Goblin Plush

Filthy Lucre's page

98 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yqatuba wrote:
Just wondering. Also, is there any plan to make hobgoblins playable? Personally I like them a lot more.

1.) Because they're very popular/iconic creatures and are described in such a way that people who are into chaos/destruction/mischief find appealing.

2.) Already is.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Sapient wrote:

We've been discussing the potential for redemption at our table, and the obligations our good characters have towards allowing/encouraging it. Certainly evil NPC from playable races can change their ways. And we've played under the assumption that many intelligent creatures (e.g. giants and dragons) have enough volition to choose paths that are contrary to their Bestiary alignment listings.

But are their creatures who must be evil? There are a handful of Animals with low intelligences that are listed as evil. Can they be taught to be neutral or good? Is there an obligation for a follower of Sarenrae to try to redeem them?

What of devils or demons? Can they be turned to goodness? Are they always evil at birth/spawning/hatching/whatever?

I do understand that many don't like the alignment system. I'm one of them. But for purposes of the game as written, I'm curious how the universe is supposed to work.

I think you have good/honest intentions with this thread but there is no way this doesn't get wildly derailed/closed eventually lol


Kerobelis wrote:
Filthy Lucre wrote:
Alchemist is to PF2e what Ranger is to 5e.
I don't think Rangers in 5e are that bad. Maybe the 5e ranger is like the PF 2E wizard in terms of power.

It's not a comparison to power, it's a comparison to failed execution. Both editions have exactly one class that a lot of people feel missed the mark, whereas all the others are (generally) agreed to be complete and sufficient.


Alchemist is to PF2e what Ranger is to 5e.


I think we can all agree that it's sad that the conjuration super specialist is no longer the king of everything :'(


Captain Morgan wrote:
I think that the cleaning activities count five people working for a day as 5 days' work, but the later repair and improvement projects require organized labor so an entire group of people working for a day is just one day's work.

I see - but then the question just becomes when PCs organize labor do they do it as a group or individually? Can you have X upgrade/repair projects going at the same time if you have X players? All X players organizing and contributing labor to the same upgrade/repair project?


Are the repairing/building downtime activities outlined in the Age of Ashes adventure path group activities or solo activities? For example:

If building a structure is said to require 10 days to complete, and I have 5 people in my party do they each contribute to 1 "day" of work? In which case it would only take 2 days to complete?

Or is it assumed that the entire group takes part in the activity and thus it would take 10 days?


Will they create one? Should they create one?


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
...as finding them would be quite an advance in technology that not all campaigns or regions would be privy to.

Repeating crossbows have existed in our world for almost 2000 years, well before the medieval or early modern periods.


This is a speculative proposal for what a repeating crossbow would look like in terms of game mechanics/rules/features. This should be an uncontroversial proposal, but given the nature of forums I'm sure there will be at least one dissenter. The statistics were created by mirroring the PF1e rules as closely as possible through the interpretative lends of PF2e. From a simulations perspective, the proficiency required to wield a repeating crossbow should not be different from a standard crossbow. Rather, the Repeating Crossbow ought to be significantly more expensive to represent the more intricate work necessary to create one. However, this is not a valid consideration as without some sort of relevant cost, (which gold rarely is for non-magical equipment), there is no reason one would ever use a standard crossbow over a repeating version. Thus, the requirement that a feat be used balances the benefit of the improved weapon.

Repeating Crossbow, Light
Category: Advanced
Price: 21gp
Level: -
Damage: 1d8 P
Range: 120ft
Reload: 3
Bulk: 2
Hands: 2
Group: Bow
Traits: Magazine


  • The price was determined by referencing the cost of PF1e Crosssbow and Repeating Crossbow vs. PF2e Crossbow: (250 x 3)/35 = (PF1 Repeating Crossbow x PF2e Crossbow)/PF1 Crossbow.

  • The reload was determined by referencing the PF1e Repeating Crossbow. 1 Full-Round Action is (virtually) equivalent to 3 Interact actions

  • The magazine trait should be self explanatory for anyone who has played 3.5 or PF1e, but for those who haven't: The weapon has a reload of 0 as long as there are bolts in the magazine case, which holds 5 bolts. Reloading the magazine case requires 3 Interact actions.


James Jacobs wrote:
Nah. The five current colors are it. There might be exceptions now and then, like the weirdo purple kobold from Kingmaker, but I'd rather not have kobold versions of every dragon.

So, hopefully you check back in to read this because this is a real design question that has always puzzled me.

As Paizo actively moves away from the potentially racist/sexist tropes that have plagued Drow since their inception I am incredibly surprised we even still have dragons split into good and evil camps that are completely defined by their "race" as it were.

Would it make a lot more sense, from a world building perspective, and from a 'staying away from problematic concepts' perspective, to just say:

"There are only chromatic dragons. A dragons ethical outlook varies from individual to individual"?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

What Filthy Lucre said.

If Paizo intends to have flavor text in their spells, it needs to either not say anything that resembles mechanics, or be clearly delineated as flavor text.

The problem, even when discussing this spell at hand, is that no one is wrong. Most of these interpretations are internally consistent and valid because we don't have concrete metric to weigh them against.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rules text needs to be as clear, specific, and codified for RPGs as it is for games like MTG. Specific words having extremely specific and defined in-game meaning.


Pirate Rob wrote:

Peeking at the thread, the argument was that simple was descriptive to clarify that it was the crossbow and not the heavy or hand. Rather than referring to the keyword of weapon types.

An argument I see no merit in.

I would agree as Pathfinder/3.x legacy of terms has never used flowery adjectives. There is no such thing as a "simple crossbow" - but there is a crossbow that has the "simple" type.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

There was a discussion about this in the rules forum Last November.

Most people concluded that a "simple crossbow" is a simple weapon which is a crossbow. Some people disagreed.

Since I'm not going to comb through that entire thread, I only have one question for you: For those that concluded that it did not refer to crossbows that are simple weapons... wouldn't that mean that the feat does literally nothing, (at least at the moment)?


Aratorin wrote:

This should be in the rules forum. It means crossbows that are simple weapons.

Yes, all currently existing Crossbows are simple, but future ones might not be. There could be a repeating crossbow that's a martial weapon someday.

You're right, but I'm impatient and get a faster response when I put questions in the general forum >:'3


The Ranger class feat "Crossbow Ace" makes reference to a "simple crossbow". Does this refer to a weapon that is called "simple crossbow" or does this refer to a crossbow which belongs to the "simple" weapon category? If the latter, aren't *all* crossbows in the simple category?


The-Magic-Sword wrote:
Filthy Lucre wrote:
Ok, someone lay out the disagreement for me and I'll settle it.

I referred to PF2e as "Superior" for someone with a particular set of tastes earlier in the conversation to illustrate a path for the game to gain fans from a competitor and a couple of posters decided to use the statement out of context for rants about why we can't objectively declare it superior (when no one really did to begin with.) The conversation moved into whether it can be regarded as a paradigm shift or not.

Which seems to have devolved into an argument when Dirtypool started implying something nasty about Midnightoker's effusive praise of PF2e, by claiming they were trying to get the system to "go home with them" which did come off to me as a very off-color insinuation about Midnight.

So, this seems pretty uncontroversial and I'm happy to decide on this issue:

- PF2e offers a great alternative to D&D 5e for people who don't want to leave the D20 system/tradition but want more crunchy options than 5e currently provides.
- PF2e is, at the end of the day, not "radically" different from PF1e. Sure, they ARE different, but that is trivially true. A person who played PF1e is not going to open up the new CRB and think it's written in greek.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, someone lay out the disagreement for me and I'll settle it.


MaxAstro wrote:
graystone wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

I definitely like the design of Dex-to-damage being a special thing that only certain rogues can do, and I hope that doesn't change.

Dex-to-damage became a plague in late 1e because it was almost always optimal, and I definitely don't want to see that return.

With a different damage formula weighted towards weapon dice and the glut of level increases to stats, we're in a very different situation than PF1. With the difference being maybe +4 damage at 1st [and most likely going down as you level] and that many lost in using a finesse/agile weapon [lower die], it seems like a lot of worry over nothing. Static bonuses are just lower and less important in PF2.
I don't care that it's a small difference and wouldn't be unbalancing; I care that min-maxers don't gravitate towards 8 Str/18 Dex builds.

If you don't like min-maxers don't play with them.


HammerJack wrote:
I don't follow your reasoning. There is a solution for applying enchantments to all of your unarmed attacks, and the distinction definitely affects what feats work together.

Unarmed strikes and daggers are not, in my opinion, relevantly different but they are treated differently. That's what I mean.


Claxon wrote:
HammerJack wrote:

What makes you think the intent is punitive?

Unarmed attacks, and counting them as weapons for certain effects, and the different rules for natural weapons were kind of a weird mess in 1E. I think that the 2E approach to unarmed attacks was intended to bring consistency, and limit unintended feat interactions, not to punish anything.

I'm not going to say that perfect clarity was achieved, but it does seem to be the goal.

To expand on this, I believe it is also in part because natural attacks are treated as unarmed attacks for things.

A "weapon" is a thing you use to attack people with - in this case your fist. It doesn't necessarily need to be an object. The reason for the distinction has everything, and only, to do with the way objects are enchanted by magic.

It's punitive because it's basically a flavor-ban.


Gisher wrote:
Filthy Lucre wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

You increase stats four at a time, so "not having 18 strength eventually" is a deliberate choice.

But the difference between "max dex to damage" and "18 strength" is only like 3 damage per hit, which isn't really worth investing a lot of resources into.

I, for one, am glad that dex-to-damage is incredibly rare in PF2 so as to avoid the glut of Str 10 Dex ∞ DPR monsters, a thing I was not fond of in PF1.

I think what I'm going to do, so that I don't have to inject my game with any loathsome house rules, is direct her toward rogue instead. The shtick she wants to accomplish is using unarmed/claw attacks that are dex to hit and dex to damage. That can be done with using the monk archetype feats.

THEN I'd just need them to release an official catfolk ancestry.

Thieves don't get Dex to Damage with Unarmed Attacks. Only with Weapons.

CRB, p. 180 wrote:
When you attack with a finesse melee weapon, you can add your Dexterity modifier to damage rolls instead of your Strength modifier.
CRB, p. 278 wrote:
However, unarmed attacks aren’t weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so.

As much as I love 3.5 this is such a pointless hold over from that era. The advantage of having a "weapon" (your hand) that can't be disarmed does not warrant so many punishing rules.


Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
...pique...

You mean "peak" as in, the top of/zenith. Pique means "to affect".


PossibleCabbage wrote:

You increase stats four at a time, so "not having 18 strength eventually" is a deliberate choice.

But the difference between "max dex to damage" and "18 strength" is only like 3 damage per hit, which isn't really worth investing a lot of resources into.

I, for one, am glad that dex-to-damage is incredibly rare in PF2 so as to avoid the glut of Str 10 Dex ∞ DPR monsters, a thing I was not fond of in PF1.

I think what I'm going to do, so that I don't have to inject my game with any loathsome house rules, is direct her toward rogue instead. The shtick she wants to accomplish is using unarmed/claw attacks that are dex to hit and dex to damage. That can be done with using the monk archetype feats.

THEN I'd just need them to release an official catfolk ancestry.


Malk_Content wrote:
So you min max but if there is a hard choice to that then I guess you just hand waive it away. Never seen hard and soft attitudes to mechanics so plainly clash but you do you. If you want your player to get everything they want with 0 drawbacks and make any rogues feel like they've lost a class feature, go ahead.

If there was a way to get dexterity to damage through archetype feats I wouldn't need to do any hand waiving.


Saedar wrote:
Listen to Malk. A couple points less damage isn't a non-viable character and it becomes even less an issue as levels go up.

It's not an issue of viability so much as maximizing the amount of punching damage she can distribute.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:

I'm glad they've been restrictive with letting stats go outside of their purview. I made a 5e character who basically got to use one stat for everything. Hated it. Had to make 0 important character choices.

For monk if they had dex to damage then there would be no choice about stats at all. Without damage str does bulk and monks care very little about bulk as they ignore the to biggest capacity sponges of weapon and armour. Having little str is okay for the monk. She can hit with dex, and so is only losing out on a little damage. As she advances and gets handwraps the strength % portion of damage will go down. In the mean time she will have excellent AC and reflex.

As the DM I'm just going to give all agile and finesse weapons dex to damage and call it a day.

And as to "Yeah why not? She can invest in Dex, Con, Wis and then either Int or Cha."

We min-max in my house, sir. No one is dumping their damage stat.


Henro wrote:
14/16 STR monk seems less like beefcake and more like toned, athletic muscle to me.

And then she never puts another point into strength...? Whatever the primary stat it will always eventually be 20 or greater.


I really wish Pathfinder had taken a page out of D&D 5e's book when it came to strength and dexterity damage. I have a player who wants to make a monk but is really bummed out that they don't have dexterity to their damage. She wants to play a human reflavored as a nekomata/catfolk and the Tiger Stance makes her theme super easy to pull off... she just doesn't want to have to be a beef cake to do it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Samurai wrote:
I have actually written other game books... On the whole, I probably have more gaming experience in general than most of the PF2e writers, and a vast array of experience with a very wide variety of game systems.

I'd love to see some of your best selling RPG systems in print, can you link me??


FlashRebel wrote:
Filthy Lucre wrote:
FlashRebel wrote:
Filthy Lucre wrote:
FlashRebel wrote:
Why have them in the first place if they're no different from what already exists in the game?
Because they're just window dressing for a steampunk setting and the aesthetic is more important than potentially unbalancing your game?
Sure, have gunpowder and bullets function exactly like crossbow bolts as well, it would be a shame to take any risks by making the setting believable.
Filthy Lucre wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:
You don't expect to see pirates wielding M-16s or 44 magnums, that's just not part of the fantasy.
Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura disagrees.
That's not even remotely related to Pathfinder. What is your point?

1.) The moment you decide to die on the hill of absolute realism is when PF/D&D break down completely. It's a toally arbitrary standard that is selectively enforced. It's not "believable" that someone can fall 300ft off a cliff and survive, and yet we still hand waive it.

2.) The point is that you're making a claim about the genre "fantasy" as if it is limited to your personal definition.
Why did you start this thread in the first place if just deciding to reskin crossbows into guns solves your problem then? You basically wasted everyone's time with a problem you didn't even have. If firearms are that simple to implement, balance be damned, then go for it.

You're awfully spicy, aren't you? I started the thread to ask a single question - whether or not we'd be seeing the gunslinger class - and it got answered right away.


FlashRebel wrote:
Filthy Lucre wrote:
FlashRebel wrote:
Why have them in the first place if they're no different from what already exists in the game?
Because they're just window dressing for a steampunk setting and the aesthetic is more important than potentially unbalancing your game?
Sure, have gunpowder and bullets function exactly like crossbow bolts as well, it would be a shame to take any risks by making the setting believable.
Filthy Lucre wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:
You don't expect to see pirates wielding M-16s or 44 magnums, that's just not part of the fantasy.
Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura disagrees.
That's not even remotely related to Pathfinder. What is your point?

1.) The moment you decide to die on the hill of absolute realism is when PF/D&D break down completely. It's a toally arbitrary standard that is selectively enforced. It's not "believable" that someone can fall 300ft off a cliff and survive, and yet we still hand waive it.

2.) The point is that you're making a claim about the genre "fantasy" as if it is limited to your personal definition.


Wheldrake wrote:
You don't expect to see pirates wielding M-16s or 44 magnums, that's just not part of the fantasy.

Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura disagrees.


FlashRebel wrote:
Why have them in the first place if they're no different from what already exists in the game?

Because they're just window dressing for a steampunk setting and the aesthetic is more important than potentially unbalancing your game?


I don't really care about/would never implement black powder weapons in my game - only 1800s level of technology.

As for stats - they'd just be ranged picks. Same damage dice, same abilities, just with a range increment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
trischai wrote:
Wall of Text

Is this a troll post? Also, for someone with a PhD you make a lot of spelling/grammar/vocabulary errors.

As other posters have already mentioned, your expectations are incoherent. Much of, if not most of, your points are self contradictory.


Lanathar wrote:


I am not sure it is overthinking. It is more the general obsession / perception that guns should be massively powerful and better than any other ranged weapon

Definitely. Emphasis on "perception". If I had to choose between getting shot or struck with a sword it would definitely be the former.


I feel like people consistently over think guns in table top role playing games. For practical game purposes a gun should just be a repeating crossbow - it doesn't need to have gigantic damage dice, or weird clunky reloading mechanics.


Is the following statement true?

"All skill feats are general feats, but not all general feats are skill feats?"

The reason I ask is because I wanted to know if you're granted a general feat from your class you're allowed to pick a skill feat.


Ezekieru wrote:

We know it isn't coming in the APG next year, and they've mentioned elsewhere that for the Gunslinger to exist (either as an Archetype anyone can take, or as a solo class), we need a book dedicated to guns for you to play around with.

I'm hoping it'll come around during the next major book at 2021, but who knows??

Brutal.


Does anyone know of any rumblings that would suggest we'll be getting this class at some point? My steampunk game needs it.


Rysky wrote:
All of the Core books it seems.

But what counts as "core"?


Do we know which releases will get a deluxe version like the CRB and the bestiary?


Laran wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:

Bears aren't even given an intimidation modifier.

To be honest, the rules really don't do well to represent animals - they are built to make PCs doing normal PC stuff and monsters doing normal monster stuff work, and that doesn't really include creatures (other than PCs) using the Demoralize action because they aren't really prone to trash talk during a fight.

That's why creatures that are meant to be particularly talented at frightening characters have a special ability to do so rather than just having a high Intimidation modifier and using the Demoralize action.

Well, there goes the Bear animal companion whose special skill is Intimidation

That rule, implies IMO, a PC or sentient creature using demoralize. Just find a way for the bear to have trained intimidate and hand waive that part.


thejeff wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
thejeff wrote:
You may also start to run into issues where you're dealing with enemies that you could handle by the math, except that they have high level abilities you don't yet have counters for.
That seems avoidable. Either you run an, E6 style game and just don't use higher level enemies, or you let players have the abilities but not the math, which seems to be what Filthy would rather do. The math changes will probably impact how some of those abilities interact with game balance, as Gorbacz mentioned, but you should still have see invisibility when invisibility becomes common for example.
So you start changing what level abilities are available? So that PCs have the counters when the tougher enemies they fight have the abilities?

No, you either cap the levels of PCs and monsters so neither side gets those abilities in the first place, or you let them level up normally but remove level from their proficiency modifier at which point the abilities come online on the same schedule for both sides.

Neither scenario involves changing that dynamic beyond things that happen to math balance.

Sure, you can run E6.

Otherwise, part of the point is that you can fight a broader range of opponents, since lower level enemies aren't as much weaker and higher level enemies aren't as much stronger, since the +level bonus has been removed. Where in the baseline game, a 5th level party might face a 8th level enemy for a serious fight, that would be much easier in the -Level game and you might want a 10th for the same challenge. Everyone gets the same abilities at the same time, but you can face higher level opponents, who might have those abilities.

I tell you what, when I implement this in my game and it works flawlessly because I know how to DM/gauge power/what the PCs can and can't handle I'll let you know.


thejeff wrote:
You may also start to run into issues where you're dealing with enemies that you could handle by the math, except that they have high level abilities you don't yet have counters for.

Ya none of these really stand out as being daunting to me. That's not to say they aren't good points, because they are, I'm just confident in my GMery.

Edit: The point at which PCs get abilities doesn't change just because you remove the level bonus from proficiency. So the abilities that creatures/PCs have available to them are exactly the same regardless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm just REALLY happy that Paizo is doing a good job releasing lots of content. That's the entire reason I'm jumping ship from 5e. I like their compressed numbers, but the dearth of options is just killing me.


David knott 242 wrote:
Filthy Lucre wrote:
Matrix Sorcica wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:


Off the top of my head youd have to rewrite the encounter tables
IMO, that's rather minor.
Is there something I'm missing, or wouldn't it just be as simple as subtracting level from PCs and from monsters? No adjustment to the encounter table needed?

Supposedly, the Gamemastery Guide will answer that question.

That all makes sense - but I don't think it's beyond what a reasonably invested GM can handle on their own. Probably not wise for a 1st timer, but it's not like you have to do calculus.


Matrix Sorcica wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:


Off the top of my head youd have to rewrite the encounter tables
IMO, that's rather minor.

Is there something I'm missing, or wouldn't it just be as simple as subtracting level from PCs and from monsters? No adjustment to the encounter table needed?

1 to 50 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>