Finger Button's page

I've seen many posts on this and I wonder if I am the only GM that let the PCs ride animals without making those checks? It seems ridiculous to me that every six seconds each PC would need to handle and command the animal to continue moving.

My group was given trained mounts to ride. They rode them until there was a battle. The PCs would have needed to use Handle Animal and Command Animal at that point to use them in combat. They opted to dismount and engage on foot.

One of the things I’m enjoying about the direction the new edition is going is a focus on interesting skill feat options. I won’t speculate on ones that haven’t come up for my group yet. Maybe we will come across those in future gameplay and I will get to speak on those from experience. During my character creation attempts, I was pretty underwhelmed by the options available to me. Of course, this only mattered if I tried to make a human character or a rogue. I’m guessing many people are selecting humans to try out new feats.

I say they are underwhelming because they just don’t sound interesting. Many of them are worded in ways that mean you get a +1 bonus to something. I’m speaking of feats that give +1 to initiative or gain expert proficiency in ‘X’. Myself, and my new players, were reading through and nothing really jumps out. Other feats give access to new abilities, a step up from a bland +1. But the description is so mechanical that it gives everything a feel of reading a technical manual.

Take Hobnobber for example, a few a couple of my players had. You can Gather Information more times per day. Okay… but why? This feat is missing a small descriptor in the beginning, such as Intimidating Glare, and I had to make something up here to try and explain what this means to my players. One of my new players just read the title and thought he could sell things for more silver in town because he had the feat. Looking at Intimidating Glare, it actually says what is trying to go on. However, it is followed by four lines of crunch that basically say to remove a trait, add a trait, and don’t take a penalty if they don’t understand your language.

With the primary focus on so much crunch, the way these feats are presented remind me of the criticisms I, and many others, have of D&D 4E. The style lacks flavor that I’m looking for when I run a game. It makes running the game more of a chore and not as fun.

During the game, the rogue in my group selected the Battle Medic feat. At level 1, he felt there weren’t many viable options for him. The paladin also asked about it earlier on when he was creating his character. I became concerned for the PCs after reading up on it. The starting DC for any benefit makes it dangerous in the hands of a first level PC. Even if he had an 18 Wisdom, he would be just as likely to harm himself by critically failing, than actually healing himself. He did not have an 18 Wisdom though, and was therefore more likely to hurt himself than heal himself. This then became dead weight on his character sheet. Looking at the DC chart, this is equivalent of a severe DC for level 4 characters. When this actually becomes a reliable check, the amount healed will be so trivial that it makes it nearly worthless.

The questions and feedback above came out as a result of running The Lost Star adventure.
GM Playtest Post: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs428mg?The-Lost-Star-Playtest-Notes-by-MrCoffeeC up

Yeah, i interpreted it with the following critera:

...

I extrapolate all this from a DC 15 athletics check. I might be accused of being a little too realistic, but hey, at least when you accomplish something at my table, you really accomplish it.

Sounds like a good interpretation. I think I put the fire too close to the water, but we'll see if it even matters. Part of me is thinking my party is either going to start firing their bows from across the river and it will turn into a shoot out or they will bypass it altogether.

I agree with many of your points. Of your list, my biggest concerns are:
- Use of signature skills. I think the mechanic isn't necessary and should just go.
- Class feats and character concepts. My group didn't look favorably on the choice limitations within the classes. One example being the variance of skill proficiency limits by class.
- Ancestry builds. I prefer some choice being granted at level one, but make choices meaningful and applicable from level one forward.
- Oddly enough, resonance hasn't really come up as an issue yet. Conceptually, I think a different solution should be used, but I have no test data to back it up.

Thanks for pointing me to the errata. I agree with marshmallow about needing an errata for something like this in the first place.

Some players in my playtest group feel that the removal of certain Racial Features that existed in PF1E, such as the Halfling’s bonuses to Stealth, mean that we no longer have the problem where “Humans are the masters of the world, but no Human will never be as good as as a Halfling at sneaking around, so why bother being anything but a Halfling if you’re going to play a Rogue.” One of the key issues in PF1E is that certain races are just inherently better than Humans at doing certain Class-based tasks. Despite the fact that Humans are supposed to be the most adaptable, most skilled, and most populous, these inherent racial bonuses lead to explosions of Halfling Rogues, Elf Wizards, Half-Orc Fighters, and so on. Combined with the inherent racial attribute bonuses, there’s almost literally no reason to play a Human (other than roleplaying potential) in 1E, or, indeed, most D20 games. I enjoy this benefit of the system, preferring abilities that open up new options or aspects of the game such as the Dwarf's Boulder Roll or the Gnome's Animal Accomplice.

However, to me, growing into an ancestry over time doesn't feel right. This contributes to a feeling that level one characters are just more bland now than they were in PF1E and earlier levels are not as enjoyable to play. I much preferred PF1E's system of alternative racial traits from the APG / ARG. I don't believe all members of a particular ancestry are alike, and there should be options as a result, but those options should be granted from character creation.

The questions and feedback above came out as a result of running The Lost Star adventure.
GM Playtest Post: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs428mg?The-Lost-Star-Playtest-Notes-by-MrCoffeeC up

Un-gripping is not an action; it's only re-gripping that costs an action.

I've been looking for more information on this and the only places I have seen this described in the book are under the description of Hands (p.184) and Method of Use (p.345). Both describe using an Interact action to "change your grip," irrespective of releasing your grip or re-gripping. Oddly enough, the Interact action doesn't mention changing your grip in the description at all.

I interpret this the same way as the OP.

My players were also unhappy with having to spend an action to get any shield benefit.

I haven't run In Pale Mountain's Shadow yet, but I am preparing it. I find making maps beforehand online to be much easier than if I were to do this in person. In person, it would all be on the fly which takes up valuable play time.

Some of the maps were very easy for me. The Ankhrav one only took me 10 minutes. However, the Gnoll camp took me 30 minutes and it could all be wasted if they bypass it.

I like the idea of not providing pictures, but the descriptions need to be spot on. The Gnoll camp map description was very confusing to me.