Drakhan Valane's page

Yeah? Monks are also magic, at least the ones that take spells. Monks had (Su) all over their abilities list in PF1 and the only thing that's changed is that being magical is opt-in now.

A Panache based monk sounds awesome, too. I wonder if there's going to be a way to do that in the full APG?

Ignorance, per definition, is not knowing. It is not ignoring what you know, it is not knowing it in the first place.

That is a system I have zero interest in playing. Unlike the PF2 playtest which I find extremely exciting.

Oh Then we could add 3 more attributes and instead of rolling a d20 we could roll 1d10 per point we invest into the attribute.

Now I really want to play Exalted again.

Drakhan Valane wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

+Level is a bit passe (SWSE/2006), sort of a gimmicky mechanic; it seems like they tacked it on to highlight the 4-tiers of success thing, and go out of their way to not be like 5th Ed.

Comes across as a Chicken and Egg deal, did big numbers come first, or this critical success/fumble deal came first, and then tack on the + Level to accentuate big numbers.

It's a beautiful way to make the difference between a level 1 character and a level 20 character meaningful. It fits perfectly for the stories I want to be a part of.

Right on, I find those sorts of stories (only on a natural 20, can you hit me, yay!), revolting.

Each to their own, some dig the treadmill (illusion of power through number inflation), some don't.

Yes, let's get rid of the treadmill completely and go leveless. It's the only way. There's no point in having levels at all unless it actually has meaning. HP should not increase with level since that's just HP inflation. Under the reasoning that level bonus is just a treadmill, the ideal system has you pick what you're good at when you create your character and you never improve because that's just number inflation.

I absolutely love character creation!

+Level is a bit passe (SWSE/2006), sort of a gimmicky mechanic; it seems like they tacked it on to highlight the 4-tiers of success thing, and go out of their way to not be like 5th Ed.

Comes across as a Chicken and Egg deal, did big numbers come first, or this critical success/fumble deal came first, and then tack on the + Level to accentuate big numbers.

It's a beautiful way to make the difference between a level 1 character and a level 20 character meaningful. It fits perfectly for the stories I want to be a part of.

These simple houserules have vastly improved my PF2 experience.

+Level is omitted.

Touch Armour Class is omitted.

Spell Attacks are made with your spellcasting ability score (Int for Wizard, etc).

Item (magic) bonus for weapons and extra damage dice is omitted.

Potency Runes are omitted.

Trained Armour, Weapon, and Spell Attack Proficiency Bonus/Extra Weapon Damage Dice by Level.

Level:
2-4: +1/2 x weapon damage dice
5-8: +2/3 x weapon damage dice
9-12: +3/4 x weapon damage dice
13-16: +4/5 x weapon damage dice
17-20: +5/6 x weapon damage dice

That looks boring and uninspiring. Take away the best part (+level), and nerf magic weapons to uselessness.

Martial choices have mattered in PF1. You were either Barbarian or Paladin. Any other martial choice was practically worthless or banned (*cough*Synthesist*cough*) and you might as well should have just played Commoner.

You played a VERY different Pathfinder than I ever did.

I would find renaming feats to things NOT feats would be far more confusing. Because they act like feats. Having 20 different names for things that act just like feats is a pain.

I don't think a large number difference should really be the defining trait of a legendary warrior, but rather what they can do with the weapons (i.e. feats or being able to use special properties of weapons better). Anyone can stab someone.

Well, you can identify it in 1 action by taking it.

I like the idea of giving Signature skills from Int bonus. For each +1 you get to choose a Signature skill.

But they're all feats. They are all chosen in the same way and have the same form. The reason you struggle with different names is because they all function in the same way. It makes perfect sense to me. They do the same things but they have different categories (hence Class/Skill/General).

I'm super excited for Paladin. That said, I'd like to see Bard first.

I ran a Wrath of the Righteous game (sadly it didn't last long) where I gave everyone an 18/16/14/14/12/10 array then add race, etc. Also full HP at each level. Because if we're going Mythic, why go half-way? :)

Any random element of character creation or advancement is absolutely terrible. Sorry you rolled low, you get to suck forever now.

Well I was generally in favor of 2nd edition... until I found out we won't be getting icecream. ;_;

It always has been and always will be the players' responsibility to supply the ice cream. :)

If I ask you to make the greatest comic squad possible, and I give you four spots, I'm pretty sure Hawkeye won't be one of them.

I love Hawkeye. She's one of my favourite heroes.

My preference towards AoO is that they are really annoying when everyone has them, so only a few classes should automatically get them. Fighter, sure. I think Rogues and maybe Monks should also get them. Rogues because they're supposed to be annoying and Monks because they're fast. Rangers against their Favoured Enemies? I just think it adds way too much pain if everything on the board has them. For monsters the same philosophy could apply: If the monster is supposed to be particularly fast or tenacious they should get them.

Trimalchio wrote:

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Feel free to go to the math thread which proved Power Attack in PF2E is better than static power attack.

But more than that, rolling dice is straight up more fun.

The math thread can't even agree on what damage die is being used much less what the expected bonus to hit and the AC you're targeting, nor how many attacks you're rolling, nor if it two-handing the weapon for the -1 +3 bonus or one handing it, all of which greatly changes the math behind power attack.

This community can’t even agree if rolling dice is fun. So:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I have sooooo many dice. I want to roll them.

Drakhan Valane wrote:

It depends. Is it a Fighter or a Wizard?

The fact that the classes are unbalanced doesn't change the intent of the system. It definitely wasn't the aim of Pathfinder to have Wizards lording it over Fighters.

The point of my comment is that this is why CR is based on a party of 4, not an individual. You can't perfectly balance a system, but being able to rely on a party that averages out their strengths and weaknesses makes it a lot easier.

Joe is welcome at my table any day. Except maybe Thursdays. I need time for me somewhere during the week.

If you don't want dice in your game, there are diceless game systems.

Albatoonoe wrote:

I was talking more one-on-one, but this is also true. A group of 20th level adventurers could instead fight the Tarrasque, a walking apocalypse.

The point is that all adventurers in these levels should be spectacular.

CR is "meant" to mean that a PC of equal level has a 50% chance of winning against it in a one-on-one.

That's odd. I always thought CR was based on a balanced party of 4, not individuals.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

The problem isn't that Pathfinder 1st ed is perfect and doesn't need fixing. It does. The problem is among the playerbase there is such a signficiant disconnect as to what "fixing" Pathfinder really means. It's concerning to see the company that built up the Pathfinder brand from the "3.5 survives thrives!" platform appears to now be moving so drastically away from what makes Pathfinder Pathfinder as opposed to D&D 4th ed.

That's why you're seeing this resistance. Some of us were around when Pathfinder started and actually appreciate the basis from which Pathfinder was built upon.

And this is an evolution of that. There'd be no point in doing a second edition at all with all the glut of material already available for the first edition. They could do an update core with some rules tweaked and errata included and things like that.

If you're going to evolve the system, you have to do enough to make it worth the effort. In this case, the devs have identified the issues with the core engine and game design goals and chosen to make a truly heroic fantasy game with all kinds of epic feats.

Since I can't stand big dice pools and don't want to support the company that made it, for instance I can't go Exalted for big, epic heroics. But PF2 looks poised to give me that kind of stuff, the kind of thing that has been a part of fantasy as long as magic itself has, and I'm excited for it.

I got my copy of Mythic Adventures signed when I picked up my copy at GenCon, so I'm all for Exalted style play in my Pathfinder at high levels. I'm really excited for the direction it appears Paizo is going with this new edition.

Isle Of The Deep wrote:

It's remarkable to see the 4e comparisons keep piling up the more I read about PF2. 4e was a great high fantasy combat system, but ultimately failed at "being D&D" in many players' eyes, which ultimately proved to be it's downfall.

Here's hoping you all at Paizo can catch lightning in a bottle and keep the "Pathfinder" in Pathfinder while still making a fun system to play with.

You are welcome to your opinion but4th ed was widely panned by everyone so clearly thats not what the community wants. Getting closer to that shouldnt be encouraged.

It was not panned by everyone. I know quite a few people that still play it and can't stand D&D 3.5. As far as myself, I like 4e for a lot of reasons, but no, it doesn't really feel like D&D to me the way AD&D 2e, 3.x/Pathfinder, and 5e do. A lot of that boils down to the powers system and the overall feel of the game. So far I do not get that same feeling from PF2. In fact, a lot of what they have revealed are not dissimilar from ideas I've had for how I'd improve the system . . . or they're ideas I *wish* I had thought of. :)

I like the mention of sword and board as a twf style. ;)

Hythlodeus wrote:

so you're not a fan of social cooperation and coordinated problem solving then? You know, the backbones of RPGs?

Why wouldn't their be social cooperation and coordinated problem solving? If anything there would be More of that in a "non-balanced party" game since the party members will need to be more careful in choosing their Ancestry, Class Feats, and Skills to try and cover all the necessary areas and reduce wasted overlap.

The original poster doesn't want to have to consider any other character in the party in their decisions: "I want every player to be able to play what he wants, when he wants, without having to worry about 'plugging holes' or 'filling roles'."

I want the exact opposite, where you'll sometimes miss any class you don't have, because all the classes bring something unique and exceptional which isn't easily replaced by another class.

Mandatory 12-person party, coming up! ;)

I'm under the impression the system would not have jumps so great that atmospheric reentry would start to be a legitimate concern. ;)

Drakhan Valane wrote:

Note that I already halved the distance with untrained. The DC in PF1 is 1 per foot, making a 20 result already get you 20 feet. :) But maybe they do want a Master jumper to be able to clear the Grand Canyon with ease. (It's something like 230 feet that was jumped on motorcycle.)

Wynaut? I believe Mark is on record saying Legendary comes available at level 15.

Frankly at level 15 (with legendary leaping proficiency) I wouldn't mind Check = kilometers

I would. Partly because Pathfinder doesn't use metric and partially because that distance is just too absurd for my tastes. Falling damage after jumping that high will kill you. ;)

Having a bigger number is nice, but I like the idea that it doesn't matter how big your bonus is if you don't know how to use it.

The nice thing about gating things behind your skill rank instead of just making skill ranks a bonus is that you can do more things with DCs than just making the number higher. Let's look at climbing. In PF1, if you want to make a surface harder to climb, you make the number bigger. In PF2, there's the possibility to make a surface more difficult to climb based on what the character knows about climbing instead of just how strong they are. Maybe this can be done through reducing penalties of harsh conditions at Expert rank. At Master, if may open up the possibility of climbing like you see in Assassin's Creed instead of needing a rope to climb slowly up a building. At Legendary, maybe you can climb up an icy wall by just your fingertips.

Another interesting idea is that instead of just making your character more personally awesome, maybe a Master also has the ability to have their party treated as Trained in a skill temporarily and a Legend allowing the party to attempt Expert tasks.

As an anthropologist, I'm very happy to see the move to ancestry instead of race. It really opens up the possibility of having a spectrum of (for example) Half-Elven features instead of making it so a Human and an Elf have a child that barely resembles either. Especially since a lot of the features of races (Skilled, extra Feat, languages, etc) were not really biological but cultural and environmental.

Ethnicity is a cultural grouping of people. Race is the misguided thought that there is a significant and quantifiable biological distinction between different groups of humans. So yes, you could talk about Chelish ethnicity.

One of my hobbies is taking Prestige Classes and working them into a new Base Class similar to the way Archetypes work now.

What if Wizards (and other Poor BAB (1/2 level classes)) get no Weapon Training at all? Level-2 on all attacks. What if Average BAB (3/4 level) classes can get up to Expert training and feats like Weapon Focus are tied to having at least Expert in a weapon? And then Good BAB classes can get Master or Legendary (Perhaps leaving Legendary to Fighter-only?) with a Greater Weapon Focus Feat locked behind that. That gives a range of -2 to +5 (almost the full 10 point spread of Poor to Good BABs) from proficiency and proficiency-locked feats.

Average BAB classes can get a selection to choose from for a free training in a Weapon Proficiency or two, while Good BAB classes can get something like free Trained Rank in all Martial weapons and a free Expert Rank. Maybe the Poor BAB classes would need to use a general feat to get training in one weapon.

Neadenil Edam wrote:

Pyronous Rath wrote:

Can my small holding look like a wizard tower?

What you really need as a wizard is a spell that creates temporary campfires and at higher spell levels temporary small holdings.

yeah great my class role will be tent lmao

I can see it now on Company Chat: "Hey, do we have any tents online?"

Willful misinterpretations aside, all people trying to communicate a message must review what they wrote (or spoke) when it is not understood properly. If spelling and grammar are solid, it must be the writer's fault for not conveying the message properly. The ultimate question is this: Is the reader truly being unkind in their interpretation, or is the message unclear?

Hint: Crap talk is frequently a reaction to insulting language. This can lead to a downward spiral. Civil discourse for the win! (No, I'm not perfect either.)

Kadere wrote:

I also like echo chambers +1.

There, fixed it for you ;)

Fixed for both of you!

Drakhan Valane wrote:

I'm absolutely accusing him of duplicity and pointing out his lack of contribution to meaningful dialogue.Because that's how he operates.

My first post has generated a dozen or more responses. Perhaps "meaningful dialogue" to you only means dialogue you agree with?

I want to say here that I was a bit out of line. There's been bad blood between Bluddwolf and I in the past, and it's easy to fall back into a habit. Obviously we'll disagree on many things because our styles are very different, but I want to apologize publicly for the accusation. I've seen his responses to the NAP violation, and I now believe he does care about contributing to the game and not just his own benefit . . . even if I think he could do it differently. :P

I'm not saying I agree with Bluddwolf's complaints, but saying "It's obviously because he fears our mighty list!" is kinda a terrible idea. It both accuses him of duplicity and completely fails to contribute to a meaningful dialogue, completely ignoring any potentially valid points he raises.

I'm absolutely accusing him of duplicity and pointing out his lack of contribution to meaningful dialogue. Because that's how he operates. If he wants to offer valid points, he shouldn't frame it in such a negative manner.

Bluddwolf will crap on any idea that he doesn't like and shout that a single flaw ruins it . . . primarily because he thinks it'll actually get in the way of him taking advantage of people. If Bluddwolf wasn't opposed to it, then you might want to reconsider.

Making some humans into content right now. #PFOcontent

"PFO content is people!" #SoylentPFO

Respawn camping is griefing. Since they can't leave (you're camping them and they can't choose their respawn point), they're just constantly losing durability on their items until you decide to let them go.

TEO Cheatle wrote:

If they would just remove all shrines from the Tower Hexes it would fix quite a bit of this.

Having to move 1 Hex takes a lot longer than half a hex (really less than half).

Once I stopped wasting time and standing still targeting defenders, the defenders ability to send me to that shrine dropped immensely.

I think I got a good 5 minutes of tower points at a time once I stopped fighting and started running in circles.

Your suggestion might help all defenders, but the headless chicken tactic is still the optimal offensive tactic in that scenario because it keeps you from being sent to the shrine.

And frankly I don't want to role play a headless chicken for the next 10 years. ;-)

The solution to that is to only grant points if you are stationary. ^_^

Oh yea, you can't be moving or doing anything but trading/banking, and yes it ticks down just standing there.

For me this translates to "Don't ever, ever do it."

If Coin in PFO can't work, explain the success of EVE's ISK?

Part of the non-capitalistic nature of TEO's economy is due to a few people saying a functioning market is not in TEO's favour. Part of it is "we aren't responsible for establishing the market." I disagree on that point. Regardless, at this early point, we don't have enough surplus to start selling goods. It's been less than two weeks; give the market some time to emerge.

There are some in TEO that don't care about the AH or a functioning market. There are some that do. I personally think the AH needs a lot of UI fixes to be useful. I'd prioritize it pretty high.