Kwava

Fallyrion Dunegrién's page

Goblin Squad Member. Organized Play Member. 103 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 4 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as a favorite.

There is a big difference in saying "this system is good", "this sytem is becoming better", "I will spend money on this system", "I will play this system" and, more importantly, "I will switch from PF1 (or other RPG) to PF2".

Will paizo ever ask these questions?

My anwsers.

1. This system is good.

Yes, it's not garbage. I'd never said it's bad, I just don't like it.

2. This system is becoming better.

Definitively. It's much much better than when it started (I guess this is the 95% data they get from the surveys.)

How ever.

3. I will spend money on this system.

In this current form, not a single penny.

4. I will play this system.

Nope. I will ignore it as I do with many other variances of D&D.

5. I will switch.

Definitivily not.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

To be frankly, almost all this sub-systems Paizo put out over the years in the AP (ship combat on S&S, Rebelion rules on Hell's Rebels, Caravans on Jade Regent) doesn't work and make the game less fun.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
A cap to "how many permanent magic items you can equip/wear" based on level and charisma is entirely tolerable. I honestly never liked how the limit for magic items like a 5th level PF1 character could wear was solely "gold".

It's still too MMO to me.

Best alternative I saw in this foruns is to have a fixed amount of Resonance, no matter the level.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Any mechanic that resembles resonance will not be well received.

Stop trying to fixing the game by changing the world around it has ben working for decades.

Resonance is completely gamey, artificial and has no space in Dungeons and Dragons and Pathfinder tradional scenarios.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

The one real goal of Pathfinder 2.0 is pretty clear to me: Make adventure creating a more "exact science".

Paizo excels in creating adventures, both for adventure path and society scenarios. However, since there are a lot of variation on Pathfinder 1.0, it was very hard to create adventures that are challenging and "doable" to everyone. An experienced GM could of course adapt the adventure to their group, but it doesn't work in Society game.

With PF 2 this problems is lessened a lot.

For instance, if the adventure expects players to sneak-enter a castle, in PF 1.0 a group with heavy-armored characters will not be able to pass this obstacle. In PF 2.0 they can because everybody get +1 to everything.

The same goes for combat. Since everybody at the same level has a very close attacks bonus, CA, and etc., it's easy to design encounters.

The problem in my opinion is that, although this "standarization" make the adventure design eaiser, it is very unfun to be played.

I prefer to see my players trying alternative solutions to sneak-enter the castel with their fullplate paladin than he just becomes sneaker without any reason.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Marc Radle wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:

Not only as a partially sighted/vision impaired (RP & CME) person/thing, but in general, I find all icons/symbols irritating and cheap, in RPGs, just axe them, guys.

That 2 and 3 action arrow dorky thingy, at a glance...not happening...

Coulnd’t agree more!

The icons are not good. I am praying they are eliminated and replaced with words again

They don't news to reinvent the Wheel on ícone. It's a one-action activity? Use "1" instead of anexo ícone. Two-actions? Use "2". Three-action, "3". It's a free-action, use "0". A reaction, use an "R".

Numbers (and a Letter) carries meaning, are easy to be understand, anos easy to differentiate from each other.


I do expect Paizo to shrink after PF 2.0 initial boon. Not disappear, however.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The resonance thing to Alchemist does even less sense when he gains some resomance points that can ONLY be used to do Alchemal-thigs.

It's like a separed pool inside a unified pool.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

The game is beeing heavly tuned down.

All classes had they unique things and feats. Now most unique things are gone and feats were split among classes.

No, thank you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
AshVandal wrote:
4e sold really well, (hell I bought 4 4e books before I figured out I didn't like it) just few people stuck with it long term. But 4e is also the reason why Paizo and Pathfinder is a thing.

Which only serves to demonstrate that "brand trumps all" is a fallacy.

Brand trumps all when the game doesn't stinks. D&D 4E stinks, and even then they sold very well and only lost first postion for PF1 when the game was descontinued.

Pathfinder 2.0 is starting to smelling odd.


Very good post.

People who like Pathfinder Playtest complain a lot of PF1 problems but are blind to all this problems PF2 have.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MR. H wrote:
Fallyrion Dunegrién wrote:
This is not bad because it chanced from 1E. It's bad because it has nothing in commun with 1E except for names. This will never be a game I'll recognize as Pathfinder.

1. Classes

2. HP
3. You can out level foes
4. Vancain magic
5. You can craft magic items
6. Utility magic is massive and world shaking
7. All the critical combat stats are the same you just calculate them differently
8. You get a skill point in every skill every level but that isn't good enough anymore
9. Feats everywhere

Nah man, it's basically just Pathfinder, just built a little differently. Maybe if someone only ever plays D&D and D&D-likes, this game seems "too different".

1, 2 and 3 are present in any d20 game (and any Final Fantasy Game too).

4 and 5 Not pathfinder exclusive either.

6. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less than it used to be. I can't fly for 10 hours, for exemple.

7. Nope. Definitily nope. Combat are completely different.

8. Nope. I don't get any skill point. There is no such a concept of skill points in PF2 (not even in PF1 actually). I have the same bonus to each roll in game, save from -3 to +2 bonus.

9. And I can't get most of them because they are gated behind a class.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

To be frankly, I kinda hate this "cantrip as an viable attack" in any game it appears.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

I think the degree of desired change is relevant. As has been pointed out, they're not going to completely rewrite the system at this point, so if your objections are that fundamental, then it can be tough to see them as intended to be productive (as opposed to simply venting your displeasure).

Also, many of the complaints do seem to boil down to "this is bad because it has changed from 1E." Which is just silly.

My $.02.

This is not bad because it chanced from 1E. It's bad because it has nothing in commun with 1E except for names. This will never be a game I'll recognize as Pathfinder.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:
KyleS wrote:
be constructive in how to improve upon it or just do those of us who want to improve upon it a giant favor and leave.

If I thought it would do any good, I would. I honestly do not believe Paizo will change the things that I think need changing the worst, because they are too fundamental to the core of this system. To fix what I think needs fixing would basically require them throwing the entire thing out the window and starting over from scratch, and thats not going to happen.

As for "You can either like it, or you can GTFO", well we don't need gatekeepers like that.

If you actually think Paizo will change things on any great scale, then you NEED people who aren't just gushing that "Everything is perfect, I love it so much!".

To say "Like it or leave" is to say "This is exactly how it will go to print, nothing can be changed, everyone's opinions right now are worthless."

Is that really the message you want to send?

I can't agree more.

As I was saying since the first previews. When the new version of Pathfinder Unchained come out, which will basically make this feels like Pathfinder, than I can consider playing it.

The current ruleset is the biggest turn-off ever, and I don't even know if I want to play this to give feed that will be ignored.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Renchard wrote:
Ronin_Knight wrote:
Renchard wrote:
Compared to other rulebooks I've been looking at, like WFPR4e and Savage Worlds, it looks pretty darn similar.
Yes it's similar in that it's on the D20 chassis, other than that it has more in common with 4E or 5E than it does with Pathfinder or 3.X, it like those systems treats customisation and variation like vile expletives.
I think your lack of grasp of the strength of those systems shows why you're not able to see PF2e with any clarity. 4e and 5e both allow for a ton of customization, especially 4e. And 5e is so easy to homebrew the relative lack of customization is almost immaterial.

If homebrew is a valid customization option, chess is a customizatomizable game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Renchard wrote:
Greylurker wrote:
I'm more disapointed in that nobody else gets combat feats now.
Advanced Maneuver, pg. 280.

So you need to multiclass as a fighter. It's bad,


TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
Edymnion wrote:
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
Not to mention past 17/18 things drop to +1 instead of +2 to stats.

That is easily fixable by simply cutting the rate you get the boost in half after +4.

GameDesignerDM wrote:
Plus, and then you'd have to rework anything that gave a +1 to an ability score
Nothing gives ability score boosts in +1 except level up bonuses, and its just as easy to say you get a +1 modifier half as often.
do you want ability damage to also cut in half? And not everyone will remember that they gave themselves a half point in a stat. All this talk of fractions and negative numbers is, by definition, more complex math than counting up and down. It's simpler to stick with the old method.

it pretty sure there are not such thing like ability damage anymore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GameDesignerDM wrote:
Edymnion wrote:


It was pointless as anything but a vestigial holdover from rolling for stats.
What would you propose for groups (like mine) who only ever roll for stats? Just have a chart that if you roll an 18, your ability... score(?) is a +4? There's no real point to getting rid of them, and it seems like a weird complaint to have.

Roll 4d6 as usual and look in a convertion table. You already do that actually.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ronin_Knight wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:

Everything looks like 4th ed things to John, it's a shame he can't get rid of that bias.

To be fair most of the playtest books scream a weird 4E/5E Hybrid to me.

Agreed.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Elves are now vunerable to sleep spells unless they choose the (probably) worst racial feat.

And that everybody could have attack of opportunite is the bad joke of the year.

You need to multiclass as a figther to.

General feats are a joke too.

Your charcter is your class and nothing more. Just like powers from 4E.

How do I increase my proficience with perception? Haven't find it yet.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Fallyrion Dunegrién wrote:
Welcome to Pathfinder 2.0, a game where you level defines everything on your character. Since you sum your level in every skill, save, AC, attack, your ability to take potions. The level (masked as feasts) also determines how "elvish" or "orkish" your character will be.

Admittedly, if the feats are good enough to warrant different build choices that affect the meta-game decisions of character building this might not be a bad thing.

For instance, if making an elf means i get to take things like Elven Magic which improve my DCs and SR equivalent rolls, then elves become better blasters regardless of class choice.

If dwarves get to take something like Hardy which gives them a +2 on saving throws vs spells, they might make better 'tanks' also regardless of class.

I would want to make sure these choices balance against each other in ways that make the ancestries play differently and actually affect my in game decisions more than flavor and micro-orginzational changes to the build like a lot of the racial options in PF1 were. In theory this might not be bad.

It's our job to test this and decide how much more or less umph these feats need in order to make these work during the play test.

My problem here is that a lot of things you got at level 1, will now be unlocked on later levels.

The real diference between a Elf and a Dwarf in level 1 will be HP and Speed, and some adjustment in abilities score.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Welcome to Pathfinder 2.0, a game where you level defines everything on your character. Since you sum your level in every skill, save, AC, attack, your ability to take potions. The level (masked as feasts) also determines how "elvish" or "orkish" your character will be.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Fallyrion Dunegrién wrote:

So, Oracle and Sorcerer is now the same thing and the"bloodline" indicates if you're a divine ou arcane spellcaster.

No.

So, can I do my sorcerer with Demon Bloodline to be a real sorcerer, with arcane spells?


So, Oracle and Sorcerer is now the same thing and the"bloodline" indicates if you're a divine ou arcane spellcaster.

This is soooooooo lame. It kills a lot of very interesting character background.

I cound't be a "proper" oracle of flames, since flames is probably a elemental bloodline, which will be arcane. Poor Melisandre, you're not supported by Pathfinder anymore.

I had a couple of Diabolic Sorcerers in my tables. Not anymore, because "devil-bloodline" will probably be divine.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

To be frankly the real reason behind Resonance is "let's make Pathfinder Society Modules easy to play!"

And to frankly again, if this poor conceived mechanics survive after the playtest, PF2 is dead for me.


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
If I may offer a request, please include a sublist of every other game PF2 evidently now is just a knockoff of. I swear, at this point PF2 is evidently a knockoff of every d20 game ever except 3.5/PF1
I mean a reasonable way to go about designing a game in this family is consider the good ideas of all the other games in the family and try to adapt them, then consider all the weak points of all the other games in the family and try to avoid them.

But if you do that you're going against the holy mold of PF1 and 3.5 and thus you are making an overly complex game for MMO/VIDEOGAME BABIES that doesn't respect the legacy (of 3.5/PF)! *gnash gnash*

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if a blog came up mentioning the core mechanic of PF2 was d20 based and people went complaining that's what 4e/5e/AD&D did and it sucks.

It's because none of the so-called new mechanics are new.

Graded Success/failures? It's on M&M core.

The class feat are basically D&D 4E Powers with another name.

Spell Points. Encounters Powers, also from D&D 4E.

The spell slot, and spellcasting as whole is a variation of D&D 5E (ou Starfinder, if you prefer).

What this game have that resembles Pathfinder? The Alchemist.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know why do I even read this blogs and comments. PF2 clearly is not a game for me.

Good luck in your new 13th-Age/M&M/D&D4/D&D5 esque, Paizo.


Arssanguinus wrote:
necromental wrote:
This debate has gone so many rounds in circle that I cannot wait for Paizo to publish the blog about next thing people will hate.
I liked the action economy one.

It's the only thing I liked from too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing I hate the most from 5E is how important is the dice in everything you try. The game is basically about "if you roll 10+, you passed".

Pathfinder 2.0 is for sure carrying on this "feature" to anything, not just skills, but from attacks to saves, etc.

Don't fool yourselves, proficience will just add new "stunts" and unlock uses, but the success will still be determinated by the roll. And given that bonuses difference is so tight, the dice will be the major factor.

Forget skills for a moment and think about saves. Be trained in some save will give abilities like evasion. But is the number that really matters.

All this "crit/fumble" thing will, again, make the dice even more important.

Other thing I hate from 5E (specially in lower levels) is how importante the attributes are.

If I have a cleric treined in diplomacy but with Char 10, I'll be REALLY bad in comparison with a Char 18 without training.

Basically people will just get skills that match their higher attributes, otherwise (even in higher levels), you chances to succed in an apropriate level DC is about 50%.

In Pathfinder 1.0 this is also true, but not as problematic as it will be in PF2. I can for sure spent skill ranks in skill not related to my main abilities and still be pretty decent.


thflame wrote:
Fallyrion Dunegrién wrote:
And twitch the chances IS VERY few, and the rogue player will be a lot frustrated.

Just because you have more training at something, doesn't mean you are immune to bad luck.

What do YOU think the probability of failure should be? How often is it okay for the Untrained Ranger to beat the Expert Rogue, assuming that they have equal levels of real world experience?

Let's take Pathfinder 1.0 as an example.

Both lvl 5. Both Dex 18. Rogue has 5 skill ranks. Ranger has none.

Rogue has +12. Ranger has +4. The diference is 8, not 3. I guess it's ok, the chance from the rogue fail and the ranger pass it way lesser than the PF2 example.

I guess half-level on proficience on untrained skills and +2 bonus for step maybe good enough (thou, didn't make the math).

Using this rules, on PF2.

Both lvl 5 and Dex 18. Rogue Expert, Ranger Untrained.

Rogue has +2 v(from expert) + 5 level +4 Dex = +11
Range has +2 (from lvl/2 rounded down) + 4 Dex = +6.

The diference is 5. Much better than just 3, and let the dice much less of a factor.


CactusUnicorn wrote:
Fallyrion Dunegrién wrote:

Say two character with the same Dex (a rogue and a archer). They are both lvl 5, so let's say the rogue is Expert in Stealt and the Archer is untrained. The diferente for their bonus on that skill is only 3.

Now both have to pass a DC to pass by something (if the problem is it to be the guard without Wisdom, consider it to be a druid with high Wisdom). The DC is higher enough that the rogue cannot ignore. He must roll.

The rogue invested a lot of resources in that skill, he maybe able to do some cool stuff, such as hide in plain sight, move full speed when stealth, don't be detect by smells, etc.

Nothings this matter if in the end he rolls bad and the archer roll better and pass.

In the end of the day, is the number + dice who will say he can succed at something.

The passing or failing will influenced a lot by the dice, because the diference between a highigly treinaed character to a one without a single class or race feature focuses on it is TOO LOW.

Doesn't matter the cool stuff a highly-trained character can do, doesn't matter his chance of crit. It will be beaten by an untrained character with the correct ability score a lot of times.

And, if you consider magic itens. It's probably that someone untrained using a magic item will be away better than someone trained depending on the bonus provided by the magic item.

Let's look at numbers. The guard has 16 Wis (pretty high) and is trained in perception. As a fighter he can't be an expert at perception at level 5. He has +5 level +3 Wis = +8. He has 18 perception. The rogue has 20 Dex, and is expert like you said. So +5 Dex, +5 level, +1 expert = +11. He has 50% pass chance, 20% critical chance, 30% fail chance. I'm going off stealth wins ties here. Archer has same but -2 instead if +1 Proficiency so he has +8. That is a 50% pass rate, 5% critical rate, and a 45% fail rate. The odds of the rogue failing and the Archer succeeding (including crits) is 16.5%. The other way is 31.5% roughly twice...

So there is a feat that lower the DC? This gonna be the feat everyone will take. Just like power attack. It's not just easy to make the bonus heigher?


thflame wrote:
Fallyrion Dunegrién wrote:

Say two character with the same Dex (a rogue and a archer). They are both lvl 5, so let's say the rogue is Expert in Stealt and the Archer is untrained. The diferente for their bonus on that skill is only 3.

Now both have to pass a DC to pass by something (if the problem is it to be the guard without Wisdom, consider it to be a druid with high Wisdom). The DC is higher enough that the rogue cannot ignore. He must roll.

The rogue invested a lot of resources in that skill, he maybe able to do some cool stuff, such as hide in plain sight, move full speed when stealth, don't be detect by smells, etc.

Nothings this matter if in the end he rolls bad and the archer roll better and pass.

In the end of the day, is the number + dice who will say he can succed at something.

The passing or failing will influenced a lot by the dice, because the diference between a highigly treinaed character to a one without a single class or race feature focuses on it is TOO LOW.

Doesn't matter the cool stuff a highly-trained character can do, doesn't matter his chance of crit. It will be beaten by an untrained character with the correct ability score a lot of times.

And, if you consider magic itens. It's probably that someone untrained using a magic item will be away better than someone trained depending on the bonus provided by the magic item.

Let's set a theoretical DC of 15(10 + level), just to put a number to it.

Let's say the Archer has a 5 from level, -2 from proficiency, and +2 from DEX for a total of +5 and the rogue has a 5 + 1 + 2 for a total of +8.

Out of the 400 possible outcomes, in 66 of them, the Archer succeeds while the rogue fails. That's a 16.5% chance.

The reverse happens 144/400 times, or 36% of the time.

(In case you are wondering, there is about a 38.5% chance that they both succeed and a 13.5% chance they both fail.)

Yes, the archer can roll a 10 and succeed while the rogue can roll a 6 and fail, but it is more than twice as likely...

And twitch the chances IS VERY few, and the rogue player will be a lot frustrated.


Drakhan Valane wrote:
Fallyrion Dunegrién wrote:


In the end of the day, is the number + dice who will say he can succed at something.

This doesn't sound like a scenario that's likely to happen. I mean, why would the developers design the system that way? It seems more likely that number+dice isn't going to be the whole story.

It's exactily how its looking right now. And I believe I heard some coments on playtest that sounds like this,

Basicaly, it is the same as Ability Check in PF1.

How many times in your tables, an average joe, with STR 10 (+0) beat a challenge the barbarian with STR 18 (+4) failed. This happend because the modifier bonus is too low.

In Pathfinder 2.0 this problem will be present in skills, attacks, saves, and everything that uses auto-scaling proficience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Say two character with the same Dex (a rogue and a archer). They are both lvl 5, so let's say the rogue is Expert in Stealt and the Archer is untrained. The diferente for their bonus on that skill is only 3.

Now both have to pass a DC to pass by something (if the problem is it to be the guard without Wisdom, consider it to be a druid with high Wisdom). The DC is higher enough that the rogue cannot ignore. He must roll.

The rogue invested a lot of resources in that skill, he maybe able to do some cool stuff, such as hide in plain sight, move full speed when stealth, don't be detect by smells, etc.

Nothings this matter if in the end he rolls bad and the archer roll better and pass.

In the end of the day, is the number + dice who will say he can succed at something.

The passing or failing will influenced a lot by the dice, because the diference between a highigly treinaed character to a one without a single class or race feature focuses on it is TOO LOW.

Doesn't matter the cool stuff a highly-trained character can do, doesn't matter his chance of crit. It will be beaten by an untrained character with the correct ability score a lot of times.

And, if you consider magic itens. It's probably that someone untrained using a magic item will be away better than someone trained depending on the bonus provided by the magic item.


Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Fallyrion Dunegrién wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Fallyrion Dunegrién wrote:
Unless, off-course, the "proficience-gate" is so right that a untrained person can't even try. Which is the worst game design decision ever. I can oversight it for some skills, but not all.

I fail to understand how "you can't sneak untrained without cover or concealment" or "you can't practice law untrained" or "you can maintain your gear untrained in craft, but you can't make anything" is really different from "you can't attempt knowledge checks untrained if the DC is more than 10" or "you can't attempt UMD untrained at all"?

Nor do I really understand how "the wizard can climb a rope real well" makes the ranger who has a climb speed feel less awesome, to be honest.

Basic put both trying to climb and see the wizard succeed where the ranger fail just due to dice randomess.

Succed often ir better than do cool stunts.

One, succeed often isn't better than doing cool stunts if what you're succeeding at isn't particularly impressive in the first place.

Two, this system means the character who can do cool stunts ALSO succeeds more often. As I pointed out before, a trained climber will be able to make climb attempts an untrained climber cannot, but on equal ground the trained climber will ascend at least twice as fast and with an investment automatically succeeds at any task below his level of competence. As a result, not only can he do cool stunts the wizard can't in this scenario, he can't fail and the wizard can when they're on "equal" footing.

Not as often as PF1, an legendary is +5 better than a untrained.

Say, your legendary rougue is trying to sneak past a same-level untrained guard. Doesn't matter if you can hide in plain sight if you just don't pass the roll since you roll poor and the guard roll avarege.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Fallyrion Dunegrién wrote:
Unless, off-course, the "proficience-gate" is so right that a untrained person can't even try. Which is the worst game design decision ever. I can oversight it for some skills, but not all.

I fail to understand how "you can't sneak untrained without cover or concealment" or "you can't practice law untrained" or "you can maintain your gear untrained in craft, but you can't make anything" is really different from "you can't attempt knowledge checks untrained if the DC is more than 10" or "you can't attempt UMD untrained at all"?

Nor do I really understand how "the wizard can climb a rope real well" makes the ranger who has a climb speed feel less awesome, to be honest.

Basic put both trying to climb and see the wizard succeed where the ranger fail just due to dice randomess.

Succed often ir better than do cool stunts.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For everyone saying that there is already automatic progression on PF1, you know that it's not your full level on any status, right? There s no problem in the number get better, but getting almost as better than a dedicated character is a problem.

A wizard will never be as proficient on attack as a fighter in PF1 (only half).

And all this "but there is another dimension", sorry, but it's already in PF1 with the unchained. And that doesn't make you better than having a big plain bonus on the skill.

On the end of the day, it's not how much cool things you cold do with your skills, it's how much you can succed that counts. And, if about every one has the same bonus to roll, the legendary guy will not feel that better that the untrained guy. He can hide in plain sight, yes, but the untrained guy will succed in a lot of situations he won't.

Unless, off-course, the "proficience-gate" is so right that a untrained person can't even try. Which is the worst game design decision ever. I can oversight it for some skills, but not all.

Or, off-course, higher proficience reduces the the DC (which is domb, just higher the bonuses), our you can buy diferent versions of skill focus for each proficience level (a feat that will become meta).


6 people marked this as a favorite.

In 5-years, when Paizo release the "Pathfinder On-Chains", a book that brings back all the stuff I liked on PF1 and drops away this "Resonance" stuff, I migrate to PF2.

Until there, I'll stick with PF1


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The only bad thing about negative HP is that becomes easy to die in higher levels. A lvl 1 fighter with 1 HP and 14 CON can take a "1d4+1" attack and lives to the tell the tale. However, a lvl 20 fighter with 1 HP left and 14 CON that takes an appropriate damage for his level would probably die.

A good way to alliviate it is to increase the death-threshold with the level. Say, you die when you negative HP reachs CON+Level.

It solves the problm and is simple than the proposed system for PF2.

This "harder the hit, harder to heal" approach proposed is very bad because it creates a lot of edge cases. I prefer the PF1 way "the worse you are, harder to heal".

In addition, Crit Hits and Bosses shouldn't get more deadly they already are.

The starfinder take on this is really ugly , needless complex, and I didn't get it yet. So please, stay away from anything that looks like it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

In five years Paizo will release a book called "Pathfinder on Chains", that will bring back much of the rules from PF1 and them maybe I could play PF2.

Now seriously. The system so far seemed good. It changed or simplifed how things works, but they didn't change how the game feels. All this resonance-stuff change how the game and the world works and feels.

I'd never use any of it on my games. Never.

So, if this sub-system make to the final PF2, count me as a PF1-loyalist and on board on the "Pathfinder On Chains" hype.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Why not roll20?


Fallyrion Dunegrién wrote:

Thank you very much!

It took me about a week to plan, but only 8 years do create.

Oh my gosh, I've just notice I said it took 8 years to create.I meant that it took 8 HOURS to create, not 8 years.


Hello guys, I did something very interesting with Jade Regent and I want to share my experience with you.

Some background information first. I’m Brazilian and I have a RPG Streaming Channel in Twitch/YouTube. Although we occasionally play something else, most of our games are Pathfinder. I’m currently running Jade Regent, Hell’s Rebels and Hell’s Vengeance.

Jade Regent has a bunch of NPCs. It starts with Koya, Shalelu, Ameiko and Sandru, and other joins the caravan on the go, such as Spivey and Ulf. My group consists of 4 players, since there is room for more characters on the party, and to give more importance to NPC’s presence, I usually allowed the players to bring up to two NPCs with them when exploring. It was something like a leadership feat, but with multiple cohorts which the players should choose and it worked kinda well for the two first books.

However, since we were streaming our game sessions over the internet, a lot of people ask to join our group and I had the disgusting task of refusing them all. But I have this idea of, instead of controlling these NPCs by myself; why not let this people willing to play do?

So I created this recruitment announcement and a Google Forms, and divulgated them into Brazilians Pathfinder/D&D related communities. The idea was to create a queue of interested people and when we schedule a game, I would contact the next two on the queue, ask if they will be available on the scheduled date and which NPC they wish to play with – they won’t create characters, I will provide the chosen NPC sheet in pair with the regular players current level (like this one from Ameiko).

So far, We’ve got about 40 responses and 8 different people played with us.

This had been a great experience. Some NPCs that were somewhat secondary, like Sandru, gained a new life when a guy picked him. Ameiko, probably the most important NPC in this game, is now in almost every game session and her interactions with a PC from a regular player (which secretly loves her) are really fun. We started it in the beginning of the third book, so It was basically when Ulf joined the caravan. So a player who chose to play Ulf had a clean stale and he did a gorgeous work, now he is the Ulf for us.

There are a lot of sessions to play, new people to contact, and some NPCs are still untouched. But it went way better than I expected.

Have you guys done something similar and want to share?


I missed info about the Shackles on the this article.


TomParker wrote:
Linkified

Thank you very much for the linkfication!


Thank you very much!

It took me about a week to plan, but only 8 years do create.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hello guys!

I've ran We Be Goblins last week and, to help introduce the adventure to my players, I did a small video.

It may be useful for someone, so I'm posting it here (there are english subtitles).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43D-gGGDYMk


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hello guys!

I've ran We Be Goblins last week and, to help introduce the adventure to my players, I did a small video.

It may be useful for someone, so I'm posting it here (there are english subtitles).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43D-gGGDYMk


1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
Have their alignment shift towards evil for killing the deputies... wait a minute...

After they've helped Doctor Gerya with her hospice I was almost shift their alignment towards good! But then, mass murderer.

1 to 50 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>