Goblin Plush

Filthy Lucre's page

28 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


DocMcJansen wrote:

https://www.fantasywelt.de/Pathfinder-Playtest-Rulebook-HC-EN

I hope I am allowed to post the link, if not let me know and I will edit the post

Lol, I mean... you probably just got them in trouble for selling it about 2 weeks before it's supposed to release.


Mark Seifter wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Filthy Lucre wrote:
I highly doubt any additional classes will be printed as full classes. Archetypes will probably implement the variety that we had under PE1. Which I think is a good thing.

I think it's basically certain they are going to print more classes. Mark Seifter has talked about how the Witch almost made it as the "new" class for the playtest, and about neat things they have planned for the Occultist and Oracle.

Also, devs have talked in a way that indicates psychic casting is still a thing, so we're going to get some of those.

I didn't say that the witch almost made it. The oracle is the one that was close-ish behind the alchemist. The witch wasn't even close.

Everything looks great, so far, Mark.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Filthy Lucre wrote:
I highly doubt any additional classes will be printed as full classes. Archetypes will probably implement the variety that we had under PE1. Which I think is a good thing.

I think it's basically certain they are going to print more classes. Mark Seifter has talked about how the Witch almost made it as the "new" class for the playtest, and about neat things they have planned for the Occultist and Oracle.

Also, devs have talked in a way that indicates psychic casting is still a thing, so we're going to get some of those.

Personally, id prefer only three classes with lots of archetypes.


I highly doubt any additional classes will be printed as full classes. Archetypes will probably implement the variety that we had under PE1. Which I think is a good thing.


I'm going to be GMing a gritty steam/diesel-punk game set in a world where magic and technology fundamentally conflict, (re: Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura), using Pathfinder. To keep the game nestled in heroic fantasy I plan to run it as an E6 campaign. My players are ok with their core statistics, (Base attack bonus, saves, skills, etc), being capped at 6th level, however I worry that they'll run into character fatigue if they aren't able to really improve and gain more class features. What does the EnWorld brain trust think about the following variations of E6:


  • Gestalt Characters
  • Continue to advance without BaB/Saves/Skills/Spells improving
  • Waive BaB/Skill Rank requirements for feats

Another adjustment I am considering is that after 6th level the BaB and Skill Ranks requirements for feats will be waived - allowing PCs to attain feats they would otherwise never have access to so long as they've got the necessary feat prerequisites.

(P.S.: Just for fun and "fyi" the game will also utilize armor-as-DR and wound/vitality variants)


Planpanther wrote:
Consolidating skills and telling players to self regulate role play sounds like an oberoni solution for folks who like in-depth skill play.

Give me your list of skills and I'll be able to split one into multiple unrelated skills.


Trimalchio wrote:
And will fumbles apply to skill checks, saving throws? Again this is likely to hurt martials more then casters as martials make more attack roles and combat related skill checks. Unless the rules include fumbles for concentration checks.

Making the heroes more fallible, less godlike is always going to be a plus for me. There are a lot more interesting stories to tell with gritty characters who can make mistakes.


GM Nitemare wrote:

Misery loves company, right. I'd like to know how many people on these boards I'd have to game with if I wanted to play 1E in a year or two.

Once 2e is released I will stop all 1e gaming.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:
This makes basically sure that none of my players will ever want to play PF2, which is fine by me. but even if I would want to switch and sell the new system to them, Resonance is a deal breaker

Limiting player power and forcing people to make choices is a big hit for me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KahnyaGnorc wrote:
Well, the game could still theoretically limit the difference between the highest bonus in the party and the lowest bonus in the party at any given level WITHOUT minimizing the difference between a higher level party and a lower level one.

I don't care how different party members are - in fact I want them to be different... I just want to be able to easily challenge my players with a diverse array of creatures, situations, and levels.

ULTIMATELY I'm hyped as hell for Pathfinder 2nd Edition and I hope that the rules are flexible and modular enough to allow as many different play styles as possible - I just hope that mine is included under that umbrella.

That Mark the developer guy should comment on this thread to let weigh in on the conversation!


bookrat wrote:

What about all those 15th+ level characters who decided not to explore the depths of the abyss?

Wouldn't they be able to easily conquer nations and rule with an iron fist? How many cities and nations are run by the ultra powerful?

Without a bounded system, you should expect to see every nation and major city to be run by 20th level characters.

With a bounded system, the peasents actually have a chance to overthrow the government.

Exactly - I don't even need to see truly "bounded" accuracy - finding cool treasures and specializing IS the fun of the game... but I also prefer to keep my PCs mortal.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

By level 13 your characters are above and beyond mortal kingdoms. They're dealing with sleeping ancient threats, or exploring territory long since held by powerful forces that were keen to keep to themselves at the time, or delving into other planes of existence.

Level 13 is the threshold where PF1 completely steps out of Classical Fantasy and into Myth or Supers.

Well hopefully theres plenty of GM support for customizing the game because "myth and supers" are super boring.


Lady Firebird wrote:

I think problems arise when you try to go too simulationist with the game rules. They don't support that very well. Just look at hit points. The debate on what they actually mean ("luck and skill points" vs. "meat points") is an old one. Even today there is no consensus. Falling damage is another stickler. When you try to go simulationist with a set of rules that can't properly function that way (not completely), you run into problems.

So it is with monsters. Now, in D&D-style fantasy, certainly characters tend to become as demigods (or casters, in the case of 3.x, become as full gods), so that it makes narrative sense for them to mow through groups of less experienced and less powerful creatures. But what we should really be hewing to here is the narrative requirements of the story, not slave to the mechanics. If there's a need for this particular scenario to be more threatening, with more on the line, you can up the threat level of the foes without necessarily making every single war band of orcs into demigods unto themselves.

Monsters having levels instead of hit dice and CR really helps with this. For the same reason an ancient dragon awakened and weak from slumber could be a big "boss" encounter at level 4. They don't kill it, and not every level 4 group is going to vanquish dragons. Later on, that same dragon, who is now using more of its power and investing its time into the encounter, might be its full level of 18. Most orcs might be low-level, but the elite guards employed by that iron-fisted tyrant are meant to pose a threat for the purposes of the narrative, so they're higher level.

Assuming "the whole world levels up when you do" or that because exceptions exist that everything must be extrapolated to the same degree doesn't work. Assuming that each area is a zone like in an MMO and must be at a certain level range likewise doesn't work. Or rather, those things run into problems when you expect them to perfectly simulate every aspect of interaction with the game world. Heck, the process...

How many demi-god level powers can be running around in a world that is presumably ruled by mundane monarchs, emperors, and municipal governments? It's incongruous and immersion breaking for the characters to be THIS powerful and still be set inside a "classic" fantasy environment.


So, prime example of how the CR/Combat encounter math needs to change. According to the official guidelines...

5 CR1 creatures should be MORE than a match for a group of (5) level 5 Characters. Run that encounter and tell me how well the monsters fair.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Skullkeeper wrote:

Bounded accuracy works well for combat but not for skill checks. It's really about how much damage you deal, not how often you hit. B.A. just makes the math easier and faster. I like that magic weapons/armor only go up to +3, and that +3 is a big bonus. I like that getting a +1 to hit from something is valuable, instead of in PF where you have to stack a bunch of features or items to stay competitive.

As previously mentioned, it can be hard to make an encounter balanced when there's a 5-10 point swing between different character's attack rolls and the progressive penalty to additional attacks. It's all extra rules that don't need to be there. It's just clutter.

One thing I dislike about 5e is the skills. If I'm proficient, then I should be able to reliably perform the task. The mechanics just don't support the concept. If I want to be effective at a skill, then I have to be a rogue or bard.

But on the PF side, I had a ranger of about 8th level that stacked everything and with a few good rolls, was hitting DC 30. It was fun, but all of a sudden, I needed to hit DC 30. It set the par too high. My GM was unimpressed with DC 20's because that was an easy roll. Maybe that's not fair but it happens all the time. I played a ranger recently in 5e and she hasn't succeeded once on a tracking track or nature check. She has a decent wisdom too.

So perhaps there's a middle ground where PCs can be good at something but not so good that it messes with the GM's ability to set up challenges. Ex. proficient +4, expert +8, master +12. I personally would like to see proficiency = Advantage (take the better or two rolls). Less math, more reliable results, and less book keeping. Attribute mod + 1d20 for unskilled or 2d20 for skilled.

I agree with this completely - I like the idea of player characters being mortals who, even when very powerful, can't stand down an entire army of determined kobolds but the way that 5e handles skills feels very passive and unsatisfying. For verisimilitude/RP reasons it also makes sense why a pudgy old man is king and not the PCs. Because he has an army, and they don't.


the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Filthy Lucre wrote:
One way to alleviate this problem is for lower level threats to still actually be threats.

I couldn't disagree more.

If a serious threat at 1st level isn't a flyspeck on your metaphorical windshield by 10th, you end up with 20 levels of E6, and that's losing the distinct feel of three-quarters of the level progression.

So, if I want to create an encounter where my group of 5 level 5 characters need to fight a small raiding party of elite orc raiders... how do I create the encounter so that it's balanced and each of the orcs constitutes a threat without making them wildly below or wildly above the parties capabilities?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

If we can have challenging combat encounters that handle groups, as well as solo creatures, that are dynamic and engaging I don't care how we get there - bounced accuracy just seems like the most obvious way.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

My favorite part of 3.x/Pathfinder is combat. My group really enjoys tactical, interesting, dynamic combat as much as they enjoy exploring and social interaction. It's for this reason that I hope at least some degree of bounded accuracy makes it's way into PF 2nd Ed for the following reasons:

I've played 3.5 for more than a decade now and one of the most annoying problems in encounter creation is creating encounters that are not completely lopsided one way or the other. Too often it seems that PCs completely blow out, or are themselves blown out, by a single monster. Solo creature encounters have always been very difficult to create as well as encounters that feature larger numbers of monsters. One way to alleviate this problem is for lower level threats to still actually be threats. Bounded accuracy accomplishes this beautifully and it's probably the single best thing about 5e Dungeons and Dragons. While 5e is painfully bland and not very crunchy, this is at least one area where I hope the Pathfinder devs are paying attention.

I'm SO hyped for Pathfinder 2nd Edition - I just hope they've taken a hard look at the way combat shakes out so that it's easier to create engaging, challenging, and most importantly fun encounters for our players.


Gallant Armor wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

We're presuming this is a full time crafter/shopkeeper, I think.

And isn't it technically a 100% profit margin if I craft something for 1000gp and sell it for 2000gp?

(Of course, overheads for a theft-proof magic shop are probably pretty high.)

Profit margin = (income-costs)/income

So if I make/buy an item for 1000 gp and sell it in my shop for 2000 gp:
(2000-1000)/2000=50%

PCs sell items for half their value. So if you craft it for .5(x) and then sell it for .5(x) where x = the market price of the item then your profit margin is 0. You break even.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shinigami02 wrote:
Why would you want a system that promotes resting more? Players resting too quickly is already one of the bigger complaints people have, since it takes away the most common balancing force against casters (limited spell slots.)

I tend to run a lot of dungeon crawls and time sensitive adventures - i give my players reasons they DON'T want to rest.


This change is 100% intended to force players to rest more - it's not meant to make the game smoother so much as clunkier. Easy/Smooth =/= good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

5e introduced a change over the 3.x wands in that rather than 50 charges wands have a very small number of charges (1d6+1 per day, i believe) that refresh each day. What do pathfinder folks think of adapting this to Pathfinder over the 50-charges-and-then-it's-useless model?


quibblemuch wrote:
Filthy Lucre wrote:
I have surveyed the entire range of d20 literature in search of workable steampunk classes. Seriously - I've bought or read it all.
Does that include the Deadlands d20? Because the Mad Scientist class might work for what you're looking for. It might need some tweaking for Pathfinder (I think the d20 Deadlands edition was around the time of 3.0), but if memory serves, that's a good technologist class.

It does. So far the BEST system I've come across for bland/unflavored classes that fit well into a steampunk game has been d20 Modern. However the pathfinder version of that is hilariously inferior/messier than the original.


GM Rednal wrote:
Technician, especially with the Steampower Insight.

For me this won't work - it's just way too convoluted and doesn't rely enough on existing core pathfinder work - I'm trying to actually invent as little new mechanics as possible.


How would you implement Alchemist without access to infusions? Just completely remove them?


I'm going to be running a gritty steampunk campaign. Many of the pathfinder classes work perfectly with little to no mechanical or flavor tinkering. Fighter, Gunslinger, Unchained Rogue, and Barbarian, (or rather "noble savage"), require no mechanical or flavor reworking. Ranger using the skirmisher archetype functions perfectly as an explorer, gentleman or otherwise. Unchained Monks, with a few mechanical and flavor tweaks, become perfect strongman pugilists.

Where I stumble is in finding a class to occupy the slot of technologist, scientist, and physician. I have surveyed the entire range of d20 literature in search of workable steampunk classes. Seriously - I've bought or read it all. So I would like the boards to help me brainstorm simple, streamlined, and evocative classes to finish off my roster.

A few things to make clear: I do not want to reflavor vancian magic as steampunk gadgetry. I do not want to use a system outside d20, and even more specifically, Pathfinder. The reason for these two stipulations are twofold. Primarily, I've found all attempts to refluff vancian casting as gadgetry to just fall short and not really embody the idea of creating an enduring invention that, short of breaking, lasts forever. On the second system point, Pathfinder/d20 is the system I am most comfortable with and after 10+ years of role playing has provided the most balanced and satisfying combat.

As far as areas to begin, I AM happy to reskin item creation feats into "invention" feats - I think there is a lot of fertile ground there. However, the ability to craft steampunk (read: magic) items is not enough to build a class around. Does anyone have any suggestions?


Does it change or alter anyone's opinion to know there will be zero magic of any kind and the classes we will be using are from d20 Modern? A lot of your posts mention 3.x classes and magic spells, so I just wanted to point that out.


Hey All,

I'm a veteran of 3.5, (which is virtually identical to Pathfinder, don't care what any of you say), and I'm about to run a steampunk campaign using d20 Modern classes and Pathfinder rules.

I actually prefer 5e because the combats are so much more balanced but it isn't a system that supports the crunchy, gritty kind of game I want to run. From my extensive time as a DM running 3.x games I remember that fights tend to be *extremely* one sided one-way-or-the-other, especially at higher levels, and I really want to avoid that. What have you other DMs done to ensure that combat is not a boring slog or so one sided as to be anti-climactic.

I've been playing around with the idea of using armor as DR, (light 3/-, medium 5/-, and heavy 7/-), so that low level enemies can still ping characters who are meaningfully higher than their CR.

What do you all think of this and what solutions have you implemented in your own games?

(Context: I remember playing in the Age of Worms with two other guys and literately wading through a small army of lizardfolk as a barbarian and was essentially untouchable... I want to avoid that kind of scenario. 20+ of any monster, no matter how lowly, really ought to be able to overcome 4 PCs).

Thanks in advance.