Lictor Octavio Sabinus

Dire Ursus's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. 483 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 483 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Hmm people over reacting... what a surprise. The first paragraph spoils nothing about the AP other than that Tar Baphon escapes his prison (THAT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS CONSIDERING THE AP IS CALLED TYRANT'S GRASP). It also makes it pretty clear that this article will spoil stuff if you keep reading. At that point why would you keep reading if you didn't want to be spoiled?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I have to agree that summoning seemed lack luster in the playtest. Especially when you consider that you have to use one of your actions to control it. Another thing I found pretty weak was Druid wild shaping. I don't like the fact that you can basically only use the highest level wild shape spell you have access to, if you basically never use the earlier ones ever again since their flat stats aren't good anymore.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think the hair specifically doesn't look great against the white background but I'm sure it'll look better in print. Other than that nice work. I'm surprised the cape actually works since it's such a contrasting color but it definitely does.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Got the early bird ruler level. So happy with how fast the campaign is blazing through. Keep it up guys!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Lower res comparisons aside. I have to say I'm a bit disappointed that the new art seems a bit less detailed. Especially when it comes to shading and shadows. It could be the lower resolution playing tricks on me, but the old art just looks way better, not because of design decisions or anything (I actually like most of the design decisions) just in overall quality.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
I hope Doomed increases each time you are healed back from near-death, so that players will be a bit more careful with their characters

That'd be a neat little house rule for hardcore games. Each time you are downed, your doomed condition goes up permanently.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

honestly this is the reason I'm using fantasy grounds. They have high resolution maps already in the game. And you get a discount when you buy the pdf. Everytime I try to port maps to roll20 they end up looking blurry and off center.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Exciting! Will you be able to answer questions about PF2 is that all still hush hush?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You should use the milestone progression. It's honestly so much better. If you look near the front pages it says when your characters should level. Just at the end of the session or whenever you feel appropriate tell your PCs that they leveled.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Hey Sam actually please disregard and cancel that replacement. I surprisingly received it last night! Thanks.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Hey there, I haven't received my order yet, I'm worried that it probably got lost in transit because I have received the next AP book already and I got the confirmation email for that shipment 5 days after this one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I disagree that 5e helped Critical Role. I think it would be massively popular even playing Pathfinder 1e. I can't really see anyone being sold on Critical Role just because they were playing 5e... The system isn't really the focus of the show and it's already got a massive amount of house rules that Mercer plays with.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Twisted_Fister wrote:

Is there any city info on Roslar's Coffer? I know of the info that is in the inner sea region book, but I was hoping to portray the city on the living end before I kicked off the AP.

My plan is to run Reaver's Roar for my party as a one-shot prequel to set the scene. I know that RC is fairly barren due to the Red Reaver's occupation, but I can only piece together the town's occupants from the encounters with their ghosts in book one, as well as a couple of people from Reaver's Roar.

Suffice to say that since we'll never see Roslar's Coffer whole in the AP I won't be worried about a stat block coming out... How do other GMs plan on running it?

The player's handbook actually gives a good description since the players are supposed to be residents of the town.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
masda_gib wrote:

5E seems to currently have another advantage.

In the last year, in all of the social networks I'm in were popping up people that started Pen&Paper-RPGing because of an appearantly very popular video-podcast (CriticalRole). And they chose 5E because that was what the podcast played, it was the entry point.

I don't know how big that influence really is - all I can see is that big surge of people starting to play and liking that podcast.

I would understand WotC if they held the CR people at gunpoint to never change their playing system.

Yeah, and their home game before the stream started was actually PF1e. Imagine how different the market would be if they didn't swap over to 5e when they started streaming. I imagine if PF2 was out at the time, they would probably have not switched to D&D, since PF2s mechanics are a lot more accessible and that's one of the big reasons they switched to 5e for the stream.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think backgrounds could be a good use for this as well. Maybe a supplementary book where based on which ability boosts your background gives you (since they won't be able to name all backgrounds they create, I think grouping them by which ability boosts they give you would be sufficient) , it will allow you to pick a background feat of some sort, that gives you flavourful out of combat abilities.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Crayon wrote:


See, I don't think I've seen a player take either of those spells full-stop. Or Power Attack. Or Point-Blank Shot or any of the other Feats these forums insist are required to be 'viable' (except as Bonus Feat selections from restricted lists like the Monk or Ranger)

So if your player is making a ranged build without point blank shot (and by extension precise shot) do they just take the -4 for shooting into melee every single time and they somehow don't feel like they are completely useless or do you guys just house rule that out of the game. Because legitimately it feels impossible to play an archer without that feat.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
The other nice thing about the math being tighter is you're less likely to have two characters optimize while others struggle. Had a game where the druid and alchemist could kill anything I threw at them, while the rest of the party struggled to keep up, and wouldn't let me help them make sure their characters were properly equipped. Ended one of my games. Glad to have that issue lessened

Yup. New players being able to have fun and be useful in combat without you as GM having to either create their character for them or scale down encounters is a huge plus for me.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ok thank god. I did not want them to revert back to the first system.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Sounds a lot like the first dying system they went with. I wasn't really a big fan of any of the systems they came out with honestly. And I really hope that if they are using the creature's stats as the save that it's easier to calculate on the fly, or it's just simply listed somewhere.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeah and isn't the point of race against the clock style stories that your resources are being drained and you don't have much time? Isn't this version better for that since you can get one big heal fast rather than having to spend an hour just to fully heal yourselves.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ron Lundeen wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Are the Clarity points at the Scriptorium something the PCs should be aware of and actively seeking or should it be something the GM keeps track of secretly?
I don't have a strong preference on that, as an author. As for myself, I would make it clear what their total is and when they get them, so they take actions that they think would get them more (without telling them, "do this right here to get more").

Thanks. I guess I'm still confused as to how the checks should actually work. Do I just tell all my players to make a roll with the appropriate skill when they encounter the event or do I tell them to choose one skill they think would be appropriate and they only get one roll each?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Are the Clarity points at the Scriptorium something the PCs should be aware of and actively seeking or should it be something the GM keeps track of secretly?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:

TBH in the playtest we had far more apocalyptic posts than euphoric ones. Which was to be expected

Actually we had them right from the first previews before the playtest was launched

To the extent that it seemed Paizo would have garnered more goodwill if they had not involved customers in the design process for the new edition

You know the thing that makes me most optimistic is that the push back on Pathfinder 1e was even worse. A lot of people were absolutely 100% sure they would keep playing 3.5 (me included!) and now look at us. I think 2e is gonna be a nice success and all of this whining and doomsaying will be faded and forgotten.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:


If you subscribe you will probably get a free PDF (which might make the shipping more reasonable). Nonetheless, in the last two years it seems to me that if you are a cost sensitive, international customer buying direct has become a poor option.

Preach. I really would love to subscribe for everything but the shipping costs are extreme for hardcover books even to Canada which isn't even that far away! I'll have to continue manually ordering them off amazon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Holy crap. The whole "idea" phylactery thing you might be on to something. Perhaps that's one of the main objectives of the Whispering Way. To keep the idea of The Whispering Tyrant alive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
not without chaining youself to the horribl3 multiclass system, you do that you maybas well make a fighter/druid and bin ranger as a class.
I mean this seriously, what is the difference between being able to spend class feats to buy spellcasting off the primal list as ranger feats and being able to spend class feats to buy spellcasting off the primal list by multiclassing?
Well, I hate the idea of having to "buy" spells, especially if my opportunity cost is other Rangerish abilities. I strongly dislike the feat tax approach to character building. I much prefer, a path whereby I get stuff as part of the deal.

They got rid of feat tax for the most part. Getting spell caster multiclass feats aren't feat tax. The very first one gives you cantrips. Each time you spend more feats you're gaining more spell casting ability. How is that feat tax at all? If rangers got spells as part of their class features and not any class feats then they would have to be nerfed in other places. And I'd rather not make rangers HAVE to be spell casters. I'd rather it be a choice.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Greylurker wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
Brew Bird wrote:


In the playtest, very rarely did a character feel awesome or heroic.
Yeah, that's... pretty subjective and not something to be stated in such an absolute manner really. At my table the characters felt awesome and heroic on a regular basis throughout the entire Playtest, so it's not a ubiquitous issue.

My Ranger felt lousy to play. He is pretty much the only experience I have with the characters because I really disliked the character creation and flat didn't want to make another character, so I just stuck with the one I had, and he never really got any better. He felt under powered, His Archery skills just never seemed to measure up and he had a poor excuse for a pet the entire playtest. It felt like if I wanted to be good at something I had to give up half my character concept. Either be an archer or a guy with a faithful wolf companion, but trying to maintain both at a decent level just seemed futile. Ultimately I just stopped wanting to play it.

I still think it's got a good system though. I like the combat and the general systems. The 10 above or below Crit Success/Fail is just fine.

I just can't stand the characters

Did you use the updated ranger rules or the old ones? The updated ranger is a lot better. Really all you need to be a great archer is take the first level feat that lets you attack the hunted target twice. Then you could spend the rest on the animal companion. Hunt target, double bow shot, and control your companion sounds like a pretty great round. Companions also got some AC buffs in the updated rules.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
GRuzom wrote:
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
This is the kind of news I like to hear. I adore the playtest, but seeing so much negativity made me anxious for the prospects of the game. Seeing that the surveys were more positive than feedback here was a huge relief! Looking forward to those skeletons ;)
It's very hard to get people who do not like the game to participate in a playtest - so the surveys would be skewed to the positive and not giving the true picture.

I mean judging by the forums filled with people who hate the game, they are perfectly happy to participate.

But on a more serious note, player attrition would show very heavily in the surveys. If people tried it and didn't like it you would see a marked decline in responses overall to surveys.

There were plenty of surveys that weren't doomsday dawn related though. The class survey for instance. Or that one really long one that went over basically everything.

I feel like the doomsday dawn surveys weren't really there primarily to get subjective opinions. They were more for objective stuff like: "Which classes died the most", "which classes were least popular", "is there too many TPKs", "is there too little TPKs". So really it doesn't matter who is answering it as long as they are answering honestly.

Those other general surveys would get a better picture on community opinion on changes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ninja in the Rye wrote:

"Focus Spells"? Just ... why?

People, as least as far as I've noticed in the playtest, just do not want to call things spells unless they're actual spells being cast using the normal spell casting mechanics. It's just a confusing overuse of a particular term for no benefit that I can see.

Powers was a fine enough name, what threw people was calling the resource used to activate them "Spell Points" and them all being lumped in to the spells chapters. Now they have Focus Points, but are calling the abilities they activate "Focus Spells?"

What's with the desire to call everything slightly mystical a "Spell" in one way or another?

I mean the problem was that powers WERE spells. Like they literally were called specifically in the magic chapter as a different type of spell. Meaning anytime a "spell" was mentioned in rules it also included powers. So I don't mind them putting the word spell in their name because they are spells. The only difference is what you spend to cast them and how you get them.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Trip is an attack roll. It has the attack trait. Therefore Finesse lets you add dex to trip attacks.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Crayon wrote:
While the classes in PF2 may, perhaps, have clearer mechanical roles in the game, their identities seem far weaker to the point I find it actually difficult to describe them to people who haven't read the playtest document and even then there are a few classes it's hard to wrap your head around (Monk, any non-cleric spellcaster)

Do you mind listing the differences from the PF1 core rulebook vs the Playtest rulebook that makes you think so? I'm not convinced that's true. Why is Monk or other non-cleric spellcaster's roles "hard to wrap your head around"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
PFRPGrognard wrote:

All of those options are in Pathfinder already. Just changing the skin and wording won't make it better. It's just an excuse to sell new books and for players to get something shiny and new...

..Until D&D 6e comes along and the whole dance starts all over because PF2 is too bloated!

Lmao I think you're the only one in the history of this forum that thinks that the playtest is just "changing the skin and wording" of PF1. Have you even played the playtest?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
kaisc006 wrote:

Actually PF2 encourages min max even more. Sure the spread will be smaller but there is more value to every +1 due to the +10/-10 crit system and penalty for extra attacks. Practically any option that gives a +x bonus will be superior to others.

Also, with critical misses activating monster effects you can bet people will be upset if you show up at the table with an unoptimized character. Before you’re character was just
mechanically bad but now you could hurt the party.

I don't agree with this at all. First of all show me the flat +x bonuses you can get in the playtest. Items and proficiency are basically the only way. They are moving away from feats that just give flat bonuses for good reason. Second of all there's a very small percentage of monsters in the bestiary that actually have effects that activate on a crit fail. Finally I guarantee you that the difference in optimization will not equal a +-10 unless it's a wizard attacking with a great sword that they are not trained with vs an optimized fighter.

Optimization will not be game breaking like it is in PF1. Everything points to the exact opposite.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Draco why don't you name some items from the PF1 core rulebook that you find more interesting that the items from the playtest? I'm just not seeing it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Richard Crawford wrote:

It's very easy to move away from "builds" in Pathfinder. Just move away from them.

The system won't break down if you don't follow what someone has told you to do on the internet.

This will never be a satisfying way to solve the problem for anyone. Believe me, I got a lot of blow back from telling people that wanted CLW wands back in the game to just house rule that you gain full hp after every encounter. People don't like being told to change the rules if they don't like how something works. And honestly I agree, Not making "builds" in PF1 isn't as easy as just telling your players "Hey guys let's not make builds! Let's just play and see how your characters develop" some will flat out drop out of the game, and others will just make builds anyways because that's a huge part of pathfinder 1e.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Fumbles_suck wrote:


And I just disagree on the statement that PF2 has more depth at the table. Perhaps if you compare to some cookie cutter fighter build that's only purpose is to full attack and nothing else.

Oh you mean almost every single character that wants to swing a weapon in the game? Yeah that's where the depth is gone in PF1. Everyone just makes glass cannon alpha strike builds since it's the most effective way at fighting creatures above your level. So far in PF2 my group has had to actually think and plan out their turns when they aren't playing casters which has almost never happened in PF1. Isn't that the definition of depth? You have way more choices to make in combat as every class except for maybe wizard. Even then, with the new action system it feels like you can do more in a turn: like attack and cast a spell without having to take feats.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Necrotifice wrote:

Captain Morgan, I have run 0 High encounters because it's just... not interesting. Two Goblin Commandos against a 1st level party isn't any kind of threat to them.

It's very likely that my players are just tactical enough and that's why I need to dial stuff up. It was like that in 1e as well, and I even acknowledged in my post that it's quite likely a difference in playstyle. My group have never played like other groups, usually just have one or two very difficult encounters per combat day.

That's in part for story reasons, because it's strange to me (and the rest of my group) that you tend to fight so many encounters per day from a narrative perspectve. We just don't find cleaving through the local Goblin population in fairly one-sided fights to be very "heroic".

I can definitely see what you mean about the traps, though. I think this is just something I'm gonna have to re-evaluate from the way it was done in 1e.

Just saying 2 goblin commandos can mess up a level 1 party. Especially if they start far away and get a few chances to fish for deadly crits with their shortbows. 2d8 + 2 + 1d10 can absolutely one shot a level 1. Believe me, you can make a very difficult encounter with 2 goblin commandos.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mathmuse wrote:
..character generation stuff

I don't really understand your problem with con and int being generated after? On the first pages that walk you through character creation step 5 is finalize ability scores, and step 6 is apply your class which says total up your hitpoints and skill proficiencies and such. Also I can see what you mean by saying getting an 18 is better than the other arrays but I also think that's true in 1e point buy. I only ever see people getting an 18 in their main stat every time. And in 2e it's a lot easier to get a stat to 18 later in the game because of the way the ability score items work, and how fast your other ability scores go up every 5 levels.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MER-c wrote:
Charon Onozuka wrote:

For all this discussion about wanting PF1.5 and saying that the 2E can't compete with D&D5e, I want to say that one of my players actually flat out told me that if they had to choose between PF1, 5E, and the current Playtest, they'd pick the Playtest without a doubt.

With all the complaints about things in the Playtest, it has already solved a ton of nagging issues my group had with PF1 and has been received fairly well. And rather than seeing blasts spells dominating, buffs/debuffs, save or suck, and terrain effects have had a great impact on battles so far.

After one, I repeat here, ONE, session I got my entire group of players to convert over to PF2, we’re actually considering putting the extra effort in to convert Kingmaker over to second edition, just based on the playtest so far, I can say that so far the Playtest has brought Pathfinder back to life in my area in a way no 1.5 revision ever could have.

I have a similar story, we have started up our own converted Dragon's Demand game. Also not just from the players who enjoy the game but on the GMing side of things I find 2e much more fun to run in general.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I've been converting my dragon's demand game to the playtest. It's been running really smooth. The way I handle monster creation is that I find a similar creature of the same level as their CR in 1e. Take their base statistics and then add on my own unique actions/reactions/free actions. It's been working well so far.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Happy Holidays yall. The wait for PF2 is gonna be excruciating this coming year but it'll be all worth it in the end! :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:


2- Resonance: I'll happily do a jig on it's grave. Now if we can just dig 2 more shallow graves for bulk and rarity I might think about buying the new game when it comes out.

I can understand Resonance being a deal breaker for people since the whole magic item system was balanced around it, but is bulk and rarity really what's stopping you from buying the game? Two things that could be house ruled out in 5 minutes?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hythlodeus wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Strangely a good portion of the people who were asking for the changes and have finally got them are silent.

Yeah, weird how after months of being bullied, they somehow decided to not longer show up

/s

That wasn't really what was happening based on some private messages I received from them but hey I just ignored them. Hopefully if they were receiving similar ones, they did the same.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
BryonD wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
Y'all are really pessimistic over changes you guys asked for huh
Actually a lot of the people who are pessimistic over the changes in this thread are the people who have been positive about the playtest generally. Me included. Strangely a good portion of the people who were asking for the changes and have finally got them are silent.
In fairness, they have been silent for quite a while.

Of course, it reached the point where previous version advocates were harassing people they disagreed with in private messages with personal attacks.

How could anyone tolerate such a toxic one sided environment?
Of course they left the aggressive echo chamber.

You're right I received a few of those myself from a couple of the ones who we haven't seen in a while :P. Perhaps there's something else going on.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
Y'all are really pessimistic over changes you guys asked for huh

Actually a lot of the people who are pessimistic over the changes in this thread are the people who have been positive about the playtest generally. Me included. Strangely a good portion of the people who were asking for the changes and have finally got them are silent.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hythlodeus wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:


[...]Now there is actual good options other than just searching around. Bards can spend their exploration time continuing a performance so that combat starts with the performance active. [...]

GM:Now that the fight is over, you have time to notice the unusual interior of that room. You see a delicately ornated mantlepiece in the east (continues to describe the room in detail)

Bard:I'll continue my performance just in case we're getting attacked again while Roguey McRogueface searches around.

Are you trying to tell me that scenario wasn't possible in PF1?

Well no because bard performances were limited per day so no one would do that. The two tactics I would see happen in pf1 were either take 20 to search around. Or readying an attack against any enemies that they come in contact with. I usually wouldn't allow people to "ready" attacks since I would argue that's what initiative is, but there really isn't any rules against doing such RAW.

Exploration is a sparsely written about, and contentious topic in PF1. I doubt that any 2 GMs run it the same way. Some run it round by round, some just handwave everything outside of combat and loosely keep track of time. I'd like for there to be official guidelines to how exploration should actually work in PF2.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mathmuse wrote:
Could Dire Ursus please describe in more detail about flavorful, flexible exploration so that it can be incorporated into the Pathfinder 2nd Edition rulebook?

I'm not really sure what you took from my comment.. I never said you could do multiple things all at the same time. But to be fair there is no rules against switching your tactic anytime you want. For instance I remember reading either in the book or from a dev post on here that players can have their own custom exploration tactic. Such as "I'm going to be sneaking but whenever I come to a door I will search the door before entering" and that's completely fine and fair. If you are attacked while searching the door then you won't be able to roll stealth for initiative but you will get a chance to detect traps and such on doors.

So for your example of scouting the castle. Anytime you want while stealthing around the perimeter you are allowed to stop and take a look around.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hythlodeus wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:


Can exploration mode rules apply when my players loved to describe how they explore in loving detail?
I actually don't think that exploration mode will make it into the final product. it adds nothing to the game, takes most of the RP elements out of it and I highly doubt most groups that finished DD used that mode till the end of the playtest. I suspect most of them ditched it after chapter 2 if not earlier. Luckily, even if it would make it into the final product it is so easy to be simply ignored

That's a whole lot of assumptions and objectively wrong. Exploration mode was great for my group. It fixes something we had a problem with in PF1. The ONLY objectively best thing you should do when exploring an area is just take 20 in every single inch of every room. It came to a point where I as GM just assumed that the group found every single thing in every room. Traps, Hidden doors, hidden items because they had such high perception. Now there is actual good options other than just searching around. Bards can spend their exploration time continuing a performance so that combat starts with the performance active. Shield users can block, stealth characters can sneak, magic users can use cantrips. And perception is not automatic. All that seeking does is let you make 1 roll. It's a great system in many ways. It could use some work for sure but it's 100x better than just taking 20 in every single room like in PF1.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm sure Paizo know what they are doing. But these seem like huge changes and I'm worried that we won't even have a chance to playtest them. The proficiency changes in particular are obviously not just made in a vacuum, many things need to change from the playtest to make that work: The entire DC chart, all of the class' proficiency scalings, how skills work like intimidation. if legendary in intimidation makes it so you can always critical your demoralize check and make creatures run away that essentially breaks combat encounters.

I'm not saying these change are bad if Paizo figures out how to balance them with the rest of the rules. But it's worrying that we won't have any chances to give feedback on them before the full release since it seems like a lot.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
Lyee wrote:
Is casting in armour too strong for level 1? What about limited flight as some races might get? A swim speed? Having an animal companion? What levels is it valid for these to come into play?

Those are pretty fundamental questions, and all game systems are going to have their own answer.

The reason I was experimenting with my own game system was to see if I could answer "yes" without breaking everything. Turning into a fire elemental at level 1? Yes! With limited duration, of course. Throw meteors too? Yes! As long as they're fairly small and weak. Fly with wings whenever you want? Yes! Since that's going to be a possibility, we'll design the world so that all enemies you're likely to meet outdoors have a ranged option or their own flying ability...

PF2 was looking like a system where the answer was often "no", as is D&D 5e, so it seemed like there could be a gap in the market...

But where does it end? Is it just the GMs job to say yes all the time and balance the game themselves? Because at that point you're not really playing an RPG you're making your own. I have enough stuff I need to do to GM a game. I don't want to have to create the game while GMing.

1 to 50 of 483 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>