Garretmander's page

1,076 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,076 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

ParaheliZ wrote:

In Alien Archive 3, one of the new 'starmetal' dragons is called the Noqual Dragon, with an aura effect that suppresses magic using a caster check. According to the book:

AA3 p23 wrote:
The DC of this check is determined by the noqual dragon's spell resistance

However, earlier, the page mentions:

AA3 p23 wrote:
If a starmetal dragon's CR is 11 or higher, it has the crush universal creature rule (see page 151) and spell resistance equal to 11 + its CR.

So, Noqual Dragons that are under CR 10 don't have spell resistance. The rules don't have an explicit CR limitation on the dampening field aura, and the other starmetal dragons' auras function from wyrmling age onward.

Should Noqual Dragons under CR 10 just be assumed to not have this aura? Or should the implied scale of spell resistance for dragons be applied to determine the DC (with it being basically 11 + CR), even when the dragon doesn't actually have spell resistance?

I think, technically, it would still force the check, but the DC would be zero. You can only fail on a natural one.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Deriven Firelion wrote:

I think every caster except the wizard is balanced pretty well. Wizard is weak. Nearly every other class is very solid. Originally I thought the Champion was a little weak, but I was very wrong. In play the Champion is very powerful. The only class I've found to be lacking in quality options and interesting play as well as slightly inferior powers is the wizard. The only thing they have going for them is spell versatility. Which doesn't do a whole lot given they have the same number of slots and use the same spells as most of the other classes. You can't change out spells mid-combat, so you don't stand out as a wizard.

My bard and my other players alchemist and cleric do very well. They provide interesting and useful play options that have really stood out as useful in the game. Only the wizard has seemed incredibly underwhelming for a variety of reasons. I hope they do something to boost the wizard at bit to make them on par with the other classes. It's the only class that feels like the rogue or fighter in PF1. There is no reason to play one save for personal preference.

Wizards with spell blending and the right feats can have something like double the number of max and near max spell slots that other casters get. They also have the list that can easily target all three saves. Wizards look boring when theorycrafting, I suspect actual play may be very different.

Matt2VK wrote:

Wondered about that.

That's kind of how I'm reading it too. Just that everything I can find says you can't stack but that's commenting on people trying to stack DR from two different sources.

That's more about, you have the enhanced resistance DR/- feat, and an armor upgrade that also gives you DR/-. You only take the highest DR/- instead of adding them, unless it says otherwise.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
But can your little monkey friend reload your crossbow while you are holding/wielding it or do one or both of you need to use your actions to hand the cross bow back and forth?

As silly as it is for your monkey friend to reload your crossbow for you... is it even a good idea?

You still have to command a minion, and now you're stuck in place wherever you start shooting unless you want to leave your familiar behind. You can only make two action activities (to be fair, that's a lot of ranger attacks).

So, you spent class feats on a familar, and are stuck in place... all for +1-4 avg damage?

Let the monkey reload the heavy crossbow, it's still a bad choice compared to the regular crossbow.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Donovan Du Bois wrote:

That's at level 2, all casters except sorcerers only get two 1st level spells at level 1.

Wizards get 2 + 1 school spell + drain bonded item at level 1. That's double other casters, and one more than the sorcerer. Plus like the others they possibly have a decent focus spell available. Universalists are behind until level 3 when they start getting additional uses of drain bonded item.

Honestly, that's where I put the wizard's 'niche'. They have the most spells, from the most versatile spell list. Half of their feats are about getting even more spells, and the other half are about making those spells better.

Combine that with spell blending and you have the caster with the absolute most high level slots available. Combine it with spell substitution and you have the caster who can get several castings of just the right spell with a ten minute break.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
If you want to play in a game where rarity doesn't exist, tell your GM that you want to ignore it. If your GM says no, then you were always going to be playing "mother may I" because your GM has different views than you. Now there's a language to use for it.

Exactly, if you're used to playing with a permissive GM who just allows anything and everything, why would you expect that same GM to suddenly avoid giving out uncommon items like the plague?

That hypothetical GM probably says something like: 'Ignore the uncommon tag, ask me if you want a rare item.'

For the other GM, who doesn't want to see pact wizards, blood money and the original juju oracle show up at their table, the rarity system is great. Now they don't have to read every character sheet at every level up, they don't have to ban entire books to avoid arguments about an archetype. They don't have to say 'Core only without approval', they just have to say 'common only without approval'.

I'd think that actually lowers the amount of 'mother may I' when playing with that sort of GM.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
I think the fact that Witches must seek out and expand their spell repertoire really feeds into this notion that I have that they should be analogous to Wizards. If Witches truly receive all their power from a Patron, they should get the full spell list like Clerics.

Personally, I was thinking they would get the whole list right off the bat. With patrons granting specific hexes, focus spells, familiar abilities, and spells added to the occult list.

I don't have anything backing that up, but that's what I was assuming.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Cant open the book right now but could you use doubling rings to auto enchant a bunch of preloaded crossbow as you pick them up? Not sure on the wording but you could have an appropriately levelled gauntlet with a doubling ring.

Only melee weapons sadly.

Corsair17 wrote:
Thanks, I am not planning on GMing anytime soon. Too much to learn still. Is this is good one to consider first or second for a player?

All the alien archives have quite a few playable races and a small amount of equipment.

But for player facing rules, the armory would be the first to add to your collection, followed by the (upcoming) character operations manual, then possibly pact worlds for basic setting info and such.

prileska wrote:

Ah, well that's pretty lame, Blave. I thought the weapon size rules carried over, shouldn't have assumed that. That's pretty much the idea I had in mind, though - be a big threat, block off choke points, etc. The whole allure to the Raging Giant Paladin was the enlarged weapon damage die, and the reach, combined with power attack. The extra HP from Barb resiliency was an idea to offset the lower AC.

So, it is still doable, but Kyrone's recommendation is going a caster route dedication instead of Barb, for enlarge person and shield spell; whereas K1 is suggesting a better option would be sword and board.

Alternatively be a barbarian and then MC champion instead. Pick up the champion's reaction and maybe healing touch. It looks like most of your low level feats are being spent on barbarian feats anyway, so why not just be a barbarian?

Orville Redenbacher wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:
A low-magic version of PF was always possible, and "viable". All this talk about having to have certain magic items in order to remain "competent" was misguided.
How so?

Adjusting encounters, trimming out monsters that require certain spells to deal with their after effects, or at least greatly increasing their CR.

Throwing CR=APL encounters at underequipped players instead of multiple CR+3 or 5 enemies, etc.

Way more work to do in PF1 than PF2 though.

Squiggit wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Letting Wizards excel at melee combat is a very slippery slope to the PF1 situation of the Wizard being the ultimate class.

I mean, there's a lot of grey area between "ultimate class best at everything" and "if you invest a lot of resources into something you can actually make it work pretty well." It feels almost insulting to pretend like one must naturally lead to the other.

Like, yeah sure, we can vaguely talk about hypothetical super OP wizards who fulfill all roles simultaneously, but that's not the reality and not what anyone's ever suggested. The reality is that a wizard can throw a significant amount of investment in terms of ability scores and feats into being better with weapons only to end up maybe slightly better off and possibly even worse off than if they had just stuck to cantrips.

Just to be clear, our heavy armor and longsword wizard is eight feats (three general, five class) and fourteen levels in just to get expert in both and is investing in strength beyond what a traditional wizard would too (which means less of something else). This doesn't even get them any special abilities related to their armor and weapons mind you, this is just proficiency (plus some extra skill training from dedication feats). Is that not enough of a buy in to make something work in your opinion?

I thought it was just the five class feats (three and one ancestry with multitalented), and no general feats? With the alternate of two class feats, two ancestry feats and a general feat if your ideal weapon happens to be a racial weapon matching your ancestry.

Still an excessive cost to focus on both. Focusing on weapons or armor seems much more palatable.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another thing that's different in this edition, melee range spells don't necessarily require an attack roll.

WatersLethe wrote:
Genocidal Jester wrote:

Begins preparing spells.

*Gets half way through the process*

This is too much work! All the rest are going to be fireballs! X'D

I sincerely want to see a wizard character roll up with fireballs in every slot.

And with the spell blending thesis you can even turn your level 1 and 2 slots into fireballs! (the pesky leftover level 2 slot can be turned into two cantrips)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
The Rot Grub wrote:
You can damage swarms with weapons.
You can also grapple, shove, and trip them.

And crit them. Which is hilarious to describe as a GM when they are crit and killed with a bite attack.

Metaphysician wrote:

I would be leery about "best of its ability". While it is true that a Confused character should not deliberately whiff its attack against an ally, "to the best of its ability" has a *lot* of ceiling for being equally absurd. Should a character have to use its most damaging attack, a one-shot missile, at melee range? Or expend a sixth level spell slot nuking a low level mook?

Basically, I see two possible interpretations to use here. First option, is that the Confused character simply attacks with its "standard" attack. If they have a gun in hand, they shoot it, if they have a sword, they stab, etc. They don't typically/ever use limited resource attacks, anymore than they would unthinkingly use such at random normally. Second option, they practice their normal tactical sensibilities, just with a particular chosen target. So, melee range targets get melee attacks preferentially and not area attacks; limited use attacks are only used against powerful foes; etc. The character fights as intelligently as they normally would, just against a designated "foe".

There's a lot of judgment needing to be exercised here.

A level 20 mindbreaker mystic who doesn't bother carrying a pistol, should probably use mind thrust or similar when confused instead of a cantrip, but they aren't necessarily locking into their sixth level version if they as a character would be saving such a spell for later anyway.

823 wrote:
Any update or official ruling on this?

Nope, but worse case this:

draconomicon wrote:
In other words, you only get ammo back if you miss every target.

best case this:

ravingdork wrote:
Seems to me if I miss even a single target, I qualify for the fusion's effect, which is "your charge or ammunition is not consumed, as though the weapon had never been fired."

More likely depends on your GM's interpretation of the rule.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Dumping WIS entirely for a warpriest is iffy. Keeping it at 14-16 is possibly a better use of ability boosts than getting it to 18, and that sounds about right.

Samurai wrote:
Sorry to tout the competition, but this may be one of the things that D&D 5E did well (maybe better?) A Wizard can prepare a number of spells equal to his level + Int mod. How powerful they are is determined by the slot used when castrating it. So, if you choose to prepare Magic Missile, you can use it with any slot you have available. This gives casters more flexibility, but they are still limited to using the spell slots they have. The spells he chooses to prepare can be of any levels he has slots for. If he chooses to prepare all higher level spells, he'll only get to use those high levels slots and then be out of juice, so it's wiser to prepare at least some lower level spells that can be heightened if needed, but still used at lower level slots if those are the only slots he has left.

5e's system is... decent, but they also went with the whole concentration aspect, which is a huge limiter on the 'versatility' of 5e's spellcasting classes. On top of the standout too good spells, invisibility, tiny hut, aid, etc.

I enjoy the concept of 5e's system, but as written it would work very poorly with PF2's system, they seem to have taken backwards approaches to spellcasting.

thecursor wrote:
Actually since the Shobhads and Kasatha are created from Wytchwyrds, I imagine they have the same mouths.

The shobhads were, but based on iron gods backstory I didn't get the impression the kasatha were.

I'd still think you'd need to catch up at least once a day to stay on the trail.

You can follow them through teleports and plane shifts, I'd assume you'd also need planar travel or teleport to keep up, not just faff about for a few weeks looking for a portal then pick the trail up again. Thematically, I suppose having a day or two without getting into range again should be possible, but it's a neat mechanical separation between 'I'm still tracking this one dude' and 'I'm giving up on the supernatural methods I employ, I'll have to find them again the old fashioned way.

The first doesn't make a whole lot of sense though.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
WagnerSika wrote:
Paradozen wrote:
The Azlanti empire did a lot of work on the magical properties of Aeon Stones, so likely any Azlanti seen with gems growing from their body had Aeon Stones implanted in them.
Why are they now called Aeon Stones and do they have something to do with Aeons?

Probably to distinguish themselves from their D&D roots.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

I guess they still haven't figured out how to regenerate lost body parts without a spell that almost nobody has access to . . . .

If you're going to spend a few tens of thousands of Cr on a replacement hand, are you going to grow your old hand back, or are you gonna replace it with a robot hand with an integrated shout projector cannon?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atalius wrote:
puksone wrote:
Mellored wrote:
Greatpick is the best weapon to crit with. Barb can use one.
I think it is only worth using when you play a fighter.
Why is that? Ya Fighter is more accurate but aren't Barbarians more built for 2 handers?

Picks are worse weapons if you aren't getting crits, and fighters are the best at getting crits.

Ravingdork wrote:
Did she teleport out of the ship??? I thought you couldn't teleport from a moving vessel.

I'm pretty sure it's that you can't teleport to a moving vessel.

Natsil wrote:
Entropic strike focus on EAC not KAC

Entropic strike does less damage, just like any weapon targeting EAC instead of KAC.

Natsil wrote:

Entropic strike have Operative AND Block

Entropic strike do Blunt or Corrosive dmg as you wish

Solarian weapons can get a variety of weapon special properties and damage types from solarian crystals.

It's been a while since I've read the playtest, but I don't believe the vanguard gets anything similar.

Plasma Sheathe can also change a solarian weapon's damage type to fire, with half level in bonus damage to boot in solar mode.

Eh, if I saw it as a problem I'd just houserule it down to a d6 and call it a day. I'm kind of expecting that change as errata honestly.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:

To be clear, at higher level lots of average hits will outright permanently destroy a shield. However, less than average hits, which you will know the total of, will often simply break the shield.

In those cases you're trading the +2 shield ac bonus with the raise the shield action for the rest of the fight for a frankly pitiful amount of DR against one attack. Better than the full cost of the shield, but still only useful in rare circumstances.

I certainly wouldn't bother thinking about shield blocking after a while if I wasn't using a sturdy shield, and I think that's a problem.

What gets me is the whole "Ah this attack will definitely knock me out of the fight, but my shield may get destroyed if I block and they can heal me back up later... eh, better just eat the damage."

For me, a simple rule where a shield cannot be destroyed from full HP in a single hit helps A LOT.

Or just changing 'sturdy' to a rune you can apply to any shield.

WatersLethe wrote:
Well, use them if you loot them and happen to by carrying a missile launcher!

I'd think in most situations if you loot a missile, you also loot a launcher, but I suppose it's not always.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
It is kinda weird trend I've noticed, lots of people want to think about magic in sciencey way because "If magic was real, there would be science to research it!", but on otherhand, magic is kinda defined by it not being science and it being contradictory or nonsensical at times

Personally I like magic systems where it can be completely defined by scientific methods and the like.

Until you move on to the next guy who has a different understanding of magic, it works different for him.

Your magic is still perfectly consistent with your experiments, no one else's fits your models.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fumarole wrote:
DRD1812 wrote:
Aside from "let them die," how do you help them discover the concept of tactics and marching order?
Failure is an integral part of learning.

At the same time, if they ask for advice, I'll say: well, here's three or four things you could do this turn, do any of them sound like something your character wants to do?

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Helmic wrote:

PF2 I would say is less complex but has more depth than PF1. The rules are much more unified, you're not dedicated headspace to a grappling flowchart anymore nor are you tracking BAB or asking your GM for help figuring out how to multiclass. The rules complexity has undeniably been dialed back, and the end result is a game that you can actually wrap your head around.

But the actual depth of the system seems to have expanded significantly. The 3 action system combined with a host of action-oriented feats and spells has created immense tactical variety. The prevalance of full attacks and generally applicable spells in PF1 meant most turns resembled one another, without even the dimension of positioning mattering much because no one would move unless they absolutely had to. PF2 meanwhile has feats that can purchase actions that can combo into other actions. MAP and the two-action nature of most spells means there's usually a choice every turn where you do something of actual tactical significance, at least repositioning, swapping out weapons, making intimidation checks, what have you. And not making use of these new tactics will utterly crsh a party.

And because there's all this depth in play, there's some amount of depth in chargen. Feat chains are largely gone, instead offering mostly a la carte tactical options rather than straight upgrades to numbers. The number of arguably optimal builds therefore has increased significantly, almost to the point where you have to be sandbagging to create a character that is objectively suboptimal. Chargen is easier overall to understand, sure, but there's far more numerous optimal playstyles and fewer cookie-cutters that aren't sandbagging just to be different.

For those familiar with collectible card games, I'd say PF1's metagame would be like a CCG meta dominated by netdecks that are largely easy to pilot. You could certainly build your own character/deck and there's a huge amount of system mastery that can go into that deck/character building, but...

More and more, I've started to consider PF1 characters to be wind up toys you set down and unleash in battle. How well you built the thing determines how well it does.

A PF2 character is something you need to actually play in combat, rather than only play outside combat during roleplay and the like.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Castilliano wrote:

APs are tough, at least when compared to modules in my experience.

Rise of the Runelords had several encounters famous for TPKs, so even introductions can be rough. And many of those encounters became beloved, so that's notable.

Oddly, in PF1 my experience was the exact opposite, modules tended to end in a TPK 9/10 times and APs only did... once, and that involved multiple shocker lizards at level 2. Could have been my groups' choice of modules though.

I'll contribute to the rest, tactics matter more than build. Build still matters, but tactics are vastly more important to character survival.

You can't just consult a guide and create a windup toy that shreds adventures anymore, you have to do the thinking and tactics and strategy.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
However when you face CR+1 creatures (Warg, Giant Bat) things can go south very fast, at least at level 1. Those mobs usually have enough to-hit and damage to conduct a good old one-two punch and down any non-fighter/champion character very easy.
Sure. But those are also meant to be boss fights. How many bosses are you facing in one adventuring day?
Well, at least two apparently... ;)

Potentially four in that particular adventure...

Assurance (athletics) is primarily for combat maneuvering lower level enemies, not your level and higher.

Temperans wrote:

Regarding moving.

Golarians did get a faster, PF2 is slower only when taking a single action, but the trade off is more granularity in how a round is spent.

Comparing unarmored speed for a human in both editions has PF1 taking 60ft, while PF2 takes 75 ft.
Applying armor penalty (-10 ft) makes PF1 take 40ft, while PF2 takes 45ft.
Difficult terrain halves speed in both edition PF1 takes 30ft (6 squares), while PF2 takes 35ft (7 squares).

Elves hit the motion jackpot going from a full round base speed of 70ft for 1 type, to base 90ft for everyone; A full 30ft faster than PF1 before applying other speed boosts.

PF1 was 120ft with the run action.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:

Considering you are not at the high end (tank) or low end (early casters) of your levels AC range a typical mob (+7) will hit an average player (AC18 for 1st level) with an 11+ and 16+ on the first and second attack. That is a pretty high chance of at least hitting one attack per round and still a decent chance to hit 2. And keep in mind that those values are for mobs on or below your level. If you up the ante and take a better mob things look even worse as the first two attacks are even more likely to connect and a third attack might still be feasable.

For example we fought a Warg, and while I am well aware that a CR2 monster is a severe thread to level 1 chars, at +11 to hit and 1d8+4 damage per attack the monster one-shotted nearly one character each round, while all it needed to do so were some slightly above average to-hit and damage rolls (7+ and 12+ on the attacks with 8 to 9 damage each and 17+ on the first roll will probably crit already).

But even if you disregard stronger opponents it looks like regular enemies will always be able to hit you on 11+ with their first attacks (due to auto-scaling) which is way better than any regular enemy could have hoped for in 1E.

I believe this is the point.

A level 1 creature is the equal of a level 1 character. They have about a 50% chance of hitting you and you have about a 50% chance of hitting them with the first attack. They have about as much health, and they hit just as hard. At higher levels NPC wealth is no longer really a thing, they will continue to be equal in combat, if not better.

I'm not sure the gamemastery section of the core rulebook really emphasizes this enough. Two or three on level creatures can be very dangerous. Unlike PF1 where you could throw many CR+1-2 creatures at a party and expect the PC to triumph, in PF2 you should throw level -1 or -2 creatures at a party.

But, I didn't see any sort of huge HP swings. In the first session I ran for age of ashes, my players made a series of bad decisions and fought two CR2s, and two CR1s, they won and no one went down, mostly because action economy (there were essentially six of them), kiting, pulling well out of combat once they went down to single digits, use of terrain, etc. That group had zero in combat healing.

Sounds like 5' total, normal melee range. If you were using a reach weapon, you would add 5' to the armor's reach of 5'.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DandelionDalek wrote:
The book says that at first level the mystic knows 4 spells of level 0 and 2 spells of level 1. The connection also says that you know a specific spell of level 1. Is the connection spell IN ADDITION to the 6 other known spells, or is this meaning that 1 of the level 1 spells the mystic knows is THAT SPECIFIC connection spell?

It is in addition to the others.

SuperBidi wrote:

I really hate deity's favored weapons. As soon as you give bonuses to them, all Warpriests become Cleric of the same deity (or a bunch of them).

Ideally there are many interesting weapons available among deities because the weapons should be balanced. There shouldn't ever be a flickmace deity and the cleric's simple weapon damage dice increase (feat? I don't remember) would keep the others relevant, but I get your point.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Velisruna wrote:

First their doctrine is weirdly mostly defensive, largely improving their proficiency with fortitude saves and armor with their earlier expert proficiency in weapons being the only offensive benefit over cloistered.

I feel like Paizo kind of wrote themselves into a corner with proficiency. They can't give a full caster the same weapon proficiency as a full martial (i.e. Master) but then you end up in this weird position where the "warpriest" archetype ostensibly focused around martial combat is only actually better at swinging a weapon from levels 7-10.

In general I feel like with how important accuracy is this edition, making that the primary way to differentiate tiers of martial combat might have been a mistake.

I really feel like the warpriest should have gotten master proficiency in their deity's weapon at some point. Being behind in armor should be penalizing enough right?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Megistone wrote:
Penthau wrote:

I like the way that Mutants and Masterminds handles complications. They don't give any abilities in return for the flaw. You can take all you want. When the complication causes issues for the character in the game, you get the equivalent of a hero point. If your feeble Aunt June never gets kidnapped, you get nothing.

They explained that allowing people to front load complications with character advantages just gets them avoided or ignored. By having the complication arise during play to give an in game advantage means that if you want the resource, you have to play the complication. Great design move, IMO.

This is so elegant!

You take arachnophobia, so that your character is frightened 2 whenever they are aware of a spider within 30ft of them.
But as long as they have this condition, they also get a boon: a free hero point to spend, or something else.
Cool, appropriate, hard to exploit.

So... my spider in a box has total cover so I'm not 'aware' of them. I'll just open that box when I need the boon.

I'm joking, but I prefer no mechanical benefit whatsoever for 'flaws'. I also prefer flaws to be RP based and not mechanics based.

First World Bard wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

I am not sure what other single action spells that aren't compositions logistically exist, but it could be possible.

One action Magic Missile (on list), comes to mind.

There's also 1 action Heal, though that's off-list.

Pick it and feather fall up with a primal sorcerer MC, plus guidance which is on list.

Natsil wrote:

The Solarian's weapon is only damaging.

He wears light armor and has less HP than the Vanguard. And count on 4 Stats to be good. (Str, Dex, Con, Cha)

A lot of solarians with solar weapons grab the heavy armor proficiency feat, letting them mostly ignore dex.

I don't think there's an answer to that question.

Probably not, because stacking tends to be avoided.

Maybe yes, because none of these are actually bonuses, and none of the rules mention stacking at all.

Xenobiologist wrote:

Are biotech augmentations equally worthwhile?

Also, why does duplicating a cybernetic effect with a biotech augmentation cost 10% more and require an additional item? What's the mechanical advantage between cyber and bio versios of XYZ?

They're not vulnerable to the various mechanic tricks and spells that affect technology. I dunno if that justifies a 10% price increase, but it's something.

Donovan Du Bois wrote:
Garretmander wrote:
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
painted_green wrote:
This is not a workable solution. Other senses are not equivalent to sight, and just putting them on the same level whenever sight is not available diminishes the struggles of actual blind people.
Do you want to be a hero fighting darkness in a fantasy world or do you want a realistic depiction of the struggles of disabled people, because you can't have both.
I find an archetype that leans into alternate methods of finding and targeting opponents during a fight regardless of class appropriate to both.
That would involve comparing other senses to sight or make them supernatural in some way. This would be "diminishing the struggles of actual blind people." as I understand his argument.

That's why I was thinking a mechanical cost (class feats) to being blind, but still effective as an adventurer. You are the old man on top of the mountain/daredevil/specific flavor of your choice.

Cyouni wrote:

I thought you were going to say it was tenuous.

For anyone also planning on running 2e Hell's Rebels, I've found my major difficulty thus far is converting monsters, and finding interesting yet thematic abilities for them.

I haven't done a lot of converting yet, but on first glance I thought it would be the thematic abilities that would be the easiest to convert?

kaid wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
I think accuracy enhancers (higher weapon training, avoiding MAP) are really not to be underestimated.
+4 to attack is almost halfway to a crit in comparison and given now nasty crits can be thats a pretty enormous advantage. I think until people play it more and really understand how much more powerful the + to hit really are damage wise it will be undervalued.

At level 1, as a non-fighter, vs. a typical level 1 creature, flatfooted is the difference between a PF1 style 20/x2 crit and a 18-20/x2 crit, just by applying the flat footed condition.

+to attacks are very good.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The preference of how much is half when making a half & half race is always going to be subjective, writer, artist, player, etc.

Personally, I like to see as many different interpretations as possible.

1 to 50 of 1,076 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>