LFG in a PF2 game. I will make whatever the group needs. I will play in APs, in homebrew, in whatever.
I am free most nights but not Friday. Pacific Standard Time.
Search Posts
I have to agree that many early level encounters in PF2 APs are just way too brutal. As a DM, I roll behind the screen specifically so I can tone down the number of times the party gets critted at these levels. As they level up, I start to do that less and less. By level 3, we are basically playing straight. This is all with me giving the party 5e style spell slots, plenty of hero points, and a generous amount of added magic items and consumables. At the end of the day, there is no point in blaming the AP though. Ultimately, the DM has to treat everything (the rules, the adventures, etc) as suggestions and then adjust them to meet the needs of the party.
My modification to the whole kobold thing: - Im gonna have a leshy in the Tipsy Tengu chatting it up with the party about poor wages. He will describe how they get pay deductions for materials used in labor and how at the end they may only end up with a pittance for a week of work. He won't work at the Pagoda but will say that cheap non-human labor is a widespread thing in Absalom. This guy won't be a kobold, so it won't telegraph it too much. - None of the kobolds outright killed any other workers. Instead, Rekarek rigged some of building to collapse. It was supposed to happen once the non-kobold workers in the area were off shift (and the area was clear) but the manager forced them to work overtime. Now Rek's desperate and, fearing being brought up on murder charges, she's threatening to bring the whole place down unless she's given a pardon (partial bluff, she can only take down some of the construction). - Rek will let the party pass uninjured if they agree to see her and her compatriots safely out of the city unharmed with enough money to sail to another port of call. The manager will agree to pay for this if the party keeps it all hush-hush. This will come back to bite them later when the Ollo hears of it and they end up getting a lower stipend (or maybe lose some of their discount at the quartermaster). He cannot fire them since he has no hard evidence but he puts the party on notice. The choice won't be murder the kobolds or no. It will be follow the law and bring in this person whose recklessness led to death of coworkers or free this person who was mistreated by their employers and acted out of desperation. - Rek will be initially hostile as she is scared. Her and her people will fight but can be reasoned with. However, odds are these kobolds will fall if the party does not approach with stealth and do things like listen to kobold conversations, try to knock out/question guards, etc. - Rek may agree to be taken in but only if those kobolds she has enlisted in her cause go free. Taking this middle way does not come with any blow back and gains the party some kobold contacts. However, it may comprimise their ideals if they are hardcore pro-law. - Skerix cautioned Rekarek against sabotage. The humans "held" there are sympathetic to the kobold cause but Rek won't let them leave (leverage she can't let go of). So Skerix took them in. Skerix is more than willing to talk. However, she too is scared of the police and will fight back if attacked. In essence, Skerix has broken no laws and is much the same situation as the humans with her. - The manager doesn't reveal the poor pay or overwork. She just states that these kobolds killed some non-kobold workers and destroyed a part of the pagoda. She paints them a ravenous and she laments hiring them.
Casters in my games get 5e/arcanist casting. Spontaneous casters get a few extra class dependent perks. Spells prepped/known is basically just spell mod+level (again, some perks for varios spontaneous casters). Wizards get 2 thesi (2 major, 2 minor). And their feats and class features are reworked a bit (basically, that whole bonded item crap is removed, there are no generalists). With all this, casters still trail behind the raw power of melee martials but the added flexibility makes them actually great to have around. I even nerfed electric arc a bit (3 actions to hit two targets) and players didn't mind. Made other cantrips interesting enough to use on occaision.
Has anyone put out any homebrew for this that removes the civil forfeiture and fine/bribes?
I house rule plenty and have exactly zero problems shooting down this kind of creativity.
Folks can judge this stuff however they like. I look at this and see a munchkin build. Listen, going with stuff like this devolves the game into an adversarial experience where the PCs and GM try to a-ha and get over on each other in a series one-upmanship sessions. A chess match where you dig through rules and defend this build or how that ability could really do x or y. Some people like this. I personally do not find that kind of play compelling (especially when it goes extreme and reaches into exploits like this). I got over that after my brief dance with 3.x. Basically, I am too old and have too little free time to waste on tables that play that way. If you disagree, that's fine. It takes all kinds. I'm just sharing my perspective as a GM.
I am all about fun and am very open to bending rules and straight up homebrewing to help a player realize reasonable PC concepts and have a good time at the table. However, when a player's fun is wholly rooted in power gaming to the nth degree, then I will absolutely have a sit down with that player. If they don't like it, they can walk away and that may best best for all parties. Ideally though, they see that making munchkin PCs that exploit game mechanics is not all there is to this game and that that sort of selfish play hurts the narrative and the experience when taken to irrational extremes.
We have to agree to disagree on this one. This sort of thing brings back my worst memories of 3.x games. With players cobbling together options that make little narrative sense together and seeking mechanical advantage by doing ridiculous things like carrying around bags of rats and attacking teammates. If that works for your table, fine. But players that seek mechanical advantage at all cost even when breaking the narrative for others just have no place in games I run.
As a once in a while burn a hero point kinda way, sure As a round after round exploit, this is munchkin to the extreme.
Does it work by RAW? Sure. Would I allow it? No. I would also have a sit down with the player who brought this to my table about the shared narrative we are trying to create and how this sort of thing can hinder that. This is one of the major negatives of games that allow high degrees of customization. Some players get so lost in the chargen minigame that they forget about everything else.
I find I have to take the axe of lots of bits when running PF2. Skill actions get majorly hand-waved by me very very often. I often find myself treating non-combat stuff as a sort of skill challenge - I dont like dealing with diplomatic states or having basic functionality that everyone should have locked behind skill feats (Ala- Quick/Group Coercion/Impression). Exploration activities are mostly ignored at my table and only really brought out on occasion. I also ignore silly bits like bulk limits of containers and the like. I largely ignore how stealth is supposed to work too because tracking varying stealth states on a token against all nearby targets is a hassle that has very little return in DM investment. I use multi-stage afflictions very sparingly and ask that my players do the same. Having multiple afflicted tokens on the board is alot to track. One or two is alright though. I suspect that alot of these complex bits are due to developers wanting to have a ton of "design space" to allow them to create oodles of items, feats and archetypes. Unfortunately alot of this stuff can feel super situational and can, at times, feel like complexity for complexity's sake. I think this is why they went with strict vancian rather than 5e/arcanist preparation too (another bit I had to house rule away). Once I tamp down all the bits of PF2 that result in unnecessary book-keeping and I get the game to a place where I can run it a couple beers in, then I find it a joy to GM for. The 3 action economy, degrees of success, +10 crit and other bits really add alot to the experience for all involved. You get lots of info on that everywhere, so I will focus on the my favorite bit about PF2 as a DM: Monsters. Monsters are super cool in PF2. I don't find that folks touch on this enough in PF2 reviews. One negative: some stat-blocks are badly made (lots of page flipping to figure out how monster abilities work at times). Still, once you get a hang of running and making your own monsters, you may find that PF2 monsters rival those of those found in 13th Age. 5e monsters are really just bags of hp by comparison. Anywho, in closing... With some work, PF2 can be the most enjoyable, balanced and fun to run Fantasy d20 game out there. But theres no way I would run it stock.
Sorry, that wasn't intended to be dismissive or anything, it's just not a phrase I'd normally use in my own writing and I generally put quotes on those when I do use them in response to someone else doing so. That's fine. We're good. I think the other bit to keep in mind is "how attractive is this?" At times, you have to weigh whether a thing is too attractive or not attractive enough. And you may have to sweeten the pot a bit or pull somethings back irrespective if things are strictly mechanically balanced. 1 AC for such a large chunk of damage seems a little too attractive. This is doubly true for what is effectively a roaming damage satellite. The player values AC a heck of whole lot more on a PC but not quite as much on a quazi expendable pet. An argument could be made one way or the other if its mechanically balanced (I'm not convinced it would be but I can see how it might be) but thats not strictly the angle I am looking at.
I don't know if similar AC is 'too samey'. Almost all PCs have pretty similar AC and I don't think people find that 'too samey'. Sure, but other classes and builds are differentiated by things like Flurry of Blows or feat trees like the Snagging Strike line. While the pets have some varying abilities, its not really on the same level as a PC. Also, I disagree with your conception of balance. Mathematical balance is one way of looking at things but that's not really the way I think of things. Options in my games need to be attractive and viable not mathematically balanced down to the exact percentage. Sorry, thats a bridge too far for me. No need for the air quotes, by the way.
I think that brings the AC too close, imo. Seems to me the difference in AC should be niether overly punishing nor negligible. Like the difference between a Raging Giant Barbarian and Crane Monk or something. I think I will be keeping the difference in AC in the 2/3 range in my games. It is a clear improvement and it makes the STR pet playable compared to the current implementation. The way I see it, player's don't think mathematically about these things when its close. They favor offense in my estimation. Also, if you make them too samey, then that isn't good either.
This is basically my solution as well, only I'm also upping the Max Dex Mod of Heavy Barding by 2 as well, getting the ACs almost equal (in practice, the Str Companion is still almost always one point behind if wearing Heavy Barding...but only one). I think that brings the AC too close, imo. Seems to me the difference in AC should be niether overly punishing nor negligible. Like the difference between a Raging Giant Barbarian and Crane Monk or something.
Looking at it, I am think my preferred fix is now.. 1. Savage grants expert barding proficiency
That should net the Savage companion 4 more AC (when in heavy barding) and 1 more attack by the end. So, it would be around 2 AC behind at the Savage/Nimble break and around 3 AC behind by the end. But it would not be behind at all in attack.
I think I'll put in these two fixes in my games: 1. Savage animal companions increase the dex cap on heavy barding by 1.
That way, the AC on a str companion is still worse but it's not way way worse. Also, they don't fall behind on attack.
Anyone else think animal companion types are a bit unbalanced? The dex based ones can get expert (nimble) and then master (using dex specializations) prof with unarmored. Strength based options leave armor prof at trained. Considering that higher dex also means higher ac, the str based companions seem really really hosed. Typical dex companion: +3 base dex, base trained unarmored, +1 dex mature, +2 dex nimble, expert unarmored nimble, +2 dex specialized, master specialized Base ac unarmored (not counting level) seems to be able to reach 24 with all those bonuses (10+X). Unlike PCs, I can't find a rule that caps ac from dex at 5 for animal companions. Other benefits include more sneakiness and better reflex saves. Typical str companion: +2 base dex, base trained unarmored, +1 dex mature, +1 dex savage, +1 dex specialized. Base ac unarmored (not counting level) seems to be 17. The strength companion can wear heavy barding but due to the dex cap that only increases ac potential by 1. So, 18. I know the str based companions do a bit more damage. By the time it's specialized, the strength based companion will probably do a few more points of damage due to having a higher die size weapon and like 3 more from higher strength (maybe 6 more damage on average or so). Also, the first time you get specialized, you get +1 dex but not +1 str. So the str based companion will have 1 less bonus to attack than the dex companion. Looking at it, str based animal companion seems like a trap to me.
I feel that the way the math works (with crits and so on especially), level matters plenty more than you are letting on. In any case, I have always found, even apart for PF2 and in other table top games, that how you do against tougher opponents matters much more than how you do against scrubs.
@citricking That's actually does not reflect the math or design philosophy of PF2 at all. The base design of PF2 is that modifiers like +1 or +2 are as impactful at low levels as they are at high levels. So, the same could be said of other numbers.
But the low ac guys don't really matter much, honestly. They are fodder. My party nearly wiped on the first boss to Fall of Plaguestone. They didn't sweat anything prior. None of of the packs of enemies really phased them. But the first boss, by himself, was enough to drop two PCs and an animal companion while taking the other two PCs below half. So, ya, scrub clean up is fine and all but the way PF2 math works, modeling against high ac is more pertinent in measuring how good an ability is in play when it really really counts.
This one sounded it good enough for me to throw in for a subscription. Last two didnt thrill me. Hope this one is better
Hello, I am new to Paizo subscriptions. I go to my subscription page but I do not see a way to cancel a subscription or put it on hold. How is this done?
The problem our table found was flexibility. With arcanist casting (for prepped casters) and more spells known/prepped at lower levels, the casters feel more like casters despite the reduction of spell slots, the loss of auto heighten and the general reduction in spell power.
At my table, I made a custom "mage" class. Basically, a pf2 wizard with arcanist/5e casting, 2 thesises, one extra spell slot for their school and no arcane bond. LINK Despite all these buffs (which effectively boil down to flexibility), it seems very balanced with the party martials (a monk and a ranger) and the mage player is having fun. If there is something about the game that doesn't work for you, PF2 is very modular so you can pretty easily change it. Just talk to your players, figure out where the ruleset falls short and make adjustments.
Ya, the Swash is pretty MAD. It's added HP is pretty easily counterbalanced by it not being able to invest as much in con because of that. Also, Flat Footed is super easy to get most of the time. So, needing that is not really a mark against the rogue. End of the day though, the Swash seems like a fun class. If you don't obsess over balance, you can play it and be effective. If you want a reason to play it, it's that the mechanics more actively support a very specific style of roleplay.
Sorry but, you do know that PF2 rogues make great medics, right? They get expert before anyone else and get loads of skill feats. Also, with rackets, you can vary up your rogue quite a bit more.
Ya, people change things all the time. I changed the strict Vancian nature of the magic system and replaced it with Arcanist casting because that worked for me and my table. The ability of any table to homebrew is not the question though. The discussion is about a feat representing mundane healing in battle and people somehow interpreting that as requiring no tools or hands. I think its funny how the people now saying "this is my table I can do what I want" were the same folks who several hundred pages ago in this thread were saying "RAW says its this, RAI or your opinion thereof doesn't matter." Standard forum behavior, I guess.
PF2 is really good and is my current go to for Fantasy d20. There are a couple bits that could be better. The thing I most dislike most is the strict Vancian system but its very very easy to patch that out. Another bit that I think could be a bit better is the NPC stat blocks. They rely a bit too much on tags and that results in a fair amount of page flipping from the monster, to the monster abilities pages and other pages related to said tags. In play, its not the best. The whole perception, tracking hidden, point out stuff is also a bit of a sore point in play. The last sore point are afflictions. Those tend to be a bit of a pain to track in play. They really could have looked to creating a bit more ease of play in general. Almost everything else is great. The game feels much more tactical than 5e without the rules heft of 3.X. There is no death yo-yo and less quickie I win buttons. The rules could be a bit better organized, but they feel consistent and easy to suss out once you land on the page you need. The 3 action system is satisfying and does not slow down play after a couple sessions of experience with it. The new crit system and the 4 levels of success is well done. The enemies are memorable and the encounters you can build with them are exciting. All-in-all, very good. Thank you Paizo.
Cool, so we've finally moved away from people thinking they could rub the pommel of their sword on an injured guy or spit from afar or something to heal someone with battle medicine.
If you make the INT reqs too high, then it only applies to a very small subset of characters. It's good that there are strong options gainable from decent INT. That's the whole point. I can see making the first one have a level 3 req, the second could be 7 and the last one could be 15.
Cool doc, but shouldn't the Adamantine Buckler have either a BT of 38, or HP of 74? Woops, fixed the typo. Thanks for the heads up. Still fiddling with it.
This is the latest version of the document I will be sharing with my players when we start our new campaign. I am still fiddling with the document, shifting numbers here and there and generally adding bits and pieces. Its definitely not finished (I've added a pair of runes and still need to add more). LINK This is done in GM binder - so whoever wants to can just copy it and change the numbers to their hearts content. I will probably be making Darkwood common in my campaign (and this document). I will also probably add "low-grade" versions of it too.
If I buff up Darkwood, Dragonhide and other such non-metal shields, they can use those. I think that will be my solution.
I think I will just go with my solution. Using a linear runic bonus, some shields, particularly dragonhide shields, will be too much of a draw. I will have a better draft posted in a day or so. I am thinking that each shield will be able to get a single enchantment but they will be gated by material. So, I will leave sturdy, but that will work only for regular steel shields (I will draft a similar enchantment for bucklers with lower shifted numbers). It won't be as much of a draw though since the special material shields will be boosted a fair amount. The other runic enchantments could then be affixed to other shields depending to their material (like how reflecting only works on silver, and the like). Anywho, I will play with it. I am starting another PF2 campaign soon and want this ready for it since one of the player's loves to be the tank.
Data, I simply turned "Sturdy" into a Shield rune that can be placed on other shields, including ones with other abilities or made of special materials. I had thought of something like a rune but that didn't capture the difference in Buckler's vs shields or the difference between materials. Basically, it would be too linear. I went through and tried to keep rough ratio in difference between these things as they improved in hardness. It may be that a more linear improvement is what's needed ultimately since if a given shield doesn't reach a bare minimum of effectiveness and there isn't enough incentive to use a different material, then there's an issue. Still playing with it. It's very rough at present.
Anywho... Going back to the topic of the thread... This is how I would do sturdier shields: LINK. I just kinda spit balled it real quick. The shields under level 4 may be problematic. But those afterwards should be fine. This is just the special material shields. Doing the special one off shields would take a bit more messing around.
It also hinders creating characters of a higher level. *Shrug* That depends on the GM and the players. I think PF2 leaves quite a few options for players using just default assumptions. Far more than most rpgs. Having the line between uncommon and common is great since that gives the DM the dials he needs to better set the tone for the campaign from levels 1-20. This helps both new DMs and new players since its easier to get into the game. Ya, once you get a feel for it, you can peel that back a bit. I think it also helps dialogue a bit more. In most campaigns, I tell my players, hey, just run that uncommon stuff by me first. I'm good with it most of the time. But, hey, sometimes I'm not. Its fine because that leads to real dialogue and compromise. But, YMMV. The default assumption is not that the GM will restrict access to all Uncommon items. The assumption is that they will determine what is available and when, not that they are preventing access to them in general. The stuff in the book is basically: "Hey, you may want to toss them some cool spells and loot they can't normally get on their own. Maybe they can quest for it or something. Its up to you if you include it or not. Here are some suggestions."
DM advice is fine and stuff you find while adventuring is fine (all under the purview of the DM) but that is very very different from an assumption that a player can make when hitting magic mart or crafting. Without the OK of the GM, they can't plan a character around it with any assurance, they can't save up for it and they can't make it. Also, while the player can hope the DM may lay some uncommon stuff down, they can't assume the DM will use the stock options laid out in the CRB or what options they decide to include even if they do. If the DM decides Detect Poison or whatever will derail his adventure, no amount of effort would compel the DM to include it. This is by design. They did this so new DMs arent pressured by players for it or made to feel like the default assumption is the spell's inclusion. They don't need to plan an adventure around it. The devs were very clear why options like this were made uncommon. Similarly, if the DM just plain doesn't want Hobgoblin PCs, he doesn't need to unlock that option. This is by design. The same is true of all uncommon stuff not unlocked by class options. The way it is written, the DM can select which uncommon option he chooses to opt in to on a case-by-case basis. By default, none are simply available.
And your point is?I wasn't replying to you. ;) You and I agree. Ah, got you
Let me just, uh, rearrange the bolding there for you...Again, the only thing we can assume is that common options and uncommon options granted by specific character choices are available. Other options cannot be assumed and are by definition not available by default. And your point is?
Its all there in black and white.
Incorrect. "Unless you decide otherwise" means its incumbent upon the DM to change the default. If the DM does not actively change it, then the default is set - thus it can be assumed. So, once again, we can assume two things:
Other items cannot be assumed are thus unavailable unless a DM states otherwise (either at the beginning of the adventure our during the course of it). Similarly, the DM may decide uncommon options typically gained through character options or certain common items are unavailable but it is incumbent upon the DM to explicity state this.
The "bit of effort" is entirely up to the GM. This is assuming the GM decides any amount of effort even makes it possible (ie "might" or the quote on uncommon spells on page 294). Again, the only thing we can assume is that common options and uncommon options granted by specific character choices are available. Other options cannot be assumed and are by definition not available by default. Even these assumptions are subject to DM fiat one way or the other. Thats the section where it states that the DM could make everything available from the get go or to allow some stuff with a bit of effort. Neither of these things are assumed to be the case by default, however.
Sorry, DMW, you are incorrect. You have access to uncommon stuff you qualify for (through discrete character options - ala Inspire Courage, etc) or that the DM allows. All uncommon stuff is not fair game by default.
Edit: an other choice quote "and uncommon spells typically cost at least 100% more, if you can find someone who knows them at all." Here is one that DMW only quotes a piece of (but not the best bits). Right before the quoted section it states: "At the start of the campaign, communicate your preferred expectations on rarity to the players. Unless you decide otherwise, the players can choose from any common options they qualify for, plus any uncommon options granted by their character choices." No, sorry, they cannot just find any uncommon options. They find the uncommon options they qualify for or the ones I deem appropriate. Edit: Again, it explicitly states the default there. Uncommon stuff not gained through discrete options is clearly not listed.
Draco, I get when you are saying. You want there to be another tag for "Feature Locked" and another for "Hard to Get" but, frankly, I think this game has enough tags as it is and could do with a culling of excess tags and rules cruft, honestly. Reading the bestiary is an exercise in frustration, for example - especially crap like the Gelatinous Cube, where I have to flip back and forth on crap like Engulf and the like. The rulebook is big enough as it is (frankly too big) and there is way too much granularity in many parts of it (particularly around skill actions and basic functionality being locked behind a plethora of skill feats). I for one am happy Paizo chose not to add more than what they did. At the end of the day, Uncommon is there. The book gives some guidance on how its to be used. Common sense states that feature locked Uncommon stuff from the CRB is largely allowed but everything else is something a Novice GM can say no to without getting into a parliamentary debate about it with their players. I don't need 3 more paragraphs and several more tags to figure that out.
Ya, what we are talking about is what cover does a new GM have to say no to stuff, basically. Or, what is the standard table expectation. The expectation is the novice GM can say no uncommon stuff without players getting all huffy puffy.
The inferred intent with Uncommon items seems more and more to be that they should be harder to get than Common items, but far from impossible if you actively seek them out.That is actually completely incorrect. Devs have said multiple times they tagged many things as uncommon to give cover to DMs that simply didnt want them in their games. This is particularly true of certain spells but also true of splat that comes later that DMs just dont want to deal with. The only other type of "Uncommon" is stuff that is locked behind class features or feats (a-la focus spells, etc). There are some exceptions (like racial weapons) but even those are subject to GM fiat. Everything is completely under GM fiat.
The inferred intent with Uncommon items seems more and more to be that they should be harder to get than Common items, but far from impossible if you actively seek them out. That is actually completely incorrect. Devs have said multiple times they tagged many things as uncommon to give cover to DMs that simply didnt want them in their games. This is particularly true of certain spells but also true of splat that comes later that DMs just dont want to deal with. The only other type of "Uncommon" is stuff that is locked behind class features or feats (a-la focus spells, etc). There are some exceptions (like racial weapons which could follow your "hard to get" notion) but even those are subject to GM fiat. As far as stuff from adventures, they have stated that they wanted you to look at a PCs character sheet and see what adventures they went on. "Oh, "Staff Acrobat", he must be playing Extinction Curse." Therefore, no, we wouldn't be able to just nab stuff from wherever (from their intent, anyways).
|