CyberMephit's page

RPG Superstar 8 Season Star Voter. Organized Play Member. 286 posts (1,100 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 6 Organized Play characters. 6 aliases.


1 to 50 of 286 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Okay so the problem is that the median and average HP per level in Bestiary 1 is not a linear function. It grows slowly between -1 and 2, from 3 to 15 it is almost linear but slightly speeds up, and after 15 it slows down and even reverses (and generally behaves weirdly because of the small sample size). The effect of that is that if we use linear extrapolation, then troops based on low-level monsters will have too few hitpoints, and ones based on high-level monsters will have too many hitpoints.

Maybe the easiest way would be to introduce a special case: for base levels of -1 to 2, add base monster's HP to the formula result one more time. This would move the Zombie Squad to 160HP, Zombie Horde to 200 HP, Hobgoblin Soldier Squad to 93HP. I don't think that the high-level troops need adjustment just yet because I don't think there will be many troops where individual creatures are levels 11+ and there is not enough data to set a clear benchmark for high levels. But probably subtracting 1/2 of the base monster's HP won't throw the results too much off in those cases.

I decided to create troops of 3 different sizes with different level adjustment. So my example Zombie Horde is level 6 not level 4, which is why it has more HP. A level 4 Zombie Squad would indeed have 140 HP (and lower stats across the board). The benchmark for the level 6 Zombie Horde is that it should be a similar threat to the Zombie Hulk, longer to destroy but lower damage.

My example level 10 hobgoblin platoon troop is based on archers which are level 4 and have 50HP each, not soldiers. A level 6 squad of hobgoblin soldiers would indeed have 73HP. Interestingly enough it's less than the level 6 hobgoblin general, so this needs to be looked at closely.

@Captain Morgan - I decided to go for a separate surround action because I wanted to reflect that the troop has to break formation to do it, and to make it pay some cost to get the surround advantage. Especially seeing as they don't suffer MAP for multiple attacks.

I like your 2-action ranged attack idea, it makes sense to give it an AOE blast - like feel. Perhaps the surround could be converted into a 2-action "melee blast" too.

I don't currently like two things: that all troop attacks are against Reflex only, and that in some cases (like the Fire Giant) it's not clear if the base monster's attacks are supposed to be linked to their ability scores or not. To wit, the fire giant's melee and ranged attack modifiers are the same, despite a -7 difference in the ability modifiers. So maybe it would be better to base the DC on the base monster's attack roll + adjustment for level difference, rather than on the ability scores.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
We are going to release a couple of important errata in the next few weeks, before the APG playtest to be sure.


Individual poisoners are each creature 8.

The encounter as a whole is no longer characterized by a single level number, but by the expected APL + difficulty rating. So this could be marked as Extreme 6 or Trivial 10 depending on what level a 4-man party is expected to be at that point. In any case it's still roughly equivalent to PF1's CR 10 encounter.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

In my play experience so far (2 sessions plus several playtest sessions) HP tend to go up and down faster than in PF1. But looking at the rules together I get a feeling that the abstraction behind HP has changed.

In 3.x, IIRC, the death from massive damage happened if an attack took away 25% HP at once. So the HP pool represented something like a literal blood loss or heavy trauma. Going 10-15 HP below zero meant permadeath even if it happened on a one unlucky crit.

In PF2, the death from massive damage only happens when a single attack takes away twice the total HP pool. And going to 0 HP just leaves you with a wound or two. So I feel like in this system HP represents something like a pain threshold - sapping the will to fight (or even move) but not actually life-threatening unless it is drained repeatedly.

If anything, this vision of the new system actually makes more sense to me in terms of how it represents constant battle prowess regardless of HP left and continual survival of the characters across the setbacks they face.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fumarole wrote:
Probably the total of the attack roll.

That would be a guaranteed failed save then, given that the attack roll was a nat 20.

10 + triggering attack modifier seems more likely. Or just class DC / monster's highest ability DC.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd say if you want to offend nobody, the chance of that is inversely proportional to the size of your audience.

A good start would probably be to think of the first couple of associated stereotypes that come to mind - then discard them and do something else. For example, if you want a crooked merchant, you can't probably go wrong with NOT picking a Jewish impression. It doesn't really have to be the accent that carries the crooked merchant feel, could be a choice of words or accessories or the objects in the room etc...

That said, I personally think it's fine to occasionally play into the negative stereotype as long as you clearly show that 1) it's a specific trait of this one member of the ethnic/racial/etc group and 2) this trait is also shared by some characters not belonging to that group. But then, I don't come from a Western culture, so maybe that shapes my views.

On topic, I guess the OP may have been offended because the lisping character was comedic, but to me it didn't feel at all that the lisp was intended as a butt of the joke because 1) not just Arkonis was being made fun of and 2) the lisp was far from the only thing funny about him. I'm absolutely sure that Mr. Mona did not intend to publicly make fun of lisping people, in any case. For the record, I too have a slight lisp IRL.

I am really enjoying all of Liane's flash fiction pieces. Time to go find those novels I guess!

Ubertron_X wrote:

What would you say as a monk player if you managed to tumble accross the room, evade all the meatshields and personal guards that the enemy caster has brought or summoned just to have the enemy caster wipe the floor with you in a fistfight because sorry, he is labelled a boss?

"Oh, we're up against Tenser".

"We must be fighting Vilgefortz"
"Those Wish spells he used on himself were OP"

My point is, it's not like there is no precedent in fiction and no possible in-world justification for a mage to use magic to augment his body - or to start with a strong body to begin with. These are not mutually exclusive.

You got more than one of those right...

I liked the way extra hero points got awarded when PCs got themselves (or other PCs...) in trouble and were later used to get out of different trouble.

Did any of the players ever remember what does Inspire Courage do and actually add it to their rolls?

The start of the episode 5 is not looking to be a walk in the park. On the other hand, I feel like if the PCs survive it they might be due for a level up!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not every enemy necessarily knows that the summon can't do damage. If I fielded a tiger vs my players and they would summon a dire rat, I would totally have the tiger run after the rat at least for a round.

Ubertron_X wrote:

I yet have to encounter an adversary that has not gone down pretty fast while being at the receiving end of the good, old 3d8+12 and 6d6+12 fighter & rogue combo (rolling high on to-hit obviously helps).

At which level is that? Do you just assume all 3 attacks will hit? The chance of that is actually very slim (especially against something that needs 6 hits to die in the first place).

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for explaining your position more clearly NA Palm and JL106.
I concede the eyeroll was unwarranted and apologize.

I still stand by my point that 1E lore is a valid fallback when the relevant 2E lore is not available. Though I agree ideally it doesn't have to be. And I didn't initially appreciate how non-intuitive it could feel to new players - from my perspective I was looking it up constantly when running or playing PF1 games and so it's seamless for me to continue doing it in PF2.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
I hope it’s limited entirely to the Lost Omens series so I can avoid it

I think it's likely to be true because these are the PrC replacements tied to Golarion lore, other settings wouldn't necessarily have Hellknights at all. I think you mentioned in other threads that you've decided to switch to Eberron? In which case this series would naturally be lower priority anyway.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm genuinely sorry that Justinian9 felt disappointed by my tone. To clarify, I have no issue with the OP - they were understandably confused, got their rightful answer, and were not incendiary in their posting.

My desire to join the thread was ignited by NA Palm's use of the word "copout" which I interpreted as ascribing deliberate negligence to Paizo. To clarify, English is not my first language and I don't live in US so maybe I misinterpreted the tone.

I don't dismiss the issue as invalid, but just point out that it is made easily solvable by virtue of free access to Golarion lore which hasn't changed between editions and because of that it is not unacceptable.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
What has been asked for is at least one order be detailed in the product

Suppose ONE order was detailed, I'm sure there would be similar posts complaining other established orders are unplayable in 2E, don't you agree? It is this train of thought that led me to the 'demanding 10 years of content' extrapolation.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
you create a situation where both books are required to be purchased in order to play the Hellknight Armiger.

Well here is an interesting issue because Armiger is a 'partial' archetype, you wouldn't normally take it without intending to go full Hellknight which is in another book anyway. And I think devs stated that there will be more of those 'gateway' archetypes? So perhaps this kind of book-splitting will be the norm going forwards? And in this case I still think it's fine because of free online access policy (it would not be fine in WOTC case).

I actually don't disagree with the rest of your last post.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:

Do you believe anyone in this thread is demanding that 10 years worth of content be reproduced immediately in a PF2e book?

Again, I am trying to separate the setting material from class mechanics here. But yes, how else should I interpret complaints that an archetype references a not-yet-reprinted bit of established lore? The 2E mechanics for the weapons are there, only the order list is missing but it's identical to 1E one (until they publish a book detailing appearance of a new order or removal of existing one as part of setting advancement). The only way to completely avoid such things is to pretend that anything not reprinted for 2E doesn't exist in Golarion until it is reprinted, which would be very strange. Realistically we will stumble upon missing material all the time until it is reprinted. I draw analogy with another recent thread which complained that a monster ability referenced a term "mortal" that is not defined in the Bestiary or CRB. I think it's perfectly fine to rely upon the 1E definition of the term in the meantime (especially given that it wasn't defined in 1E from the start either). And to be clear, I say that only about setting material - a glaive is a glaive in the world even if it has different properties on the charsheet now.

I suspect that Paizo's intention could have been to release LOWG and LOCG at the same time which would hopefully paint a complete picture but they couldn't do it for internal reasons and decided not to delay both products, thus creating a minor short-term issue. I could be proven wrong once LOCG comes out, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt here.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

My position is that other new players confused by the printed archetype will read this thread from the beginning and find the answer in it; and that further it would have been a more welcoming environment without conjectures suggesting that the book is a failure or all further books will have similar problems.

I believe that the intention is to reprint all the necessary info as soon as possible (given the developers said as much) but I recognize it's not possible to do it all at once with material accumulated over a decade and suggest that the reasonable course of action when encountering a reference to not-yet-reprinted setting material is to reuse the existing and freely accessible 1E one, seeing as it does not require any additional effort beyond googling, instead of crying foul and declaring the material unplayable. Not sure what's controversial about that.

My other (controversial) stance is that printed RPG books should be relegated to collector's editions and the primary way of releasing material should be directly online with living updates; but I know I'm in the minority here (yet).

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I would add that "trained in the order's favoured weapon" is a non-issue for most Hellknight characters (i.e. fighters or other martial classes) as they start trained with all martial weapons and none of the orders' favoured weapons are advanced. It would matter if someone started to build a caster Signifier... except the Signifier archetype isn't released yet.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Calling the concerns of new people minor and silly is really quite crass.

I think the OP concerns have been addressed in the first few posts, haven't they? The practical solution for them is to look up the Wiki, and the info has been helpfully reposted into the thread. The discussion of how bad the book/Paizo is because of the missing info is not helping the OP in any way.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
I am not aware of any archetypes or prestige classes in the CRB, APG or any other books that were published between Aug 2009 and Mar 2011 that relied on 3.5e content.

The first AP for PF1, Council of Thieves, prominently featured Hellknights. The first volume of that AP mentioned two NPCs with Hellknight PrC levels. The PrC didn't even exist at the time and eventually appeared in the third volume of the AP, together with all the information about the orders and their weapons. Armigers were just warriors. Signifiers didn't appear as their own PrC until much later. Right now we just have one setting book and one AP volume - let's give them until October at least?

graystone wrote:
Not really the same situation though as the thrust of the game was that you didn't have to go to a whole new system and everything was backwards compatible. <..> So I think we have much different expectation with the entirely different rule set and the thrust on new player usability than the last change.

Well, the thrust of THIS game is that you don't have to go to a whole new setting. And even as the mechanical underpinnings change the developers mentioned multiple times that adventure compatibility is one of the priorities, which can be seen in the recently published conversion guide, for example.

You are conflating rulebooks and setting material, when really they are mostly independent. I don't think it's an axiom that PF2 should be geared towards people who never played PF1 - I think Paizo wants to retain much of their core audience as well as get some new players. I would think that having much more information about Golarion online, unrestricted by what can fit in a single book, should be seen as a boon for the new players?

I'm not going to argue that it wouldn't have been better to have everything included, I just disagree that it makes the book unusable and not worth the purchase. I assume that the Order material would have been included if it was possible, and I think it's very likely that we will see it updated relatively soon (I'd give it a year at most).

graystone wrote:
I could eyeroll at equating the complete different situations in the editions rollouts and expected audience but that would be a bit rude don't you think?

I did not mean to direct it at any specific poster and I apologize for any offense; however, from the point of view of a person who is excited about PF2 and comes to the forums to see what fun things people have discovered, the amount of over-the-top complaining about issues which to me seem very minor (if technically valid) is disheartening (not singling out your posts personally but in general looking at the first page of the thread list).

4 people marked this as a favorite.

PF1 CRB was published in Aug 2009. ISWG was published in Mar 2011. For almost two years, PF1 players were using the information from the Pathfinder Chronicles: Campaign Setting published in Aug 2008 for the 3.5 edition. That was also before the free online resources such as AON and PFWiki became widespread and chock-full of content.

Now, the LOWG is published a few weeks after the edition change and heaps of setting info are available online, and yet still people complain that the same info hasn't been reprinted with the PF2 tag on it, despite it not being related to the system mechanics at all... *eyeroll*

Yes, I was initially mistaken about the undead - it's a bit tricky to wrap my head around it, but by the rules they are indeed mortals.

In the balisse angel example though, their guardian angel ability works only on non-evil mortals and almost all undead are evil.

That section also specifies that Fey are mortals on the material plane but not in the First World.

A mortal is something that has a soul separate from the body and can have an afterlife after death. Any outsider or undead is not mortal by definition. Neither are non-sentient creatures.
I am not sure about dragons - personally I would define them as mortals but in the lore they usually do not consider themselves mortals.
I don't believe there is a hard rule on this in CRB or Bestiary, but I think the upcoming Gods and Magic book is likely to talk about this, and there is probably already a definition in one of 1E books about faiths on Golarion that is still applicable in 2E as it's the same world.

EDIT: here it is.

I will be away on a holiday from Sat to Thu so may not be able to post until I return.

I will be away on a holiday from Sat to Thu so may not be able to post until I return.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is a good and synergistic combat strategy against SOME enemies in SOME places but far from all of them and I doubt it's even majority. Calling it a "terrifying catch-22" implies that it somehow trivializes every difficult encounter which it doesn't quite pull off.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

To clarify, PFS is an organized play mode where you take a character through many unrelated scenarios, usually with strangers at FLGS, conventions, or online.
You don't need to register for PFS for a game with friends (though you can do so if some of you want to use your home game credit to progress their PFS characters).
And not every module can be played for PFS credit (the only PF2 module released so far, The Fall of Plaguestone, is not sanctioned for PFS yet).
Adventures that are released for PFS are called Scenarios and are shorter than a module (intended for one session). There are also Quests which are even shorter- about 1 hour each.
If you do need PFS after all, the guide is at http://www.organizedplayfoundation.org/encyclopedia/pfs2guide/

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Saros Palanthios wrote:
CyberMephit wrote:
Calling everything feats and spells when actually there are multiple distinct (if similar) entities was a bad decision that causes a lot of confusion :(
Rituals are never called "spells" in the CRB. They're pretty clearly distinguished from spells imo.

Unfortunately, that's wrong.

The Rituals subsection of the Spells chapter begins with words "A ritual is an esoteric and complex spell".

I do agree with your previous post as the action clearly only applies to the spells cast from slots.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Calling everything feats and spells when actually there are multiple distinct (if similar) entities was a bad decision that causes a lot of confusion :(

sherlock1701 wrote:

However, if we use lordcirth's interpretation that combat has not technically broken out until the rogue shoots, the planar ally ritual is still interrupted at the end of the cleric's turn, before the rogue has a chance to do anything, because an encounter has started. One of the secondary casters may have also beaten the rogue's initiative.

Sorry but it doesn't follow at all... "encounter has started" is meaningless in the game world, it's the player's perspective, not the character's. Not every encounter must even include combat, e.g. there can be a hazard triggering one. The combat doesn't break out until one of the participants took a hostile action (not sure if it is a clearly defined game term, but still). The caster may also decide to interrupt the ritual before combat upon sensing a threat, but it's not based on the way players and GM are tracking game time.

To put it another way, GM is technically not supposed to switch to encounter mode until a player or NPC actually takes a hostile action (though it may be useful to track the movement before combat in some cases).

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Because you have initiated an encounter, the Planar Ally ritual immediately fails.

Can you cite the rule which says that?

I kinda want to run a PbP arena game vs Colette's Avengers :)

It is situationally strong I'll grant that much; but doesn't look unbeatable by a standard AP encounter spread.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
This post brought to you by your local pizza joint. No one gets mad at pizza.

Unless there are pineapples in it.

Or unless you have a vegan in your group.

The Cottonseed thread said it's not actually legal to apply credit to a character in another PbP :(

In that case, Must I create another character right now, or can I just set up a placeholder number 194005-2002 and populate it later, when I actually have another concept?

9 people marked this as a favorite.

GM: "well I'm done with your shenanigans. Rocks fall, everyone dies."
Rogue: "I have improved evasion, I take no damage"
Wizard: "my contingency triggers and I teleport to my lab"
Druid: "I wild shape into an air elemental and fly away"
Fighter: "welp, guess I'm dead"
Summoner: "my flying huge 6-armed eidolon with improved evasion swoops in and saves us both. *yawn* well, that was another trivial hazard. That demilich at least lasted two rounds. GM, what's the next encounter?"
GM: *flips table*

I'd say the easy encounters can be had more or less infinitely as long as they're once every 10 minutes. Other than that, I guess the expectation remains roughly 3-5 challenging encounters or chains of easier encounters per day (assuming each of them would drain a couple of higher-level slots from each caster, and a martial-only party won't get too far).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How is this party going to take down a storm lord? Or a level 5 wizard with fly? Or even a level 1 lantern archon in a friendly contest?

Wait I am confused. So do we use pregen stats but our characters are not actually the iconics themselves? Sorry I haven't played a pregen before.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alchemical Wonder wrote:
After thinking even more, I thought maybe this is an instance where the common usage of a word caused a misunderstanding of the words intended meaning. The word “take” can mean “remove from its place” rather than “gain possession of”. Interpreting the trait that way, it’s saying that you can make the disarm check with the weapon but can only apply the critical effect if you have a free hand.

I think you may be overthinking it... I would say disarm weapon allows you to knock the item out of enemy grasp without a free hand - but if you want to take that item for yourself you still need a free hand, it doesn't automatically come into your possession. I don't see a contradiction with the rules text.

The reference to "taking the item" might be a holdover from an earlier disarm draft, but also could be future-proofing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
Stone Dog wrote:

What are we supposed to be getting in exchange for this to be online only?

Switching devices? Cloud storage?

I had these things before.

What is the supposed benefit?

there's really no consumer benefit,

Well, I guess, the reduced overhead is supposed to translate to consumer benefits like faster releases and/or lower overall annual costs. It's just not visible to us for some reason. But perhaps they wouldn't be able to do Day 1 launch at all if they stayed with HLC? Pricing is painful but so are the competitors (apart from PCGen I guess which is not here yet anyway).

Android support is also a not insignificant consumer benefit.

For me switching devices and cloud storage is a noticeable benefit as well; with HLC I had to save the file to dropbox on one device then open it on another device, frequently finding that the program and data packs on the other device have to be updated before the file can be opened, and if I bought data packs on one device I would have to refresh the license on another device before I could open my character... It wasn't smooth sailing either.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think you have it right - all successes puts you 4 days' worth behind per item, and you need to crit on at roughly 12 day's worth of tasks to come out ahead (assuming you had no failures to put you further behind).

Note that PF2 (unlike 3.x) does not attempt to be an NPC crafter's simulator, for good or ill. It just ensures that crafting is not a PC cheat code.

This speed is apparently only slightly above a good crossbow bolt which shoots at 300-450 feet per second according to Google.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It doesn't look like the cantrip formula accounts for the half damage on a successful save?
Also at a glance piercing seems to be one of the most common resistances/least common weaknesses compared to elemental, not sure if someone has done the tally yet.

Blasts are still crap compared to a full attack.

Conclusion Jump: requires Trained in Mental Acrobatics.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:

Maybe it is just me, but having alignment choices come with side effects of mechanically-relevant protections is on the jankier side. "Gosh, I am a 1st- to 9th-level martial, and we are going up against one or more barbazu whose polearm attacks each slap on 2d6 evil damage. Fortunately, I am not, in fact, good-aligned, and so I should be reasonably safe against bearded devils."

That sort of thing puts too much baggage on alignment, in my opinion.

For once, I am with Colette on this one. Obviously, PF2 didn't invent this concept, but I think it's a missed improvement opportunity. As it stands, if you are embarking on a demonslaying campaign, you are best off as CN characters, which makes no sense to me. I hope the GM guide or future books will have some options to address it.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Again, this is very possibly an error.

Not sure why do you think that, given that it worked the same way in PF1?

Okay, while I am tempted to take Valeros to see if the party is viable without a healer, it is probably not the most reasonable thing to test on unsuspecting strangers, so Kyra it is :)

Name: CyberMephit
Character name: Roumatha Esthor
Class/Levels: Ranger 2
PFS ID: 194005-2001
Faction: Envoy's Alliance
Earn Income: Tanning Lore: 1d20 + 6 ⇒ (5) + 6 = 11

Please scale my chronicle to level 2 if that is an option, and I am ready to start.

It all depends on what is meant by "This". I would say that in the shield description "This" is the ability to use the Take Cover action, not continuing to benefit from it - as the latter is already defined under Take Cover itself.
Thus, the stance benefit is that you need one action to Take Cover behind your shield, not two (in addition to gaining the normal AC and shield block).
And with or without the feat, you still lose the cover once you hit any of the triggering conditions - be it from Take Cover or from Raise a Shield or ending the stance.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I believe they're not sanctioned yet, but once they will be, the link to the chronicles will be on their respective product pages. There will likely be a blog post about it, too.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

To be clear, I do not object to you asking questions on the boards, even though some of them, like this one, make me roll my eyes pretty hard.

However, I do believe that the intention of the boards is to ask questions to other users, and consequently accepting their answers on their own merits. If you specifically expect a response from the design team and have no other avenues to ask your question, I would humbly ask you to indicate it in the OP to save time for other users who would otherwise engage in discussion.

On the subject of the thread; I don't know what makes you think that "blocking terrain" is any more of a rules term than "passes through" or "obstruction is extreme". If the meaning of the word is not defined in a rulebook, it logically follows that it is used in the standard English dictionary meaning.

EDIT: okay to be super extra clear as I think my post can be misread as contradicting myself:

a. blocking terrain is a terrain feature that blocks, i.e. prevents the effect from affecting whatever's behind it from the point of origin. That is the dictionary definition.
b. "terrain or object that would block the effect" is used interchangeably with "blocking terrain" in the rulebook, they both implicitly refer to the dictionary definition and neither is a game term.
c. Cover (lesser, partial, greater) is a game term that comes from the interaction with blocking terrain and is explained in detail sufficient for a game that can be run entirely in collective imagination or in most cases on a flat board representing a 3D space.

I suspect that what you're really trying to ask is "where can I find a rule telling me which kind of terrain feature blocks a specific effect from a specific direction, and can there be special designations of this terrain on the map like on a blueprint", and that it further goes back to your playtest post stating that creatures can see/walk through walls if there is no rule explicitly preventing it. I find it hard to believe that this discussion can be had in good faith between people older than 10 or so and will leave it to others. My opinion is that this level of detail is best left to games like FATAL.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will add that I find the HLO usage model MUCH more convenient as I frequently switch between different devices at home or elsewhere and don't have an iPad (nor do I plan to). I would be happier with a native Android app but looks like it has never been on the cards. I think the online access is the future and will only become better with time.

I do agree that it's pricey and unfinished and not ideally fast (though I don't have any egregious issues like OP or other posters). Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a strictly better product out there at the moment.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's defined right in the first sentence of the "Cover" paragraph, and then again at the end of that column ("any terrain or object that would block the effect").

If you will only take dev clarifications then flag your thread for FAQ or ask Mark Seifter on his Twitch stream or discord, and please stop flooding the boards.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:

It seems to me like if they wanted to emphasize that different ancestries had different amounts of hit points, they would take the extra hit points and spread them out over a character's career; maybe it could still be 6 to 10 at 1st level, but just some scaling in a gesture to make it less front-load-focused?

It's already there. Other things being equal, dwarves get 2 more HP per level compared to elves, because dwarves get an ancestry boost to CON and elves get an ancestry drawback.

Also, what Rysky said.

I don't want to play Fumbus but otherwise fine with anyone else - Valeros, Kyra or Merisiel (as Amiri and Ezren are taken).

If I have a 2nd level character currently in another scenario, can I also submit him for the 5th level Chronicle to be applied in the future?

1 to 50 of 286 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>