Davido1000's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber. 72 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Just caught up, and is it me or was the champion the mvp of that fight throwing out the reaction to save others from damage and lay on hands while tanking like a boss.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I got to be honest some of those posts are a bit lengthy for me. I demand more TLDR's!!

TLDR: I dont like 2e because its not 1e.

Honestly alot of the complaints from sherlock are things that needed to be fixed from 1e, Rampant magic strength, constraining battle mechanics and a need for a maths doctorate to play the game at high levels.

There were some valid comments but complaining that paizo didnt take your homebrew into consideration is quite ridiculous.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Fumarole wrote:
I'm looking forward to the Bestiary. Running the Playtest was much more fun than playing first edition, largely due to some of the unique abilities the party's foes had. Watching my players' reactions as I describe some neat thing that was done to them was priceless. Second to that was watching them slowly adapt to not everything having attacks of opportunity. The battles were much more dynamic that those in the past, which made running encounters more engaging.
I am simultaneously looking forward to the bestiary and dreading it. Things like the marrilith's attacks are really, really off putting. But I worry such is life with the new edition. Might be a good reason not to play it unfortunately.

Whats offputting about the Marilith's attacks?


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

Does anyone know how many bonus types there will be? I've seen status a lot but not many others which is a little worrying as it could possibly make a lot of buff spells or the bards inspire confidence redundant.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Hello, ive look at my order 7923351 but paizo advantage hasnt taken effect on it. am i missing something?


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

It seems that quite a few monsters have a few variants which is really nice and the tarantula being able to flick there hairs is awesome.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Back to the topic, Im not that well versed in the diety specific channels in 1e, what did they do exactly?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
magnuskn wrote:

I feel that the thing I wanted to say has been hijacked into a whole other conversation. Suffice to say, my experience with Pathfinder has been very different from others in this thread. Then again, my group has been playing all core versions of the 3.X engine since it came out (and AD&D before it), so there is more system mastery there than other groups probably have, so I've seen less characters which were "badly" built than others here will have.

My expectation still is that with further splatbooks the highly modular nature of 2E will lend itself to more hyper-optimization than PF1E did. If it will play out that way in reality remains, of course, to be seen.

Paizo has said they will have a stronger reign on the content being released, lead designers will be more involved and a quality not quantity release schedule is being adopted so hopefully it wont be as rampant as 1e.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

They are definitely odd choices for the first 3 new races but i can dig it, They will no doubt playtest any new classes they make for sure.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Lanathar wrote:
Wait, has there been a release schedule that goes beyond Gencon / initial launch? This passed me by

Yes the Gamemasters guide with some variant rules, lost omens character guide which has 3 new ancestries,Hobgoblin, lizardfolk and leshy as well as some more variants for the the core and finally Lost omens gods and magic.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

A cynic would say that its just going to be a reprint of the 1st edition one but seeing as its a hardcover and i presume a meatier book, i could see this as a fitting addition to a book about the gods.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Thank you very much!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Theres possibly an instinct that allows for unarmoured combat?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Hello, i just signed up to the lost omens subscription but it seems to have started with druma when i wanted to start with the 2e book, could this be changed please?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
First World Bard wrote:
Kyrone wrote:

Yeah be have Druid dedication, he says at the 2 hour 25 minutes mark of the video, an that was so he could have some spellcasting.

This confirm that Rangers are pure martial in the core book, maybe in the future will have one Hunters Edge that give focus spell.

I mean, it's entirety possible that there are class feats that give the Ranger a focus pool and something to do with it, though they wouldn't be included in the core chassis: much like the monk. But that could also be something introduced at a later date, if it didn't make it into the CRB.

I find it very thematically appropriate for a ranger to multiclass into druid for spells as they were always a dabbler in druidic practices anyway.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ediwir wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Davido1000 wrote:
It seems Rangers do have access to spells, maybe a use of the focus mechanic?
Almost certainly. They've said before they were gonna give Rangers Focus Spells.
Seems to be a multiclass.

Yes listening back through i missed that explanation, so it seems that rangers are purely martial.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

It seems Rangers do have access to spells, maybe a use of the focus mechanic?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
tqomins wrote:

oh gross. so in this second episode the table of like 10 men went all in on a blatantly sexist joke—and everyone I've seen talk about the ep is calling "the funniest episode ever"

anyone wonder why this hobby does such a horrible job including folks? jfc

the only thing I'm learning from these things is that glass cannon is exactly as awful as that splash image suggests

and the absolute worst part? Paizo partners with them and then in the moment Jason and Erik decide to play along and Jason, at least, decides to *add on*? ugggggh

shame on Paizo for participating in, promoting, and perpetuating such awful stuff.

(To be clear, what sparked this complaint is the unfortunate material that starts around 23:25.

I am 100% not interested in discussing this, do not @ me. It is not meaningless or "just a joke."

If that is your first thought, it is wrong and you should think again and more carefully. Quite the contrary, jokes have particular social significance: this kind of behavior draws a line about who and what kind of talk is welcome, and who and what kind of talk is not.)

This isnt really the forum to be discussing what you feel about jokes, can we please keep this pathfinder related.


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

I subscribed for the APs a week or so ago but to start with the age of ashes AP, does this mean i dont get advantage because i dont want to start by getting the last chapter of an ap i dont have the rest of? because thats kinda lame.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:

Doesn't this feel a teensy bit premature when we don'r know what is going to be in bestiary 1, yet? For example...

Some Kind of Chymist wrote:

Yay! stealthy owlbears attacking from above; run all ye heroes that fail to set up watch shifts.

I'm also hoping for some cool new magical beasts and plant creatures.

Maybe a pickle monster of some description that goes after all these pickle-eating goblins.

All the less common mephits; off brand lycanthropes and off course giant amoebas.

We had wererats in the playtest bestiary. How offbrand are we talking here?

Also, I wouldn't take what we expect from B1 for granted. Even just the work they have done basic things like zombies so far has been really really cool.

I second this, we dont know what kinda curve balls B1 is going to throw at us, The only thing we really know are the classics will be in it but i assume there will still be plenty of page space for more.

I would really like a great variety of variant humanoid enemies for example, Hobgoblin phalanx fighter, Commander, Bomber etc.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I stand corrected and im so happy about it!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Does the fighter have access to the focus spell mechanic other classes have? because some focus based special moves would be cool.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Lightning Raven wrote:

I don't have any idea whatsoever how form or shape the encounter powers had in 4e and I'm too lazy to look it up, but I do like the idea of "special" attacks for martial characters.

They can add an interesting layer for martial combat and if done right, they can be tools to add to the classes that have been just using full round actions to be meaningful every round.

It could be very interesting, specially now with the 3-action system, to have 2-cost attacks that have a meaningful trade-off in terms of effect. More crowd-control, debuffs or simply something they gain after releasing some fancy attack. I doesn't need to be like anime and manga, with insane abilities that must be shouted, but something akin the Iaijutsu Strike from the Sword Saint archetype for Samurais is a good baseline, although the ability was horrendously implemented (too convoluted for low reward, unbeatable combo).

Fighters in the playtest had combination attacks and stances that built off of each other which was a cool mechanic. but i havent heard much about it for the official release, a nice 2 or 3 action cleaving attack that hits all monsters adjacent to you would be pretty sweet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Saedar wrote:
Steelfiredragon wrote:
Davido1000 wrote:
0o0o0 O 0o0o0 wrote:
Yes, this. My PF1 Paladin is exactly this. Medium armour for speed. No shield, don't need it. Two-handing a longsword (for Iomedae). Fist into battle, he defended the party by discouraging others from the front line - in a party of four with him, the others would typically be a Wiz, a Rogue and a Divine of sorts, why should they risk their necks or have redundancy in more than one frontliner? PF2 appears to need more than one melee fighter in a party to make the Champion worthwhile.

I dont understand why people are constantly complaining that they cant play classes the way they want to play it when you can quite easily with the multiclassing system. You wanna run head on into battle with a longsword instead of having the paladin reaction?

Take fighter with sudden charge, then take paladin multiclass at level 2, that way you can pick and choose what you want.

because some of us, do not like multiclassing

and its a RP thing too....

Multiclassing doesn't mean the same thing as it did in PF1. More like build your own class.

If it is about RP, I don't get how multiclassing impacts that at all. There's no RP reason why a LG Fighter/Champion can't call themselves a paladin. Or champion. Whatever.

Precisely, Theres nothing stopping you from Rping as an acolyte paladin fighter at level 1 then picking up all the paladin stuff you want moving forward. i find one of the more exciting things about 2e is the modular multiclassing that fills in for all the niche archetypes 1e had.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:

Ok, I see it now: Silly me, I assumed a ranged feat was going to be all about ranged attacks so once I say it gave you a strike with ranged weapons I missed the last sentence.. :P

On the rest, I don't know. Maybe we played it wrong: we didn't use a paladin... ur, champion for long. It seems a bit better then for melee buddies.

Im only showing what was given out as one of the spoilers, it would be kinda lame if 1 type of champion got a somewhat superior reaction to the others making it the most viable choice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
0o0o0 O 0o0o0 wrote:
Yes, this. My PF1 Paladin is exactly this. Medium armour for speed. No shield, don't need it. Two-handing a longsword (for Iomedae). Fist into battle, he defended the party by discouraging others from the front line - in a party of four with him, the others would typically be a Wiz, a Rogue and a Divine of sorts, why should they risk their necks or have redundancy in more than one frontliner? PF2 appears to need more than one melee fighter in a party to make the Champion worthwhile.

I dont understand why people are constantly complaining that they cant play classes the way they want to play it when you can quite easily with the multiclassing system. You wanna run head on into battle with a longsword instead of having the paladin reaction?

Take fighter with sudden charge, then take paladin multiclass at level 2, that way you can pick and choose what you want.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
In my eyes its very much the "you've got to come through me" archetype.
With the 3 action system and the reaction being within the paladin's reach it's more 'you have to go around me' than "you've got to come through me", especially with heavy armor's speed reduction, for non-mindless though. And with mindless foes, it actually benefits the paladin to hide behind an ally with a reach weapon so they can get the extra attack then they attack the ally: if you actually prevent your allies from being attacked, you lose out on an attack/round.

This is the Reaction for Champion:

Glimpse of Redemption [R] Champion Reaction

Trigger An enemy damage your ally, and both are within 15 feet of you.

Your foe hesitates under the weight of sin as visions of redemption play in their mind’s eye. The foe must choose one of the following options:
· The ally is unharmed by the triggering damage.
· The Ally gains resistance to all damage against the triggering damage equal to 2 + your level. After the damaging effect is applied, the enemy becomes enfeebled 2 until the end of its next turn.

Looks a really nasty effect if you want to go round the champion.


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

Or you could start fighter and take the paladin multiclass, thus giving you AOOs and the fighters rush to the front fighting style while picking and choosing paladin feats such as sword of justice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:

Proficiency is entirely reworked, remember. Clerics get expert casting at 7th, so wizards probably do too, and that means level+4. So your DC would be 10 + Prof(11) + Int (4) = 25. So that's a 50/50 shot on its weakest save.

But! That save is reflex, and the only way magic hurts the thing is Fire or Cold, which are almost certainly reflex saves. And assuming Golem Antimagic works the same in the playtest, which very much looks to be the case, than "any fire magic which TARGETS the flesh golem causes it to take 5d8 damage instead of the usual effect." The damage is the same regardless of the golem's saving throw. I might interpret it as unharmed on a critical success, but it only gets that on a natural 20.

So in practice, the golem effectively fails its save 95-100% of the time. :)

That said, there have been other entries from the bestiary you could examine that would have more normal expectations.

Ahh trained is +2 now, this seems reasonable for what should be a boss monster of that level and looking over others they seem to keep to the same 50% range of appropriate cr.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ediwir wrote:
Davido1000 wrote:
Maybe its just me but im still a little put off by the saving throws being that high, wouldnt a wizards dc for spells be roughly 23 at level 7.giving the flesh golem more than a 50% chance to pass even on his weakest save.

The golem is lv9, so yeah, its saves are good against a lv7 effect. At level 9, a Wizard should be around DC 27.

That said, the golem is immune to magic, so these saves are against physical effects, such as stunning or tripping. And we’re talking about a golem. I’m ok with it.

You make a very good point about golems being inherently antimagic, i was just Nam flashbacks of the playtests numbers. im not sure ive done math incorrectly for lvl 7 wizard dc, 10 + prof (7) + int (5) and this is against the cr7 flesh golem.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Maybe its just me but im still a little put off by the saving throws being that high, wouldnt a wizards dc for spells be roughly 23 at level 7. giving the flesh golem more than a 50% chance to pass even on his weakest save.


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

If i was gonna take a stab at the plot, it would be that Mengkare is doing a noah's ark scenario, Using slavers to bring people to his island he wishes to save so he can wipe the rest of golarion in dragon fire and start again under his glorious regime.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Fixed.

Imgur Inc.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Thank you very much!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Stone Dog wrote:
the new XP system might mitigate that a bit. Without inflated numbers for leveling, there might now need to be as many filler encounters.

Im Hoping this is the case, some of the APs become a combat slog eventually.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Mewzard wrote:

To me, from what I've seen, Pathfinder 2E's going to find a nice home as a healthy middle ground between Pathfinder 1E and D&D 5E. For Pathfinder 1E players who want something simpler without hitting 5E, and for 5E players who want something more complex, but not at Pathfinder 1E's level, this could be the perfect home to many players.

This is what im hoping for, as much as i love 1e it gets way too complicated than it needs to be at a certain point and i find 5e terribly boring to run, especially the monsters.


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

well if you wanted to avoid spoilers then perhaps dont read the page with obvious spoilers perhaps?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Hello, ive taken the jump into subscribing to pathfinder adventure paths but i want to begin on the start of 2e with age of ashes, can the last part of tyrants grasp be removed from my order please.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
Taking people from lvl 1-20 is a good thing for an AP to do.

It depends, i prefer it not have constant filler battles just to bump up the numbers and have legitimate rp and combat xp sources.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
artjuice wrote:
If I wanted to start from Hellknight Hill, is it possible to subscribe without also getting the final Tyrant's Grasp book? Right now, it looks as though I'd need to get both.

I second this question.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
DataLoreRPG wrote:
Davido1000 wrote:
Well it comes down to do you want a more indepth but complicated combat system that is pf2e or do you want to stick with the simple but easy combat of 5E. i personally find 5Es combat too simple and the conditions are all basically slap disadvantage or advantage on yourself.

Two things:

1. I think you can have PF2's character development, 3 Action Economy, and so on without necessitating color coded condition cards. I have played plenty of games that were crunchier than 5E that did not require nearly as much book keeping as the PF2 Playtest.

2. I did not post this to convince you or anyone else of anything. The game is in the can. Its been done. I came here to ask for information.

1. It's hardly complicated enough to warrant the need for condition cards to play, a gm screen or printing out a conditions sheet would do the trick with maybe a little symbol next to the model or token.

2.You were the one bringing comparison of 5e into it, i was just refuting your claim of better conditions just because most of the conditions were basically the same. "slap advantage or disadvantage on it"


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

Well it comes down to do you want a more indepth but complicated combat system that is pf2e or do you want to stick with the simple but easy combat of 5E. i personally find 5Es combat too simple and the conditions are all basically slap disadvantage or advantage on yourself.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

You make some very good points, but i still feel it will be a free captains pirate archetype myself but then again i didnt even think about red mantis.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I assume it will come out on august 1st with the rest of the 2e line, i dont really see the point of getting the players guide a month early when you wont have any of the rules for character creation anyway.


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

i liked the basic engine of the playtest and saw there could be a really special system under all the awful math and dodgy feats but it needed a lot of fixing and it seems that this has been done. the minions wasnt really a problem i saw.


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

i liked the basic engine of the playtest and saw there could be a really special system under all the awful math and dodgy feats but it needed a lot of fixing and it seems that this has been done. the minions wasnt really a problem i saw.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

Although a wizard who for some reason wasn't smart enough to use a slashing weapon might have a harder time of it.

But I think that's a feature, not a bug. :)

@ChibiNyan Don't forget that if the wizard is using one action to move, the zombie is only getting one attack per turn against the wizard's likely two. Even if the wizard is Str 10, he's hitting on a 9 with his first attack and a 14 with his second, which is decent, and thank to the vulnerability he's doing 1d4+5 damage per hit even with no Strength bonus. That's at worst even odds, and that's assuming a really dumb wizard (since a smart wizard would just use a cantrip and then double-move, preventing the zombie from ever attacking).

Of course, the zombie is a lot more dangerous in tight corridors, but... again, feature, not bug, imo.

I was assuming using dagger's finesse trait to use Dex to hit with 14 or 16 Dex, wizard hits on a 6 or 7 for 1d4+5, 11 or 12 for second attack (16 or 17 for the last if choosing not to back away), zombie hits on a 8 or 9 on first attack for similar damage and has a little more HP, and of course it's slow. The wizard is very much favored to win in melee, and as you said can auto win by kiting if necessary. And this is for a no-spell melee wizard holding a dagger. Anybody else can go to town.

But yeah, zombie shambler has way more HP and does way more damage than the typical -1. It's a special monster with other weaknesses that overall play incredibly well for a -1 monster. It's so much fun to mow them down with big damage numbers!

The fact you made the simple zombie so interesting to play as a gm has me as excited to crack open the bestiary as the core!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Probably not long after, might even be on the day if there was dealing before release.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
CobaltCrusader wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

Point #2 is easily the single most exciting thing about second edition for me. I like second edition monster design more than I like the 3-action economy. I've said this before, but just reading the second edition bestiary literally changed how I think about monster design. Monsters that are easy to run but still do cool stuff is awesome. Not having to decide which of twenty pointless, bolted on spell like abilities to use is awesome. Being able to look at a monster stat block and immediately go "this is what the monster does, this is why it's unique" is awesome. Being able to throw together a Wizard adversary and just go "okay, these are the spells he'll actually cast, who cares about the rest; here's some hit point and stats and here's a couple things that sound like wizard class features" instead of spending hours building the character like a PC is awesome.

As someone who almost always GMs, that is a huge selling point of the new edition for me.

As the eternal GM of my group this is a big deal for me too. Part of why I haven't run PF1 for two years was the unnecessary baggage in most encounters post level 5. While I've been enjoying running lighter systems (and Starfinder!) it will be nice to get to a streamlined but still crunchy fantasy game.

Mentioning Starfinder, I can't wait for the monster creation rules. Mostly homebrewing my Akiton campaign I was able to make dozens of monsters in Starfinder in the time it would have taken to make 2 in PF1.

Running a mid level creature was easy and intuitive and fun, I'm looking forward to GMing later this year. The simplicity is quite empowering; to have the ability to keep things moving the way they do in 2e is really great.

On the note of crunch, PF2 is just enough, not too much and not too little... I'm looking forward to the future to say the least.

This right here is why im so hyped, this sounds like the perfect balance of interesting monster design and simple usability, i love pf1e but the monsters took a PHD to understand and run effectively at high levels while 5e's monsters are just big boring bags of hitpoints with multiattack.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

what could the classes do at level 1?

1 to 50 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>