D@rK-SePHiRoTH-'s page

Given the current maths, many feel that there is no reason to stick with a d20.
Instead, most if not all of the game's goals would be accomplished by throwing a coin.

So, why not just throw a coin!
Here is my thought experiment:

1) -Every action requires throwing a coin; head is success, tail is failure
Level, class ability scores and DCs are irrelevant

2) -Level, class, ability scores and DCs are instead represented with pools, just like HPs, and the ability to erode that pool faster, just like damage

Example 1 (attacks)

Rob is a fighter with a greatsword, on a succesful attack the amount of damage is calculated like this:
Weapon Damage + Proficiency + Ability Score + Level Bonus (same for all classes) + CLASS BONUS (depends on class) + specific options (feats etc) + circumstance & conditional

Subtract a certain amount from subsequent attacks to simulate MAP.

AC in this system is either represented as damage reduction or as extra HP

Example 2

Dan is a rogue who's trying to pick a lock. Roll 1d2. On a success, he partially or completely solves the challenge, depending on wether he deals enough points of Success to the challenge Pool:
Ability Score + Proficiency + Level + CLASS BONUS (depends on class) + specific options (feats etc) + bonuses (circumstance, conditional... etc)

Example 3

Jimmy is a wizard. He casts a spell with a save. The enemy throws a coin. On a failure, the spell takes effect.
Enemy is now forced to add points to their "debuff pool" depending on the wizard's and spell power.
On the enemy's turn, he can remove some debuff points, and even spend actions to remove more. The stronger the enemy, the higher the amount of removed debuff points. When debuff points go to zero, the effect ends.

I know this might look like a joke, but I'm honestly thinking this could actually work.

Cure Wounds:
"This spell heals xdy points of damage, UP TO A MAXIMUM OF N"

This way, higher level characters can't refill their HP pools by using low-level wands.
However, You can sill use low level spells to help people in critical conditions.

Make N depend upon both the spell power and the recipient so that you don't get fully healed wizards and partially healed barbarians.

I will not go into details with the math because I don't want to focus on tweaking the numbers, that is not my purpose.
Assume the numbers are correct and fulfill the above statements for the purposes of this thread.

To make the system less restrictive, maybe add the following:

"By spending *daily resource* you can overcome this limitation"

So if you REALLY need that extra HP you can get it. But you cannot refill your HP after every single battle.

What do you think?

Success rate feels too low.

Many have suggested to remove the -10 +10 degrees of success as a solution. But I haven't seen anyone suggesting the other way around: leave degrees of success in place, but also tweak the game to allow for larger numerical differentiation.

Here is how the whole thing would work

if martials (characters specialized at physical combat) had a hit bonus high enough so that they could crit at 15 with their first attack, then I believe this would happen:

-It would make the whole attack routine more worth it (second attack would still be very good, third attack would be decent)
I believe this would make the game feel more satisfactory because players are complaining that success rate doesn't feel high enough for specialist characters, both for narrative and gameplay reasons

-DPR would skyrocket
This is bad with current math

How to fix this problem?

-First, give monsters some more HP
-Second, change how magic weapons work so that crits don't deal as much damage
-Third, make sure that only true specialists can reach this level of success rate

Pros:
-Specialists feel like true specialists
-Character building phase could allow for some numerical tweaking, allowing optimizers to feel rewarded without breaking the game

Cons:
-None that I can think of, if you implement the required changes correctly

This could even be applied to skills

Problem:
Most skills don't require multiple attempts and don't have Multiple Attack Penalty math associated

Possible solutions:

A-Make most skills require either 1 crit success or 3 normal success to succeed. You can try 3 times in a turn, but you get multiple attempt penalty

Pros (All of the above goes without saying, but also):
-the whole game would follow a single basic rule, making gameplay more coherent allaround
Cons:
-requires more rolls

B-Give skills "success pools" similar to HP pools that get "damaged" when a success is achieved, and let crit success deal double success points of "damage" to the task. You can try up to 3 times per turn, but you get MAP.

Pros:
-Allows for more differentiation between long and difficult tasks
For example, building a house might have a very low difficulty, but a very high "task pool" as it takes very long. However if you're good enough to crit often, you can complete the task sooner.
Cons:
-Requires a lot more rolls

C-Redesign crit success and normal success so that crit succ is basically always the same as a normal success, but without the normal resource expenditure (common resource expenditure include time, materials etc)

Pros:
-Elegant and simple, has all the + points of making specialists feel truly superior like they should
Cons:
-less granular than the above solutions, which to me feels like a wasted chance

Let me know what you think. Did I miss any important cons? If so, which ones?
Would you enjoy the game more if similar changes, or different changes with the same purpose, were implemented? If so, why?

Thank you for your opinions.

It prevents optimized (above curve)* low-level characters from defeating high level challenges too early.

*Not really possible right now but may happen in the future when they release additional content

The consequences of removing +1/level is that the minmaxed guy will be able to challenge even more enemies than the game intended.

As counter-intuitive as it sounds, the +1/level bonus makes the game MORE gritty, not less.

I don't understand what I'm supposed to do with the numbers in tables 10-3 to 10-6

Example:
-A trivial lv1 task is 10 (according to table 10-2)
-Table 10-3 gives me Difficulty Adjustment for lv1 trivial "6"

Am I supposed to adjust the trivial lv1 DC to 10+6 (= 16) ?
Is this still considered tirival?

Characters are going to be the same level in normal games, as this is strongly encouraged in the gamemastering section.
Let's analyze how large the spread is at minimum and maximum level

----- LOW LEVEL -----

Maximum difference:

8 stat, -2 untrained, 0 item, +1LV = TOT -2
VS
18 stat, +0 trained, 0 item, +1 LV = TOT +5

DIFFERENCE: 7 points

Now, on to the

----- HIGH LEVELS -----

Maximum difference:

8 stat, -2 untrained, 0 item, +20LV = TOT +17
VS
22 stat, +3 legendary, +5 item, +20 LV = TOT +34

----- TO SUM IT UP -----

In-Party spread (comparing the best with the worst)

At low levels: 7
At high levels: 17

----- CONCLUSION -----

-Chance of "worst" beating "best" at an opposed roll drop significantly with party level increase

-Differences are MORE pronounced at high levels, not less

It just doesn't happen.

I am going to show this mathematically.

SCENARIO 1:
No bonus, roll against DC 11
Success rate = 50%

SCENARIO 2:
+9.999 bonus, roll against DC 10'010
Success rate = 50%

Conclusion: the difference between the bonus and the dc is the only real factor

I am saying this because I keep seeing people getting this wrong in the way they analyze the game maths

In the current playtest system, most of the skill feats allow actions that shouldn't need a special training in order to be attempted.

This can be very unsatisfying for the players, because it makes the character feel less competent than it should be,
while also breaking immersion by making it impossible to succeed at tasks without a solid in-game, coherent motivation

*** TRAINED characters do not perform as actually TRAINED unless they also get a tax feat ***

"Bargain hunter" should be a basic use of the Diplomacy skill, not a feat. A feat should make it easier or quicker.
There is no reason you cannot even try to do this unless you've got a feat.

"Bonded animal" should be a basic use of Nature. Everyone can attempt to tame an animal.
The skill check ensures that not everyone will succeed.
The feat, on the other hand, should let you do it better or more reliably or make the animal stronger and less prone to leave when scared, or know more tricks.

Cat Fall, I like that. This is actually very well designed.

"Defensive Climber" make sense technically but I believe it's too narrow for its cost. This costs as much as every other skill feat and it will almost never be used.

"One Handed Climber" why isn't it handled (wow such pun) with an increase in DC instead? I can easily picture someone strong enough managing to do it without specific training, maybe even on first try.

"pickpocket" anyone should be able to attempt to steal from pockets

"Recognize spell" should be a basic trained use or skills

"Train animal" again this should be a trained use for Nature. Merge this with Bonded Animal

Just make the +level bonus OPTIONAL, in three forms:
-full Level bonus (high fantasy scaling)
-1/2 Level Bonus (Standard)
-NO LEVEL BONUS (Bounded accuracy)

if halved or removed, just lower the DCs accordingly.

FOR EXAMPLE if a CR10 monster's AC is 30 and you're playing with 1/2 level bonus, just lower its AC by 5 points.

In fact, the "full level bonus" is just a treadmill.
If you still haven't realized, PF2 is designed as bounded accuracy + treadmill.

If you do the math you'll notice that nothing really changes except the relationship between high and low level characters.

Make the treadmill optional, and here you have it, simple and working.

a) yes, it is. Change it from
-1 (nonproficient), +0 (proficient), +1 (expert), +2 (master), +3 (legendary)
to
-2 (nonproficient), +1 (proficient), +4 (expert), +7 (master), +10 (legendary)

b) no it's not, I like that there is no numerical specialization

c) it could be either but I still don't know

For reference:
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-yo ur-expectations-2

Are walls *intended* to be easily broken by a mid to high level melee character?

It seems counter intuitive as it's not common a trope in classic fantasy fiction, and it understandably grinds most GMs gears as it makes walls redundant.
However it is common in "high" fantasy featuring explicitly superhuman heroes.
Pathfinder is not a classic fantasy either, it takes ideas from other genres as well, including comic books and action movies or even tales and media from asia.
So it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that there's a chance this is intended.

Investigating further requires an analysis of the system.

Walls have a listed hardness and a listed HP. If they were meant to be harder to break, it is reasonable to assume that they would be harder.
It's not like the deigners didn't know how much damage a raging barbarian can deal at LV10.
A raging barbarian can literally wield a ballista projectile with his hands and deal *more* damage by swinging it.
The math behind the game leavs little doubt, characters can smash rocks.

There are also monsters that are literally made of stone, or the stoneskin spell. Both have an higher hardness than walls, yet the PCs are supposed to be able to damage them on a regular basis using regular weapons, whereas a professional LV1 miner would struggle even with a pick.
So, characters can smash rocks better than professional miners because they are so much stronger, faster hitting, and, well, superhuman past LV6.

So we know that lv6+ is beyond what's humanly possible, so "common sense" does not apply as we're not talking about "common" people; and walls were intentionally designed to have relatively low stats (realistic for an average human i.e. 12 str bab 0 and therefore no power attack, but easy to overcome for powerful characters)

Some weapons might not be very effective against walls. But magical weapons or weapons made of a special material that bypass stone's hardness are supposed to cut it easily if enough force is applied.
After all, if you can completely bypass its hardness, you're supposed to be able to break it. And if the weapon has a higher hardness than the wall has.

I'm not asking if it's a behavior that should be punished by "making too much noise" or having "structural failure" happen, or "damaging weapons" (which would be weird considering that attacking a stone golem doesn't damage your weapon, and most magic weapons are harder than walls anyway)

I'm asking if it's safe to assume that it was intended to be possible to smash stone at will (just like it was intended that after a certain level, falling damage won't kill you regardless of distance) and if not why didn't they just make walls harder (it's not like they didn't know) and why are PCs supposed to be able to damage stone golems that are harder than walls?

Am I the only one around who feels that the game is lacking this concept, somehow?

I am currently playing a Wizard(exploiter) 3 / Unchained Rogue 1 / Arcane Trickster X, as it's the closest I could get to the original idea.

Bard would have been great too, if only it was based off INT and slightly less focused on artsy performance

I liked the 3.5 Beguiler, that was pretty close too.

Anyway - I feel like I cannot properly represent my character concept with existing rules.

Character concept is... well imagine someone gave you this task:
"Make a hybrid class that is half bard and half arcane trickster, INT based and spontaneous"

How would you make this work with existing rules? Is it even possible?

NOTE 1: no, bard/trickster is still cha based, do not want. Must be INT based
NOTE 2: Sage Sorcerer is INT based and spontaneous, which is really cool. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with the subtlety of bards and rogues

Question 1:
"Word of recall teleports you instantly back to your sanctuary when the word is uttered."
What word must be uttered? Is it
a) The verbal component (therefore the teleportation requires a standard action to cast the spell)
b) Another word that can be uttered at any time after casting the spell? (therefore you can teleport as a free action as long as you casted the spell once in your lifetime)

A player of mine thinks it's B. I think it's A

Question 2:
How does PFS handle this spell for spontanous casters? When is the location chosen?

In your opinion, are these feats

a Ranger's attempt at imitating a deity they like,
or
a power granted by deities, similar to cleric spells
?

The book (inner sea combat) doesn't really explain how it works, and it's GM fiat; so if you were the GM, how would you explain it?

Tips, Tricks, ideas, strategies; Share your wisdom

I'm entering Shadowdancer soon, and I'm intrigued by the potential of this feature.
I'm curious to know if it can be somehow enhanced statwise, and what strategies can be adopted with the help of a shadow companion.

First, bonuses:

-Is there any way to grant the shadow companion additional feats? (namely, I'm interested in teamwork feats and defensive feats)

-Can it wear magic items? Can it pass through walls when wearing magic items? Does a Ghost Touch Gauntlet allow it to interact with physical objects? How about bringing stuff with it?

-I believe the shadow doesn't get extra attacks when the BaB rises, because Natural Weapons do not have iteratives. But I also believe it gets extra attacks from Haste and the likes. Does it?

-In your personal opinion, should a Shadowdancer be allowed to precisely control the shadow's acttions in combat and during exploration

---

Second, ideas:

Other than Scouting, Flanking, Strength sapping and Aid Another, are there more creative uses of this creature that you have thought or seen at a table?

Broken Wing Gambit
This is the feat's text

FAQ: "you count as your own ally"
This is a possibly related FAQ answer

Teamwork Feats: "In most cases" require an ally...
This is a description of teamwork feats in general, apparently implying that not all teamwork feats require allies other than yourself

Here are the questions:

- If you count as your own ally, do you get to make an AoO when you get attacked?

- If you are attacked multiple times and you have Combat Reflexes, do you get multiple AoOs?

- Can the enemy forego the bonus in order to not provoke AoOs?

Snakeskin Tunic

Let's say I want to increase the Dex bonus to +4,

Is this possible?

Vital Strike, being tied to weapon base damage, leads to strange consequences. It works best on druids with minimal investment, or requires specific optimization including actual and virtual weapon size increases.
It's not feasible for anyone else.
I'm not fond of this. I would like to allow all martials (not just the pouncing ones, or those wielding unreasonably big swords) to achieve acceptable damage without completely scarificing their mobility.

I was thinking of a variant that wouldn't work like the Vital Strike we know at all.
I mean, the basic idea is the same, but the means for optimizing it would be completely different; this is intended, this is the goal.

Here's the variant:

Vital Strike

You make a single attack that deals significantly more damage than normal.

Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +6.

Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage.
Add your Base Attack Bonus to the damage roll.
This extra damage is not multiplied on a critical hit, but is added to the total.

---

I'm not sure if the following feats should increase the damage further, up to BaBx3,
or apply the extra damage in more situations
IE: Spring Attack, Cleave?
or both.

What do you think of this, balance-wise? Would you consider it for your character?

How much is too weak, and how much is too strong?

Sir Duke has permanent Mind Blank.

I make a contingency "when Sir Duke plays his own song, do X"

If we had to follow the rules strictly regardless of inferred intentions, would this work?

I've read a lot of threads on stealth, but some things still elude me.

1) What action is it to create a diversion to hide?
Some say it's a separate Standard Action, akin to a feint.
Some assume it's part of the stealth attempt.
I have yet to see proof of any statement regarding this. Is Paizo still silent? How does PFS handle this?

2) If you do not have HIPS but you can hide without the need for concealment or cover (i.e. Slayer's Camouflage, Ranger's LV12 Camouflage), and you succesfully stealth when not observed, can you thereafter stay hidden in the middle of nothing, and walk around casually, in front of people, unnoticed as long as no enemy makes a high enough perception check? Or do you need concealment/cover by the end of your turn anyway?
(In case it's the latter, does this ability even do anything?)

3) Let's say I have Nightmare Boots. This gives me concealment on my turn as a swift action 3/day.
Is this functionally identical to HIPS, -except that it does not work in bright light- as long as I end my turn with cover or concealment?

4) If we put together 3) and 2) can I use boot-activated concealment on my turn to break observation, hide, and then stay hidden in the middle of nothing?

5) How does attacking from stealth in melee even work?
Is the enemy flat-footed against the first attack? Can you even get close normally without automatically breaking stealth?
What if you have an ability like the ones in the 2) question?

6) What special senses trump completely hide, assuming you need and you ahve cover? I know things like Scent allow to pinpoint your location, but it's not the same as being found out. Once a creature knows your location but you're hidden (i.e. you have HIPS or camouflage-like ability and you're hiding in the middle of nothing) what happens? Does the creature get a bonus to notice you?
What about blindsight/blindsense?

7) Same questions as 6) but you are hiding without cover, as in 2), so even if the creature can pinpoint your location and see the square you're in, you're still hidden. What happens now?

I would like to GM an adventure path soon,

I'm looking for something that works without assuming the PCs will follow a specific course of action, allowing to access to later contents even if something goes wrong or is heavily changed along the way, and leaves the PCs with a lot of spare time to pursue their own goals.

Kingmaker I've heard is very sandboxy and can be paced freely, fast or slow, as needed. Unfortunately, some of the players are already playing Kingmaker in other groups.
RotRL is what we are playing now (I'm a player) so this one neither.

I've looked a bit at Way of the Wicked, and it doesn't seem what I'm looking for. If anything, it seems more constrained than most good campaigns.
I wouldn't enjoy GMing that.

What would you suggest?

here is the special ability: Flamboyant

At first sight, I thought "this is great"*, but then a couple of doubts arose and now I'm not sure it's worth it anymore

"Whether or not the wielder of a flamboyant weapon has any deeds, she can always spend 1 panache point from the flamboyant weapon to reroll an attack made with it that missed due to rolling a natural 1"

"spend 1 panache point from the flamboyant weapon"
-Does this mean I can't use my own panache to reroll 1s?

"an attack made with it that missed due to rolling a natural 1"
-Does this mean I can only reroll 1s that would have hit if the rule that turns 1s into auto-miss didn't exist?

*My table uses fumbles, sometimes; I don't really like fumbles

...using Weapon Trick (two-handed tricks) which allows this combination
So, wielding an actual, two-handed weapon

What would the best route to go?

I figured that perhaps a Dwarf Warpriest, with its increased base weapon damage, would be a good start.
Dwarf is for the Goblin-Cleaver line. But I'm not sure there are enough feats available to make it work with Warpriest.

iirc Fighter and Barbarian have archetypes that help wielding large weapons, not sure if that's useful here but it sounds promising.

Impact weapon property is definitely a thing, and so is Lunge.

Also this could work with cornugon smash+hurtful for a bit of extra damage, but that's not the main goal.

Goal is, of course, get really big and deal very big damage with a single swing hitting multiple enemies.

No 3rd parties, base races, assume 20 pb (or more, if necessary), no variant rules.

Any idea? How would you proceed?

A player in my group argued that since "attacking on a charge" is in a different and subsequent section, partial charge only includes movement, and no attacks.

I believe he's wrong because the basic charge includes the attack in the full-round action, and the partial charge is still a charge, with some specific caveats. Such caveats don't say you can't attack. However, we couldn't agree about it.
He believes that "you can only move up to your speed instead of double your speed" means literally "you can only move (not move and attack)"
I believe that's a wrong reading, as the word "instead" indicates that the phrase states a limitation for movement only, not on the whole charge

What is your opinion on this?

In a recent session, we fought against a Lamia with charm person at will.

This is how we run things:

"You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do.
An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell."

This, to our understanding, meant that the charisma check allowed for one order that could be very dangerous AND against the character's will.
The Lamia had we fight each other, because that's apparently in the scope of the opposed charisma check possibilities.

In addition to this, we also ruled that

" If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw."
Was not referring to the "threatened" state as defined by the threatened squares rules, (i.e. you're in a square I can attack, thus threatened, thus you recieve a +5 bonus) but really was to be intended as verbally or factually threatened (i.e. "I'm going to kill you" or getting close with a raised knife)
So we didn't get the +5

We're not sure if we did everything right. One player was very unhappy with how things went and said that we should at least have got the +5 because we were technically threatened by the Lamia (in the sense that we were in her melee reach)

The Lamia however did never attack charmed creatures, nor her allies did

Question: Did we make mistakes?

If a special ability states "a malevolent armor... etc" or "this shield... etc"
Intuitively, it seems implicit that the special ability is only intended for shields OR armors, depending on the text, even if no rule specifically states that such restrictions may exist.

EDIT: Is this the case?

Please help me figure out how one should rule these situations:

1) There are two adjacent rooms and a closed door,
In each room, one group of an unspecified number of people is making loud noises. Each person in both room is aware that "someone" is in the other room, but they cannot see how many people.
In each group there is one person hidden.
The door opens, combat starts.
Is anyone surprised?

2) Same situation as above, but the 2 people hidden are NOT allied with anyone else. Is anyone surprised now?

3) Mario and Luigi are playing cards. Bowser is hidden close to them.
Bowser wants to attack Mario and Luigi in a surprise round. Can bowser get close to them "out of combat" and then use a standard action to attack, or must initiative be rolled as soon as Bowser detects Mario and Luigi?
If initiative is rolled as soon as Bowser is aware of Mario and Luigi, What happens if Bowser doesn't attack at all?

4) Same situation as 3, but Mario and Luigi are fighting each other instead over who gets to eat the mushroom.
Bowser arrives. How does initiative work for Bowser? Are Mario and Luigi flat-footed vs Bowser only?

4.b) Is the answer is no, is there anything preventing people to declare they'r constantly "in combat" vs rocks or allies to become immune to surprise?
Please mind I'm asking RAW

5) This is a special request, I would really personally appreciate if you complied:
Before answering, for every explanation, please make an effort at imagining if the rules you're describing always, always work, in every obscure unimaginable corner-case, or if there are specific exceptions, and if there are, please state it clearly and suggest a course of action.