Ghilteras's page

The AP says that players can earn the favor of certain characters in the city of Otari by completing side quests and where the side quest is not available they can just gain favor by Making Impression using Diplomacy. How does it work? Some of them start Indifferent or even Unfriendly.

How do you move them all the way to Friendly or Helpful?

When do you actually get the discount?

Make an impression is temporary, is this an exception?

Do they just need to roll once or do they need multiple rolls? If so what's the cadence? Like one roll per day?

Thanks

Hi, I'm running Agents of Eastwatch and I noticed some NPCs have weird super-specific career names like Evoker (Marin Porphyry) or Zookeper (Remy) and I cannot find their stat blocks anywhere in the GMG or Bestiary. Why are we getting this specific career references instead of generic ones (like mage for hire or merchant)? How are GMs supposed to associate the right stat blocks with the NPCs provided by the GMG?

Hi, I'm running Agents of Eastwatch and I noticed some NPCs have weird super-specific career names like Evoker (Marin Porphyry) and I cannot find their stat blocks anywhere in the GMG or Bestiary. Why are we getting this specific career references instead of generic ones (like mage for hire in this specific example)? How are GMs supposed to associate the right stat blocks with the NPCs provided by the GMG?

Looks like the Errata came out but there is no patch for Cleave feat. The feat does not specify it contributes to Multi Attack Penalty like other feats that do similar things such as Flurry of Blows and Twinned Takedown. For those feats the description specifically says that they contribute to MAP, but in Cleave there is no mention of it. Everyone thought this was an oversight, but the Errata came out and it did not fix it so what do we do? By RAW Cleave is not affected by MAP, but by RAI it is because it's a reaction in your turn, not outside your turn and the feat says to make a Strike and Strike has the Attack tag which is affected by MAP.

I don't really like when things are left up to interpretation so can we have an official clarification about this and can we make this part of the Errata?

the "Noisy" armor trait says "This armor is loud and likely to alert others to your presence when you’re using the Avoid Notice exploration activity." Does it mean we cannot use the exploration activity or that we can but with the Check Penalty regardless of STR score? How about other stealth checks not part of Avoid Notice activity? We just apply the penalty regardless of STR? The words here are very unclear and could use a better wording..

- Initial Problem:
cheap items can be crafted/bought too easily (especially in PF Society) and spammed oversimplify out of combat healing.

- Initial Solution:
Resonance caps the usage of these consumables, but it forces players to play clerics or spend feats to get healing specs to recover between encounters otherwise the adventure day lasts 2 encounters.

Suggestion:
Why are we not using the Stamina/Resolve of Starfinder for this? I would also say 5e short rests, but I know that copying stuff from d&d is taboo and people go ballistic if I say 5e so let's stick with Starfinder.

In Starfinder you can heal out of combat to a degree without consuming consumables and without using spell slots or spell points. Why you guys put Resonance in place without the Stamina system? Of course without ANY capability of naturally recovering HP out of combat PCs are forced to get battle medic or natural healing feats or to get the cleric class to keep the adventure day longer. Is that fair? In modern RPGs people are going away from the concept of the holy triad dps/support/tank. You should let people play whatever they want and the system should provide balance to any party. If a party wants more healing in place of DPS or the other way around it's up to them, but the system should never punish parties that are without clerics, so why not use the stamina/resolve system from Starfinder to fix some of the problems introduced by Resonance?

I have been a GM for many years. In my mind when setting up the DC of a skill check I always think of baselines like 10 for easy 15 for normal and 20+ for hard adjusting on the situation and circumstances.

In Pathfinder I always had problems tailoring the right DC for high level characters because of their insanely high bonuses. The thing always bothered me. But at least that was only for their signature skills.

Then I played 5e and the slower pace progression made a bit more sense to me as I could just use static numbers for DCs and characters that were naturally better at doing things would success while untrained would naturally fail even at higher levels.

In PF2e I find that instead of solving the problem we had in the 1st edition you made it worse, as now everyone can sport a +1/lvl modifier to any skill so when getting to higher levels this completely breaks the game as these characters would succeed automatically at every normal/hard task regardless of the training they received. We all read the example of the untrained Barbarian with 7 CHA being better at performing than an expert Bard with 16 CHA just thanks to the levels. It makes no sense, but worse than this is the fact that you are forcing GMs to bump the DCs for high level characters.

That's the only solution I could find to give high level PCs a challenge. DCs constructed on the character and his level instead that based simply on the difficulty of the task. But this is an abomination to me and I refuse to do it. I cannot believe game designers produced such flawed rules so I'm clearly not seeing something that justify this weirdness. What the hell am I missing?

I don't like the fact that we have a Craft Magic Items catchall talents for anything that goes from crafting armor/weapons to rings to staves/wands to potions.

It feels we should have at least subcategories. Scrolls and Alchemist items already have their own, why not potions? Why not differentiate between armor/weapons to the rest of Wondrous items?

Let's take as an example a PC that wants to craft a minor potion of healing:

- Magic Item of lvl1, common, cost: 3gp
- Requirements: Craft Magic Items Feat, Formula, pay 1,5gp, at least Expert in Crafting, have Artisan Tools, at least 3 Downtime

What is the DC Crafting check? It's up to GM! This is especially bad, we should get guidance for this but I assume it's 14 (baseline for lvl1 magic item) + 1 (item quality is UNKNOWN, so +1? dunno) + 1 (item rarity is common, so +1? dunno), so what? 16? Let's try 16.

To beat the DC, let's assume INT +2 lvl3 char with Expert Crafting it's +6 right? So 10+ beats the DC? Am I correct?

Then the PC either pays the rest of 1,5gp or spends 4 more Downtime (4sp per day to make up for the other 1,5gp), correct?

A batch of 4 potions would require 6gp upfront and 3 base Downtime plus 15 Downtime to finish the batch, correct?

This example somehow makes sense to me (I would lover the DC by 2 for successive brews as if you nail it once it should be lower), but it's too convoluted and I don't like:
- CatchAll talent
- DC is not guided
- Item Quality is a mystery

I am surprised that the 2e playtest still sports all this convoluted way to calculate the final bonus/malus of a check:

Skill modifier = ability modifier + proficiency modifier + circumstance bonus + conditional bonus + item bonus +
circumstance penalty + conditional penalty + item penalty + untyped penalties

This is one the the things we really wished to go away from Patfhinder first edition. Too much time in a session is wasted to remember or address each and every single one of these. I'm not saying to oversimplify everything with ADV/DISADV like 5e, but we should definitely make this easier and more straightforward. This would appeal especially to new players.