Search Posts
Strange that we had enough DMs to fit the entire space in 2019 and now they are all gone. Its doubly weird given that the overall attendance in 2022 was higher than even 2019. Snarky response but you miss the point. The overall attendance is up notwithstanding covid. Is there some reason to believe that Pathfinder GMs are more concerned about covid than other gamers? If not, that should not be a factor.
I was disappointed to not be able to get tickets for the special events. But when I got to Gencon it was clear why: the Pathfinder presence seems to have shrunk considerably since the days of 1e. Where once we had all of Sagamore ballroom, now we have shrunk down to 1/3 of it or less. Does anyone know the reason for the decline? Is 2e less popular?
Paizo chose not to create work for 4e primarily because it required adhering to a license that (1) prevented them from producing under the original license and (2) was revocable. The new OGL replaces the original license is likewise revocable: "“can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason whatsoever, provided We give thirty (30) days’ notice.” My guess is Paizo does one of two things: (1) fights WotC by claiming the original license has vague language was understood for 20 years to be irrevocable or (2) reframes Pathfinder 2e as non OGL and a separate non infringing work. Both approaches have merit in my opinion. However, whatever path they take they will need to do so immediately because as soon as the new license takes effect they will potentially be incurring both consequential damages and statutory fines by selling their own (theoretically infringing) product. Their lawyer will tell them to pick one of the lanes above and then either seek a TRO/Pre Inj against the new license or a dec relief action to find that their product in non-infringing.
So the wasp trapped in amber... does it do anything besides be a key? It doesn't seem to have any stats. I'm just checking since every other key seems to be magic item on top of its key functionality. It should be a magic item. Any thoughts on its powers?
I treated each phase as a scene. That resulted in a final awareness of 15 with their failures and mistakes included. That seemed fair to me.
So at present if I wanted to run Age of Ashes on Foundary VTT what would be involved? How time consuming would it likely be?
A quick question about Foundary. I use FG mainly because of the automation and the fact that you can buy the APs pre made. You mentioned that PDFs could be easily imported. I assume that they are not available for sale. Is that correct? If so, how easy are they to import? Is there some kind of parser?
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?
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.
Was Zinfandel originally named Primitivo?
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.
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.
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).
Whoops, late to the party. Is the buffet still open?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The would only apply if the rules contradicted. However the limitation from plate and the limitation from mage armor are concurrent.
I disagree. The fighter has a whole feat chain that is based on having a open hand.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I have a question about the Goblin Dogs. What check is used to improve their attitude? Diplomacy or Nature?
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).
That is correct, everything is either a spell or not a spell in PF2. that is so much better
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?
Is there still both TAC and AC?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Google: "The hands of the king are the hands of a healer"
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.
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.
Nice job with the skills. That addresses my concerns.
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.
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.
How about a bard performance that negates criticals while it is in effect?
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
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 Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 164 posts (175 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 6 Organized Play characters. 