I think with a TPK every 3 sessions across different groups we can rule out player tactics tbh. This has to be a rules mistake somewhere and OP isn't really giving us enough details to figure that out. Unless OP gives specific details like character sheets or a turn by turn combat summary, it's going to be really hard to fix what's happening.
"Green skin and a hooked nose" so like a stereotypical witch then? You're literally describing the wicked witch in the west.
Sometimes I feel like people go so far to try to protect a certain culture they actually end up insulting it... Old ugly witches that steal children are definitely not an anti-semetic trope. I bet that trope has existed before our modern religious texts were ever even written.
Ginny Di seems to be under the impression that the comments under her video are from outsiders who don't watch her content coming to 5e videos and telling people to switch to a different game system. I think it's also reasonable to think that actually a good portion of these comments are from regular viewers who switched to Pathfinder or maybe play both while consuming 5e content. Pathfinder is my main game but I also watch d&d 5e content like Critical Role (where a lot of her fanbase comes from)
Yeah, I also never interpreted finesse builds the way some people ITT are. I'm pretty confused by the fact that there's any semblance of an outrage to be honest. If they needed to add errata then obviously there was a strong enough argument for finesse weapons letting you use dex for skill attacks. The first time I read the finesse trait in the final core rulebook printing my very first thought was about how it affects trip because of the whip. Just because you didn't see the connection, doesn't mean that other interpretations were wrong.
So I just GMed my first session last night and it went well! I decided to start anticipation at 10 instead of 15 based on calculations done by you fine folks, and the group ended up critically succeeding with a final excitement and anticipation of 11 thanks to the backup clown role clutching it out in the last act. The bard of our group had some interesting questions that I thought I would post in here. He asked if he could use his guidance cantrip during the performance to help someone with their performance check. I decided that he would be able to do this once per act to only one performer but he has to be preoccupied the entire act while casting the spell. The bard also gains Inspire Competence next level, and I'm wondering how other GMs would handle this. Would you allow him to cast Inspire Competence to help out other tricks? I'm leaning towards the same ruling for Guidance, that he can aid them, but he must be preoccupied the entire time and only one performer per act.
Something else worth mentioning as a general rule you can spend two actions to prepare a single action as a reaction. So if you are going first in the act, and dont want to spend your last two actions you could prepare the clowns as a reaction with your last two.
That Shed Tail ancestry feat is amazing. Exactly the type of flavourful but still useful feats I want to see in the future of this edition.
The logic is that the longbow is large and unwieldy so it's harder to set up and aim at something that's really close. The closer something is, the more you have to move the bow to keep it aimed at a moving target.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Exciting! Will you be able to answer questions about PF2 is that all still hush hush?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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? 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Your GM must have ran that part of the adventure incorrectly. On a failure it only takes more time to search the hex. You still should find whatever is in the hex.
I was a GM for my party but I'll state the first that comes to mind for one of my players. During Heroes of Undarin when the demilich comes out there is a horde of corpses (mummy retainers) that do as well. They immediately surrounded the paladin and over the course of 6 or 7 rounds he was slashing through them over and over. After he finally cleared them basically single handedly as the rest of the party battled the demilich. the demilich looks down at him and blasts him with a Polar Ray. He finally uses his Orc Ferocity racial feat and stays standing despite the massive amount of damage suffered to his already wounded body and just yells at the demilich. Just a real bad ass moment.
Pathfinder is high fantasy. Always has been. Especially at higher levels.
Sounds like Quadratic Fighters. Why is this an issue in-principle? That's where I disagree completely. High level characters shouldn't have any problem dealing with low level orcs. Like at all. The fighter should laugh at them as he easily deflects all their blows and then slice through them like butter.
I still like my idea back when dex to damage was being discussed before. I think dex to damage is lazy and it doesn't make sense why someone with dumped str and high dex does the same amount of damage as someone with high dex and high str. I think a cool little niche for dex character would be criticals. They should add a new weapon type which allows half of your dex modifier to be added to your critical threat. So if you have +4 dex you can crit at 8 higher than their AC instead of +10. They should use this very sparringly only on weapons that are low damage dice. I'm thinking rapier, maybe the katana, shortsword, dagger.
and monsters are defined by the same +1 per level.Because the characters are not fighting each other. THey fight enemies of many different levels. Yes but you aren't going to fight something of equal level over and over. At level 4 you might fight a large group of goblins of varying levels. The lowest ones should be easy cannon fodder, the specialists should be fairly easy, but still a slight challenge, the captains should be equal level challenges, and then the big boss should be higher level than you guys. Without + to level then how would these goblins be differentiated?
I find it to be an evolution of Pathfinder. We can still play the same adventures but now combats are more fun and interactive. that's a huge evolution for me because combat was the least fun part of Pathfinder 1e. You spend so much time crafting these cool character concepts but when combat actually comes around you just 5 foot step and full attack over and over because that's the best thing to do by far. But PF1e and D&D5e already are head-to-head competition... People who like PF1e are not that different from people who like D&D5e. The biggest difference on average probably just being when they got into the hobby.
The big idea is that 3.5 and 1st edition of pathfinder has problems. Big ones. That can't be fixed without fully tearing the system down from it's roots. Paizo has enough experience and a big enough following now that they feel this is the right time for them to finally make their own system that will make it easier for them to write better adventures.And to the degree that this is the "big idea" motivating the PF2e design team, it's the reason that I think they've got it all wrong. I think that a serious, evolutionary revision of PF1e would be both possible to do and more attractive to a wider range of gamers. From my POV, PF2e in its current form seems likely to chase away many fans of PF1e without attracting a substantial body of D&D5e players. I find it to be an evolution of Pathfinder. We can still play the same adventures but now combats are more fun and interactive. that's a huge evolution for me because combat was the least fun part of Pathfinder 1e. You spend so much time crafting these cool character concepts but when combat actually comes around you just 5 foot step and full attack over and over because that's the best thing to do by far.
The big idea is that 3.5 and 1st edition of pathfinder has problems. Big ones. That can't be fixed without fully tearing the system down from it's roots. Paizo has enough experience and a big enough following now that they feel this is the right time for them to finally make their own system that will make it easier for them to write better adventures.
I, too, dislike rolling a heap of dice in an additive system. I don't even like rolling more than a d20. Too many dice just slow down the pace of the game, especially if any players have dyscalculia. The 10 grouping method speeds this up and I'm sure it would help people with dyscalculia. Roll your dice and then look for 4s, 5s, and 6s. Group a 4 with a 6, group 2 5s together put them to the side. Then look for 7s or 3s, then look for 8s or 2s. so on. Count the remainders. You don't have to remember any of the dice you already counted because they are grouped to the side by 10s. It helps a ton believe me.
I think you're confused as to the point of that ritual. It's a replacement for those creatures ability to summon other creatures of their type in 1e. In 1e it was a flat percentage if the summon would work. It's to give them a way to still have the ability to call other creatures of their type to their side while in different planes. Otherwise the plot of a lot of 1st edition adventures would not be able to be converted over easily. Creatures with the summoned trait can't summon other things.
That plus AC didn't really scale as fast as your to hit. So pretty much every PC was going to hit no matter what. So they could just go for as much damage as possible with power attack/full-attack and just do absurd damage (1 shotting creatures of equivalent CR easily). So when you have 4 of those all going at the same time, yeah how the hell is a single creature supposed to survive.
I think you're confused as to the point of that ritual. It's a replacement for those creatures ability to summon other creatures of their type in 1e. In 1e it was a flat percentage if the summon would work. It's to give them a way to still have the ability to call other creatures of their type to their side while in different planes. Otherwise the plot of a lot of 1st edition adventures would not be able to be converted over easily.
Yeah it feels good for the Martials to actually get a chance rolling some damage dice compared to the 1d12 + 30 in 1e.
Spotted this problem ten thousand miles away before the playtest even started and it's one of the changes that killed this edition for me. Newer gamers want a board game not an immersive RPG. You're acting like the game works like this narratively: "I attack guy he blocks" his turn "he pulls out potion." Wait why can't I attack him!?! I'm just staring at him pull out a potion. When narratively this is what really is happening: You attack the guy he parries your blow and pulls a potion out and drinks it while you're still reeling back from the parry, you try to use the opening but alas you're not trained to use small gaps in defensives to land killing blows. So he manages to duck away from the attack. Everything is happening all at the same time in a 6 second gap. You aren't just staring at someone pull out a potion. You were locked in combat with him. And he's dodging weaving. Maybe he shoulders into you while he pulls out a potion and drinks it with his other hand. Maybe he kicks you in the shin and uses that opening to get the potion out.
Is there Ready Actions in the new system? Yes you can spend two actions to basically turn one of your actions into a reaction that occurs on a trigger you decide on.
Thanks so much. I'm beyond excited for more content to play with for 2e.
|
