Search Posts
During a recent game PFS scenario, we had a disagreement as to the wording of Aeon Stone (Preserving) which says: "This red crystalline star covers you in a faint aura when you are subject to lingering wounds. You gain resistance 3 to persistent damage. At the end of any turn where the persistent damage can't overcome this resistance, end that condition. The resonant power allows you to cast stabilize as a primal innate cantrip." There were 2 different interpretations of how this could be handled, both around "can't overcome" to cause the end of a condition. The situation was a player was taking a d8 persistent of bleed, and the GM rolled 3 bleed that round, and thus the player took no damage at the end of the turn. First, the persistent damage was unable to overcome the resistance at the end of that turn since it was 3 or less, so the condition does end.
This was a GM call at the table, but trying to determine how to rule it going forward in PFS.
1) What happened to the old PF1 end of game replays? Are they still around, being recalculated, or totally replaced? Will the old number be displayed again for those who don't track everything in spreadsheets? Yeah, I had the same question for PF1. I'm assuming you mean the one-time allotment of replays we were given a while back. Mine now appear to be all gone. It would have been nice to get a heads up if they have now taken away. PF1 also had "Expanded Narrative" boon for replays
I just hope this doesn't create additional barriers for people to run high-level games now. While I personally don't care about the additional cost (and understand its necessity), it seems like there aren't a lot of high-level games out there already.
I hope they don't bring the Challenge Point System over. While it works for PF2, it's also another part of the system that has kept me from moving over to the new edition.
It might be your thoughts and dreams, but would be more my concerns and nightmares. (But is really just a matter of opinions differing.)
This is all tongue-in-cheek from me guys. I'm not trying to be the fun police or anything. Yeah, but here we are... Instead of calling people out as "pretenders," could have just marked it as having two sages. Realizing that someone might not have seen it listed. Words have effects, and being called out isn't any fun, even if "tongue-in-cheek." Makes a player's choices feel discredited a little bit.
Hey all. I know during Season 9 and 10, they included a few of the "Legacy Boons" on Chronicle sheets. During an blog post about a year ago, they said they would explain these boons in further detail during the lead to PF2 since the rules weren't fully formed at that time. Has there been any further word as to the what these boons will actually do mechanically? Or is it still one of those things left waiting for answers with the new system?
I kind of had this same thought the other day. Since they are changing the boon system for PF2, then I'm wondering if there will still be any race boons available for PF1. The focus won't be on PF1 really, so I don't see races really changing or new race boons put out for it. If not, then would only ever have the ones listed above.
Wrong forum, but as to the subject.
I think the 3rd point "for" just sounds more like someone not liking the ability existing than an argument for. Foe Throw modifies the base of the blast and changes the peramiters from one of weight to one of size for ease of play. This prevents the PC every time they want to throw someone from becoming a "Guess your Weight" carnival game runner. (Haha) And prevents a random unknown plus a save from maybe stopping the use of the ability.
Name: Atticus Kabel, the Tanzanite Sage
I'm for option 2. I feel is a good compromise, which provides a nod of dedication to PF1 and shouldn't be unfair to new players/GMs. Established players feel like that weren't ignored, but still have to put in the time and all into GMing to get the results out of it. Thus, encouraging more GMing in the new edition. New GMs just have to put in a handful more games and can still get the same runes/glyph. (Though I am a sucker for titles like in option 3, but that's just a personal thing.)
While I haven't looked through all the that is coming out in this book or that has been said in this thread, I want to add my 2 cents that I too am getting a bit sick of seeing some of these nerfs (and over correction nerfs in some cases) that have come through the campaign. I know the two big ones people are discussing for this. So I'll start off by saying I don't have a Lore Warden, and I think only a couple of my characters have the Clear Spindle. However, when I see some of these changes come through, some will hail as a "Need to bring balance!," but I feel it lends itself to a feeling of powerlessness to the player and lack of control in the game. And when you get down to it this is just a hobby to me. It's where I choose to spend my money, time and support. Yet, when I see changes like these happen and it makes me wonder why I put into it sometimes. While I understand sometimes things need to be nerfed due to game-breaking concepts people develop that were unforeseeable, these changes seem to be for things that were functioning as designed. And while these few changes aren't the heart of the probably, they are a symptom of the problem to some.
I agree with Mark on this. I think that approach to Hero Labs just a generalization based on a few experiences. I have seen HL used frequently in my area, as a player and GM, and have never seen is cause a disruption in play. If a player becomes disruptive during play, then there would have cause to have them stop using it, but a blanket "disallowment" from the start just doesn't seem right. But yes, they do need a physical character sheet on hand as required as part of PFS. As long as they have that though, I would say let it go. |
Venture-Agent, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth 20 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 42 Organized Play characters. 
