Kobold Devilspeaker

Ckorik's page

Organized Play Member. 1,670 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.

1 to 50 of 504 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
One shoting an opponent of your CR is the minimum you can ask to a PF1 character flagged as "damage dealer".

This is why it's a good thing encounters were not built around a single at level CR opponent.

That alchemist just went up against an enemy with resistance - oh no their damage is halved.

The barb hits something with a truckton of hit points.

The kensai hit something immune to electricity - suddenly he does 1d8/15-20/x2


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
I suggest taking your own advice, as “whoever wins initiative wins” was a prevalent issue in higher levels and not something they’re making up.

It's 100% as real as a worthless PF2 wizard. That is it's 100% true to anyone who wants to believe it - even if it's not in the real world.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Frankly, if you increase martial power to the point of a PF1 wizard you end up with even more of a "whoever wins initiative wins the combat" problem than PF1 already did. That's another issue that PF2 was trying to resolve.

I keep seeing this - having played 3 campaigns to 20 - this was only true if your encounter was wildly off the cr scale (high or low).

Oddly when you play by the rules - that doesn't happen. (Although I'll admit the mythical situation where the wizard has a perfect spell for the specific encounter might happen - but we played mythic with 'cast anything' and still never saw this.)


I mean it's fine to call out people saying wizards are 'horrible' as being over the top - but it's just as bad to make up stuff that was 100% untrue like 'whoever wins init wins'.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I ran the playtest with no fudging of rolls whatsoever. I had rules errors, but frankly no more than Colette, I think. Or not many more, anyway. My players never had a TPK, including in Chapter 5. And that's even sans Hero Points after Chapter 1 because we routinely and collectively forgot their existence.

And my point was - fudging isn't just about rolls - it's about how the entire game plays - because it's a game and the GM is supposed to adjudicate for a fun experience - there is always fudging going to be going on, a player can't really know - and the way over level enemies works in PF2 - if a player suspects that it's happening - well the rules are setup to make sure they fail more than succeed, and re-enforce that feeling.

We played straight - and had 3 tpk's (2 in the first adventure) - oddly every single monster that killed us - was altered - replaying that now with the new monsters - the game was much different. It was validating.

Your statement up there just ignores that fact.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
That's not actually what was said.

I have to ask what you refer to here - because the devs did indeed state flatly that they don't balance for her kind of play but feel it's a valid playstyle. If you don't follow the logic that they expect GM's to play monsters dumb to encourage a game - then that discussion would require another thread. I don't really want to get into the weeds over this as it was an illustrative point - I happen to agree with the majority that the game is more fun when it's not a strict simulation.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
That's not to say that Colette's play style is bad, but they got crap for it due to reasons that had very little to do with fudging rolls.

Not arguing if it was bad or not - but I feel pretty confident based on posted play-logs that their group is 100% no fudge - the entire playstyle seems like it would depend on it.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

My objection was not to fudging. Fudging is fine as long as people know it's that kind of game. My objection was, and is, to fudging specifically to remove success on something from the PCs. To make the PCs fail something where they actually succeeded. Doing that is pretty definitionally a sign of bad GMing.

Yep - it's a sign of bad GMing - it doesn't mean he has a "s#!+ty GM". I see this tossed around way to much and it isn't really helpful - most new GM's need to spend a good deal of time in the weeds before they understand that tabletop RPG's are neither a book, nor a computer game. There are some epiphanies that need to be had before you really can get over the idea that you aren't the author of the story - but rather the players are.

As an aside - it was redundant - the OP wouldn't be worried about the GM altering the result if they felt confidant in the GM. I expect that is a different topic but the root of the 'edition anxiety' all stems from places that take away the players ability to 'ensure success' - if you think about it even for a moment you can follow that path to the root of the issue - which is fear of player agency being taken away or denied - which is only compounded if they have a GM that isn't 'super'. It's also (if you follow PFS threads at all) a huge reason why PFS is so popular - it doesn't take a statistical study to notice the overwhelming majority of problems with PFS stem from players wanting 0 GM variance.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
I thought the general gist of that particular can of worms wasn't so much never altering the dice but rather "every enemy ever from the slimes to the pit fiends are played with the precise purpose to kill the pcs" to which yeah, the system generally isn't meant for everything to be supreme tactical hiveminds that go straight for throat cuts the second a pc gets downed.

And that's a form of fudging - it's just that is what everyone expects from the game. In the real world a pack of dogs doesn't stop attacking the downed 'target' because they stop moving - and intelligent animals (Humans) will obviously co-ordinate to best effect.

I even agree that it's a *brutal hardcore* mode of play - but it does expose the truth behind play - that the GM is expected to play a *game* and not a brutal deathmarch - and in *many* cases that also means they are making sub-optimal choices for the NPC enemies to not overwhelm the players.

That's fudging - it's just want everyone accepts as part of the game - if you accept that the GM is going to make calls for the game to keep the 'fun/excitement/fairness' and that it's still a game and not a simulation - then you can't (in good faith) get righteous because they change the outcome of something.

The game even encourages this - with secret rolls. If 'fudging' was such a sin against the game - all rolls would be encouraged to be open and in front of the players (many groups *DO THIS* because they are so against fudging). You can't however - have secret rolls and encouraged adjudication without accepting that the GM can modify the results and you wouldn't know.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
mcintma wrote:
Playing a Wizard I've found you'd better hope your DM rolls bad on saves and does not fudge crit fails (IME alot of DMs do this)

Then you're playing with s#!+ty GMs. Fudging to take away crits from the PCs is pretty much the definition of a bad GM, and not something wrong with the system.

Fudging can be fine if the whole group is on board with it, but doing so to take away PC successes? Absolutely not okay at all.

I did have to respond to this - because he one playtester that documented and went out of their way to not fudge *ever* (Collette) got ROASTED because her table plays *brutal hardcore*.

The *OVERWHELMING* consensus of the vast majority of the game (including the Devs who while validating she had a right to play that way - admitted they don't balance for that kind of play) assume that the GM is fudging in some way to keep the game balance in check.

That absolutely will go both ways in any normal game - you can't 'take it easy' on the players without *accepting* that you alter the dice rolls on occasion.

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?

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.

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

James Jacobs on Second darkness


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'.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.


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.


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.

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.

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 :)

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!

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.

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 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 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:

I mean that when WotC was designing 3.0, they probably didn't have a true sense of what optimizers/system mastery was going to be able to do with the system. With 3.5 it'd be interesting to know when/if WotC started worrying about it.

I don't wan to really take this into a huge thread - but 3.0 fixed a ton of issues with the system that was 2 with splatbooks. The muchkinland (as always) didn't really come into play until the rule books grew out of control - but to be honest you could say the same thing about every edition except pathfinder - IMO the biggest issue pathfinder had going against it was the refusal for the dev team to rule on anything not directly a rulebook. The only really unbalanced system the devs introduced was mythic.

The problem of course is when you have 1300 class combinations (yes - there are that many in PF1 when you count archtypes) you are bound to have interactions that spiral away from your core design.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Helmic wrote:

Getting armor proficiency outside of what your own class grants you kinda sucks and here’s why.

I didn't have a dog in this fight but man that was one heck of a well written post.

You convinced me anyway.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
The alignment of whatever it is you are killing doesn't matter - the reason does (according to modern society anyway).

You' re right but then alignment was never implemented as an indicator for "things you can kill on sight" (at least not since I've played D&D). AD&D 2nd defined monster alignment as the "general behavior" and stated that "Exceptions, though uncommon, may be encountered".

3E then differentiated between "usually" and "always" [alignment]. So even before Pathfinder was a thing, Goblins couldn't be just "killed on sight", when you wanted to behave according to a "good" alignment.

Sure, that can be ignored if you don't want to make that differentiation, but I agree with Rysky, even without alignment, people that play this way, would most probably still argue that, "they are evil, so they deserve this anyways". So removing alignment does nothing in this regard.

Well the original rules listed Goblins as Lawful Evil. That carried into AD&D. Basic rules changed them to 'chaotic' which was 'evil' roughly. Oddly it was 2nd ed. that made them 'Goblins hate most other humanoids, gnome and dwarves in particular, and work to exterminate them whenever possible.' Until then they didn't have a 'works to kill humans' vibe. 3rd ed. is when they change to 'usually neutral evil' - and that leads us to here.

I think for many people - goblins and orcs (used interchangeably by Tolkien - Orcrest translates to Goblin-cleaver) are evil because Lord of the Rings is how so many people were introduced to Fantasy. Orcs/goblins in Lord of the Rings were created from elves through black magic - and thus evil - very black and white - going against that grain is not an easy ask for many - the idea will rub the wrong way just because the idea of what they *know* about goblins is challenged.

And ... well sorry for getting a bit long winded there - I just find it interesting to talk about.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
This entire thread is why I argued alignment needed to be removed from the game :)
Even without Alignment we’d still be having this thread due to designated monsters and foes.

There wouldn't be a label associated with things used to designate something as 'kill' or 'not kill'

You keep talking about sentient humanoids and 'evil' vs 'neutral' none of that matters - either you have the right (through authority, law, or whatever) to kill something or not - taking a life is an *imposed* moral code put onto something - regardless of the reason.

The alignment of whatever it is you are killing doesn't matter - the reason does (according to modern society anyway).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This entire thread is why I argued alignment needed to be removed from the game :)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Dunno if you are still readying this thread OP - but here is an opinion from myself (and the group I play with all who *hated* the playtest).

We don't know yet - even with the book in hand - *so much* is different we just don't feel like we are going to know without giving it a shot.

As such we figure we'll try the first book of the AP - and 'test drive' it so to speak. Some of the things we think were outrageous still exist (Goblins went from +6 to hit, to +8 to hit - a new level 1 cleric made up had an AC of 16 - giving that -1 level goblin a 65% chance to hit a level 1 cleric) - however all that said we are willing to play it out to make any final determinations.

My personal feeling is - if money is tight - I'd wait. I don't believe any amount of math analysis is going to tell you if this game is good or not - that will really come down to playing it - and the adventures. We have a ton of Savage Worlds, Mutants and Masterminds, Fate, and Call of Cthulhu stuff, along with PF1 AP's we want to play (and I for one enjoy D&D 5e so I have a separate group for that)- so the question for us isn't that the new system is 'good' - it has to be *better* than those other systems at telling a story.

We'll try it though - hope that helps you make a decision.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
*lots of stuff that doesn't matter*

This is all a bit offtopic - as this is a fantasy thread speculating about a product that will never be made, perhaps you could keep your reality based diatribe in another thread if you really wish to tilt at windmills.

We have enough of them here without yours as well - makes the place messy.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread is amusing.

I think they should have a trial - find her guilty - and give her a life sentence of imprisonment for each person killed.

I suspect that 10,000 years already served might pretty much mitigate any potential sentence handed down though.

If this were the United States, present day - with time off for good behavior - I'm pretty sure the state would owe her money for time spent imprisoned unfairly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
And I do get it that there's some folks who enjoy reverse engineering stat blocks to either check our math or to learn how we built an NPC or both,

I did this for a couple of volumes of mummy's mask - and the interaction I got from Adam regarding how things were built helped me understand the monster/npc building process more than anything.

I fully believe it's why I was able to take my RotRL game mythic - and why my level 20 mythic tier 3 group of 5 didn't ROFLSTOMP big K when they fought him.

It is also notable - that only about 1 out of 100 NPC statblocks were 'optimized' (racial bonus into prime stat - no junk feats - smart choices - etc) - and it was very obvious once you started to understand these things, that you could up the difficulty of most things just by slight alterations.

Hero lab - btw - makes these changes trivial - and that helps a ton also - although to be fair to anyone bothering to read this - I can't flippantly say that spending 'hero lab' money to GM is possible for everyone - it took watching sales and a significant investment to get everything for Hero Lab, as a new GM I'd tell you the easiest thing to do in any fight if the players are rolling through - is to take earlier enemies and just add more of them to the next fight, boss fight gets an extra guard or two - make sure they show up on round 1 initiative count 10 from the back and you will instantly make the fight tougher without needing 'deep system mastery'

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
Anguish wrote:
Starfox wrote:
it really limits my ability to participate on these forums.

That's deliberate. The point behind a locked thread is that the thread's content, style, and direction are not desired. That you - or anyone else - don't get to participate is the whole point behind locking it. You having more time to participate is not wanted.

This is not bitterness, to be clear. It's simply what the point of thread-locking is.

I think the only locked threads that bother me are the ones where they not only locked the threads but removed all content from them, not even leaving a brief description of the offense that drove such drastic action. If you didn't see the thread while it was still active and open, it is impossible to learn what not to do from such threads.

I thought similar things once upon a time.

Trust me when I say this - after seeing things go downhill in person - that you do not need to see in person examples of people screaming and throwing actual feces at each other - to know that you should not do the same thing yourself.

Without the witness you might think there was nuance - nay my dear friend, while a couple of posts may start that way - by page 2 the forums devolve into a mudbath that would make a trucker blush.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is just a love letter to the devs, sometimes in the RPG world you don't really start to feel just how influential a product is until several years down road when it's had a chance to digest and assimilate.

So 4 out of 4 people made new characters for a run I'm doing - all from the Advanced Class Guide - and despite the clamor and (cough) rough editing, this book has come to dominate the table and I can't think of a game I've played in for the past 2 years where there wasn't at least one person was using this book.

That is a home run in my opinion. So kudos - I'll toss in that (with fixes) the shifter has been a great character in another campaign we are playing in.

The ACG though, I think in some ways may be the high water mark of Pathfinder v1 design.

43 people marked this as a favorite.

Our group - after last nights session - decided to bow out of the playtest.

Relevant comments for the devs:

Because every monster has the same attacks/saves/hit points roughly they all feel the same - they all have small blurbs of special but roughly feel the same in how they play (GM was saying this).

Don't like the 'must bring a cleric' - even with treat wounds. (everyone)

Casting feels lackluster and worthless (everyone).

Combat feels like 'get into position and whack' (everyone).

Monsters sometimes get things like shortbows that do 2d6 even though they aren't magical - 'just because' - it feels wrong. (GM)

Feats all feel like they don't do anything worthwhile (everyone).

Why am I rolling the dice for all your abilities? (GM)

Watching you try to help him in the quicksand almost killed him - seems like it's safer to never ask for help (GM).

There is no guidance for what kind of false information to hand out (GM)

Whats the DC to dispel an item? (everyone - we still don't know)

Don't fire into melee - I don't want to have to look that up in the book (GM)

I don't have the kit to do that because I forgot to get it (everyone at least once).

Does that bonus stack? I dunno lets just say it does we've already spent too much time looking stuff up tonight (multiple times - GM).

We'll fill out the surveys for what we were able to accomplish - but we only play for 3 hours a week and as each combat was taking up the entire night - we didn't get very far. Going back to PF1. Personal notes:

I don't mind a lethal system (I like OSRIC for instance) but lethal systems I've played in all had easy character creation rules - and a character would fit on an index card to start.

My comments on the playtest forum will end with this thread - I'll check things out on the flip side - we just don't have the desire to play this system any more - as it wasn't fun for us. Ciao!

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Lycar wrote:

Okay... this is basically the same issue as with the 'big 6' 'must have' magic items. An item that grants you a leg up on the competition is a boon. An item that merely stops you from falling of the treadmill is a tax.

You used to have more spell slots, but many of those got earmarked for all those 'must have' 'all day on' buff spells. This had two effects:

This is a good point - the 'engineering' is solid - but it feels like you are driving a potato. A potato might be a great car - with awesome gas mileage - but if you product is supposed to engender 'fun' you need more 'Maserati' than potato.

In other words - I think this misses out on the fact that in a co-operative game - you can have a *ton* of fun by giving other players a boost - and frankly after the early levels there aren't many spells that even qualify as a buff anymore.

I did find it amusing that a cantrip level power (and what is considered a standard mechanic in another game) is now limited to 9th level spells and only once a round... that is 'advantage/disadvantage' - the 9th level spell Foresight gives you that - I can't say I really agree with some of the power levels they think things are.

Honestly if I was going to remove spells from the game for being too powerful - I would have taken haste/slow out before I touched displacement.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
I don't really see how having two different health pools that are healed (and sometimes harmed) by two completely separate things is all that elegant.

I agree with your entire post - this in particular I think I can answer though.

From the earliest editions of the game - until now - there have been a very vocal group of people who *hate* the hit point system. They don't like it, they don't like how it works, they don't like how it abstracts combat, they invent all kinds of ways to describe how combat wounds are only 'the last hit that takes you down' - because getting hit for 80 damage and living is too 'absurd'. This is entirely why so many systems have alternate wounds systems, and taken to it's extreme where you target specific body parts with attacks.

I get that - and I don't mind people who house rule to the 'nth degree' or use wounds/vigor or some other system. The only time that this becomes an issue is when 'hit points' and 'healing' get touched at all - they all come out of the woodwork to describe how 'healing is breaking the game' and 'we need a different system'.

Pthooey I say. Hit points are fine - healing is fine - it's a game. If the game gets too real it's no longer fun. I want to play Pathfinder not "Actuaries and Accountants".

12 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Yoda Pugwampi wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
I've learned a few brand new game systems these last few years. PF2 is the only one I have struggled to try to keep everything straight. I think there IS a challenge in trying to unlearn/forget PF1 rules in PF2 context, not assume something is the same. But even so, I have found PF2 unintuitive and hard to learn or teach to other (experienced in many systems) gamers in a way that lack of backwards compatibility can't account for (nor do I think backwards compatibility is necessary)...

You must UNLEARN what you have learned.

*Chews on stick and looks profoundly wise*

Played Pathfinder First Edition You Did.

Unlearn it You Must!
Or better yet: "Already a master of PF1E you are and all of its powers you have. Why a new system you master do want?"

Page 110 - heading: learning the rules:"Already a master of PF1E (see page 312)."

Page 312: "you are and all of its powers (see page 234) you have."

Page 234: "Why a new system you master do want? (see page 110)."

Fixed that for you.... Now it looks like the rules.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
Megistone wrote:

But you heal more HP. People keep forgetting (or just avoid considering) that.

I would still like an option to "undercast" Treat Wounds, but it's NOT like your DC increases for nothing.

I like the succinctness of this reply. One short paragraph explains the correct aspect of the math and the other short paragraph contrasts it to the fun aspect of the math. It fits right into the topic, "Correct Math vs Fun Math."

If they are clashing then why not redesign the ability so it no longer is frustrating?

Treat Wounds: You make a Medicine check DC 10. You heal 1 hit point to up to 6 creatures +1 hit point for every number over 10 your check results in. If you roll a 1 you can no longer use this ability for the day. If you roll a 20 double the result healed. (some conditions may change the critical failure/success ranges of this ability).

Now you never get worse - you can still fail no matter what level you are - and your skill always gets better. Numbers can be adjusted (like - if you are expert in medicine double your healing per DC beat, if you are master in this you can remove ability damage as well etc).

Just saying there is design space to allow for the effect to work, without needing 'undercasting' or needing scaling DC's.

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Garretmander wrote:

If you're expected to have so much AC +/-1, why doesn't the system just give you so much AC +/-1?

The way tight math works, the rulebook might as well say: at level x you receive +1 full plate as a fighter class feature.

To me this is a very large frustration with the entire 'tight math' paradigm. The fact that monsters *uniformly* increase to hit numbers - and ac values - mean that there is only an 'illusion of choice' instead of real choice when it comes to your player character.

You can choose to have an AC value of at least 10-(even level monsters to hit) or you can expect to get crit more often, and on boss monsters that have that extra +4 (or more) to hit - if you aren't at the baseline you might as well say one hit you die.

So the guy who chooses to wear more nimble armor (looks cool/matches my mini/whatever) better have the dex to back it up, or know what his target is ahead of time or he's asking for a knock out. The story of the party that starts in a cell with no gear - no longer is a challenge - it's a slaughter against any enemy that attacks. Arrows are now 'caster slaughter' guns, as the to hit value is based on the fully armored fighter.

This to me feels like there is no choice in the matter. If you want to melee and hit more than 50% of the time - your build has to focus on hitting the same 'to hit' value as a fighter of the same level (so perhaps you rely on flank/conditions/etc. to hit that number - but you still need to know what that number is to be effective). With the numbers needed per level *so solid* now - that is - codified into the rules - why are they still hidden?

If these numbers are built in and scale (which they do) then they should be up front targets. It isn't system mastery to know you need a +9 AC value to be 'average' against a level 9 monster. I mean - it is in a sense but I don't see how that's 'rewarding' for a player to learn - not when the alternative is death and pain. Why not be up front about it. "Here is the number you should be at to be viable : To hit level 1 +6, level 2 +7, level 4 +9, level 9 +16.

At least if the numbers are known someone can self evaluate if they are at least 'at the baseline' or know what tricks/strategies they have to employ to be there.

All of those are the 50% hit markers btw - so yeah - that's the baseline - and with the new crit system - if you can't hit those numbers you are going to feel like you should have stayed home - I repeat - this info should be clear to a new player - just knowing what is considered 'normal' goes a long way towards helping people get up to speed with what the game engine is expecting. Yes this was all mysterious and less important in past editions - the new engine here makes it *vital* and it's the disconnect that I'm finally keying on as to why our players are having issues (at my table anyway).

Another example (to illustrate the same point) - death - my entire table has complained about moving initiatives to 'before the attack' - no one understood it - no one liked it - we groan every time delay/ready is used because we *hate* moving the initiative order in our games - this auto move was bugging us. Then I read about how it was intended to give everyone a chance to react to a player going down - and save them possibly - vs. the chance that you go down and need to save vs death before anyone can have a chance to heal you - *knowing that* made everyone go 'oh - yeah that makes sense' - no one minded the rule after that - because the *reason was no longer hidden information*.

A bit of baseline info - sometimes makes or breaks a reaction to things.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
I think we could have a 'standard options' list for selectable class abilities, to give newbies something to focus on, and 'unusual options' for abilities that are more niche, make the game more complicated, require a specific build, etc.

There’s a few options.

It pretty much has to be built in from the get go though. I’m not sure there’s support for the idea within Paizo, unfortunately.

This is frustrating to me - in PF1, because monsters were built using player rules, you had a mix of 'low hit, avg hit, med hit' monsters - some with high AC - some with low AC, etc.

Now you have all level 0 monsters have +6 to hit. That increases - lvl 2 +8, lvl 3 +9, lvl 4 +11 (where you get your +2 prof. to armor), lvl 7 +17, lvl 9 +19. So why can't the rules say 'if you are in melee you should aim to have at least a +6 armor at first level, and increase that by +1 every time you level up to keep up with monsters?

PF1 didn't need that - not wanting to spoil ourselves, we certainly were not prepared for that. Our experience with PF1, was that the guy with chain would have very good protection (AC 16 against +2 to hit goblins? Yeah!) - even at higher levels I had level 20 players that survived with lower than optimal AC. My point is the rules are now *hard coded* to want a melee fighter to keep AC up or get *slaughtered* (every point you fall behind at +1 per level *and* expertise is 5% more crit chance on you!) - why isn't this in the rules?

That's not a feat suggestion, that's not a Blue/Green/Orange/Red 'this could be good' - that's a flat out 'the system expects you to have this much Armor' - it's a hidden machine that any player paying attention will eventually pick up on (or cheat and read the bestiary entries to figure it out) that hardcore punishes someone for not knowing. So why keep it hidden? What 'fun' is there in finding out the game expects certain things? I don't get why people who seemed to understand this fact and planned for it - don't also understand that most people aren't going to deep dive the rules to the point they have that info prior to the very first session they play.

1 to 50 of 504 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>