Search Posts
Stamina doesn't help casters with their spells. It does. After party runs out of stamina, advancing with less than half HP is not recommended, so the party will look for a long rest, replenishing the spells. It is probably the balance step wanted by designers, as easy fights spend few stamina and spells, while hard ones get much from both.
If you want to establish it by rule just apply the Stamina rules from GMG, as it is clearly made for that IMO.
I like Monk as base class because the lack of armor for better mobility and unarmed attacks. But noticed that for attacking with shield needs martial weapons, so it should get first the Fighter archetype, that can benefit for taking also AoO and Reactive Shield from it (shield block as general feat), then Bastion mixing with Monk feats starting at level 8 (also the 1st level feat would be Monk) depending if want more shield or unarmed combat based.
If you allow to throw shields, someone with dwarf Returning Throw feat, Shield Block, Reflexive Shield and Adamantine Sturdy shield. Can also get other shield feats if wanted. Notice that you can get the shield stuff with Bastion archetype, so you could use Monk as class, and Adopted Ancestry if don't want to use a dwarf.
I now wonder what is the best class to build Captain America. If you allow to throw shields, someone with dwarf Returning Throw feat, Shield Block, Reflexive Shield and Adamantine Sturdy shield. Can also get other shield feats if wanted. Notice that you can get the shield stuff with Bastion archetype, so you could use Monk as class, and Adopted Ancestry if don't want to use a dwarf. The Bastard Sword feels great in versatility as you can in the same round:
If you feel that breaks the game maybe it could be less radical just remove the heighten for Longstrider, so you can only cast 1 hour version.
Oh yes I removed runes. The capabilities including bonuses are embedded all, non-transferable, AKA old-school items. Yes that is houserule, but others are supported directly by GMG. So you consider GMG are houserules? Also think that I’d only mentioned then others asked, so I responded, not sure if not responding would be better. Anyway I’d say no more, looks like @Errenor didn’t understood what I wanted to say. Don’t want to generate what seems to be more offending material.
And in all of that, you still haven't mentioned why Rune of Armor Potency +1 shouldn't be held to that... Oh yes I removed runes. The capabilities including bonuses are embedded all, non-transferable, AKA old-school items. And magical weapons are armors are like any other magical item, harder to find. What is easier are quality items, that grant only non-magical bonus. @Errenor if you prefer instead realistic call it more old-school. There are no few things on these modern games that sounds to me too casual and far from true RPG concept and try to get away from those things.
The one formula is from the remaster? I am pretty sure in the original is one formula per spell. Looks the remaster just reinforces the core system, so I’ll pass. What I apply (original game) is that for quality items (those with bonus but non-magical, from GMG, and with no property) and scrolls there is no need of formula. As writing your own spells in scrolls is a core feature IMO. Looking at the GMG that “designed with widely available magical items in mind” seems to be after the simplification I mention. Combining rules from the own GMG we can get a much more realistic game.
Probably you could not even get a single wand of longstrider in the whole campaign, maybe if you are some lucky.Good thing that in a campaign 1-20 there must be a couple of crafters (probably including PCs) and a bit of time to craft 5 common (and completely commonplace in lore) lvl 3 items which use a common (and widespread) spell! The formula could not be available Is another source of getting items (but must be crafted), that requires some more work and time, but is not guaranteed you can get. As mentioned, the only way is a character having Crafting and Inventor feat, is investment so it must be rewarded. And even in that case it requires more time and money.
I mean availability. Just use the buying and selling of GMG about magical items and market.
That could imply you cannot find whatever you want, but randomly determining what items are in the shops, and making them hard to find. Probably you could not even get a single wand of longstrider in the whole campaign, maybe if you are some lucky. The core rules ruins many things of the game, classes, features and etc. and looks like a single simplification for attracting new players and casuals in a more wargame style playing: you clean a map, exchange money in the virtual shop by items, and go to the next map. Awful for RPG IMHO and experience. We have a recent example about Prepared vs Spontaneous, where you can go with a Spontaneous and just buy scrolls for single usage circumstantial spells (like breath water). What about if you have harder access to that, not able to get that collections of spells at all? Maybe could find eventually 1 or 2 of some spell you want, but that's all, use them wisely. Or who is going to use any other than just stacking damaging runes in the weapon, for doing insane amounts of damage by its own with no need of companions? Finding a flaming sword has no value at all, as you can easily build your optimal on demand LEGO weapon making that flaming sword just a trash.
And this example is repeated "every 2 pages of the book" as you can find so many things ruined for having that unlimited source of any item.
My GM is the worst, he doesn't even allow a wand of longstrider because he says it's "one of the most broken things in pf2e". Yeah, the problem is that expending machine which you insert money and it returns the exact thing you have in mind. Without that, tell me a way for all the party to have it apart from one character having Crafting with Inventor feat and spending extra money for creating the formula.
Shield block fits nicely in the fighter profile, as a class to adapt any combat situation. Maybe we could be used to the “perfect situation” of typical playing, I wear my perfect equipment, with my perfect companions. Think that in reality it could be forced to use anything at hand. It is already prepared to use 2-handed weapons (just strike), can also use 2 weapons (but usually requires some extra training as is more complex), but maybe you find in the situation where you have some fighting equipment around to get quickly and ready to combat, which could be some weapons and protections (like a shield), so no matter what you get you are able to fight properly. So I think it fits perfectly in the base fighter class training.
Or allow only dwarves :)
But the fighter get both AoO and shield block! How can a fighter complain about its use of reaction! The ones to complain could be spell casters.
Just get an archetype of the tradition arcane or occult so you add its spell list to your character. Then you don't need to trick the item. So currently with your decisions you are not able to cast that spell from an item. The character creation is an important choice on any RPG. Anyway surprised that your GM is so restricting with some things but looks like uses the garbage magical item shopping core rules with that Amazon that has everything (but wands of longstride haha) and in any quantity (it makes me sick).
They learnt to use a shield in basic fighter training. Others must pay a feat for that. The Bastard sword is a nice weapon, if it would have the same features than longsword and greatsword, costing the same, who then would use any other?
If the wand of longstrider is broken, just buy scrolls of it.Lol ya I did that, he said "do you think I'm dumb?" ?? It is not even an uncommon spell, you can prepare and craft your own items easily as is a low level spell. How can you prohibit that? Even game designers don't consider it as is not uncommon, and is so easy to get the effect anyway.About scouting, I was thinking about reducing 2 the creatures perception, they are indeed high, always with Perception maximized like if all them was a Ranger (which players cannot do). But then I realized that you usually use covers, and the scouting process is supposed to be that way. Remember that with cover we get +2 to hide and sneak, and using the taking cover can change it to greater cover for a +4, which you can also get by crawl if there is no much cover.
Anyway this doesn't change the fact that the creature perception could be a bit too high and if not justified (i.e. animals with improved senses) could be reduced a proficiency tier.
What I understand is that you can't act while stunned. So if you are stunned 2 then you can't act while those 2 actions, then the stun ends and you can, but then there is no stun.
That is how I understand too. You use the MAP of when readied, but later you are using a skill that increments the MAP for each attack within.
It could be interesting to see how the titan wrestler guy now suffocates the huge Hydra or the gargantuan Tarrasque. Seriously, don’t you think this should be revised?
I think suffocation works just like underwater, so it would start counting from that moment like if you were underwater and not directly fall unconscious.
Think that usually only martials have AoO so for a mostly full martial party is a nice way to use reactions, but in a mixed party let’s say of 5, with 2 casters, 2 martials, and maybe the last one a mixed one or a Rogue without AoO is not so clear.
I don't have fun playing a game like with cartoon physics. Exactly, for that PWL. As maybe (not sure) mentioned earlier, this game has so many things that sounds stupid to me using its core rules, with GMG helping a lot to make it a more serious (so playable to me) game. But the core one has so many things that looks like "cheap?", video game, or simple tabletop game, that meh.
Agree. That is another established habit in modern games that cannot understand, to save the world in 5 minutes. In other older systems rounds was 10 seconds, and you usually only could attack once (and only attack if want to use all your bonus), o cast a spell taking multiple rounds.Those “epic” battles against powerful bosses enclosed in 1 minute…damn you cannot imagine how I’d like real epic long battles against huge monsters, having to think your tactics and taking advantage of anything around you.
Yes, but for me a good role-playing is not a cartoon. There are many things that ruins the experience but that’s another story. And magic is not related is something totally apart, but that’s another of another story.
It would be more credible with the condition “if you can grab”, I think about it like the typical brute pulling a chain to avoid the big dragon to move away. But if your hand cannot grab any part of the target to make the catch… The use of tools should be required, the abstraction sometimes is excessive.
Reading much about actions like grapple or trip, but both have the same requirement: “Your target isn't more than one size larger than you.” This makes Enlarge spell much better if you use that tactic.
Trip should apply only flat-footed on success (because unbalance) and prone on critical success.
What sucks is the magical items loot and shopping. Restrict both using the GMG point 2 or a mid between 2 and 3 (3 = no magical items) and Crafting is the only way to have what you want. The time is not bad, is the way to prevent to fill the world with magical items. And also makes players to chose what items they want to craft, instead just getting all of them, that could if there is no hurry at all, but probably will be more selective for items that could be outdated quickly. What I introduced is a raw material collecting system. Retrieve materials from creatures and environment and if you refine them (currently requiring crafting specialization that can be got multiple times) the material cost is halved, that is the cost of refinement process.
Also the time can be reduced if multiple characters work at it, if possible (usually up to 2 characters can work on any item). Each one makes its own roll to check their contribution to time reduction, so can combine characters with different proficiencies.
What I like less is the consumables with that trivial simplification of using the same system but you craft 4 units. Currently I give the option to craft individually with the corresponding relative time used.
Maybe development? As more skills/features you develop you increase associated stats.
I am the opposite, the adventure content is what it is and not going to change or modify just because players made their characters in some way. But an adventure goes much beyond combat, so if the party is only focused in combat, maybe they lack something useful to make it easier.
I think the issue is less that I'm engaging in hyperbole, and more that you're making a straw man out of what I've been saying, and not just my own arguments. Note for instance how I specifically mentioned freedom of optimal build choice: you are free to allocate your character's attributes as you want; the simple point being made in this discussion is that some distributions of ability scores are optimal over others. As with the example of that other character, you can dump Dex on your Barbarian to boost your Intelligence if you really want, and in less challenging adventures that's likely fine, but you are still sacrificing a major benefit (Dex saving throws) in exchange for a minor benefit (RK skills you can't use while raging), making for a suboptimal decision. Really, the issue here with several people seems to be less that they disagree with the notion of optimal build decisions, and more with the fact that they feel personally targeted when the sort of suboptimal build decisions they make in their own games are labelled as such in a broader conversation. That is half-truth. It is true that you can trade some points and be playable. But let's say we have traded some not only one (magical item selection, etc.), it is not the same hitting a creature with a 10 (optimal) than requiring a 14, much harder. I repeat the problem is the d20 with all-or-nothing system. If instead the previous example of 10vs14 to even hit, it would be that you deal 12 damage instead 18, probably it would be much more relaxed to trade points, as probably the main issue is that fear of wasting rounds not contributing anything in a just missing all your hits.
As many noticed some Int features are relevant if the game is like GM not guiding the party. There can be texts with relevant information, with more chance to read them if you have 4 languages instead only 1. And having trained skills as assurance, if the main character fails, it is always better if you can succeed with a 16 than only with a 20. And can always get relevant lore skills, like Dragon Lore, Demon Lore, or Region Lore if relevant to the adventure can helps a lot. About the removing stats, instead that could be a good change to link them more to the associated skills. I.e. a weight lifter usually will have good Str as is associated to the training itself. Then a system in which you increase the associated stat when you increase proficiency in an associated skill to show a normal character progression.
An option could be the GM changing some creatures numbers and features in time to avoid the player knowledge. Just exchange saving numbers and some weakness/resistances. There is no need to be written with iron just to fit.
GMG is on of the best books, as let's you to configure your game and fix some terrible core rules. Yes. But mainly interesting variants and a fix to the awful magic item loot system compensating with ABP alternative, which can be applied partially.
GMG is on of the best books, as let's you to configure your game and fix some terrible core rules. Is something new included in the GM Core?
Neither for creatures. It pushes too much stress to all the maths stuff because that all-or-nothing system. It also heads to stupid situations which you can literally make a picnic in the battlefield if you are X levels greater than foes as they cannot literally touch you.So remove level and make others matter more. Remember that level also puts HP difference and other abilities. And could be interesting some for advanced players, a system like the GMG skill points variant but for all skills, including combat, spell-casting, perception, and those attached to class level, allowing to specializing earlier paying the cost or bypassing. It could be good for small parties as some character could get Perception expertise with no need to be Ranger or Rogue, or a caster could decide not getting weapons beyond trained only to focus on spells.
After reading through this thread as a whole, I have to ask another question. What about having your KAS starting at 16/+3 instead of 18 when you make a character? Would any of you consider such a bold move in the end? Is there any benefit to not having a 18/+4 in your KAS?For most characters, starting with a KA mod of +3 instead of +4 effectively means taking a -1 penalty to all of my most important rolls and DCs, a penalty that can stack with all of the other status and circumstance penalties that may occur. Unless I'm playing an extremely funky and MAD build like a Mutagenist Alchemist, which doesn't rely as much on their key attribute so much as others, I would consider lowering my key attribute to be really suboptimal in a game where every +1/-1 matters. The “every +1 matters” is because the all-or-nothing system. After playing some of them, definitely have a problem with all that maths stuff and the obsession it generates. We need intermediate results. A table or formula for applying different damages once you have made the attack - defense and get the result, maybe with fixed damages then adding damage dice depending the the result. Also the stats should start lower, and give more relevance to proficiency, developing both stats and skills getting the final bonus. And the level itself should be lowered a lot (if any), something like level/3 or /4. The PWL is far superior to the core in the realism but is a half-way solution. It is good but training (defined in previous lines) should matter more.
Base stats made a lot make a lot more sense when you either roll for them or can have them change, such as getting a new body in an Altered Carbon game, than they do in games where they don't change except slowly by leveling up. In a game like PF2, they could ditch them entirely or set a primary and secondary array for each class and 99.5% of characters would be fine. They're already all but set for you and vestigial so ditching them or making them interesting in some other way for PF3 would be a big improvement. Played a game with all stats duplicated (the same than the variant with Dex) and worked well. We already have it for Str/Con, with one for bonus to skills, attacks and damage, and the other for HP and ST. Repeat for each stat, like Dex in the variant, but also for Int, Wis and Cha. One for bonus to skills, attacks and etc. and the other half for granting useful stuff.
Maybe not auto-scale but at least allow to apply to any skill to upgrade up to X, which X could be Expert (safe) or Master (aggresive), Legendary could be excessive. Also including the 1st level, allowing to use the points from Int to upgrade trained skills to Expert, if not those characters starting with 18 could have many Int points wasted forced to get other skills instead improving those it really wants.
The variant stats rule does well but only half. It is good how it splits Dex, and moves Will saves to Cha, but makes Str too strong and Int is untouched while Cha is improved a lot.
... Yes but I mean you need the training, something that we usually take for granted as we all get training on it.
There are other things, like deciphering, or maths. This last one is a good example, as probably the players uses their own maths instead the character's, or even worse get a calculator (any GM allows that?). That is totally wrong, we all are at least trained in maths (by school), and in modern society the Int value can be high on average compared to a fantasy RPG character. So if a character wants to approximate the numbers of an army, must check with its Lore War or Society skills using Int, but I am almost sure that some GMs gives that info to the player if it asks without requiring any check, as they could see it something normal. So remember to require a check as the characters are not the players, who have learned in academics opposed to their characters, with Int and its associated skills the ones showing who went to academics. The player can have the ideas, but is its character who executes it. So the player could guide ahead the correct direction, but is the character who have to make the check when required, that is not always of course, but if some kind of skill is required, just when your character want to climb, that don't uses its player skill.
Yes the RAW are not good in this case. In fact, most probably GMs can improvise a rule better. I.e. increase difficulty only on failure, and require some kind of refocus to reset the modifier. I see no reason why if I am in the correct path of recalling the difficulty must increase.
In my experience, general rules work better, are easier to remember so to apply. Just get your skill bonus, the DC, and then some global rules to apply no matter the skill, then there can be some exceptions, but the lesser the better.
Think the same, just a starting bad roll is not enough reason to no get any info at all, it just means that more time is required. Remember that on critical failure you get false info. Can set a limit from which if you fail then cannot try more, but not the 1st one.
Also the 2nd point doesn't really make sense because if you wanted to get expert in religion you could just spend your standard trained skill into religion instead of a skill you only planned to have trained. ?? So you are saying that losing something planned is not a concern? As mentioned, I got surprised, about what is qualified as important and with so many assumptions, like if when adventuring you would only face the predefined A, B or C and that's all.
Surprised about how easily are extra trained skills underrated. You get: 1) It is better to be trained than untrained. A co-op check, if you are alone (so improves individual survivability). It is better if you can succeed with a 16 than only with a 20. 2) Saves you skill points. Use extra trained skills as starting then improve. I.e. you could be a Wizard but be interested to be able to cast Resurrect ritual, use Int to get trained in Religion then just use 1 skill point to get expert, instead using 2 SP. 3) Also, take advantage of it to get trained in skills that usually you wouldn't, i.e. get Athletics even if you are a caster to compensate your probably low Str. Certainly I can only see advantages.
Int based skills are really cool, and very well categorized by the system. But the same than Int could be for Str for many characters. What I think is that some stats are favored, granting many things in a single stat. The GMG suggests other stats, but I don't end liking it.
It could be necessary for newcomers for giving tips about what you can do, but I think all that stuff of "modes" is not necessary at all, just play naturally and sometimes rounds will be required, and that's all. I find trivial when to do the transition, with no need of modes or anything.
|
