Davido1000's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber. 96 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.



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

Ive been doing some extensive rewrites myself, here's my ideas:

Breachill already had a group of "local heroes" before the actual the story began and were making headway with taking over Hellknight Hill, turning it into there base of operations with the help of the Bumblebrasher goblins.

The hero group were a young male human wizard named Ludwick who was invested in his alchemy, Female Dwarf fighter named Marsha Axebane who is the daughter of Rorsk Axebane, Mia Muskwood a female half-elf cleric of Shelyn and Calmont.

Voz searching for the ring in hellknight hill gets tired of the meddling heroes who were getting suspicious of her and assassinates them all except Calmont, who was the group's rogue with the most information on the citadels secrets and was the one who befriended the goblins, especially Warbal.

The young wizard Ludwick was found dead in his house, poisoned in his alchemy lab. The guard deemed it an accident (perhaps Voz has seduced a guard captain or it could be an open, shut case to the guards).

Voz then uses the call of heroes for that month to set a trap for the remaining group who although are mourning Ludwick's death, answer the call and are ambushed by Voz and her hobgoblin Mercenaries. (Voz only saw Ludwick as a true threat with his magic and isnt scared of mundane warriors and a little girl who heals cuts and bruises)

Calmont is tortured for the information on the Citadel (Which is how Voz finds out about the secret tunnel) and then charmed repeatedly until his mind gives in and is then persuaded to work for Voz and tell Breachill that a wild beast killed his friends.

Due to the torture and constant charms on his mind he seems mentally slower. The clerics deem that his mind was broken from the death of his friends and nothing can be done, Voz being the good Samaritan takes him in as an assistant for her shop in the public eye.

Im thinking of using the first demon slime adventure from gallows of madness involving an accidental Demonic summoning by a young member of the Posandi family (Demons and devils are all the same right!?!).

Alek will also be in town and could help out with his knowledge as well as helping introduce the town and its citizens. The PCs prove themselves to be a threat to Voz who shall be friendly and helpful in there investigation.

We come to the start of the AP where the beacons are lit and the call of heroes begins, Voz sends Calmont to burn them all so the heroes wont start sticking there nose in her business, Calmont's mind finally breaks as he sets fire to the building with the mephit and in his broken mental state he flees to the the citadel.

Everything runs the same from here except Calmont is completely deranged with the goblins trying to coax him down, He will babble about his friends being murdered and the rest of the plot dump you get from the book except for Voz.

An arrow from Dmiri strikes him in the throat before he can force out her name and he falls to the floor dying. while Dmiri flees into the Hinterlands (Im not a fan of railroads so i wont have this be an instant death, ill have some sort of medical skill challenge to try save him). The sheer amount of secret entrances to the citadel is abit silly so ill make the first staircase down a level easy to fix with an hour or so of digging out debris.

Hopefully this will spur the Players to want to investigate the town further while dealing with the citadel thus making the adventure feel a little more open, I want to give the cinderclaws abit more character but ill wait till the 2nd book comes out so i can get more information on them.

I also want the finale to be abit more cooler, instead of the barghest and the spider room which seem like filler battles, i think there should be an all out brawl between Voz's hobgoblin mercs trying to get to the ring and the cinderclaws trying to fight there way out. Maybe even a team up between Voz and the PC's before she inevitably betrays them ;)


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

Ive been converting 4e Npc statblocks, all ive changed are the numbers to be comparable with other monsters of its level. Ive found the reactions and powers from 4e slot into pf2e almost seamlessly.


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

This was quite an enjoyable read and i'm glad you had fun, Its making me hyped for my first GMing of the game tonight.

I will note that oozes are immune to critical hits, i slipped up on this in the first playtest encounter myself.


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

I'm going to run the same group through Hellknight Hill with new characters next. I can already see it's NOT THAT, either. When the spellcasters suck, I'm sure it will make the players feel better if I say "yeah, you suck, but if you were in any of these scenarios and chose just the right spells, you wouldn't suck so bad."

I am comparing spellcasters to fighters because the fighter is so dominant. An 18 STR fighter who can cast Command and Fear at will would rarely cast either spell because they are not as effective as just attacking. In plaguestone, the fighter would have been stupid to cast either of these 1st level spells (even if he could cast them AT FREAKING WILL) if it meant losing two actions. Doesn't that mean anything? At 2nd level, the fighter can attack AND apply the same effect as fear, but better because it is with damage and the "save" is harder because it works on a hit/critical hit. I'm sure you will point out that a cleric who chooses Command and Fear as 1st level spell preparations is doing it wrong, but those are seemingly appropriate choices. Or is the cleric supposed to take Air Bubble because if they find themselves underwater, the cleric is really going to shine?

I've played every version of D&D and pathfinder. I have run characters through a huge number of adventure paths and modules and I have built many a campaign that took characters through all of the levels to 20 (though rarely over because it wasn't fun for me). I am aware there are [fill in the blank]s that will make it better if you pick this spell or do that thing, but they only matter if they happen. The most important abilities are the ones you use frequently. Breathing underwater is not something that makes up for sucking most of the time.

If the players are going into spellcasters at level 1 and expect to do the same raw damage as a fighter and barbarian then you obviously haven't played much D&D.

So the cleric doesn't get the fighters +2 to hit, boohoo! Cast bless and attack thus giving you and your party a +1 to hit. D&D isnt a competition on who gets the most damage unless its a toxic table. Its a team effort.

Saying spellcasters suck because 1 player made a suboptimal druid and another made a cleric with fighter envy doesn't really hold much weight.


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

Some would argue that things like this are, in fact, metagaming. I wouldn't but many people would. I've been accused of metagaming for leaving a room when a construct started sparking and acting strangely, for instance.

Also, that's not always entirely clear, how would you guess at saves for a mimic(doesn't have feet, or wait... does it? No idea.), or a gibbering mother(uhhhhh... just... uhhhh...,) or even a simple wolf(it probably might have high reflex, but animals can be fairly wise, might have high will, but then they always tend to have pretty good con...)

Using common sense isn't meta gaming. Obviously the weird and alien creatures are going to be hard to put a pin in but that's kind of there thing.

Even if your not gaming the monsters saves, its generally a 50/50 shot against a CR equivalent monster on its strongest stat.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
How will you determine their weakest save without metagaming now that the gm decides the information you get from a recall knowledge check? You won't have enough spells to play guessing games with every round.

Using your brain. oh its a big brawny behemoth, i can guess his fort is pretty high. That assassin is a pretty slippery customer, i bet he has a high reflex. its not a difficult concept to grasp and if your gm isnt describing its fighting style and how it acts then your gm is doing it wrong.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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?


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.


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.


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!


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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Davido1000 wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
tqomins wrote:


(1) Is casting a spell out of a wand always 1 action? No, no way. It’s the same as the spell.

(2) If you’re trying to cast beyond the 1/day, is it destroyed, just broken and can be repaired? You *always* get the second spell, and it’s about a 50/50% flat check whether or not the wand is merely broken (and can be repaired with a skill check) or whether it’s permanently destroyed.

I hate this. The idea to push a wand to get more spells at the risk of breaking it is a cool idea. It sounded good at first, but I thought it'd be reasonable. But 50% chance of destroying it for getting a second spell? That's terrible. My group will almost certainly house-rule this to something not awful if we end up moving to PF2. Probably at least a 75% chance of it surviving the first attempt. A coin flip to permanently destroy a magic item probably worth hundreds if not thousands of GP will just make this an option that is never used except on the absolutely cheapest wands.

I'm sorry to get negative, but this is really worrying to me. Magic being worth using, versus garbage is a very big deal for me and my group. This is slipping into garbage teritory. It gives me flashbacks to the 1d4 round invisibility potion from the focus test. That wasn't just bad, it was almost insulting. I've been wavering between cautious optimism for PF2 and fear. If this is representative of their direction, I'm really being pushed into the later.

Your making some very large jumps from 1 thing you don't like, we still don't know what dynamic staffs provide to the magic item paradigm. they specifically said this was the basic wand and name dropped special wands like the smouldering fireball.

Wands were never worth the money you put in them in 1e anyway unless it was cure light wounds, this allows you to have a one off clutch spell up your sleeve everyday aswell as scrolls and your daily allotment.

It's not so much of a jump considering this...

Magic and casters sorely needed a nerfing from 1e and i'll even admit they went a little overboard in the playtest but that's what a playtest is for, it has become very clear from the spoilers and the panels that almost everything across the board has been buffed and refined, magic and magic items look to be in a much better place than they were on the playtest so yes i will call it a big jump.


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


(1) Is casting a spell out of a wand always 1 action? No, no way. It’s the same as the spell.

(2) If you’re trying to cast beyond the 1/day, is it destroyed, just broken and can be repaired? You *always* get the second spell, and it’s about a 50/50% flat check whether or not the wand is merely broken (and can be repaired with a skill check) or whether it’s permanently destroyed.

I hate this. The idea to push a wand to get more spells at the risk of breaking it is a cool idea. It sounded good at first, but I thought it'd be reasonable. But 50% chance of destroying it for getting a second spell? That's terrible. My group will almost certainly house-rule this to something not awful if we end up moving to PF2. Probably at least a 75% chance of it surviving the first attempt. A coin flip to permanently destroy a magic item probably worth hundreds if not thousands of GP will just make this an option that is never used except on the absolutely cheapest wands.

I'm sorry to get negative, but this is really worrying to me. Magic being worth using, versus garbage is a very big deal for me and my group. This is slipping into garbage teritory. It gives me flashbacks to the 1d4 round invisibility potion from the focus test. That wasn't just bad, it was almost insulting. I've been wavering between cautious optimism for PF2 and fear. If this is representative of their direction, I'm really being pushed into the later.

Your making some very large jumps from 1 thing you don't like, we still don't know what dynamic staffs provide to the magic item paradigm. they specifically said this was the basic wand and name dropped special wands like the smouldering fireball.

Wands were never worth the money you put in them in 1e anyway unless it was cure light wounds, this allows you to have a one off clutch spell up your sleeve everyday aswell as scrolls and your daily allotment.


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

All these reveals are so sweet, im so hype for the release now.


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

Correct me if i'm wrong but all I see from the argument against asymmetrical design is the extreme point of "A npc fighter who can suddenly cause massive tornadoes with a flick of there blade at level 1 and expect the players to look on as we say sorry only my npcs can do that."

All i want is an abridged stat block without the rows and rows of feats and reasons why it has the appropriate stats it has. while offering me some cool tricks and maneuvers that an npc fighter would have without having to learn the entire fighter class from 1-20.

For example

Scorpion themed fighter cr 2

abridged math for all the important defences of that cr

Atks

Scorpion sting assault - madeup flavour attack that does some cool thing that pc fighters dont have access to because of region, training, religion etc.


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

I have to agree with Gorbacz on this one, i would prefer cool and interesting monsters and npcs to fight than complaining why cant my character do that.


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

Im definetly hoping for some sort of charisma based fighter that isnt the champion, more like a warlord or military leader that buffs his allies through the power of TEAMWORK!


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
FedoraFerret wrote:
Not gonna lie, Twin Feint feels kind of lackluster given how prevalent the flatfooted condition is. Rogues in the playtest games I ran never had a problem inflicting it or getting it from their party members. So committing a feat to make two attacks as two actions, one of which has full penalties but gets the flatfooted that you could've gotten on both attacks by moving into a flank or, like, amping up your Intimidate skill seems like it'd be mediocre.

Well, it costs your Feat and nothing else. Yes, if you can you're likely better off using one action to inflict Flat Footed, and you don't even need to do it at all if flanking...but it's two actions for two attacks, so when you don't have those options it's effectively free Flat Footed on the second attack.

Whether that's worth purchasing depends on what other Feats there are at 1st level (it compares very favorably with those in the playtest, IMO, with only 'You're Next' being better and that only if going Intimidate) and what Feats build on it (a complete unknown), but it is without any cost to use.

A level 1 feat that lets me have a secondary attack at -2 instead of -4 and sneak attack against an enemy i might be having to fight by myself either from a positioning mistake or by going for a soft target at the back, sign me up.


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

We only know what's being released at launch, which is the core, bestiary, world guide and the first AP. All you need is the core and bestiary to play.

A Free online SRD has been announced at launch also and the pdf versions of books are usually cheaper than the book versions, ive heard rumblings that there cutting back on the soft cover books and will be focusing on less but bigger hardcover releases for 2e like there doing for starfinder.


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

With the PF2 Playtest, the tables were turned.

Martial characters can basically end an encounter by spending four or five rounds doing their at-will abilities (hit things). Magic-users can only end encounters by spending their limited slots and hoping for a 5% chance of a critical, unless they use damaging spells, in which case they typically contribute less than their martial allies and still consume limited slots.

This is widely regarded as a feature, not a bug.

They've already been very vocal about the power level of casters and spells which they said they would fix it in the final release, so i dont get where the sarcastic comment on the end comes from.


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

I actually want Ribbons to be tied to the various things I pick, even if that means they are tied to "combat" stuff.

Like I don't want "can manifest minor animal features at will" to be something any druid can do. But if I've picked up the shape shifting feat I think it would be flavorful and appropriate ability. Not every feat would work with this, but I think a lot could.

Someone else mentioned something similar, though who is escaping me.

It was in the discussions for the Class Feats bottleneck, where Class Feats would scale every 4 levels with something combat based, and at the other even intervals a non-combat based increase would occur.

For example, Sudden Charge could consume Fast Movement and then be a scaling increase that occurs at level 4 (instead of costing another Class Feat), then perhaps at level 8 you get Sudden Leap for free (instead of having to pay an additional Class Feat).

It might be safer from a power perspective to just keep Class Feats as is, and have the Skill Feats being the ones that scale (ala Catfall) but personally given how starved the new Class Feats are vs. Combat Feats+Class Features I don't really see a reason to.

That is how i think it should be. Scaling class feats that get more powerful as you level instead of having to go down the feat bottleneck which leaves little room for actual choice that was in the playtest.


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

With 2e's release approaching i was wondering what everybody's predictions are on the storyline for the first adventure path or what you hope to see as an upcoming one?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ronnam wrote:
The more I play Starfinder, the more I like the Stamina-Resolve system.

Same, it solves the 5 minute adventure day, makes healers less completely necessary and stops the need for CLW spams, i honestly have no idea why they arent using this in 2e.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Edge93 wrote:

It might help if you could provide some examples of what you mean by half-baked rules, as a lot of us DO find PF2 to be a far more balanced and less complicated version of 1e.

And I'm curious, are you looking at the rules just from the playtest rulebook or from the extensive errata as well? Because the two are miles different.

The mess that is the resonance system and constant barrage of different healing rules that just dont work when 3 previous rpg systems have already fixed this problem with variant short rest/ healing surge mechanics.

The way they fixed class and magic item imbalances is nerfing them all and then nerfing the casters again for good measure.

All in all this feels like a game with rules from the early to mid 2000s that has ignored improvements and design concepts that games like 5e, starfinder and even 4e implemented successfully.


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

Im very surprised with the way 2e is going, in my mind i thought it would be a far more balanced and less complicated version of 1e using the rules that had been tested and praised in Unchained and starfinder such as stamina, resolve and the poison and disease track.

The 3 action economy is a major improvement but it seems to be the only thing they took from the past and just made up half baked rules to fill in the rest.

I enjoyed the playtest but it just seems that there are major problems in the system that can be easily fixed by looking at the past and learning from it.


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

Why does it have the playtest banner above it? has this been stealthily been released with playtest rules?