Galguth Shund

Danbala's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. ** Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 155 posts (166 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 5 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 155 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Charon Onozuka wrote:
The specific rules of Scroll Savant don't actually interact with the crafting rules, they replace the creation process entirely with just having you make temporary scrolls directly from your spellbook.

What do you make of the fact that the feat says: "These scrolls follow the normal rules for scrolls (page 564) . . ." And those normal rules include the crafting rules?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I had a few questions about scroll crafting.

First, there is the general rule that crafted items require you have the formula. Is this true for scrolls? The rules on crafting a scroll state:

"The process to Craft a scroll is much like that to Craft any other magic item. When you begin the crafting process, choose a spell to put into the scroll. You have to either Cast that Spell during the crafting process, or someone else must do so in your presence. Casting that Spell doesn’t produce its normal effects; instead, the magic is trapped inside the scroll. . . ."

Does casting the spell replace the formula requirement or is it in addition to the formula requirement?

Assuming the later, then what is the utility of the 10th level feat "Scroll Savant"? This feat says:

"During your daily preparations, you can create two temporary scrolls containing arcane spells from your spellbook. These scrolls follow the normal rules for scrolls (page 564), with some additional restrictions. Each scroll must be of a different spell level, and both spell levels must be 2 or more levels lower than your highest-level spell. Any scrolls you create this way become non-magical the next time you make your daily preparations. A temporary scroll has no value."

Does that mean that wizards who use scroll savant have to have the formula and cast the spell to make the scroll? If so, and given that the spell lasts until the next daily preparations, what is the benefit as either way you use the spell slot for the day?

Thanks in advance for your response.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mathmuse wrote:

. . . She will be active during the 1st session because one player will play Zinfandel, a Chernasardo ranger trainee mentored by Aubrin.

...

Was Zinfandel originally named Primitivo?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

You decide after damage is known, but before it is dealt.

Pretty sure the devs discussed this in detail on Twitch.

That's nice, but take a look at these shields:

Arrow-Catching If you use it and the attack hits you automatically use Shield Block, before hearing the damage.

Forge Warden To use one of the main features of the shield, you have to Shield Block. But Hardness 6, 24 HP isn't really very much at level 10.

These are shields where using the Shield Block is clearly part of how you're intended to use them, but their fragility compared to level makes them quite bad at that.

Yes, if you look at creatures at the same level that just seems wrong. Take a cloud giant. Its boulder will do around 30 points on average. If you redirect with arrow catching shield you have a roughly even chance of having it destroyed. The forge warden shield faces the same problem when hit from the cloud giant's ranseur.

The numbers seem off. My expectation is the shields should be able to block at leas three blows before they are destroyed. Anything less and they don't seem like shields.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Update: I went into his room yesterday and he was hunched over his desk writing on sheets of lined paper. He was eager to tell me about the "rock giant" that he designed to throw at his friends during the adventure he's running tonight.

We talked about his monster design ideas including giving the monster some cinematic weaknesses. I'll be curious to see if he can intuit hs way to a decent game balance (or whether he will be forced to do a little behind the screen fudging).

BTW, tonight includes 2 new players to the group, so he now has a party of 5.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I had a nice report that I wanted to share with the 2e team. My teenaged son has been playing Pathfinder for several years in a game I run. Twice in the past he has tried to run games for his teenage friends (Pathfinder and Starfinder) but they were unsuccessful - the rules were too complex for the group and they grew bored. He was reluctant to try it again.

One of his friends mentioned giving it another try. My son was reluctant at first but decided to give 2e a try.

The result? They played their first game this Saturday for three hours. They were so excited they played again on Sunday for another six. Their next game is set for this Friday.

My son credits the new rules for getting it to stick. (I also think he increased experience as GM was a factor).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Danbala wrote:
Zapp wrote:


(And if I do think the encounter needs to be amped up, note that by adding an Orc Warrior I end up with the exact same result: (480+120)/5=120. In short, leaving it up to the GM whether to keep the encounter as is (less xp) or amp it up (same xp).

Why...

Your example assume you are playing an published adventure. If that is the case, you will need to modify the encounters to get the adventure to work as intended.

Why?

Because if you give them more or less xp they will level at the wrong places which can have a severe implication on the outcome of boss battles.

Whoops, late to the party. Is the buffet still open?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zapp wrote:


(And if I do think the encounter needs to be amped up, note that by adding an Orc Warrior I end up with the exact same result: (480+120)/5=120. In short, leaving it up to the GM whether to keep the encounter as is (less xp) or amp it up (same xp).

Why...

Your example assume you are playing an published adventure. If that is the case, you will need to modify the encounters to get the adventure to work as intended.

Why?

Because if you give them more or less xp they will level at the wrong places which can have a severe implication on the outcome of boss battles.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
keftiu wrote:
Do we have an order specifically dedicated to hunting pirates? Failing that, what existing Order first this best?

I believe there is an order referenced in the Hell's Rebels adventure path that is dedicated to protecting sailors on the sea: Order of the Torrent.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:


It seems like the standard cycle for a string of combats is combat->ten minute rest->combat->ten minute rest. I worry that a lot of people are going to get tripped up on this because it isn't as flagrantly codified as 5E's short rest and is more something that you'd be expected to intuit as the replacement for PF1's minute long wand thwapping.

Agreed. And if the players were particularly curious about a room or needed extra time to heal and didn't feel a sense of urgency, it wasn't unusual for them to take an extra 10 minutes.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Draven Torakhan wrote:


What I DON'T enjoy, is what they've done to druids.

I am running the Age of Ashes adventure path and in it it states that it take 10 minutes to search a room. As a consequence players who need to regain focus find time to do that following most combats (at the expense of doing something else, like searching). Also, between combat healing takes 10 minute. I suspect you'd find that you have more access to your wild shape than you expect. In fact, I'm not sure you'd ever need more than one focus point.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I have been able to run two sessions so far. As a DM, I have been surprised by:

* Increased mobility has increased the creativity and resilience of the party. Our rogue has been able to move around the battlefield from cover to cover and then spring out with a surprise attack, and then duck back into cover if need be. The casters could back off and position if they were targeted. All players easily able to pull back out of combat when they saw that they were in trouble. Finally, when characters went down it was easy for other players to step up and help them. My impression was that all the mobility kept players from feeling “locked out” of the game by being limited only to certain options. Instead a number of tactical opportunities were opened up to all players and they used them to make the party more resilient as a whole.

* Secret checks actually speed up the game. I thought that the rules for secret checks would slow things down. Under the old system the player would roll in a serial fashion. If someone rolled poorly the next person would roll until they were satisfied they had hit whatever number they suspected was the target. Under the new system, I could just roll quickly. When it came to searching in particular, it really helped with meta gaming as people were basically forced to accept the result of their effort which eliminated the serial rolls for the most part. Further, I have found that critical failures have changed the story in an interesting way.

* The 10 minute resource makes non combat more tactical. Speaking of searching, it was also interesting to see the result of 10 minute actions on play. Players basically had to choose whether to search the room, rest and regain focus, or do something else (like fix their shield). This made time into a resource which added tension to the time between combats. I found it to be a positive change.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Midnight Anarch wrote:

This brings up a question raised (but not answered) elsewhere: is an object's hardness "resistance to all damage"? If so, the example given in the CRB means that energy damage can be reduced by shield block, based on the shield's hardness value.

Resistence page 453 wrote:
"It's possible to have resistance to all damage. When an effect deals damage of multiple types and you have resistance to all damage, apply the resistance to each type of damage separately. If an attack would deal 7 slashing damage and 4 fire damage, resistance 5 to all damage would reduce the slashing damage to 2 and negate the fire damage entirely."
Item Damage page 272 wrote:
An item can be broken or destroyed if it takes enough damage. Every item has a Hardness value. Each time an item takes damage, reduce any damage the item takes by its hardness."

Wait, now Im confused. In the example above my expectation is that the shield and the wielder would both take 6 damage (assuming a hardness of 5).

Does the quote above suggest that the hardness would be applied separately to each damage type so that they both take only 2 damage? If so, then shields just got a lot better than I assumed.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Isn't the usual rule that specific overrides the general? Yours is a reasonable argument.

The would only apply if the rules contradicted. However the limitation from plate and the limitation from mage armor are concurrent.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:


I wouldn't put this in the same category, simply because nothing in the Fighter Class even suggests you should attack unarmed. The fact that you jump from Expert to Legendary is weird, but it's not a trap option since prior to that attacking unarmed is not actually encouraged in any way, making it much less of a trap.

I disagree. The fighter has a whole feat chain that is based on having a open hand.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bill Dunn wrote:


Yeah, I'm with Malk_Content in that you don't need to be that anal. You could say (and I'd hope to see more of this): "I take a potion out, go over to James, and pour it into his mouth. That's an interaction, stride, and interaction for my 3 actions, Dan."
Then it feels more natural for the description, but includes the player accounting for the specifics with the GM.

Hopefully, we get to that point. In this first game, things sometimes slowed down when I clarified the specific action and the traits associated with that action -- it caused some players to revise their turn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There were also few things about 2e, that were more difficult as a GM than I expected:

First up: Action List. When I played to 2e at Gen con and I said “I swing my sword” Jack, our GM, would often correct me by saying “Ok. You take a strike action.” I found it irritating at the time, but now that I have a game as GM under my belt, I know why he did that. Each of the actions have different attributes. The GM needs to understand clearly what action you are using because these actions may trigger certain reactions. For example, if you say “I take a potion out go over to James and pour it into James’ mouth” what you are really saying is “I use an interact action to take out a potion. I use a Stride action to move to James. then I use my final action to use Interact to poor the potion into James’ mouth.” The interact action has the manipulation trait which means it triggers certain reactions — most notably attacks of opportunity. Also the traits effect how often an action can happen in a turn (actions with the “flourish” trait can only be used once per turn). They can also effect the order of you action as some actions can only happen after you use the Strike action, for example. All of this has the potential to be pretty complicated. I wasn’t expecting just how complicated this could be to run. I think Im up to the challenge but it will take some work.

Another thing that will take some getting used to: Item traits. So all of the weapons have traits, armor has traits and so on. This created some confusion in my mind. There are 12 different traits that apply to weapons and they all have special rules. On top of that there are “weapon critical traits” that apply to classes of weapons. Weapons also have materials as before and can be subject to runes or other enchantments that also have special terminology. This is also true of armor that has its on set of traits and materials. For the players this is straightforward: they only have to worry about the traits of the weapon they are using and they can’t use the weapon critical effect if they have a special feat. But for the GM you need to have a handle on all of these rules and how they interrelate. In some cases these rules impact the tactical options of the NPCs. It’s a bit much to try to take in all at once. Again, I’m optimistic I can get on top of it, but it caught me off guard how much extra load this put on my brain.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:

"Mobility equals Resiliency"

This works both ways though. There's no reason the DM can't also have the enemies do hit and run tactics. So it can become this slog of trying to chase them down or pin them in long enough to get killing blows.

Maybe. But when you are fighting giant rats and skeletons it doesn't seem in character for the enemy to do that. Also, in most cases the monsters are outnumbered which limits that tactic's effectiveness for them.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zioalca wrote:
That's great to hear! My group is still trying to decide what they want to play and how we want to go. I offered to run the first part of Age of Ashes as well as The Fall of Plaguestone and the new Society Scenarios.

I'll give you a non spoilery review of Age and Plaguestone. They are both very well done (but you expect nothing less from Paizo as adventure writing is their strength).

Ashes is a very traditional beginner first level adventure with a Keep on the Borderland feel. (i.e. a dungeon complex that the PCs will travel back and forth from to the local hamlet with deeper challenges as they level).

Plaguestone start off as a "whodunit." This leads into some location based encounters and then finally a mini dungeon.


30 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I had my first chance to run 2e and I was pleasantly surprised by a few of the new rules and their effect on my game. I ran the first part of Age of Ashes basically as written.

First up: Secret Checks. I thought that the rules for secret checks would slow things down. I needed to know everyone’s scores and then personally roll for everyone. It sounded like a drag. Plus, it seemed to take some of the fun away from the players. In fact, the secret checks worked great. It actually sped things up because I could just roll quickly for everyone and do the math in my head. When it came to searching in particular, it really helped with meta gaming as people were basically forced to accept the result of their effort. There was also a nice feature of the adventure that basically changed the results based on how much time the party allocated to the search. This made searching into a game of resource management. Finally, the secret knowledge checks were also fun. We had one critical failure when one player tried to find the way toward the tower that sent the party on the wrong direction. We also had a critical success that resulted in another player learning some interesting information about the goblin tribe they were dealing with. In both cases it changed the story in an interesting way.

Next surprise: Damage was not spikey as I thought it would be. I assumed with the new critical rules that combat would involve a lot of burst damage and sudden kills. That wasn’t the case. First of all, criticals were still not all that common. In most cases you would need to roll a 20 to crit by getting 10 over the target number. Second, everyone had enough HPs that the occasional crit could be absorbed by most combatants. Finally, they seem to have made damage from spells more consistent and less spikey. The really strong effects only happen on a critically failed saving throw which only comes up about 5% of the time.

Next surprise: Mobility Equals Resiliency. Speaking of resiliency, I was pleasantly surprised how increased mobility changed the game. 2e does two things to increase mobility: it got rid of most attacks of opportunity and got rid of full round actions. The big beneficiaries seemed to be the glass cannons such as the rogue and the casters. Our rogue was able to move around the battlefield from cover to cover and then spring out with a surprise attack, and then duck back into cover if need be. The casters could back off and position if they were targeted. All players easily able to pull back out of combat when they saw that they were in trouble. Finally, when characters went down it was easy for other players to step up and help them. My impression was that all the mobility kept players from feeling “locked out” of the game by being limited only to certain options. Instead a number of tactical opportunities were opened up to all players and they used them to make the party more resilient as a whole.

Next surprise New and interesting treasure I think we are all used to the usual first level treasure haul. Scrolls, potions, etc. 2e opened things up a bit with new kinds of consumables that could be applied to weapons and armor to give truly powerful bonuses but only once. For example one player now has a modification to his battles axe that will let him at +1 and an extra die of damage for one attack. These new magic items seem fun.

Overall, our group had a very positive experience.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Danbala wrote:
I have a question about the Goblin Dogs. What check is used to improve their attitude? Diplomacy or Nature?
I'd say Nature, but if you can speak to them somehow, then Diplomacy.

I just noticed that the Ranger has a feat called "wild Empathy" that allows players to use Diplomacy with animals. Does that mean that other players can't use diplomacy with animals?

If so, how do I reconcile that with the instructions on page 24 regarding the warg puppies: "While predisposed to the cruelty of their kind, they could grow into friendlier creatures if given love and support. This requires a successful DC 16 Diplomacy check each day, and does not count as a downtime activity. After 10 successful checks, the warg puppies’ attitude toward a PC becomes friendly, and the creatures will follow a range of commands."

Is it based on the intelligence of the animals?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I have a question about the Goblin Dogs. What check is used to improve their attitude? Diplomacy or Nature?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BonesXIII wrote:
I am wielding a katana in one hand and a shield in the other. If I drop my shield as a free action, take an action to change my grip to hold katana in 2 hands, does that count as a "manipulate" action ? I can't seem to find a clear answer. Thank you for any help.

Yes. To change your grip requires an "Interact Action." Interact Action's" have the manipulate trait (see page 470). Traits with the Manipulate trait trigger an AoO (pr page 142).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
That is correct, everything is either a spell or not a spell in PF2.

that is so much better


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

In 1e many monsters had "Supernatural Abilities" that couldn't be affected by dispel magic, SR, etc. My read of 2e is that monsters now only have "Innate Spells" that follow the standard rules for all spells (i.e. they can be dispelled).

Is that correct?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Is there still both TAC and AC?

1/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I understand that Scotty’s brew pup has closed in the past year. Is Paizo sponsoring a replacement location?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Quick question abut the starship level heavy laser cannons on the roof of the garrison. My players intend to try to have these added to their ship when they level. Is there any restriction on that? Is it simply a matter of spending the BPS? If so, will that make them overpowered?


15 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I agree with your analysis for Paizo's motivations for 2.0. But I disagree with your assessment of the current level of acceptance among players. I believe that a solid majority of the player base is happy with 90% of these new rules. But the purpose of the playtest is to iron out problems so it not surprising that problems are the focus of discussion online.

There are certainly some payers that HATE the new rules and they have made their opinions clear. But it seems to me that they are in the minority.

Having said that, there are a few parts of the rules that seem universally reviled: resonance and gating feats behind class requirements come to mind. But my guess is that Paizo will "fix" these aspects of the rules the same way that they "fixed signature skills.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tridus wrote:


Having five healing clases instead of two spreads the healers across more classes. It doesn't create a ton of new healers. Why? Because people who don't want to play a healer won't, no matter how many classes you dangle in front of them.

[snip]

Clerics actually handle this elegantly right now, because if you make a Cleric of a good deity, you have healing, want it or not. But using it doesn't impact your ability to do other stuff, and you can totally specialize away from healing if you want to.

I think you found your way to the correct answer. Clerics have a base class plus a healing package essentially as a free add on. You don't spend other resources to heal.

My point is that Paizo could essentially just add that healing package to Druids, Bards and Alchemists. People who played those classes would be playing healers by default. They could play there class as normal during combat and heal between combats if they wanted to -- effectively replacing the wand of CLW.

Even if you are correct and most people just don't want to play healers, that fact should not stop anyone from playing those classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
nogoodscallywag wrote:

However, it's my firm belief that roles not filled should hamper the party in some way- hamper in a way, for example, that nobody should have the healing power a cleric does, or the casting power of a wizard.

.

Why limit a role to one class? Shouldn't, for example, the 2.0 Bard and Sorcerer "have the casting power of the wizard"? If not, why take them?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tridus wrote:
The game itself is diminished if someone is forced into the role despite not wanting to play it..

I think you are missing the point. If they added a healing pool to druid, alchemist and bard that was similar to what clerics have, then those players would be able to play the class they want AND heal the party between combats. Moreover, the cleric player could potentially focus on something other than healing.

That opens up the game to more possibilities and less enforced roles.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Robert Bunker wrote:

I don't seem to remember there being an iconic health battery in The Lord of the Rings.

Google: "The hands of the king are the hands of a healer"


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tim Schneider 908 wrote:
Don't hurt the cleric's combat niche but give some options to lengthen the adventuring day for a party without a cleric.

I disagree with the idea that clerics should be the only dedicated healing class. I think the lore fits with the idea of Druids being as a good at healing (natural remedies) and Alchemists as well (magic potions). The idea fo Bard inspiring their friends fits with a certain conception of healing as well.

The more they spread a healing pool concept to other parties the more likely it is that you will end up with a healer in your party (and the more likely you will see a non healing focused cleric).

Frankly, I'm even sure of there is such a thing as "too much healing." Healing is still always finite and having more healing just encourages the players to keep adventuring and taking less naps. I think that is good for the story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zautos' wrote:

I read thro "On the topic of Hit Points Healing -- What about Stamina?" forum post and most people there think that they should not be obligatory.

Do anyone think that it's a good thing to always need a cleric or other healing focused class in the party?

I think that healing is a core part of the game. It makes the game more interesting for the players to have specialized roles -- such as "face" or "knowledge guy" etc. Healer is an important one.

My wish would be for more classes to be able to assume this role as well as the cleric currently does it. Druid, Bard and Alchemist, in particular, come to mind.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Nice job with the skills. That addresses my concerns.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tamago wrote:


Good question. I think tradition is really the main reason. And I absolutely *do* think that other classes should be able to be great healers.

In my opinion, it should be possible to build a bard, or druid, or sorcerer or whatever who is a better healer than a "standard" cleric. But if someone takes a cleric and really optimizes them for healing more than anything else, I want that to be the best healing in the game.

But again, there's no particular reason clerics should be the ones who are the best, aside from tradition. As long as a cleric doesn't feel required in order to have a prayer of surviving the dungeon (pun intended), I'll be happy.

Ok. I think we are on the same page. In my ideal world several classes would have a "healing spec" that was roughly equivalent in power but maybe went about healing in a slightly different way.

I think someone on here had the idea that Leaf Druids could heal with regeneration that was slower but healed more over time. While Wizards might "heal" with force fields and other forms of damage mitigation. Bards might give out temporary hit points to simulate "inspiration" and so on. I like these ideas. They seem flavorful.

Ideally, dreaming up and playing healing builds would be as much fun as coming up with damage builds.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tamago wrote:

I do want Clerics to be the best healers in the game, . . . .

I agree generally with your sentiments but I'd like to challenge you a bit on this one point. Why -- other than tradition -- should clerics be the healer? I agree that they should be among the best. But I think the game would benefit if other classes were equally good.

And it might also encourage more variety in cleric builds since you wouldnt feel that you were letting the party down everytime you chose an option that didn't optimize healing.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gaterie wrote:


In the other hand, inspire courage is huge. In some of my simulations against strong monsters, it was +30% damages for other party members - in other words, the bard was doing his share of damages without actually attacking, just by spending an action on inspire courage.

How about a bard performance that negates criticals while it is in effect?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

One issue that has come I my group's playtest: clerics are perceived as "mandatory."

The feeling is that the swingy combat from high crits necessitates the ability for significant in combat healing and post fight recovery In current playtest. The perception from my players is that only clerics seem to be well suited for that job because of their ability to use a special resource (channel) to heal. This has resulted in a certain "sameness" of their party composition.

I would propose that Paizo consider adding a "healing spec" to other classes by adding a channel-ilkei ability based on Charisma. For example, the Bard Maestro muse spec, the Druid Leaf order and the Angelic bloodline for sorcerer all seem uniquely well suited for this. Perhaps the alchemist could be granted an option for channel like healing from elixirs?

Obviously, these would not be true channeling -- that power should be reserved to clerics. But Leaf Druids, for example, could have to ability to a plant based healing a number times a day equal to their charisma modifier. (perhaps by generating healing spores). Like a maestro bard could perform a healing performance a certain number of times per day, etc

My feeling is that spreading out the Channel style healing will improve party variety and not force every cleric into the heal role


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:


Goodness; you are actually completely right in that regard. Even if you (critically) succeed on the Fortitude saving throw and go from dying 1 (or 2) to dying 0, you are no longer dying, but you are still unconscious. You have to wait until someone heals you, or the GM plays nice and lets you wake up after "at least 10 minutes to several hours."

Isn't that basically how it works now in 1e?

Ps: The death rules shouldn't be balanced around 100% TPKs. I suspect that is an "edge case."


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lisa Stevens wrote:
Arklore wrote:
I ask this because in 2015 and 2016 D&D had almost no presence at GENCON and was not even in the main convention hall in 2016 where as Pathfinder was in the Sagamore Ballroom, totally packed from 8AM till roughly 11PM.

And at GenCon 2018, the Sagamore Ballroom was packed with players 24 hours a day for four days.

From what I heard from those GMs running demos and the PFS GMs running the PF2 scenarios, there was an overwhelming wave of love for the new rules once people actually sat down and played. That doesn't mean that there aren't some rough spots that might need to be filed down, but the mood coming out of GenCon was extremely positive.

-Lisa

I was one of those folks and, yes, it was extremely positive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:

The PCs did their best to recover. They spent Hero Points, and the cleric doled out healing, but unfortunately, neither automatically pops a character back into the fight in 2e. The janky dying rules still demanded Fortitude saving throws to regain consciousness, and even when that did happen, the characters lost an action and had to spend two actions picking up a weapon and standing from prone. There was absolutely, positively whack-a-mole going on during this process; the fighter dropped to 0 hit points a staggering three times during this battle, and they got to make an attack exactly once, whereas the barbarian dropped to 0 hit points four times, and received absolutely no opportunities to make any attacks. This was what prompted the barbarian's player to ragequit; I took control of the barbarian from there.

•...

The way I would handle this situation is require the the goblin NPCs to make a challenging medicine check to notice that the formerly dispatched player was in fact still alive. If the failed they would move on thinking they had conquered their foe. This would give the players a chance to regroup.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zi Mishkal wrote:

I've been thinking about this for a week now. IMHO the system is still skewed, just differently. It's like trying to focus a microscope, it was too far out of focus in 1e, and now it's too far out of focus in the other direction in 2e.

My quick thoughts on how to dial that focus in.

1. Keep resonance. I can't stand it, but I understand why it's there.

2. Kick up spellcasters' # of spells a day so that they max out with 5 spells/day of 1-5th level, 4 of 6-7th level and 3 of 8-9th level.

3. Take the +1 die damage out of magical weapons and put it back into the proficiencies - so someone trained in the longsword does 1d8, someone expert does 2d8, master 3d8, legendary 4d8 (+ability bonuses get multiplied as well). Lancelot's sword isn't the hero, Lancelot is.

4. Double the raising shield bonus, but make it applicable to 1 attack per proficiency level. If the shield is equipped but not raised, you get the regular bonus (so raising it would be 3x in total).

That would get combat to feel more like a life or death struggle, I think. What we have isn't terrible, it's just very mundane. I'm a firm believer that our actions ought to be meaningful if we take the time to do them.

1. sure. but something should be done for alchemist.

2. agreed. Spells have been nerfed a bit across the board. I think letting them keep more spells makes the game more interesting.
3. I dont like this one. Magic items need to feel special again. I think the current rule makes them much cooler.
4. this sounds a bit fiddly to implement.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gozer "Bone Splitter" wrote:
I said this in my Giant Totem post. I believe all classes should get a set number of skills to be trained in, say 6 but the player gets to pick which skills those are. I think each class should then get to pick either 3 signature skills of their choosing or get rid of signature altogether and give each class 2 skills they are experts at. This way it gives diversity to every character.

Yes, but, most character classes are basically required to take certain skills. For example, Rogue with Thievery. You might as well just give rogues expertise with Thievery at a certain level because they would be crazy not to do it.

If paizo adopted your suggestion wouldn't people just complain that having to take certain skills to make their class work amounted to a "skill tax"? I say, just assign one or two mandatory signature skills to each class and let them pick sig skills from the rest.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gozer "Bone Splitter" wrote:
I said this in my Giant Totem post. I believe all classes should get a set number of skills to be trained in, say 6 but the player gets to pick which skills those are. I think each class should then get to pick either 3 signature skills of their choosing or get rid of signature altogether and give each class 2 skills they are experts at. This way it gives diversity to every character.

After thinking about this some more, i think each class should get the same number of skills increases per level — lets say 6. Among those skills will be one or two signature skills that are simply those that relate directly to the class — such as Theivery for Rogues.

Would that work?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Secret Wizard wrote:
Evergreen post: Signature Skills is a bad system and needs a redesign.

Are you saying: "just pick talents, no signature skills"? or are you saying "make sure each class has the same number of signature skills"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

One of the best things about the playtest rules is the acknowledgement of three modes of play: encounter, exploration and downtime. The rules also do an excellent job in making sure that no one class exclusively grabs the limelight during encounter mode. All classes have a chance to shine.

But that isn't true for the other two thirds of the game. For legacy reasons, some classes can become trained in ample skills to be effective during exploration and downtime modes (rogue, ranger) while others do not (fighter, barbarian). Worse, in order to maximize their effectiveness in encounter mode the unskilled classes are encouraged to use their limited resources on skills such as athletics that have less use during exploration mode. As a result, exploration mode is the time when the fighter catches up on his social media.

I understand that historically the rogue (i.e. thief) was the only class to have any skills at all. But I don't see any story reason that fighters and barbarians are automatically unskilled morons. In fact, the literary versions of such characters are often the opposite (Conan, Fafhrd, Elric, etc).

Why not give the same number of skills to all the classes? If anything it would increase the customization of all classes.

If that is not possible for legacy reasons, then I have another suggestion. Most of the classes have one or two "must have" skills. For example, Thievery for Rogues, Perform for Bards, Religion for Clerics, Arcana for Wizards, Athletics for Fighters/Barbarians, Survival for Rangers/Druids, and so on. Without these key skills each class is not functional.

Why not just give each class their key skills without having it count toward their total number of skills? In other words, just give Fighters athletics for free and let them use their skill training on the truly optional ones.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:
You do get Quickdraw, then Skirmish Strike later. I don't like the penalty on the latter. You can use these to open and get two attacks afterward at -3 with Double Slice.

Do you have any sense of why they limited the ranged feat to crossbows? I always pictture Rangers with bows.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bardarok wrote:
I think they are intended to be redundant. Hunt Target works best with bows and single weapons (1 or 2 handed) so the ranger feats exist to make other fighting styles (dual weapon and crossbows) viable despite not using the rangers main ability much.

I guess its a matter of perception. If they called "Double Slice' "Improved Hunt Target" I'd probably favor it more even if it just did the same thing.

1 to 50 of 155 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>