Filthy Lucre's page

Gloom wrote:

Rysky wrote:

And you have absolutely nothing going for you to believe it was justified.

When someone makes a claim like this the burden of proof is on them. Lacking any sort of proof one should assume that the best possible scenario took place. Otherwise people could make claims all day without anything backing them up and put a ton of people who did nothing wrong under a huge amount of stress just trying to prove something didn't happen.

Agreed.

Provide the proof to back up your claim.

Prescriptive statements don't always have a truth value and thus there could be no evidence to support them one way or the other.

And in my opinion that shows that they are aware that their setting has much more importance for their ongoing success than you seem to think it has.

It very well may be a major selling point for most of their audience/customers. It's just not for me, and I was surprised to be in a minority.

For example, when I DMed 3.5 D&D we didn't do so under the impression that we had to have any kind of fealty or deference to Greyhawk.

So I am running a game and most of my party has been with a succubus and given a profane bonus. The succubus is friendly to the group and hasn’t drained them. My question is for spells like detect evil, forbiddance and the like will they register as evil? And would holy weapons do damage to them as if they are evil? They are mostly good as a party and even the Paladin has had the bonus granted. He only took it for the group telepathic ability Becuase he constantly kept finding himself blind.

Any RAW I would like but in the absence of that and interpretation is most welcome. We are dealing with a succubus that isn’t evil.

1.) You're actually in the wrong subforum

Conclusion: No, they probably don't.

That may have changed in the meantime, but given how they meshed the rules with the setting in 2E, I don't think it changed that much.

Given Paizo baked the setting into the rules of 2E in the core book then it would seem they think category one is potentially the smallest? Just a guess

People keep saying that the setting and the rules are tied together but I don't see any evidence of this.

For example, which class features of the rogue depend on using Golarion lore/setting?

Or, which parts of the rules on animal companions are inextricably linked to Golarion lore/setting?

Is it even possible to tie any kind of mechanical rules to lore in such a way that they can never be seperated or reflavored? I don't think so

That Heather F is an absolute gem - now I feel kinda bad she's gunna have to delete all those posts :/

I'm genuinely shocked to see how many people care about the pathfinder setting. I only care about the rules and use none of their IP and I assumed that was normal, but I guess people actually think golarion is good?

3 action + Reaction system.

They moved from a static RPG to a pretty valid "boardgame" ( and they keep putting balance before anything else, which I love ).

I think I'd never be able to to move back to other d20 systems.

Not sure how 'board gamey' it feels but it definitely makes everything more dynamic - 3 is the perfect number for actions. It effortlessly solves issues that are really deflating in D&D 5e. The prone condition is a pretty great example. It isn't literally/strictly pointless to knock someone prone, (as it grants advantage), but in PF2e it doesn't just help your allies it actively harms your enemy, (as it eats an action just to stand up). 5e just doesn't have that level of design space.

PF2e has a lot of things about it that I find to be clunky, poorly formatted, or otherwise unwieldy. However there are two things I think the designers should know they absolutely hit out of the park: The three action economy and the dying/wounded rules.

These to features are what, ultimately, prevent me from playing or DMing 5e because despite PF2e's (many) flaws, these two systems are so robust and useful that they outweigh any cons of PF2e.

What do other posters think if PF2e's biggest systemic selling point?

Maybe it's because I played a lot of SRPGS and JRPGs growing up, but when I think of the elemental forms of damage I tend more toward fire/cold/acid/lightning for fire/water/earth/air. PF2e is definitely taking a more literal, A:TLAB take on it. I'm a DM and I've got a player who is playing a blaster wizard and I was thinking of making these changes to the Elementalist Metamagic feats:

1.) They're all level 4, instead of 4, 6, 10, and 14. I think this is justified because these feats aren't actually all that strong, to be honest - especially considering they aren't 'free' metamagic and require an action. I reject that the level of these feats actually correspond to their power levels unless someone can justify to me why creating a small amount of difficult terrain is worth a 10th level feat.

2.) Allowing each of the metamagic feats to change the damage type/traits of the spells they affect. Therefor, a Dousing Spell Fireball would, (as per my example in the first paragraph), do cold damage instead of fire damage. Similarly, a Burning Spell Lightning Bolt would do fire damage instead of electricity.

My question for the community is: Do you think these changes will be noticeably imbalanced?

Filthy Lucre wrote:

Blave wrote:

Filthy Lucre wrote:

Well, I'd say I'm largely disappointed but there are a few bright/useful things :/

What's so disappointing if you don't mind me asking?

For me: 1.) I don't care about summoner or magus, 2.)The class archetypes are meh, and 3.) there weren't really many interesting magic items except for a few. I can't stand how PF has like a jillion different subsets of consumables - outside of potions I've never been a fan of or interested in consumable magic items.

I basically spent $75 for the ring that lets you target reflex or fortitude instead of AC.

What I wanted or was hoping for was basically a splat book like we used to get in the glorious 3.5 days.

What about new spells? Anything good?

I haven't gone through them in detail yet.

Filthy Lucre wrote:

Blave wrote:

Filthy Lucre wrote:

Well, I'd say I'm largely disappointed but there are a few bright/useful things :/

What's so disappointing if you don't mind me asking?

For me: 1.) I don't care about summoner or magus, 2.)The class archetypes are meh, and 3.) there weren't really many interesting magic items except for a few. I can't stand how PF has like a jillion different subsets of consumables - outside of potions I've never been a fan of or interested in consumable magic items.

I basically spent $75 for the ring that lets you target reflex or fortitude instead of AC.

But when you don't really care about the new classes and - I infer from you not talking about it - the lore and new spells are not a main priority for you either, isn't that kind of on you? I mean, that's like half to 3/4 of the book right there.

Lore is never worth spending money on, at least for me. Especially considering I don't use any of the galorion setting.

But also "elementalist" doesn't even have the ability to change the damage type of spells...?

Filthy Lucre wrote:

Well, I'd say I'm largely disappointed but there are a few bright/useful things :/

What's so disappointing if you don't mind me asking?

For me: 1.) I don't care about summoner or magus, 2.)The class archetypes are meh, and 3.) there weren't really many interesting magic items except for a few. I can't stand how PF has like a jillion different subsets of consumables - outside of potions I've never been a fan of or interested in consumable magic items.

I basically spent $75 for the ring that lets you target reflex or fortitude instead of AC.

What I wanted or was hoping for was basically a splat book like we used to get in the glorious 3.5 days.

Well, I'd say I'm largely disappointed but there are a few bright/useful things :/

I got mine!

This isn't a complaint I've heard much at all. Not saying that it's not a viable and legit complaint, of course, just that ... we've been adjusting how we do our Adventure Paths on reader feedback for a few decades now, and overall they seem to be working as intended.

Your list of the 5 steps for how to prepare for running a published adventure largely follow along with my own steps when I do the same in my games, although mostly just for the first 4 steps. I don't do step 5 at all, but instead am happy to rely upon player aid if there's a rule that I need to look up.

If your natural GMing style is to wing it, the best way to run a published adventure might be to do steps 1 and 4, and then wing it for your group. Think of the adventure more as inspiration for your home game than a recipie that must be strictly adhered to.

And it's also possible that your GM style just might not work for published adventures. In that case, reading lots of adventures can help you to fuel your imagination for future games, but... published adventures aren't for everyone, I guess.

I'll certainly continue to keep an eye/ear on feedback across these forums for how to present adventure information, but we do them the way we do them now as a result of doing that for a few decades, so don't expect significant sudden changes to the format anytime soon—they've proven to work very well for most folks, as far as I can tell. Sorry they're not working as well for you... :(

I wouldn't mind a very small section that explicitly details main NPCs goals and motivations in an adventure because knowing that makes it much easier to run or improvise, at least for me. It also makes it easier to understand the plot of the adventure as a whole. For me, Paizo APs read more like books than modules and what I'm looking for is information distilled down in such a way that it's really only what I need to play/understand the module.

Filthy Lucre wrote:

I got my first subscription email last night too... so fingers crossed PDF today, regardless of twitter/delay?

You’d be very lucky to get it today. There’s usually an 8-12 day shipping window. There’s also usually a day or two between authorization and shipping so people can get in with corrections, so shipping may not even begin today.

I'd pay an extra $100 just to get the PDF early so it's all just annoying to me.

I got my first subscription email last night too... so fingers crossed PDF today, regardless of twitter/delay?

I have finally realized why my friends are not hyped about SoM (or PF2 in general). In Paizo's quest to make high level play, they have created a system where character concepts do not come on line until level 12+ (5 class feats with 2-3 available for non class such as archetypes). I am going to see if I tell my friends to start at level 12, that I can entice them back. OF course, this does not help PFS

Just use unrestricted free archetype. Problem solved.

So some people might get their PDFs today?

I'm anxiously watching my inbox but I don't know :c

I'll have Pathfinder Lead Designer Logan Bonner as one of my 7 guests on Paizo LIVE this Friday from 4 to 6 PM Pacific. He will speak for more than 20 minutes on Pathfinder Secrets of Magic. twitch.tv/officialpaizo

This all but confirms that the book won't ship this week :'/

tl;dr most instances of stunned and slowed should be combined into a single condition.

'Stunned' ought only to be the condition whereby you cannot act at all for X duration/drop everything you're holding/etc.

The numerical value for 'stunned' should refer to turns not actions. Implementing this with everything already written and set as it is would probably be very unbalancing.

I thought the entire point of being a subscriber was that you always got the product first... if not then whats the point?

The wait is excruciating.

Filthy Lucre wrote:

If I don't care about lore at all, but I do care about mechanical options/crunch/monsters/etc, should I get this book?

There's several new ancestries as well as a small bestiary. As always, if you're not sure you can wait for it to be uploaded to AoN and see if there's enough content relevant to you to justify a purchase. It is much more lore than crunch so its a worthwhile question.

What stuff doesn't show up on AoN?

If I don't care about lore at all, but I do care about mechanical options/crunch/monsters/etc, should I get this book?

Remember, a wizard with the so-overpowered-it-needs-emergency-errata level 16 sixth pillar feat

Whats the sixth pillar?

If you want to be a magical brawler the real answer is to just wait for magus to come out.

Martial | Animal: Level 3 | +10 | +9
Martial | Animal: Level 4 | +11 | +9
Martial | Animal: Level 5 | +14 | +14
Martial | Animal: Level 6 | +15 | +14
Martial | Animal: Level 7 | +16 | +16
Martial | Animal: Level 8 | +17 | +16
Martial | Animal | Elemental: Level 9 | +18 | +18 | +18
Martial | Animal | Elemental: Level 10 | +21 | +18 | +18
Martial | Elemental | Dragon: Level 11 | +22 | +23 | +22
Martial | Elemental | Dragon: Level 12 | +23 | +23 | +22
Martial | Elemental | Dragon: Level 13 | +26 | +25 | +22
Martial | Elemental | Dragon: Level 14 | +27 | +25 | +22
Martial | Dragon | Monstrocity: Level 15 | +28 | +28 | +28
Martial | Dragon | Monstrocity: Level 16 | +30 | +28 | +28
Martial | Monstrocity: Level 17 | +32 | +31
Martial | Monstrocity: Level 18 | +33 | +31
Martial | Incarnate: Level 19 | +34 | +34
Martial | Incarnate: Level 20 | +36 | +34

Jesus christ, what more do people want?! I'm not being sarcastic at all. This seems completely reasonable from a game design stand point. That the a caster can, ever in any way, get even remotely close to a dedicated martial in terms of "I smack it" should be plenty.

You're back! And you're now either trolling or your GM not playing correctly. Remember this chestnut? You then went to make three more threads stirring the pot when everything boiled down to - your GM is cheating/your GM doesn't know the rules.

I thought this thread seemed weirdly familiar...

So, for the OP: I'm DMing a PF2e game right now and I follow the guidelines pretty closely. Typically my 4 PCs, now level 3, fight several creatures that are lower level than them, and one or two that are equal to their level. My exp budgets trend around 80/90 and my tough or boss encounters usually trend around 130/150. I've found my fights to be exceptionally fair but also pleasantly dangerous. I have not, at all, seen any of the frustration you've mentioned coming from my players.

Example 1:

Goblin Warrior x3
Goblin Warchanter x1
Goblin Pyro x1

This one went really well thanks to some great rolls on my fighter's part - she was killing goblin warriors in a single hit.

Example 2:

Orc Warchief x1
River Drake x1
Goblin Warchanter x1

This one was very close and could have gone really poorly for the PCs, but they pulled through.

In both of these scenarios the monster's had favorable terrain or surprise. I feel like your DM is throwing crazy difficult encounters at you. Can you give us an example of the exact monsters you faced in a given situation and what your partys size and level was when you faced that obstacle?

Filthy Lucre wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

What could I have done to make this go more smoothly? What would be some good advice for similar situations in the future, in which an NPC lies to the party?

This may or may not work depending on if you're running a module or how important a plot point it is, but this is what I would have done:

She is telling the truth - I change the situation so that she isn't a succubus and the PCs are, in fact, wrong. I let their suspicions get them into trouble.

Now [i]that's[/s] metagaming!

I kid, but if the players figure out your plan don't just change it so that they didn't figure it out. That's just like a TV show finding out their audience correctly theorized the ending and then changing it the next season just so that it's surprising.

At least, don't do it all the time. Being "right all along" is a great feeling to let them have. They're wrong so many times already, no need to force it so that they don't "win"

There's a difference between "figuring out the plan" using clues and in game information and PCs willfully disregarding the consequences of failed checks.

What could I have done to make this go more smoothly? What would be some good advice for similar situations in the future, in which an NPC lies to the party?

This may or may not work depending on if you're running a module or how important a plot point it is, but this is what I would have done:

She is telling the truth - I change the situation so that she isn't a succubus and the PCs are, in fact, wrong. I let their suspicions get them into trouble.

I run games in the core setting. I mostly play adventure paths. I'm a bit of a Golarion geek.

I play in one game set in the Forgotten Realms. And I daydream that someday I can play in a PF2 game set in Eberron.

That seems trivially easy to accomplish considering we have alchemist and inventor as official classes.

I have a confession to make: I, personally, don't like the Golarion setting. Like, at all. I only use PF2e as a rules system. Although the forum doesn't have a poll feature I was wondering: How many people here actually use/adhere to the 'Lost Omen's' setting and how many just create their own or apply the PF2e rules to a different setting?

Using the ABP variant completely solves this problem, at least for me. I don't understand why this thread even exists.

Even using the ABP not all weapons are equal and you can have your ultimate weapons of legend without needing fundamental runes.

It's the difference between a sword that is +1 to hit and +1dX and a sword that is +1 to hit and +1dX and shoots lightning and cuts people's head off on a 20. The very existence of property runes seems to defeat the idea that the ABP system renders all weapons identical.

Exactly how much downtime is expected to occur in any given chunk? The reason I ask is that I just crunched the numbers and unless I'm mistaken, it would take a level 3 Wizard who critically succeded their craft check something like 44 days to complete a level three item worth 75gp. Am I doing this math wrong or am I just assuming 'downtime' is much shorter than it actually is...?