I really anticipated to see her new look. :(

Oprak - which you would presume features her on the throne - is done in the new hob art.

Her head shot looks like her image from Iron Fang 6.


So my party went after the goblins first - they are still level 2 (I gave them enough exp to level up but have not rested yet) - and have pushed down into the tunnel just to the 'gauntlet'.

My question is with the 3 heavy hitting casters - I don't want to overwhelm my party here - I'm thinking that the chief will race to attack once the fight starts - but I'll be making him roll perception checks along with time to get 'to' the fight.

The snake based on the writeup I think will stay hidden until the chief looks like he's in trouble - I'm just unsure about this and when/how to explain the snake.

The witch.. well that one has me nervous - the potion of fly really changes the game up on that encounter - the only saving grace is the writeup really gives a good reason why the witch won't rush to aid anything else going on - given her being shunned from the other goblins.

Still - I'm expecting this to be a really tough fight for my group and wondering how it panned out for others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Midnight Anarch wrote:
Also, for so many reasons, this (also from Ironfang) says "Hobgoblin soldier" better than the new hob-soldier art, which as I've said elsewhere, looks more like a hobgoblin got his head stuffed inside his armor and had a goblin shoved down to fill the space instead. Again, I get the logic but the end result still manages to come across as bizarre and unfitting to the race.
Your "hobgoblin soldier" looks indistinguishable from an orc to me.

Well if you look up the orcs you'll see they now look like Mangalores from Fifth Element.

I'm very happy to hear that about the ogres btw.


James Jacobs wrote:
Indagare wrote:

I think that it's a pretty interesting look, and I'm glad that they're trying to keep the Goblinoids thematic instead of them looking like completely different species.

For my part, I always liked the Hobgoblins who looked like burly, hirsute Elves (as can be seen here), and if I had a vote, I'd want all of the Goblinoids to have this sort of look.

That's a great look for a hobgoblin. It's also the 3rd edition D&D look for a hobgoblin, and that means we want ours to look VERY different. Which is a big part of why we went the route we did.

James - a bit OT but why did you change the Ogres then? PF1 Ogres had a distinct look that - frankly I thought was a better 'Paizo' identity than goblins - but they are now back to 'generic ogres'. Seeing this answer - I want to accept it but then I think 'ogre' and go ... huh?

/sigh


Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Faenor wrote:
I think they should rush to release an Unchained book to fix the Alchemist and maybe even rush to release a 3rd edition which would be the 5e of Pathfinder (PF2 being its 4e so far) /s
Tried 5e. It was icky. This is much more enjoyable so far.

Edition wars are really not helpful. I do bring up old editions, and I try to do so in context to stop these 'it was never this way' arguments that ignore old farts like me and want to make our feelings about changes invalid. Change is a process and does require people time to 'feel' the change to process it - trying to stifle every negative voice doesn't bring them around to how you think - it just shoves them away.

That said - 5e is a fine game, and if you played it you should easily see how many of the new shiny bits from PF2 are iterations on themes from 5e. The two bits of the game that are brightly unique are the 3 action combat system and the rigid design language. Both I think are great additions to the genre.

It's not a bad thing to be influenced or to borrow from you know - most songs are just past songs with new bits (for example) it's not the influence or idea that is borrowed - it's what you do with them, it doesn't hurt PF2 to acknowledge these things.


Squiggit wrote:

Ckorik wrote:
FAQ's (like old) answered quickly - but never as 'an' answer - always as 'we suggest using this as an answer - if you don't like X the dev team considers Y valid as well - and we saw solution Z in the posts that seems like a good fit - pick what works for your table until/if an official rule change is made
Why? "Table solutions" are already a given with the nature of the game itself. Being vague or wishy washy just leaves people who for whatever reason are looking for clear official guidance with nothing to really work with.

If you want official hard code answers to things - then experience would say you will get to spend much time without any answers.

To be fair to the PF2 ruleset - so far there are less ambiguous areas of the rules, but it's new and shiney - ask again in 3-4 years when the first set of tires needs to be changed and there are a couple of leaky gaskets :)


PossibleCabbage wrote:


But "devs chime in on the forums to give official answers" is a bad way to go about it since that particular information would not disseminate very quickly among all people who would like to know it (most Pathfinder players are not here.)

Boy-o-Boy - well do we need official answers? Is the game better if communication is only for official fixes and hard errata ok'd by committee to print?

Other editions of the game did just fine when rules questions were not answered and people were forced to invent solutions, or if there was an answer it was in a 3rd party magazine that not everyone had access to (nor was it easy to search until much, much later).

Now if there is a very bad issue (for sake of argument) lets say the mutagenest issue qualifies, then perhaps that is the way to go. I'd sure has heck like to see more frequent responses that aren't held to 'but the devs said x' - heck if we are going to opine (and what else are we doing here but that) consider this:

NEW FAQ SYSTEM/ERRATA for PF2 (suggested):

FAQ's (like old) answered quickly - but never as 'an' answer - always as 'we suggest using this as an answer - if you don't like X the dev team considers Y valid as well - and we saw solution Z in the posts that seems like a good fit - pick what works for your table until/if an official rule change is made

Errata: Released as Paizo feels the need - this would be reserved for big bad issues that actually change a fundamental fact or rule - crane wing nerf or changes to the shifter fall under these. Errata of this kind should be easy to find - and possibly kept in a single document for all products as a PDF - thus you could check a single source for anything owned.

And then we players could get the best of both worlds - simple answers on how to run the game on complicated or unsure wording - without the devs having to 'hard line' to answer a question - and real hard answers when the problem is actually affecting the health of the game.

/my two cents.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Do you have a source for that quote?

James Jacobs on Second darkness

Quote:


1) The info about "ALL DROW ARE EVIL" in Second Darkness was from a pre-Pathfinder era where we were facing a culture of gamers who were VERY resistant to the idea of Paizo trying to pawn off a Driz'zt clone to cash in on that character's success, plus we wanted to make sure that what we were doing with drow wasn't trying to cash in on a lot of what Wizards of the Coast was doing with them at the time, so we focused back on the early incarnation of them in the game as demon-worshiping bad guy elves. Since then' we've gone through two edition changes and over a decade of real-world changes, and that information is no longer accurate. There can be good drow, and as folks have mentioned, there's plenty of examples in Golarion of them. Furthermore, as you'll see in the Bestiary, drow have lilac flesh tones now

That surprised me - because I always figured it was cannon (I never had an issue with 'good' drow despite that. But I'll respect what he's saying here and not use it as a source for 'Pathfinder'.

Quote:
i'm not sure where you got this from.

Because I can't find a contradicting source anywhere and I have no idea where you got the idea that Advance Race Guide was wrong from. I do see they changed it for the PF2 Bestiary (kind of - it implies that a true Dhamphir child is rare) so I don't doubt they changed it, or that the book was wrong, I'm just not sure where that information was published, and where you got the statement that Advance Race Guide was wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
No no no, you don't get to exclude it just because it was using 3.5's rules.

I didn't - I exclude it because JJ said it was not pathfinder and should not be used as a cannon source.

Quote:


It's more accurate if anything since it's set on Golarion, where Bestiary 1 and the ARG are world neutral.

Not according to the official source.

Quote:
Paizo didn't drop the world neutral stance till Bestiary 6 and Planar Adventures. The ARG was written under a world neutral mindset and thus has conflicting info in places, such as the aforementioned state of Dhampirs.

When looking at the info for Dhampirs - it matches what is in 'blood of the night' - the only place it's changed is PF2. I have no idea where you are getting your information from - but if it's JJ - I wonder why you accept his word for Dhampirs and not for Drow.

Quote:
As for actual "canon" have you ever seen Paizo illustrate a black Drow in Golarion?

Nope. Have no idea why that's relevant at all - I never complained about the art (I loathe the new Ogres in PF2 - because the old ones were unique and cool - but the drow art is pretty badass IMO) - I'm also not asking for drow to be black. I don't understand why that's relevant. This isn't the first time I've said this either.

Yes, English can be weird. It can be understood through tough thorough thought, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

1) Advanced Race Guide was world neutral with plenty of nebulous information. Like:

2) Dhampir being unable to breed and not being an actual race.

"Drow have dark skin, ranging from black to a hazy purple hue. Most drow have white or silver hair and white or red eyes, but other colors are not unheard of" - PF1 Bestiary pg 114.

The only PF books that describe the drow - are in agreement - other books (like second darkness) are officially not pathfinder.

Black->Purple includes reds and pinks - grey and lots of shades.

"Elves who dwell in a region for long find themselves physically adapting to match their surroundings, most noticeably taking on coloration reflecting the local environment" - PF1 Core - pg 22.

I've never had anyone ever suggest before that the Advance Race Guide wasn't cannon - but after checking - I find that the information matches other sources 100%. Are you just assuming things?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Here's the thing: this is Paizo's game.

No one is disputing this - this is a feedback thread for future content - if you can't understand that please stop - this isn't a b*!*& thread.

Quote:
You can whine and moan as much as you want about how they're retconning

I'm not moaning about retconning at all - perhaps you meant to respond to someone else - even if so - comport yourself accordingly.

Quote:


Now Paizo has explained the change. They didn't like the way Drow looked in 1st edition and have used the edition change to change that.

Don't have an issue with that.

Quote:


Now they're trying to appease everyone by being all wishy washy about it and saying "Oh there's a range. Drow can be dark purple, but we're not using that as the default colour anymore"

This has Not been said.

Quote:
You can either accept what Paizo has done. Or you can reject it. What you can't do is say "Paizo is wrong! Golarion Drow are <blah>." Because at the end of the day only Paizo gets to say Drow are or aren't in their official products.

Or you can provide feedback and correct the numerous people who keep making statements out of thin air with no facts behind them. Like inventing quotes about range of colors - heck the entire post you quoted was to point out that PF1 did have a range of colors (contrary to what the previous poster had said) - Please re-read the thread you quoted and the previous posters quote to achieve that comprehension.

Quote:
I personally like traditional D&D drow.

Good for you - I don't - I like Paizo's better and wish they would have done away with the entire 'torture demon death' vibe entirely - especially the matriarchy which was way more a "Forgotten Realms" invention than Good Drow. That isn't what this thread is about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Cthulhusquatch wrote:

. And darker skin tones are still canon. It was mentioned there are different ones among drow.

Not currently. Currently they are all lavender - PF1 had a range of colors and that is officially now *not cannon*.

The range of colors was blue and purple.

Lavender comes in blue and purple.

That is not true now - nor was it true in PF1. I've quoted this before in this thread - "Drow skin ranges from coal black to a dusky purple." - PF Advanced Race Guide pg. 102.

Going to the pantone color guide - black to purple includes alot of grey, blue, pink, etc.

Elves are: "The coloration of elves as a whole varies wildly, and is much more diverse than that of human populations. However, as their coloration often matches their surroundings," - PF Advanced Race Guide pg. 20

The bold is my own - and gives weight to the consideration that the environment colored the drow and not the 'transformation'.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cthulhusquatch wrote:

. And darker skin tones are still canon. It was mentioned there are different ones among drow.

Not currently. Currently they are all lavender - PF1 had a range of colors and that is officially now *not cannon*.

If you think it's reasonable to allow a range of hues when making a player character - please - by all means - voice your support, or conversely - say you support monocolor drow - that's fine also - but pointing at what 'was' when there was an intentional change to the 'was' is unhelpful. It's even more unhelpful to suggest people just run what they want - in a thread trying to provide feedback before the ancestry is officially published.

Providing that feedback - is literally the entire point of this thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
FrostFox wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
In the gnoll thread, JJ confirmed that drow skin tone is not universal; the artwork in the Bestiary is simply the most common/iconic skin tone.

"With each new drow we illustrate, I absolutely DO expect the shades to vary. But with one illustration, or even two (as you get in this book), when they're intended to serve as baselines and references four our artists as well as the first impression for tens of thousands if not more newcomers to the game... we only get that one chance."

So the baby blue elves are going to be the Drow baseline going forward.

Are we disagreeing? That seems like we are saying the same thing.

I am - mostly based on context of that post being about illustrations (which is a vary reasonable take - artists don't exactly chroma-match when making art) - and the bestiary saying the are a single mono color.

"their flesh adopted an unearthly lavender sheen that made the drow instantly recognizable." (PF2 Monster Manual - pg 136).

Which is fine for the monster entry - but if we are going to posit a discussion for the ancestry to come I believe it's worth noting that mono-shade is the only part I really dislike. Based on the many posters seeming to argue that 1) that's not what the monster manual means even though JJ said it was and 2) JJ was talking about other colors just not the art - when the context of that quote seems to be the opposite based on the text and previous statements it seems that many of us are in agreement with the idea - but just want to (apparently) argue that I'm wrong for suggesting they won't have shades when the ancestry is published.

To the argument about what JJ meant... whatever - if he wants to clarify his statement that's up to him - to the fact that I think they should have other colors available if they will be used as a player race - if you agree then just show support - the arguing over semantics isn't going to present a clear voice.

I mean the choice is "Lavender and/or shades of lavender perhaps" or "I really hope that the ancestry allows for more than one color - even if the art and monster entries don't".

Then of course you have "I'll do what I want so I'm going to come in and poop on this thread because I'm bored - GM FIAT RULES" also tossed in - which is very constructive in a thread about ... the changes to the drow race as feedback.

So whatever - I made my point I think.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Drow should be the color of blind cave salamanders and I will GM fiat whatever the books say anyway.

I would be good with that.

blind cave salamander coloring: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_salamander#/media/File:Speleomantes_supr amontis02.jpg


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

and goblins are green.

Not always. "Their skin ranges from green to gray to blue" PF2 CRB Page 46


2 people marked this as a favorite.
FrostFox wrote:


If their coloring overlaps with non-evil/surface elves then why even have Drow at all? Just make them Cavern variety elves.

For many reasons:


  • Because then it automatically means 'non-elves' can't look at skin color and assume something
  • Because it means that drow coloring is influenced by the underdark but not because they are 'evil'
  • Because we could not have drow as a race (and instead just be a type of elf) but we don't - because lore reasons. Honestly the way Pathfinder made elves space aliens I'd have been happier if drow were just another type of space alien instead of 'sworn to demonlords and turned to evil' - but that ship sailed long ago (alas).
  • Because Cave Elf isn't a race - it's a heritage (see pervious point).

I dunno - if it's hard to tell 'drow' apart to the surface world then it makes it easier to integrate them into the game. But this thread was about discussing the rebranding of the drow - I didn't come in here for 'DEFEND YOUR OPINION 101' - I mean you are welcome to your own and all that but even without all the above I don't expect any race to be a single mono color - ever.

As an aside - I didn't see JJ say they would be shades - I saw him say 'lavendar over lilac they can't be both' - and I think.. why not both?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:


To be fair, artist are notorious in terms of not sticking to bestiary designs. I mean thats how catfolk went from catgirls to "catgirls and khajit". And why Barbatos doesn't anymore have seven fingers specifically.

Like I'm sure there is gonna be arts of drow with multiple shades of blue

I'm more talking about JJ saying they would be lilac - I don't mind if that's the 'norm' I just hope that the ancestry or heritage lets them overlap with surface elf coloring a bit - perhaps that wasn't intended in PF1 - but it made sense to me. Frankly I'd be ok with surface elves changing to have lilac colors available also if that's the hangup - as 'space aliens' they shouldn't really need to conform to standard human hues.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well surface elves can be black - it makes being a drow easier to disguise on the surface honestly.

I don't really care that they are changing - however that they are I guess I would hope for:


  • That there is some overlap between surface and drow coloration - making it much harder for 'non elves' to even know for sure
  • That they aren't all a single color - that's just ... wrong to me on so many levels - they weren't a single color in PF1 ("Drow skin ranges
    from coal black to a dusky purple." - Advance Race Guide) and honestly I'd be very dissappointed if they are monocolor.

That's about all I can say about it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

As someone who owns Hero Lab for PF1 with *every* option - I have 0 plans to use Hero Lab online - I did try it - and I've found Fantasy Grounds does a better job building a character than it does - which says quite a bit as Fantasy Grounds is *not* a character builder.

Just my two cents.

I've also converted 3rd party stuff into Hero Lab classic - so I really invested in that system - it's very frustrating/sad to see it go away.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd be willing to buy an entire book dedicated to elves. Also for dwarves.

I still want to see Minotaur, Ogre/Giantkin, Troll, any and all large races that never were touched in 3.5 due to weapon size issues.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
scary harpy wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


1) ... Furthermore, as you'll see in the Bestiary, drow have lilac flesh tones now, for reasons I hope are obvious, but I won't get into them here so I can try to return the thread to the original poster's request...

This begs the question:

Why lilac and not lavender?

Olives are better than mint :)


vestris wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Rysky wrote:
In large town/cities yes as you point out. The sleepy little "town" that is just an inn and two houses for the farmers? probably not gonna find magic Costco there.

Which is a good thing that the crafting rules allow you to earn your max per day even there - note that there is no 'population check' on crafting - you look at the table - and your skill - and your level - and make money per day of crafting towards your goal.

So even in the little fishing village - if you are crafting and know the formula you can crank out items.

There is a specific rule that limits your crafting earnings, if you intend to sell, based on settlement size. p 237. If you don't intend to sell them you are fine. Compared to the earn income paragraph on page 504 you will only be able to sell items of 0-1 at best in a village. If you are unable to find a special contract to sell something specific to a specific person or organisation that might be present.

Yep - to dovetail into the 'consumables are too expensive' discussion - I can see consumables being crafted in batches during downtime in remote locations - with the pure intention of maximizing your ability to 'earn'.

The 'rare materials' line keeps you from crafting really exotic stuff - but I could see crafting potions or trinkets in batches during downtime as good way to keep your 'earnings' in line with level even in the boonies....

The 'can't sell it' just encourages you to then use the items - which of course hints that high prices on consumables is designed to encourage just this method of play - relying less on 'go buy a bunch of stuff at the magic mart' and instead 'craft a bunch of stuff we might need while we have time so our next adventure is easier'.

To be quite honest the more I look at how these pieces fit together the more impressed I am with the dev work - as I doubt this is all coincidence.


Rysky wrote:
"You can usually" =/= "these are always available"

Are you ignoring where I say this in my post just to argue?

"The rules here don't give a GM an 'out' to point at rules and not allow something - they in fact give the GM plenty of leeway to not allow things but require them to actively say 'no I'm not allowing it'."

Definition of usually

: according to the usual or ordinary course of things : most often : as a rule :

So lets change that up with the *definition* of usually:

"You can, most often"

"You can, as a rule"

"You can, according to the usual or ordinary course of things"


Rysky wrote:

You can't craft without the materials.

Craft p.244 wrote:
You must supply raw materials worth at least half the item’s Price. You always expend at least that amount of raw materials when you Craft successfully. If you’re in a settlement, you can usually spend currency to get the amount of raw materials you need, except in the case of rarer precious materials.

And outside of specific valuable materials - these are always available. "If you’re in a settlement, you can usually spend currency to get the amount of raw materials you need, except in the case of rarer precious materials."

Not "a large city" or "check this table" - it's just "a settlement" - unlike buying and selling which requires "a settlement of decent size". The language used here is permissive and meant to convey that raw materials are generally available.

So the little fishing village - should have 'raw materials'. If not then you can always deconstruct items for 'raw materials', we have been over that part already - meaning as long as I have access to 'stuff' I can spend time deconstructing it for raw materials.

The rules here don't give a GM an 'out' to point at rules and not allow something - they in fact give the GM plenty of leeway to not allow things but require them to actively say 'no I'm not allowing it'.

I notice a very large trend of Pathfinder 2 using rules that are by default permissive but surrounded by language that makes them ... 'mushy' for lack of a better term. This means that power gamers and GMs both are going to have to stop relying on the rules to assert passive aggressive power at the table - If the GM doesn't want something they are more empowered than ever to tailor the game to their own style - but they are going to have to take all the 'hints' the rules give over decision points for their game and use them to have an assertive voice. Otherwise the rules default to mostly permissive.

Honestly that's a good thing - new GM's aren't going to have enough experience to know what they want really - and the rules should allow for things generally so that same new GM doesn't get overwhelmed.

*edit* - hints.. not hits... *sigh*


Rysky wrote:
In large town/cities yes as you point out. The sleepy little "town" that is just an inn and two houses for the farmers? probably not gonna find magic Costco there.

Which is a good thing that the crafting rules allow you to earn your max per day even there - note that there is no 'population check' on crafting - you look at the table - and your skill - and your level - and make money per day of crafting towards your goal.

So even in the little fishing village - if you are crafting and know the formula you can crank out items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:

I don't think I've ever had a player mention cost of a consumable item as a reason why they held onto it instead of using it...

In my experience, it's almost always "...but what if it would be more useful later?" and them never not saving the item for that hypothetical even. And when it isn't that, it's "I forgot I even had that."

But then my experience with magical ammunition is that it gets used just fine so long as it doesn't end up in the hands of a player that thinks "...but what if it would be more useful later?" until such a point that the whole party has acquired magical ranged weapons.

Yes - so when the party is lower than level 3. Oddly that's when you don't find magical ammunition - because it's too expensive to put in the loot tables unless you find a 'single +1 arrow' - that's exciting.

This is the same problem pathfinder 1 staves had - the 'staff given to apprentices' was too expensive to see play until level 8.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
It should not be hard to tell who is being racist when they are acting prejudiced against a race based on their racial characteristics.

That'd be fine in the real world Dan-o. However what we do in fantasy and make believe doesn't translate like that. The people who GM aren't suddenly 'insert vile thing npc does here' because they play that character on TV.

It's actually healthy to explore these topics in your play time and make believe as it lets you escape from some of the structures we put around them in real life.

It's very very not good mojo to start asserting what we do in our make believe has bearing on our real world (or vice versa) - Mazes and Monsters went that way in the 80's - we all know playing D&D didn't turn most of us into Satan worshiping wizards.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

another reason why the alignment system shouldn't exist number #2034


  • Everyone would have to be judged on how they behave - not based on the alignment line in the monster book


4 people marked this as a favorite.

For an existing example of how this will work in reality - I can point to a decade of evidence.

Magical ammunition in pathfinder 1. It was a joke - cost way more than it was worth - and didn't stack with the bow.

Thus *every* magical arrow found was sold. Every. One.

Useless loot is how people would put it - 'just there to sell', 'something for the monster to use against us and didn't get to.'

I don't really see a difference here, most players hold onto consumables out of fear of misuse - because they cost too much - and that was when they were cheap!


Zapp wrote:

Okay I give up after 50 posts on how whisky turns into ivory.

Time for a new thread on the *actually interesting* subject!

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion - it helped clarify things greatly. I'll look forward to such posts in the future as they have helped me learn the game.


Xenocrat wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

I have a hard time believing that 'raw materials' would need to be tracked specifically as to what item they are for - the intent of using such a generic term is to 'gamify' the crafting process and not get bogged down in the weeds.

Right, every manufacturer just puts in an order at the raw materials store, they don't worry about specifics.

It's weird to me the extremely confident pronunciations in this thread based on common sense economics, crafting, and business sense that show none at all.

It goes into the same bucket that says you can create the materials from nothing by spending an extra 4-5 days working on the item. It's weird to me that everyone is fine with saying you have 'rations' but no one is talking about if it's bread, cheese, and dried meat - and how often it goes moldy or gets ruined by damp dungeons.

No wait, those are minute details of the game - that are 'gamified' away from playing - because they are boring. Much like no one is asking characters to specify how many days they soak a hide in urine to make leather. Some things are *better left out of the game*.


I have a hard time believing that 'raw materials' would need to be tracked specifically as to what item they are for - the intent of using such a generic term is to 'gamify' the crafting process and not get bogged down in the weeds.

This is like getting a 'component pouch' and not having to specify that it has bat guano in it for fireball. Either you abstract 'raw materials' or you don't - but if you don't then you need to identify every specific material and how they interact.

Saying the 'they are specific raw materials and can only be used for that item' still doesn't fly - if I dissassemble a suit of armor - then you are telling me I don't have metal to make a sword? Can a staff be made into a wand? Can the glass from a potion be made into a glass pendant of luck?

All of that is great for you 'your game' but is way to specific to make rules around. These questions are what you end up with if you start tracking 'raw materials' down to the specific item instead of by the abstract.

All of this ignores the fact (of course) that you need 0 'raw materials' to craft as long as you want to spend enough time at it. The rules of course saying that if you wanted to make a common item, then the rules support you having any and all material to do so - because the game expects common items to be common. Outside of the GM flat out saying no - which is always a valid choice to anything - but at that point it's presumably being done for story reasons - and not because 'the rules' dissallow it.


Ravingdork wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
And as for alchemists and consumables... Yeah, the consumable pricing is just absurd. The only reason to ever use any higher level alchemical items is if you have an alchemist in the party making them for free. Non-infused alchemical items are just a waste of money.

It's been mathematically shown that there is no such thing in P2E as free crafting.

You still have to pay half. And even if you worked the full length of time to not have to pay the other half, the money saved vs time spent is exactly equal to the money earned and time spent earning an income.

Well Ravingdork after reading the crafting rules really closely - and reading through this thread - I think I found that this statement is wrong for a specific thing:

When crafting - you can supply 0 'raw materials' and 0 money - and you can earn your 'income' at full level while doing it - even in a desert hovel. The 'earn an income' activity specifies that the max you can earn depends on the place you are in - making high level tasks require extraordinary places to work.

Crafting doesn't. You "This amount is determined using Table 4–2: Income Earned (page 236), based on your proficiency rank in Crafting
and using your own level instead of a task level" - so you use full proficiency and your level to determine your "earnings" - not the level of the town or place you are in.

So crafting - in a way - is the only way you can gauruntee full value for your downtime earnings.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
I'm sorry I thought the entire point of getting rid of stat items was to get rid of 'math fixers' - I haven't found the section in the core rulebook that stated 'you are expected to use X potions per level or you will fall behind'.

There isn't one. But I was referring to selling non-consumables in the post you quoted. My interpretation (and I could've been wrong) when Unicore said their PCs would sell 'anything that didn't fulfill an immediate need' is that this probably included Skill boost items, which actually are pretty essential.

Ckorik wrote:

And no, not really consumables are ignored by a vast swath of people - so much so that it's an actual trope in video games (I beat the game with 500 potions - I guess the 'might need it' never came).

The only real use of consumables in past editions was to shore up weak areas of the party - (need to fly, need to breath underwater, need to turn someone into flesh, need to raise the dead). Outside of wands of healing I can't think of anything that was considered 'needed' to adventure - the multiple campaigns to level 20 I've played in and GM'd for must be broken.

I did play a 'batman' character once that used tons of consumables - and it was fun - but it was a trope and a specific playstyle.

All of this seems to be under the misapprehension I was saying consumables were really necessary. I was not.

Ok - you had me actually very worried - I don't math geek the rules like you and I hadn't considered consumables 'needed' - seriously what I read was actually rather jarring to me so I appreciate this clarification.


Saros Palanthios wrote:


And where does the ivory wand come from? The magic residue I can accept, but where are you getting the actual physical ivory? That's the part of the "raw materials" you'd have to acquire separately imo.

And if a wand requires some kind magical essence to craft, how can you use the "raw materials" from a disassembled suit of mundane armor to craft it? You're not boiling down steel plates to get magical residue, presumbably.

Your example just further illustrates exactly how nonsensical freely-interchangeable raw materials would be.

How does a stone figure turn into a bird?


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

Are you saying that the system is so tight that if a party doesn't play a specific way they are going to suffer for it?

That seems bad.

The game assumes certain items as math fixers. It's not nearly as many as PF1, but they exist and not taking them is a bad idea. You don't have to 'play' a specific way, but you sure do need certain items to be firing on all cylinders.

If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with...really, every edition of D&D and Pathfinder that's existed since at least AD&D 2nd Edition (though it's become much more of a thing from 3rd Ed. on). Which would be fine, there are lots of good games out there, but would sorta make one wonder why you're on this forum.

I'm sorry I thought the entire point of getting rid of stat items was to get rid of 'math fixers' - I haven't found the section in the core rulebook that stated 'you are expected to use X potions per level or you will fall behind'.

And no, not really consumables are ignored by a vast swath of people - so much so that it's an actual trope in video games (I beat the game with 500 potions - I guess the 'might need it' never came).

The only real use of consumables in past editions was to shore up weak areas of the party - (need to fly, need to breath underwater, need to turn someone into flesh, need to raise the dead). Outside of wands of healing I can't think of anything that was considered 'needed' to adventure - the multiple campaigns to level 20 I've played in and GM'd for must be broken.

I did play a 'batman' character once that used tons of consumables - and it was fun - but it was a trope and a specific playstyle.


Rysky wrote:
You're not turning the whiskey into the wand though, that's my point, you're using the whiskey to power the already existing wand.

In step 1 I disassembled the potion into it's crafting materials for use in another item.

In step two I used the materials for a potion to make a wand.

In both steps I added flavor and imagination necessary to create a realistic and plausible in game reason for why this works. In reality while this is nice at any table for someone able to do this - it shouldn't be necessary because the rules support the interaction. The only reason that someone has to go through hoops like this is when people look at rules as written and start applying silly concepts like 'common sense' - which any lawyer, cop, or judge will laugh at when you use the phrase, because there is nothing common about sense or what people agree on.

The nice thing about having rules is you can point at them and say 'they allow you to re-use an item to create another' and you can work with that as a baseline.

You may disallow it at your table - but I feel my example gives more than ample evidence why it's not unreasonable to imagine in a world where magic exists, and that's really all the justification you were using to say that the rules didn't work that way - the fact that you couldn't rationalize it.

Quote:
And then common sense and consistency kicks in, you can't distill amaretto sours that heal you into sticks of hickory that go pew-pew.

Common sense and consistency only apply if you are unable to imagine *why* it works. The rules don't really have to spell it out - there are numerous things in the rules that break if you limit the 'why' to what we could personally replicate in the real world.


Rysky wrote:
I'd like one on how you'd turn whiskey into ivory.

Sure:

Thesis on how to take the magical essence from 'whiskey of healing' into 'ivory wand of haste'

First - evaporate whiskey until nothing but the residue remains - take magically infused residue and combine with 4 parts Aqua Regia and 1 part fairy dust. Add to resulting mixture 3 parts elixir of nullification and take resulting particles to ivory wand.

Using magical apparatus #3 sand ivory down until it has a rough texture - now take a wet cloth and gather particles from first step - then rub into ivory wand. Coat ivory with shellac and polish. Now cast spell haste onto wand which has been imbued with magical essence that is now ready to accept new spell.

/done.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
graystone wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just
I look at it the other way too: if you can read it in multiple ways and one is clearly worse for no good reason, it's most likely wrong too. IMO, not having raw materials be generic has "problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended".

It's never caused issues before.

And then common sense and consistency kicks in, you can't distill amaretto sours that heal you into sticks of hickory that go pew-pew.

Common sense? I'd like the thesis paper on how magic interacts with physics and the properties of magical liquids when distilled down to powder form before I buy that explanation.

I'd assume taking apart potions would be as simple as letting them evaporate so you have the 'magical goo' that could be used on something else.

But I could certainly imagine more complex labs setup - I mean in the modern world the way to extract gold is to first liquefy it using acid then neutralize the acid resulting in gold particles that you then melt in a crucible to produce a gold bar - so yeah - in modern terms I can 100% see potions (mixtures of gold and acid) turning into wands of pew pew - (actual metal gold).

Because that's how science works in the real world anyway - I figure it'd be at least that easy in a magical world.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Unicore wrote:
This is true at wealth by level but wont be true in play or at least not at my table. The whole party will sell any item that doesn't immediately fill an essential need and spend all down time crafting wands with their spare gold.
Good for them? I'm pretty sure they'll wind up behind in the math by a fair bit if they really do this as much as you seem concerned about, making this a pretty bad idea.

Are you saying that the system is so tight that if a party doesn't play a specific way they are going to suffer for it?

That seems bad.


Rysky wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
The folks at Paizo have specifically said they aren't making Rarity able to change the power level of abilities. It still lets them do some neat stuff, though, and can be very powerful in the right context.
I've found that treating the folks at Paizo as being able to change their minds over things, better than relying on statements made as rock solid promises. For the record they said that over PF1 as well - and despite that fact several items, and feats had to be changed due to the human inability to forsee all possible futures.
Is there a word missing here or something?
No.
Then what was “that” in “For the record they said that over PF1 as well”? Or was it referring to the previous sentence?

"The folks at Paizo have specifically said they aren't making Rarity able to change the power level of abilities."

Jason Bulmahn - Pathfinder 1

"When we are releasing new material, we keep these relationships in mind. If we ignore them and start changing the balance in books further down the road, we end up with a great deal of conceptual drift and, depending on the area of drift, some pretty bad issues of power creep"

These two statements are not identical - but convey the same meaning conceptually.

That is what "that" referred to.

To whit - another quote by Jason shows the eggshells that the PF1 team constantly felt they had to walk around to bring new stories and content to us without breaking the game. The rarity system could be abused to that effect, it's great that they want to continue to make things as they always have - with the overall health of the game in mind - but at the same time the fact that they have a hard rule that gives them an 'out' if something is printed that becomes the new powergamer drug of choice - has to give them some kind of relief - and from this customer - I see the stress that they are under (JJ has to take sabbaticals frequently due to the vitriol - Jason almost doesn't interact with the players at all except from an 'on high' voice - these are consequences of that stress).

Does that help to explain?


Rysky wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
The folks at Paizo have specifically said they aren't making Rarity able to change the power level of abilities. It still lets them do some neat stuff, though, and can be very powerful in the right context.
I've found that treating the folks at Paizo as being able to change their minds over things, better than relying on statements made as rock solid promises. For the record they said that over PF1 as well - and despite that fact several items, and feats had to be changed due to the human inability to forsee all possible futures.
Is there a word missing here or something?

No.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
The folks at Paizo have specifically said they aren't making Rarity able to change the power level of abilities. It still lets them do some neat stuff, though, and can be very powerful in the right context.

I've found that treating the folks at Paizo as being able to change their minds over things, better than relying on statements made as rock solid promises. For the record they said that over PF1 as well - and despite that fact several items, and feats had to be changed due to the human inability to forsee all possible futures.

I personally am hopeful that this new system lets them breath when designing stuff now - instead of always wondering how it will break the game and become a 'purple, must have' on some character build guide.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Take a step back for a moment - and also note that they can now add items/spells into adventures that 100% would break the game if they were 'common' options. We should (once they start to really explore this space) get some really cool and unique items/spells that otherwise would never see print because if people complain they can point to the rarity system and say 'your mileage may vary if you go off on your own'.
I do not buy this logic. If something breaks the game at the level it is printed at, then it should simply be made at a higher level.

Why?

Why can't the official material have a story about training at the top of the mountain with an ancient master - giving access to a rare feat that breaks the game in other campaigns - but doesn't for *this story* because it's designed around.

That's practically a staple of literature - go find the ancient spell/master/trainer/sword whatever that doesn't exist anywhere else - rarity lets them use these things without everyone assuming 'blood money' is a balanced level 1 spell that any mage can have access to because it was published.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
FowlJ wrote:
As an example of how Paizo probably intends rarity to be used, I'd point out that, according to Archives of Nethys, every single item added in the Fall of Plaguestone is Uncommon rarity or rarer. I don't have the adventure myself, but I'm pretty sure that the players are intended to find or otherwise have access to most or all of those items at some point, so treating it like a ban list would probably be a big mistake.

Of course they were - Paizo has stated several times the rarity system was to keep players from using any published sourcebook as a shopping cart for new character creation.

This entire system is kind of a nifty trick - it allows players to continue to craft items, and buy/sell magic without turning the entire system into a 'well if the GM won't put it into a loot table I'll craft the 'item of campaign ending' I want.

It's kind of a nice balance between very old school (new spells are *FOUND* only - NO CRAFTING) - and the 3.x days (craft anything, take any spell).

Take a step back for a moment - and also note that they can now add items/spells into adventures that 100% would break the game if they were 'common' options. We should (once they start to really explore this space) get some really cool and unique items/spells that otherwise would never see print because if people complain they can point to the rarity system and say 'your mileage may vary if you go off on your own'.

It's rather a clever hack onto the entire rules system that quite frankly - is brilliant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Well, let's examine the DPR on Disintegrate, then the DPR on Chain Lightning (per foe) and compare them to a Fighter. Both with an 11th level Wizard and an 11th level Fighter, shall we?

...

Interesting. So given the fighter (currently) is the best single target dps in the game - does this make arcane the best 'sweepers'? I'm interested in how this will translate to high level encounter design - and if 'lots of minions' will overwhelm a party without an arcane caster.

We've had decades (at this point) of encounters and stories centered around ... (for lack of a better term) keystone boss fights. The general expectation is that all paths lead to the 'throne room' fight and the system even kind of encourages this by making higher level opponents much tougher - giving that 'big bad' a way to stand on their own.

While this all looks thought out - I'll be watching the adventure design with a critical eye - as we know from past design being the best at something (Tracking re: Rangers) doesn't mean that there is or will be a use for it in game - the adventures have to be designed to take these things into account.

After getting all these thoughts out in words - it occurs to me that the experience of the past (and how adventures and encounters are designed) are really the core of concerns from people now - because no one cares about who killed the mooks - and I'm not sure feeling like second fiddle during the big boss fight is fun either - it's really what was wrong with the fighter last edition wasn't it?

1 to 50 of 1,660 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>