Errenor's page

GM Core, Chapter 2 Building Games, Building Encounters, page 75 wrote:

ENCOUNTER BUDGET

Threat | XP Budget | Character Adjustment
Trivial | 40 or less | 10 or less
Low | 60 | 20 [Error!]
Moderate | 80 | 20
Severe | 120 | 30
Extreme | 160 | 40

The Character Adjustment is always supposed to be one quarter of the XP Budget. Therefore, the Character Adjustment for a Low-Threat encounter is 15 xp, not 20 xp.

Ah! This makes a lot of sense! And so simple I haven't thought of it :D So at least this allows me to close the question for myself.

I usually use multiplication instead of character adjustments. I run a 7-member party, so for the XP Budget I multiply by 7/4 because my party is 7/4 the size of the expected 4-member party. Then for individual XP awards to the PCs, I multiply the XP by 4/7 to convert it to individual size.

But... That's exactly the same thing then?

Well, they still wont be "perfect" ranged attackers. They only go up to master in proficiency, and only for simple and alchemical weapons. So when using their alchemical item attacks, they can be on par with a martial character (except Fighters and Gunslingers) if they had the same dex.

Yeah, sure. Not perfect then, just (delayed) baseline competent. Even master only at 15th.

Errenor wrote:

On the one hand, you are incorrect, it's not 20 xp per additional character, it's a variable value, 20 xp is only for low and moderate encounters, the whole table is here: XP Budget

Yes, I know. That's why I mention low threat in the topic title xD

Ah, yes. Well, who reads the title when the topic is already opened? (>_<)

I don't know how such copy and paste actions would work. It very much depends on the internal system that is used. Maybe they needed to copy tables cell-by-cell, which could lead to a copy and paste error in this instance.

Well, everything is possible I guess. Who knows...

If an alchemist chooses bomber specialization, they should have the option to increase dex instead of int.

Are you sure it wasn't an explicit design decision that alchs couldn't be the perfect ranged attackers (including with bombs) considering everything else they have? So they aren't that accurate but they have the whole arsenal still. And dedication can be better at throwing, but can make less things.

On the one hand, you are incorrect, it's not 20 xp per additional character, it's a variable value, 20 xp is only for low and moderate encounters, the whole table is here: XP Budget
On the other hand, good catch! I haven't noticed such fundamental part of the game was changed. Or it could be a typo, but I think it's rather improbable: I don't think they've re-typed the whole thing by hand, so they would have made an error in just one number in the whole table while copy-pasting. This looks like very non-trivial course of events.
And online encounter builders just use the old table then.

Whatever.
What do you even need from us? You've got working interpretation for not even really involved case. And you still aren't satisfied. What more do you need?

Losing your own actions is specific to the Failure line in Possession. Normally, it's not that big of a deal, since the caster would lose their actions simply due to being unconscious. But, if the ghost doesn't become unconscious, and the target crit fails, then we wind up in an awkward place where there's nothing preventing the ghost from continuing to take actions.

You mean you are stuck at the absence of 'You no longer have a separate turn' in Crit Failure? And think that from that follows a ghost would have two turns in a round? Well, as players don't play with ghosts generally, this looks as a GM question and I can't say that any reasonable GM would block that. But I can say: be reasonable and don't read the text as a computer program. "You possess the target fully, and it can only watch as you manipulate it like a puppet. The target is controlled by you" means that it's even stronger then Failure result, but 'You no longer have a separate turn' is still in force. Then, 'The possessor must use its own actions to make the possessed creature act' from the trait comes in play.

Once again, I may be disliked for saying this, but there is nothing wrong with you. It's just that this fanbase has a really hard time accepting that the system has flaws. They usually try to dismiss these flaws or claim that they are actually strengths. This is probably not due to malice (I hope), but rather because they have spent years experiencing similar behavior from Wizard players in 3.5. Now that they finally have a game that caters to them, they are trying very hard to defend it.

There is nothing wrong with wanting a concept that the game hasn't been built for; this could always be addressed later with a class archetype for champions. In this regard, I believe the response, 'Give it time; first edition didn't have much content at first,' is a fair one. Many possibilities emerged later as new options were added, so give it some time, and eventually, it may become capable of doing these things.

That's rich. And ironic, talking about flaws and 'wanting a concept that the game hasn't been built for' in the same post, when it's quite obvious that existence of a 'concept that the game hasn't been built for' is not a flaw. But in this particular case it's not even true, the concept exists in several flavours and works, as has been shown in this topic already. Personal mental obstructions aren't flaws of the game.

Which restriction of possession is it that ghosts are unaffected by? And, specifically, if it's the restriction that they're unconscious during the spell's duration, then how does that alter the spell? If a creature critically fails against a ghost's Malevolent Possession, is the ghost able to continue taking actions, potentially also possessing other characters?

This one: "While you're possessing a target, your own body is unconscious and can't wake up normally. <...> If the possessed body dies, the spell ends and you must succeed at a Fortitude save against your spell DC or be paralyzed for 1 hour, or 24 hours on a critical failure. "

Reason to be on this board: my PF1 group is moving on to PF2, so I have to find something, anything to like about the system or stop playing with them.

If you really want to at least understand the system (not even to like), you need first to 'rewire' your thinking. Because that is literally what understanding is. And while you still understand nothing at all stop posting absolute rubbish like this:

the dedication system to be so bad I refuse to use it.

That you wrote this just proves that you've 'found' nothing at all yet.

Errenor wrote:

RPG-Geek wrote:

The downside of a tightly balanced system focused on combat is a lack of the build creativity available in other systems.

This I don't understand at all. PF2 is THE system for buildcrafting. Most other systems don't come even close. PF1 is more involved, but is almost completely broken. 5e is broken and a complete joke for build crafting. Rules-light systems aren't build-oriented at all, there most situations are resolved with same rolls, there's basically no builds. Other systems are about on 5e level. There're also constructors I guess, like GURPS. There is a lot of character crafting there, but I'm not sure there's more 'creativity'. Whatever this would mean.

No it isn't, you are handed a tightly curated set of tools, which interact in a very specific way, to come to a tiny range of results, you cannot go off the script (for instance Champions are tanks, you cannot build one as a wrath of god style smiter anymore, it just does not work)

You have to max out your character primary stat to function, you have to do the buff/debuff and position game, with appropriately classed characters, you cannot go off script.

That's they way the system is built, it's a rigidly designed team based combat game, the characters are game pieces who will never, by design, feel powerful alone, they party might, but individual characters will not.

Your objections make completely no sense even if they were 100% true. The answer to them would be: so what?

they just weren't that interested in most invested items.

Well, there you go. I've looked at my 10th lvl PFS char: 4 skill items (with other great bonuses of course), 1 focus item, armor (with 5th skill rune), cantrip ring, resistance ring, wayfinder - that's 9. And I'd fill on resistance rings up to 3-4 I think :D And I think I had several future plans on the remaining slot.

Staff

Staves don't take investment as most of held items though.

My players got to level 15 in strength of thousands and never once came even close to the investment cap.

Were you very stingy with magic items or did they not care about them? Because getting to 10 is trivial at about level 10 (and you have to start choosing at this point). Armor, skill items, defensive things, it builds up fast.

they are abstract

This is the opposite of 'simulationist'. And that's all.

keep pace

Aaand this is completely incompatible with simulation.

not bog down the game with minutiae

And that is too.

Granted, I describe a bit of a extreme case. There are scales and degrees. But there should be some understanding of the subject.

Errenor wrote:

shroudb wrote:

The Activation of Spellhearts is Cast a Spell, which means that if you don't have a spellcasting feature in your class/archetype (and focus/innate spells don't count for that) you can't Activate the spellheart.

Though I'd add that now even just spellcasting dedication counts as a spellcasting feature, no 'basic spellcasting' feat needed. Definitely. (probably...)

I believe it was stated that, to count as having a spellcasting feature, you need spell slots from either a main class, or a dedication. Cantrips are not spell slots.

That is also the case specifically for PFS.

Pre-remaster. Compare with remastered definitions and dedications.

It would have been quite good if it was for the entirety of the spell but for one round I would definitely pass on it.

Again, 'sustained' spells like Roaring Applause don't have any other duration or entirety than 'until the end of your next turn'. It doesn't exist. It's only Sustain each turn and nothing else.

The Activation of Spellhearts is Cast a Spell, which means that if you don't have a spellcasting feature in your class/archetype (and focus/innate spells don't count for that) you can't Activate the spellheart.

Though I'd add that now even just spellcasting dedication counts as a spellcasting feature, no 'basic spellcasting' feat needed. Definitely. (probably...)

Does cackle extend the witches spell for the duration of the spell or just one round?

Which duration and which spell?

Errenor wrote:

Easl wrote:

shield-axe-crossbow ... a wand longsword... longbow-longsword

Oh, I like these. They are just so nice.

I prefer the weapon one of my players had written in her character sheet a very long time ago (I think 2nd or 3rd edition or something):

"Longshort".

And this is perfect. The main thing is not trying to imagine what this could be.

Witch of Miracles wrote:

TBH, Paizo did repeatedly undersell the extent of the mechanical and practical changes to the game. There were a whole lot of reassurances that you'd be able to tell "all the same stories" and somesuch.

It really does seem to me that this is true. It seems uncharitable to me to assume that "the same stories" was meaning that all characters would be able to do the same exact things to the same enemies in the same way they used to - what would be the point of a new edition in that case? But the same stories can be told - maybe now for the monk to consistently fully restrain an enemy out of a fight the monk needs to be significantly higher level than their opponent. But the overall story very rarely relied on that level of detail - and if you need to make the creature the antagonist is fighting a few levels lower, it's not the end of the world.

Yeah, you can sometimes tell the same stories using different systems (due to overall similarity of the game process and restrictions), all the more using the same system with slight changes. To think of it, the statement looks more like a truism than a broken promise.

Errenor wrote:

Squark wrote:

1-4 persistent fire damage

Well, to think of it, even 1 persistent fire damage which is completely unmitigatable is great at killing you if you don't have time to Refocus. 60 damage per 10 minutes is very substantial. Depending on what you think "you cannot mitigate, reduce, or remove the effects of your curse" means in this case (and whether fire resistance works), this curse is either nothing at all or a PC killer in some circumstances. Which is very junky.

No, the rules for refocusing are permissive enough that players should be able to always start refocusing after combat unless another fight is iminent and you're effectively still in encounter mode. If all else fails, a flames oracle can Repeat a Spell to stare at their own ignition cantrip, so you're refocusing as you move.

"Players should be able to always start refocusing" is definitely an exaggeration. Rules for exploration activities are restrictive enough that you can't take two of them at once. And refocusing definitely is one, or a part of one. But I doubt Hustling fits. Or Chase when you are fleeing some scary monster. It's probably not a frequent case, and GMs probably would handwave it anyway. Or not. Demanding that a party would have to carry their unconscious burned-out oracle is kind of dramatic.

When I say I think PF2 character-building sucks, it's because I like freedom and don't much value the balance and stability that PF2 leans into.

for people who enjoy "breaking" mechanics that are otherwise viewed as weak, it's a fatal flaw.

That was much more informative and interesting post. Good that you finally say it's your preference. It's ok. Great, you can play and like everything you want. It seems sometimes you like breaking mechanics, sometimes you like trying not to break it accidentally. It's ok. But there are a lot of people which don't like both of those things. There are quite a lot of people which tried both in pf1/somewhere else and don't want to touch the concept ever again.

Why aren't you working with your party to ensure everybody gets their time to shine? Some battles should skew to skill-based outcomes and others toward strength at arms. It does take more work on the GM's part, but as a GM who opts to run less balanced games, it's more rewarding to nail something difficult than to have a system hand you easy balance.

Why isn't the party working with me to let their combat builds shine too? It works both ways. And it's not a 'me' question, in most cases there would be several combat oriented people, not just one with others preferring more unconventional approaches. Good you mention GMs here, in my opinion it's basically the only case where skill/challenge encounter would work - when GM designed it this way. Then all can naturally take part in it and find their solutions and ways to help. But when some players spontaneously just decide they want it a skill challenge encounter without full table consent - this won't fly. Or when the majority of encounters become skill challenges in a battle-oriented game - not good too. It's all players-dependent of course. If everyone is ok, than it's fine.

It seems like you might not enjoy a style of TTRPG where sometimes a set piece ends in anticlimax because the plan works and the fight was won in the planning phase.

No, it depends. In fact we have definitely took down several enemies without fights and it was ok, because we decided to do it together beforehand.

Spire has pretty good character-building for the rules-lite design ethos it follows. I would use it to run for a group that likes the idea of FATE but wants a bit more crunch to go with it.

Ah, so as I suspected, rules-light. Just as the Heart is. There definitely is something to do with characters and build them a bit differently each time in the Heart. It's nice (even though the story 'type' still a bit too bizarre for me). But it definitely isn't even close to character-builder game and nowhere close to pf2 in this aspect.

shield-axe-crossbow ... a wand longsword... longbow-longsword

Oh, I like these. They are just so nice.

1-4 persistent fire damage

Well, to think of it, even 1 persistent fire damage which is completely unmitigatable is great at killing you if you don't have time to Refocus. 60 damage per 10 minutes is very substantial. Depending on what you think "you cannot mitigate, reduce, or remove the effects of your curse" means in this case (and whether fire resistance works), this curse is either nothing at all or a PC killer in some circumstances. Which is very junky.

Mystic Kineticist

Errata those rules to include Blasts and Impulses... or add feats that treat those as Strikes and Spells, respectively.

Just a small reminder that Blasts are Impulses. A lot of people seem to forget that. But this can muddy wordings in possible solutions for the mythic problem.

Errenor wrote:

RPG-Geek wrote:

The downside of a tightly balanced system focused on combat is a lack of the build creativity available in other systems.

This I don't understand at all. PF2 is THE system for buildcrafting. Most other systems don't come even close. PF1 is more involved, but is almost completely broken. 5e is broken and a complete joke for build crafting. Rules-light systems aren't build-oriented at all, there most situations are resolved with same rolls, there's basically no builds. Other systems are about on 5e level. There're also constructors I guess, like GURPS. There is a lot of character crafting there, but I'm not sure there's more 'creativity'. Whatever this would mean.

PF2 builds suck.

Honestly, after this grand entrance nothing you say could be taken seriously.

And then your examples. So why haven't you enlightened us on these excellent char building games and their great character building mechanics? Which are probably all vastly better than PF2 in char building? Is random name throwing enough?
Except at least some of them definitely don't work as great char building game examples as OrochiFuror mentioned.
And if Cyberpunk is anything like Witcher from same designers, and Spire anything like the Heart from same designers - no, they aren't great char builders either.

The downside of a tightly balanced system focused on combat is a lack of the build creativity available in other systems.

This I don't understand at all. PF2 is THE system for buildcrafting. Most other systems don't come even close. PF1 is more involved, but is almost completely broken. 5e is broken and a complete joke for build crafting. Rules-light systems aren't build-oriented at all, there most situations are resolved with same rolls, there's basically no builds. Other systems are about on 5e level. There're also constructors I guess, like GURPS. There is a lot of character crafting there, but I'm not sure there's more 'creativity'. Whatever this would mean.

They can be crafted into consumables with Quick Alchemy, or crafted into Versatile Vial bombs with Quick Alchemy, or crafted into Field Vials with Quick Alchemy.

No. Please just try to imagine/take as granted that the things people tell you here are true (as they are).

Errenor wrote:

Keirine, Human Rogue wrote:

I mean, the act of raising a shield implies that you are thrusting it in between yourself and harmful blows, attempting to intercept incoming attacks with it. It makes sense that would ruin the polished sheen that is required for it to qualify as a mirror.

Or, you could say it actually breaks the magic :) Thaumaturge is occult. And more weird at that. Or maybe the other way aroud - more occult than 'simple' 'conventional' magic of bards and sorcerers. It's all about meanings, thoughts, perceptions, stories, emotions and so on. The moment you use an object as a shield - it stops being a mirror. And that's it: the magic just can't bear it and breaks, even if temporarily.

But much easier and more straightforward is just don't allowing it at all than inventing gotchas :)

You did invent a gotcha. You're just applying it to 'workings of implements' as a blanket gotcha instead of a specific manifestation of an implement selected by a PC. Nothing in the rules points to 'the magic of implements' breaking when you don't use them in hyper specific ways. Nothing in the rules points to 'how the magic of implements works' in any specific or mechanical way.

No, nothing in the rules does that. That was not about the rules, it was about the narrative.

'A' is singular.
'A' is interchangeable with 'one'.
Generally, and definitely in this case. Nuances and probable exceptions (if exist) aren't important here.

And I don't think that Falco271 has been arguing that Blazing Bolt would affect all of the targets with Blood Magic. That looks more like a misinterpretation that people are coming to.

It's hard to interpret this as something else: "these two [Blazing bolt and flurry of claws?] seem to be valid with multiple targets".

I mean, the act of raising a shield implies that you are thrusting it in between yourself and harmful blows, attempting to intercept incoming attacks with it. It makes sense that would ruin the polished sheen that is required for it to qualify as a mirror.

Or, you could say it actually breaks the magic :) Thaumaturge is occult. And more weird at that. Or maybe the other way aroud - more occult than 'simple' 'conventional' magic of bards and sorcerers. It's all about meanings, thoughts, perceptions, stories, emotions and so on. The moment you use an object as a shield - it stops being a mirror. And that's it: the magic just can't bear it and breaks, even if temporarily.

Can anyone point out to me how the spells differ from their previous versions?

That was one of the first things I checked for and I didn't note any differences besides trait tags, but a few in this thread have indicated otherwise, so now I'm wondering what I missed.

Mythic demiplane is 5 times larger on CS and 2 times higher, and is 2 times larger on S. Plus lack of alignment property. That's all.

Quote:

"But then to be completely frank there is zero reason ever to invest in an interesting character with any kind of meaningful story as opposed to a mathematically perfect robot that just metaphorically mashes buttons on its turn to maximize damage."

I don’t think that’s a fair characterization of PF2, but I have to admit it’s more of an exaggeration than a make-‘em-up. Again, though, that points to “wrong system for this player.”

No, for me that's completely made up and makes no sense at all. Also it goes back to that problem, optimization vs roleplaying. And we know the answer to it: they are almost entirely disconnected. 'Zero reason to invest' is a player's problem altogether, a system has nothing to do with it. Maybe that jadedness is showing.

Errenor wrote:

Though I think there are several spells like that (with normal duration and Sustains doing something different). I also don't see much problem in this.

Other than Bane, I can't think of any. Doesn't mean that there aren't any though.

Levitation, Metamorphosis, Migration, Monstrosity Form:Phoenix, Rewrite Memory, Tangling Creepers, Pied Piping, Cozy Cabin, Flicker... That's only PC1. There are a lot of them.

Yes. BM for one patient is one per specific healer per day. (There are feats which make this more frequent)
But Treat Wounds for one patient is just one per hour. (Again, there are feats which improve that)

So my question remains relevant, in my opinion, and not answered by the answers above.

What Unicore and others say.

Like, think about how barrow's edge transcendence interacts with someone striking the floor, by RAW, or with the dreaded bag of rats. It's bad.

I don't argue with other problems, but this one isn't it: "Your blade glows as it absorbs your foe’s vitality. You regain Hit Points equal to half the damage dealt." Yeah, sure, floor has no vitality, you regain nothing. Yes, GMs can judge Striking inanimate objects and they can judge using flavour. Yeah, sure, take that 1 hp from that one rat, no problem. How much of those you have in total? And btw half of them have 1 hp and half of that is zero. Enjoy, ratsucker. And then welcome to catching more of them in an hour as an exploration activity where there are rats. That's both indulging and adversarial scenario. It could (and probably would) be much easier: a mythic hero can't sustain themselves on rats, they aren't ratsuckers.

Dr. Frank Funkelstein wrote:

"designate one target" seems to exclude multiple targets to me, even it relates to an area the intention seems clear.

Actually, an area spell has no targets, hence the comment of choosing one target in the area. Otherwise blood magic could not have been used at all while using area spells. So that remark is specifically overriding the general rule that area spells have no targets. So not related to the rest of the explanation, as far as I read it.

Yes. But the other parts of blood magic also don't give you any multitargeting. It's always either you or ONE other target. (Well, probably there are some feats that help with that)

The difference is that the pre-Remaster Bless didn't have a name for its special concentrate action used to expand the radius. Remaster Bless now calls that action Sustain - which IMHO is a bad change because it causes confusion since the Sustain action of Bless doesn't actually sustain the spell.

Though I think there are several spells like that (with normal duration and Sustains doing something different). I also don't see much problem in this. Maybe when it's Sustain it could give some benefit from somewhere else.

I guess I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt.

If I'm going to respond to the question that was posed, I can either be circumspect and basically tell them to (re)read the spell. But that presuppose they haven't.

I prefer to work from the mindset that they have some experience that is creating in a grey area in their parsing of the text, that leads them to think "maybe...."

That's great. But also I think I didn't just tell to reread the spell. I think leading question I used is a little bit different and could provoke some thinking and maybe get a chance to find out where 'maybe' is coming from. But I guess this could better work in a chat than a forum.

So, my questions remains why does the character need a mount? The speed difference on AON is only 5 feet between a bear and a horse. What is the horse animal companion giving that the character does not get?

It doesn't work exactly like that. You can't take a statbloc from monsters and make this your character. The topic is this Awakened Animal. It's a 'skin' and a fixed (but varied) set of abilities. To make polar bear, I'd probably take Running animal Heritage and Sea Legs feat. That would give 30 normal speed and 10 swimming speed. Or maybe Climbing animal and Sea Legs: 20 normal, 20 climb and 10 swim.

Errenor wrote:

BomberJacket wrote:

On a related note (because this also came up,) does Spiritual Armament transfer the properties of metals to the damage? Like, if I have a cold iron dagger, does hitting an enemy with Spiritual Armament trigger cold iron vulnerability?

Does the spell say so?

Not that you're wrong, but you could provide a better direct answer.

I know. I just frequently don't want to. A bit tired of questions which look like people haven't even tried to read the text first. Though I guess a distinction between damage types and material special properties is not that obvious.

On a related note (because this also came up,) does Spiritual Armament transfer the properties of metals to the damage? Like, if I have a cold iron dagger, does hitting an enemy with Spiritual Armament trigger cold iron vulnerability?

Does the spell say so?

Making this spell all-damage type is clearly too much, there aren't such spells in the game.

Though there's at least one I guess Shadow Blast. But they clearly are not the same.

That wouldn't work due to the bomb's traits.

The Spiritual Armament Bomb still has all its traits, including the Consumable Trait which states that:

Quote:

An item with this trait can be used only once. Unless stated otherwise, it’s destroyed after activation.

And since nothing in Spiritual Armament Spell says that the item is NOT destroyed, the Spirit bomb is destroyed after you use it, so there's nothing to come back.

But there's no bomb. And no traits apart from spell's. It's "ghostly, magical echo of one weapon", a spell effect with spell stats (spell attack), fixed spell damage and range. The only thing that is inherited is the damage type. And that is intended to be some physical type (yes, from the mention of versatile). "The weapon returns to your side" is a strange wording, but it's just a visual effect anyway.

Errenor wrote:

Red Griffyn wrote:

So instead of engaging with any real argument with evidence or rationale to the contrary you're just going to get mad at the fact that I believe in the general concept that having an argument at all is better than having no argument? Are you trolling or just going to sidestep discussing things? What about any of the points I brought up in my last 2-3 posts? You're attacking the person behind the argument not the argument which is pointless.

I can say something. You don't have any argument.

You said it and so it must be true. Side step side step. Echo chamber echo chamber. Bad faith interlocutors continue to exist.

Wow. You do understand things! Now of course they must apply to you, right? Also, having or not having arguments doesn't depend on amount written. It's just so sad sometimes.

So instead of engaging with any real argument with evidence or rationale to the contrary you're just going to get mad at the fact that I believe in the general concept that having an argument at all is better than having no argument? Are you trolling or just going to sidestep discussing things? What about any of the points I brought up in my last 2-3 posts? You're attacking the person behind the argument not the argument which is pointless.

I can say something. You don't have any argument.

Errenor wrote:

The problem is they aren't in PC. They were in CRB the last.

Freedom and imprisonment are from the CRB, originally, but create demiplane comes from the APG.

Thanks. But still pre-remaster, which was the main point.

I will never understand the point of weakening characters, isn't the whole point of fantasy that you get to role-play as someone stronger than yourself.

Well, even accounting for everything in this topic, that's not weakening characters. More like confusing GMs. And making use of some content harder.