Jhofre Vascari

Doodpants's page

92 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 92 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
aobst128 wrote:
Can't wait for potentialist.

That's every prepared spellcaster class. "I could have potentially dealt with this situation, if only I'd thought to prepare spell X."

Book of the Just Chillin'
Deeds of the Indifferent
Legends of the Non-Commital

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Can't read the article, it's got an adblocker-blocker.

Easily defeated by disabling Javascript. :-)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Samurai wrote:
How powerful they are is determined by the slot used when castrating it.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
  • - As impressive as a 20th-level rogue with Legendary training in Athletics, an ungodly skill modifier, and all the Climbing and Jumping skill feats is at climbing and jumping, he's still overshadowed by the 5th-level wizard with fly.
  • Not sure how this is considered strange. In terms of reaching high places, the most skilled human climber/jumper in the world would be overshadowed by a sparrow. :-)

    Uchuujin wrote:

    Alright, have things expanded a bit further including a second page (although it's a bit sloppy yet). Hoping to finish before GenCon, but I work on this in my downtime at work, so can't guarantee it.


    Looks good! Though "Ancestry" is misspelled.

    7 people marked this as a favorite.
    bugleyman wrote:
    Doodpants wrote:

    For homebrew stuff, you could use unicode symbols to approximate:

    ◈ Single Action
    ◈◈ Two-Action Activity
    ◈◈◈ Three-Action Activity
    ⟐ Free Action
    ⤾ Reaction
    Wow, nice find. I might actually prefer those to the real thing...

    Thanks! My secret weapon is this searchable database of Unicode characters. I searched for "diamond", and then "arrow", to find these symbols. Other interesting diamonds are: ❖ ⬖ ⬗ ⬘ ⬙.

    25 people marked this as a favorite.
    Jester David wrote:
    Vic Wertz wrote:

    We have released a font that includes the action symbols as part of the Pathfinder Second Edition Compatibility License (not part of the Community Use packages).

    That's great for 3PP.

    Less so for.... pretty much anyone who wants to make power cards or homebrew feats for personal use. You shouldn't have to resort to pirating a font or registering as an official publisher to homebrew.
    And it's not idea for Paizo to have to "approve" endless waves of GMs registering as compatible publishers just so they can make NPCs and monsters that look right.

    Given every single character will have four or five feats that unlock different actions, being able to make cards or cheat sheets will be a must. And typing [A] and [A][A] looks lame...

    For homebrew stuff, you could use unicode symbols to approximate:

    ◈ Single Action
    ◈◈ Two-Action Activity
    ◈◈◈ Three-Action Activity
    ⟐ Free Action
    ⤾ Reaction

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    MaxAstro wrote:
    Speaking of confused, it took me a moment to realize that wasn't my post. XD

    You post a lot more than I do, so I've had plenty of time to get used to it. :-)

    9 people marked this as a favorite.

    One thing I find confusing about the black-and-white version: In the "Melee Strikes" and "Ranged Strikes" sections of page 1, there is no visible separator between each strike. But there IS a visible separator WITHIN each strike. So the grouping reads wrong; it looks as though each "Damage" secion is associated with the "Weapon" section below it, rather than the one above it.

    This is something I've seen on the web as well, and it always bugs me: sections separated by nothing but whitespace, but visible separators within a section, so it's easy to mis-read which subsections are grouped together. I've most often seen this in web forums, where one could mistakenly associate the wrong user info line with the wrong post.

    ...Hey, come to think of it, this web forum does that very thing! And not too long ago, it caused me to "flag" the wrong post, because I mistook the "FLAG | LIST | REPLY" controls as being attached to the post above them, rather than the one below, thanks to the separator line.

    In summary, sections should have MORE prominent separators between them than the sub-section separators within them.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    In Rise of the Runelords,

    we got to a part where there's a hallway of mirrors, from which doppelgangers of the party members emerge and attack. If your PC dies, the corresponding doppelganger disappears. We were getting beaten badly, and had to retreat. One of our PCs was fairly low on HP, while her double was still quite healthy, and was a really tough opponent.

    So I decided that the most expedient course of action was for me to kill the PC, in order to remove the threat, so we could escape. We of course resurrected her later.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Also reminds me of the song "Shadow's Love" by Tezaura.

    All the day I hate Earth for turning
    All the night I long for your burning
    You’re the Sun and hurting me is your duty
    I will just always dream of your beauty

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Lyee wrote:
    Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
    Every time I mention the high degree of flexibility 2e has over 1e- specifically the customization options- they have a fit, acting as if 1e is superior in that regard. My /dude/ were we playing the same game?
    Not sure who 'they' are, but I've heard no one reasonable make this claim based on CRBs. People I know who will stick with 1E for customization reasons do so because 1E has been out longer and has an absurdly larger library of content as a result.

    Even when 1E was first released, players weren't limited to just the contents of the CRB, because it was designed to be compatible with existing 3.5 material. So PF2E will actually be the first edition that doesn't have a bunch of supplimentary material available right out of the gate.

    Looks like the dragon turtle figure has acupuncture needles.

    10 people marked this as a favorite.

    Bag of Folding. Toss your clothes and linens in there, and they'll come out all neat and tidy.

    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Mathmuse wrote:
    Lewis Carroll's poem Jabberwocky played with words to introduce both the deadly Jabberwock and the vorpal blade that beheaded it with a snicker-snack.

    No. Just... no.

    Sorry for the off-topic rant, but you hit a major pet peeve of mine. The poem Jabberwocky uses a bunch of nonsense words whose meanings are to be inferred by context. When I first read the poem, my impression was that "vorpal" simply meant "trusty". I've always imagined the boy's sword as a simple peasant weapon, nothing special. When he fought the creature, he simply struck several good blows (snicker-snack!) with a decent weapon. He then severed the head and took it back to show his dad.

    Later I found out that D&D had co-opted the term "vorpal" to mean some powerful magical quality, and have since always felt that they totally missed the point.

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Gorbacz wrote:
    Just like stealing a Wizard's spellbooks cripples them. Yet the "but your spelllbook might get stolen/destroyed!" doesn't really figure into discussion about design and balance. And rightfully so, going after spellbooks is a cheap move, just as is going after weapons.

    Apples and oranges. It's not about the fighter having a weapon vs. not having one, it's about having a magic weapon vs. a mundane one. Wizards don't need to replace their "mundane" spellbook with some kind of special one at higher levels to stay relevant.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    EldritchWeaver wrote:
    Data Lore wrote:

    I forgot General so I tacked that one on. I don't mind the General and the Class ones both being called feats.

    Edit: Hmm, maybe General Talent and Skill Trick?

    So, Class Feat, General Talent, Ancestral Trait and Skill Trick?

    If you say that having "X feat" is confusing and you want to replace "feat" by "Y", then saying "X Y" instead merely "Y" is just increasing word count.

    I think "Class X", "Ancestral Y", and "Skill Z" is useful, even if X, Y, and Z are all different, because the modifier indicates what the ability relates to. But "General W" is not useful, and should just be "W".

    I would go with Class Ability, Feat, Ancestral Trait, and Skill Trick. Other than "trick", these terms tie back into their PF1e meanings.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    J4RH34D wrote:
    My characters don't identify by what their class is, but rather what they do.

    "You are what you do. A man is defined by his actions..."

    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    2Zak wrote:
    modus0 wrote:
    Jason Bulmahn wrote:
    This sort of change might seem like an extra thing to learn, but it can also be seen as about 100 things you don't have to learn.
    How does removing part of the spell entry, in favor of yet another keyword, equate to not having to learn 100 things?

    You now don't have to read every single spell that does the exact same as every other spell multiple times to make sure it actually does the exact same.

    What's clearer for you: "this spell does half a thing on a successful save, no things on a crit save, a whole thing on a failed save and double the things on a crit failed save" or "this spell works like Fireball but it's cold damage"?

    The first one, because I don't have to then flip to Fireball to learn the rest of the rules for the spell.

    For the sake of argument, let's take this to the opposite extreme. Suppose that the spell description for Fireball looked like this:

    Fireball Spell 3
    Evocation, Fire
    Casting [[A]] Somatic Casting, [[A]] Verbal Casting
    Range medium range; Area medium burst
    A burst of fire explodes, dealing basic energy damage (fire) to creatures in the area, depending on their basic Reflex saves.
    Heightened Standard energy damage heightening applies.

    Now you don't have to reread the parts that multiple spells have in common! In addition to knowing what "basic saving throw" means, you only have to learn once that:

    • "medium range" is 500 feet
    • A "medium burst" has a 20-foot radius
    • "basic energy damage" is 6d6 of some specified energy type
    • "standard energy damage heightening" is 2d6 damage per +1 level of heightening.
    Think of all the space savings! Now think of all the page flipping you have to do to look up each of these pieces of information if you haven't memorized them all yet.

    9 people marked this as a favorite.

    Instead of "basic saving throw", I would call it a "standard damage saving throw". And in the spell text itself, word it as "standard damage saving throw (Reflex)", like Wandering Wastrel suggested.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Gloom wrote:

    Will there be a Second Edition version of Return of the Runelords? :)

    To that point, will there be one for Rise of the Runelords and Shattered Star?! :D

    Well, this blog post is headed by the Pathfinder Playtest logo...

    Vic Ferrari wrote:
    Davor wrote:
    (FYI, Gish is a magic/martial hybrid, for those of you who might not be aware of the term).
    They will always be Githyanki Fighter/Magic-Users, to me!

    A Gish will always be a ball of tar with eyes and teeth to me!

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Laik wrote:
    If all of your PCS had 1 RP exactly, then all of them dumped Charisma to 10. In this game, it is a decision about just as smart as dumping Constitution.

    I don't consider a 10 a "dump"; it's just something you haven't particularly invested in. If you're saying that ALL characters have to raise both their CON and CHA, in addition to whatever other attribute(s) their signature class abilities may depend on, then that effectively makes every character MAD in this game. Which is not a good thing.

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pandora's wrote:
    OP, as you're seeing from this discussion, the actual reason we're still using alignment is that it's a sacred cow. It's tradition, and no tabletop RPG is steeped in so much tradition as D&D. For the same reason, you won't see Vancian magic or the six ability scores disappear, even if developers thought they could replace them with something better. When you play D&D, you either deal with it as it is or you house rule it. Expecting official changes to the sacred cows will result in disappointment.

    That's a good point, but it only applies to RPGs called "D&D". This is Pathfinder. PF1E had to maintain compatibility with D&D 3.x, so it wasn't going to get rid of any sacred cows, but PF2E has no such restriction. So I'd hope that the designers would be willing to rethink any and all aspects of the game.

    6 people marked this as a favorite.
    DataLoreRPG wrote:
    Go big guys. Just go for it. Don't hedge your bets. Don't keep holding on to the vestigal bits of the 3.X engine.

    Yes! Get rid of Vancian casting once and for all!

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Jason Bulmahn wrote:
    Finally, as for calling things feats, we have decided to use that term to help new players understand "feat means I get to pick a new rule to add to my character", much as it did in the past.

    Maybe it's just me, but I never liked the way 3.X/PFRPG used the word "feat", because this usage is different from the common meaning in English. The word "feat" generally refers to a specific instance of a difficult/impressive achievement, rather than the ability to perform the achievement. For example, if a person were to lift an automobile over their head, one might say, "Wow, what an incredible feat of strength!" The word "feat" would refer to this individual action, rather than the great strength required to lift cars in general.

    So I feel it's more confusing to new players when a game term is a common English word, but its meaning is different from the common one. When I first read the 3.0 rulebook and learned about "feats", my first thought was, "How is this a feat? This is actually the ability to perform feats." But again, maybe it's just me.

    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    KingOfAnything wrote:
    Dreamer3333 wrote:

    Not bad, I have really like every class preview so far - this one falls a bit flatter imo though.

    Love the spell list idea, and the bloodlines are cool - but I'm yet unconvinced that losing the "spells per day" advantage over wizards is overly balanced out by anything else, when you consider the spells known requirement - what makes them "that" different?

    1) I'm a bit confused I think.
    I thought there was only 1 "heal" spell - that just is better depending on at what level you cast it -- so you don't have to learn/know a different healing spell at every spell level.
    The description of heightening helping out not needing to learn new "heal" spells confuses me, or at least makes me think my understanding was wrong from previous spell blog.

    There is only one heal spell, but it does different things at different levels. A wizard can prepare heal (level 1),heal (level 2), or heal (level 3), or any combination of those spells in order to cast them in a day. Similarly, sorcerers have a repertoire of spells known. When they learn heal, they do so at a specific level (i.e. heal (level 1)).

    But this is confusing and inconsistent. Suppose a wizard learns heal. If he prepares it in a level 2 slot, it is cast as a level 2 heal. If he prepares it in a level 3 slot, it is cast as a level 3 heal.

    In contrast, suppose a sorcerer learns heal 2. Then, one day, when she's out of level 2 spell slots, she decides to cast it in a level 3 slot (assuming PF2 still allows casting lower level spells in higher slots). This means it will cast as a level 2 heal from a level 3 slot?

    So, you say that there is only one heal spell, but this is not entirely true. For the wizard, there is only one heal spell to learn, which auto-heightens to the slot it is cast from. For the sorcerer, there are a bunch of heal spells at different levels to learn, which are cast at their respective spell levels, regardless of spell slot used. Just like in PF1.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    PossibleCabbage wrote:

    So if wands are "multi-use consumables" is there a wand-analogue for trinkets? i.e. scrolls : wands :: trinkets : ????


    Pathfinder: Symphony of the Night

    Tensor wrote:
    mach1.9pants wrote:
    So the Buhlman Universal Role Play System... ?


    Ok, but the name BURPS has already been used, at least twice three times:

    BURPS by Maverick Games Company (1987)
    BURPS by Rebecca Angel (2011)
    BURPS by Games 4 Geeks (2017)

    Goblins & Grimoires

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    kyrt-ryder wrote:
    The problem is that poster enjoys survivalism type challenges and wants to be immersed in Roughing It, but their GM is handwaving something they enjoy.

    It's not even that I want to be immersed in hard-core survivalism type challenges; it's the fact that the issues of food and comfortable rest are ignored to the point that I can completely neglect to equip my character for such necessities and never be called out on it, which breaks the verisimilitude. I want to play a role-playing game, not a video-gamey series of combats or dungeon crawls, and I feel that these types of real-world practical concerns should at least come up and have to be addressed.

    RumpinRufus wrote:
    I don't see the issue with Ring of Sustenance, as I'm not really interested in playing "Eating Simulator 2nd Edition".

    Honestly, I kind of am. There was a time when, whenever I created a new character, his starting equipment would include items such as a waterskin, a week or two of trail rations, a tent, a sleeping bag, etc. After many years of playing (in the same group, mostly with the same GM), I stopped bothering. Because I noticed that these issues literally NEVER come up in game. When and what does my character eat? I have no idea. How does he sleep comfortably? I dunno, magic I guess. Sleeping generally consists of, "You rest for the night. The next morning..."

    These days, my starting equipment consists of nothing more than clothing, weapons, armor, and a coin purse. And spell components if a caster. Oh, and a backpack, but that's mostly just to put loot into, because it starts out empty.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    ryric wrote:

    I think a lot of times "bad" options come about as a sort of slightly disjointed group effort. Here's the scenario I envision: Developer writes a feat/spell/item and submits it. An editor looks at it, decides it's a little too powerful, and tweaks it. Since the editor and developer are, in fact, different people with slightly different feelings about balance, sometimes the editor tweak goes too far and the option becomes inferior. It's not one person being malicious, it's multiple people each making choices they think are best for the game and sometimes turning out to be overly cautious.

    From an editor POV, it's better to have an option be too weak rather than too powerful - people just don't take weak options, but everybody takes strong ones and screams bloody murder when the nerf bat descends. And obviously mistakes like Sacred Geometry happen.

    Actually, in the case of Sacred Geometry, here's what I think happened: A developer wrote a feat, and then submitted it. An editor looked at it, but didn't notice that it was submitted on April 1st, and thought the developer was actually being serious.

    Egil Firehair wrote:

    Vis the comment about playing a Kineticist if you want to blast all day long, this is largely correct. But a Kinny has real problems when you start running into critters with spell resistance. Either accept that, or plan around it.

    Spell resistance doesn't apply against physical blasts, such as Air, Earth, or Water.

    The rules for the rogue's Trapfinding ability state:

    Rogue: Trapfinding wrote:
    A rogue adds 1/2 her level to Perception skill checks made to locate traps and to Disable Device skill checks (minimum +1).

    Note that it doesn't say "1/2 her rogue level". So, does this mean that she adds 1/2 her total character level as a bonus? I'm thinking of doing a 1 level dip into Rogue for my 12th level character, which would give me a +6 bonus.

    I'm not trying to cheat or be overly rules-lawyery; class abilities usually explicitly state when they rely on class level instead of character level. For example, the Barbarian's Trap Sense ability states:

    Barbarian: Trap Sense wrote:
    These bonuses increase by +1 every three barbarian levels thereafter...

    I found nothing in the FAQ about this, and if this hasn't been errata'd by now, I have to assume that the intent is character level, rather than rogue level. Is that correct?

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    graystone wrote:
    Having to search 10'/round or traps are undetectable especially in overland travel... 10' open pits are invisible if you move overland speeds... :P

    Eh, I would argue that anything that could reasonably be called a "trap" would be concealed in some way. A 10' open pit is more of a terrain feature.

    Haladir wrote:

    A paladin has to be lawful good to remain a paladin.

    Worshiping an evil god is a voluntary evil act.

    If a paladin were to try to worship an evil god in a manner that doesn't violate her lawful-goodness, then she's not worshiping the god correctly by the religion's practices. That's a chaotic act.

    Ergo, no, a paladin can't worship an evil god.

    Here's the thing, though: a paladin's powers are granted to her by the diety that she worships. If an evil god wants to grant paladin powers to one of his followers, what's to stop him?

    Likewise, a paladin doesn't simply "lose" her powers somehow if she breaks her code of conduct or performs an evil act. Rather, the deity chooses to take her powers away as punishment. An evil god isn't going to take away one of his paladin's powers because she did evil.

    So yes, by RAI, the class called "Paladin" was included to describe a character archetype who is a paragon of good. But IMHO (and by rule 0), a GM could conceivably decide that the powers and abilities of the class may be granted to a worshipper of an evil deity by that deity.

    darkwarriorkarg wrote:

    Take 10: Gets rid of excessive die rolling. What's the issue? You can't use it if there would be a penalty for failiure.

    >Sigh< YES YOU CAN.

    Sorry, I just find it exaspirating that people keep getting the Take 10/20 rules wrong. Especially my own GM, so I need to keep correcting him. :-)

    You can't take 20 if there would be a penalty for failure, because taking 20 simulates trying over and over again until you roll a 20. So you can't use it in situations where you couldn't just try again. This is also why it is considered to take longer than a single skill check; you are assumed to be making many checks.

    Taking 10 has no such restriction. You are making a single check, and getting an average result. The only restriction is that you can't take 10 when you are under time pressure or distracted, because it represents doing your average in a normal, no-stress situation. So you CAN take 10 when there would be a penalty for failure; you make an average attempt, and if you fail, you suffer the penalty.

    Hudax wrote:

    Speculation 1: 5e is the mythical "4e that should have been." This would mean going back to the drawing board (3.5) and revising it in a way that is distinct from Pathfinder.

    Speculation 2: 5e is a revision of 4e. This would involve trying to inject the "D&D" back into D&D.

    Speculation 3: 5e is completely innovative. No idea what this would look like. Could go the way of 4e (because 4e was innovative), or it could be something totally new and awesome that we've never even thought of.

    Any of the above risks further splintering their player base, but all could also potentially bring back players that left.

    You left out one possibility. Remember, Pathfinder is every bit as OGL as 3.X was; WotC could have 5E be based on Pathfinder! :-)

    JMD031 wrote:
    Grey Mage wrote:

    Ive seen these.... fighters... who have ALL their abilities tied into strength! Thats right, no reliance on silly things like dexterity, wisdom, or charisma. Every time they up their strength their combat maneuver bonuses get bigger! And they hit more often! And HARDER.

    Seriously, its threatening to break my game. WAT I DOZ TEH FIX?

    You must start a new thread, this thread is to discuss the horrible brokenness of the Wizard class and how to "house" rule it to be more balanced with the other classes.

    Wizards are so broken that they overpower the Paizo messageboards. One way to fix this would be to allow Fighters to be discussed in Wizard threads.

    Benicio Del Espada wrote:

    Help! My wizard SUCKS at combat!

    What can I do to make him hold his own in combat?

    Doesn't he carry spell components, like talc or bat quano? If so, the answer should be obvious... throw it in the enemies' eyes to distract, or even blind them.

    ciretose wrote:
    If a wizard is trying to cast a spell when someone is next to them, you should make it an attack of opportunity unless they cast a special way, maybe call it cast on the defensive. This should be pretty hard to do at low levels, something like a caster level + ability score modifier vs maybe 15 + the spell level. And if they don't make it they lose the spell.

    Too easy. Make the DC 15 + twice the spell level, and you're onto something.

    Kthulhu wrote:
    Why does everyone always look to GURPS when it comes to non-classed systems? It's not the only one, it wasn't the first, and I damn sure don't consider the the best.

    It's probably the most popular/well-known. It's certainly the only one I've played, for example.

    BRP >>> GURPS

    See? I had to google BRP. :-)

    LilithsThrall wrote:
    If Vancian were replaced, it could be replaced with a skill based system. Once that's done, it'd be easy to reduce the class system to one class modifiable by feats and skills.

    I've always felt that class-based RPGs, such as D&D, were arbitrarily restrictive in the types of characters that one can create, and that skill/trait-based systems, such as GURPS, allow a much broader range of possibilities. Whenever I'm creating a new character for a D&D/Pathfinder game, I think "what class do I want to play?", and then build a character of that class. When creating a new character for GURPS, I think "what do I want my charachter to be like?", and then choose the traits that define the character I envision.

    That said, I think that if a system is fundamentally class-based, then it should embrace its nature, not try to circumvent it. D&D (and Pathfinder by extension) has always been class-based, and those who want to create trait-based characters should choose a different system to play. There are plenty out there. Let's not mutate this 30+ year old game too far from its fundamental core.

    Gary Teter wrote:

    Remember that scene in Babylon 5 where Marcus is in a bar and he says something like "I'll talk to the last person standing?" And then he clears the room by whirling and smacking and being badass? And then he discovers he's knocked every single opponent out, and now he has to wait for one to wake up so he can question them?

    That's why monks are so fricking rad.

    But Marcus wasn't a monk, he was a ranger.

    Brother Theo, on the other hand, was a monk. But all he and his monk friends ever did was scan through hours of security camera footage looking for a suspect.

    Todd Stewart wrote:
    I sold my Apple IIe back in the mid 90s, and now I'm hating that I did because I'm crazy nostalgic for Oregon Trail and a bunch of text-based adventure games from the 80s I played as a kid. I'll be splurging at some point on Ebay to snag a working vintage Apple IIe I think.

    If you like text adventures, it might interest you to know that there is a very active community of authors creating new text adventures all the time. The correct term for these games is now "interactive fiction"; this site is a good place to start if you're interested in getting back into playing them.

    Ravingdork wrote:
    I was using http://dictionary.reference.com/.

    I think you misread the entry; it says magus is singular and magi is plural.

    Ravingdork wrote:
    The dictionary tells me that the proper forms of the word are magus (plural) and magi (singular).

    Er, my dictionary has them the other way around.

    1 to 50 of 92 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>