HidaOWin's page

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber. Organized Play Member. 59 posts (60 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Lantern Lodge

15 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I know some people have noticed the smaller physiques in Pathfinder 2, but the Pathfinder Society brought in mandatory testing for a reason and if physiques are smaller now that pretty much paints a clear picture of what was going on behind the scenes with potions of Bulls Strength.

Lantern Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
QuidEst wrote:

I don’t think “crit on AC+9” is good for the game. It’s appreciably slower to check that. Not that it’s long, but hearing “I got a 25” now requires knowing if that’s from the dude with the war razor or not and adjusting crit-AC accordingly.

In general, weapon properties should only require work from the person using them. Have a different MAP from agile? You can write that down in your attack listing. Crit on AC+9? That puts work on the person hit since they’re the one checking against their AC.

I understand the argument but I can’t think of another way to do a weapon that delivers critical hits more often, crits on a roll of a 19 are probably mostly irrelevant but for secondary attacks and +1 to hit is overpowered. 9 higher than AC is also fairly similar math to 10 higher.

I do wonder if ACs should be public knowledge at the table, so when you are putting out your props you have a label for AC. I do wonder if it cuts down on some of the more pointless GM-Player back and forths.

“32 to hit!”
“Nope.”
“Wait you have +2 to hit from Bard Song”
“34 to hit!”
“Still a miss”
“Wait, +2 from the flank!”
“Sigh...thats a hit”

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Sajan has lost a lot of muscle mass, probably from becoming a dex based monk rather than a strength based one.
His hips are now identical girth to his upper chest which indicates he's a lot leaner even covered up. Traps looking much smaller as well, guess PFS put in mandatory drug testing.

Lantern Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
HidaOWin wrote:

War Razor

Uncommon simple melee weapon
1d4 S
Agile, finesse, deadly d8, dangerous

New quality: Dangerous: attacks with this weapon deliver a critical hit when it exceeds the targets AC by 9.

Hmm maybe strip out Agile and I think that ends up about right. Makes it a better weapon for a single accurate attack. I like the design space of some weapons really amping up on a crit, but being inferior on multiple attacks, particularly in the dagger space where they struggle to find uses despite being iconic.

War Razor
Uncommon simple melee weapon
1d4 S
Finesse, deadly d8, dangerous

New quality: Dangerous: attacks with this weapon deliver a critical hit when it exceeds the targets AC by 9.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

War Razor
Uncommon simple melee weapon
1d4 S
Agile, finesse, deadly d8, dangerous

New quality: Dangerous: attacks with this weapon deliver a critical hit when it exceeds the targets AC by 9.

Lantern Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I think a good Pathfinder 2 stream is a demanding setup from just a rig point of view. You want cameras on faces, camera/screen on a battlemat where its clear where characters are, you want some way to indicate conditions (possibly just condition cards, but something fancier would be nice)

It needs a fair amount of pre and post production. You want to bring across the tactical nature of the combat, without the whole thing dragging down, people not agonizing over decisions on their three actions in combat, just firing them off with perhaps a brief explanation of why they are doing it.

Pop up text on the screen of class abilities, spells and conditions would also be good.

That's all tough to organise

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
dirtypool wrote:


Then what was the point about pushing up your glasses and making sure we all knew that the success of 5E wasn't about it's design but about the fact that it appealed to a different type of player who watches games get played but doesn't play them?

Because I don't like 5Es design and I think attributing its success to its design rather than it reaching a new market through streaming is incorrect. I don't judge people for watching games being played, consume whatever media you want. 5E was better suited to being watched than a more tactical game so I thought that was the reason the streamers switched to it. Hearthstone put in a lot of LOLRandom cards because they streamed better and Battle Royale games do great as they also stream well.

Quote:
Then again what was the point of wading into this conversation which, ostensibly, was about the current playtest iteration's low barrier to entry compared with 5E's low barrier to entry with a dash of sales talk thrown in? No one was arguing that the PF2 should throw the baby out with the bathwater and become a 5E clone. You invented that notion whole cloth.

Because when you are discussing how great 5E is doing, the implication is PF2 should be more like 5E. People arguing for squashing the math to be more like 5E is a similar argument and the root of it is the concept that 5Es dominance is due to its superior design to all other RPGs which I think is bunk. I think it was the right game at the right moment, which is not lightning I'd try to recapture.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I enjoyed the Monk a lot in the playtest.
I actually try to play a Monk at least once in every iteration of D&D/Pathfinder and this was the first Monk that operated and felt unique from core content which I was really pleased by.
The highly mobile hard hitter concept was actually realised in the new three action economy and it felt good.
I also multiclassed rogue and it was handy, though my hopes are for some more tempting Class and Skill feats in the full second edition.

Lantern Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
dirtypool wrote:

I never said you hated the newbies, just that your language choices continually strive to make a clear distinction that THEY are separate from US.

I will be even clearer then. I don't consider the origin of RPG players relevant whatsoever. People can play whatever they want with whoever they want. I've never implied I have a problem with any type of RPG player because I don't.

Quote:


That's kind of funny since your argument has largely been that Pathfinder should avoid the pitfalls of hewing too far away from it's current state.

I'm a big fan of the current direction of the playtest and moving away from many of the current issues with Pathfinder. I literally just do not want the game to try and emulate 5Es decisions as I feel that's moving in the wrong direction.

Lantern Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Gorbacz wrote:

> be a fan of D&D/Pathfinder, the most conservative RPG game design in existence which, in 2019, continues to ignore 90% of advancements in RPG design that came in since 1978
> talk about advancing and improving design

Choose one.

I enjoy aspects of Pathfinder 1e's design even if its not my favourite RPG, which is why I was such a fan of the bold steps taken in the Playtest, a genuine effort is being made to balance and improve the game. I think that should be encouraged and a retreat back towards 5E is not how I'd go.

Lantern Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Obvious how to do it. Not nearly so obvious what the consequences are and how the balance changes.

It should be pretty safe to do this though, since everything with a proficiency modifier is opposed by something else with one (Attack vs. AC, Skill v. Skill DC, Spell DC vs. Saves, etc.).

So the only thing that will happen with slower progression is "a wider range of levels are appropriate threats" whereas with faster progression you would have a narrower range.

Like you could add 100,000,000xLevel and it would be fine provided you only fight antagonists of your own level (anything higher would kill you instantly, and anything lower would be no threat.)

Faster progression also gives you more ability to fine tune your opposition. If at Level 9 players are stomping Level 10 baddies, you can try level 11 and it's steadily 5% harder, similarly if they are struggling you can tune it down. Wasn't as true in PF1 where CR was much less predictable an indicator of threat so its good to have bad guys who are closer to the expected danger level.

Lantern Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Just for clarities sake as I've been accused of trying to gatekeep RPGs and hating newbies, I don't care a bit who plays what game, let anyone play any game they like.

What I don't want is for any game to cargo cult 5Es design decisions in the hope it'll lead to a vastly bigger audience because I don't think it will and I don't think 5E is a terribly good RPG. 5E was the right game at the right time, but then so was Settlers of Catan which helped launch the boardgame revolution which has thankfully steadily increased the quality of boardgames to the point that Settlers is a very mediocre game in comparison to more recent offerings.

Basically I don't want retrograde steps and copying the current big game only works if you can outdo the current big game in prominence. I'd also like RPG design to keep advancing and improving.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
HidaOWin wrote:
Then it caught on in streaming and exploded. Take away streaming and people would be asking about 6th ed right about now.
Who would ask? All the new people who came into the hobby and who really don't care what edition are they playing, how are the other editions, which one is superior, what are the merits of magic missile hitting automatically as an expression of Respect and Honour for True Traditions and Staying True by Real Fans as opposed to 4th ed's PHB magic missile requiring a roll to hit and thus NOT RESPECTING THE FEELINGS OF ACTUALLY TRUE FANS *cries, hyperventilates*

Without streaming making 5e super popular, they never would have done the books they are currently doing. Look at its release schedule, what other RPG in history has had its release schedule massively accelerate 3 years after release? Usually its front loaded or consistent.

Lantern Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

To take this back to scaling a little, the virtue of the +1 level system, means that an Ogre at 1st level is a dangerous threat, but at 7th you'll mill through a large number of them demonstrating your characters increasing power. This ties into the new critical hit system, where despite their substantial hit points, you'll reliably crit them making them faster to take down turning them into just big mooks.

Thats a virtue narrowly bounded accuracy misses out on and while some people find treadmilling "silly" it has advantages in the rules and provides valuable tangible rewards for leveling triggering that old dopamine hit.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

3rd edition D&D actually brought a ton of new gamers in and the d20 glut was a real force in early 2000s. Now that eventually crashed but Pathfinder dominated the late 2000s/early 2010s for a reason and that was appealing to that large demographic. However 5th ed hasn't crashed yet, so going after the 5e playerbase seems premature.

The reason I link the rise of 5e to streaming is that the initial 5e launch was tepid with a very small publishing schedule and a greatly reduced team (they had to delay a book nearly a year because a staff member got jury duty). It was intended to be a low key edition to keep things ticking over. Then it caught on in streaming and exploded. Take away streaming and people would be asking about 6th ed right about now.

Lantern Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'd be cautious about attributing much of 5es success to its design. Most of 5es success comes from the rise of video game streaming and the idea of watching a game played rather than playing it coming to prominence. A couple of prominent streaming groups took it on and then it exploded.
5e being lighter in design and less tactical than 3.5/Pathfinder/4e was an advantage in the role of a spectators game. Specifically intense tactical combat isn't much fun to watch unless you are very invested but its a hell of a lot of fun to play.
Personally I'm not at all a fan of 5e, but I see why it appeals to people.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Typo in the article, the plural of Tooth Fairy is Teeth Fairy.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

90% of Monsters/NPCs live for 6-30 seconds of in game time, I think the core game making the opposition simpler to build and run is just a good thing.

The remaining 10% is fertile ground for a some sort of enchanced foes supplement, where you can custom build your more rounded NPC. However in the core, streamlined monsters/NPCs is only a boon.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'm a big fan of the new critical system for weapons, I think the 10 over target number makes to-hit bonuses incredibly valuable and results in crit city when you take on lower level bad guys, which feeds into player power fantasies nicely.

However I'm a little disappointed with the lack of weapons that can crit more often, weapons with some inherent attack bonus beyond the normal would clearly be overpowered but I was very interested in examining how the keen rune interacted with it. I was quite disappointed as the design of "Crit on a 19 or 20 so long as the attack hits" was quite clunky and sidestepped the 4 degrees of success rule.

Additionally once again daggers are the poor cousin of short swords, while you can throw them, they are otherwise inferior. The archetypical knife wielding class, the rogue has almost no reason to use them. Many new players would logically choose their rogue to wield daggers as it fits the class fantasy, but the lower damage becomes increasingly notable as the damage scales.

So I was thinking about a new weapon trait, Lethal which would make weapons crit more often.
A Lethal weapon would either give you +1 to hit on an attack that successfully hit, so upgrading your attack to a crit, or if this makes wording easier, critical hit on an attack that hits by 9 over AC/TAC rather than 10. This makes crits with the weapon 5% more likely while not altering the hit rate.

The humble dagger could then become
1d4 P Agile, finesse, thrown 10ft, versatile S and lethal
This way, there is an argument to use it over a shortsword.
I know its late in the playtest, but the idea has been rattling around for a while and I wanted to throw it out there.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Nothing in the text about that Star Spawn flying out, start making those climb rolls.

Lantern Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'd like it if they added in more functions for Hero Points (Regaining spell slots, healing), and you earned them for doing multiple encounters in a day as a carrot that encourages players to keep pushing through chains of fights, rather than taking regular nightly rests. I realise this wouldn't be to everyones taste but itd make a nice optional rule.

Lantern Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'd love to see the RPG company that isn't subsidized by another product that has infinite black on their books, frankly I don't think such a business exists.

However all of this is unhelpful speculation, it doesn't help us resolve issues in the playtest, all we can do is fill in the surveys, ask pertinent questions and supply unbiased feedback.

Lantern Lodge

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

This playtest has been doing a very encouraging job of looking for actionable specific feedback from players.
It's been great to see the genuine effort made by the designers to adjust the game within the framework possible in the face of responses that have ranged from insightful commentary to unreasonable demands.

Is it running at a demanding rate, absolutely. However I remain hopeful that the game will live up to the effort they are making and I think the badgering the designers is unhelpful. They are certainly more aware and invested in the available time than we are.

Lantern Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I like the idea of Resonance Points rather than slots because it opens up design space where you have an additional cost on certain items other than gold.

So you could have a Staff of Fire that costs one resonance and 2000g and one with additional effects that costs two resonance and 2000g.

Lantern Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

"they try to propose us a more "Dark Souls" game"

Except in Drak Souls you win if you're actually good, while in PF2 it's down to randomness and player ability is minimized both before combat (optimization is no longer possible) and in combat (tactics are weak and unlikely to work, positioning is less relevant, CC is ineffective etc)

It's actually the opposite of a game like Dark Souls that rewards you for good play

I'd disagree very strongly with that point about combat strategy not mattering, in PF1, I could optimise enough that I'd hit almost regardless of dice roll and could alpha down almost any problem I encounter in a turn or 2, positioning for a flank or someone spending a turn to give people a +1 to hit bonus usually wasn't worth it.

In PF2 due to such strongly bounded accuracy most of the abilities that give +X to hit are very valuable. Against equivalent level foes, +1 to hit is 5% more hits and 5% more crits on your first attack, making your opponent flat footed is 10% to both. Higher hp pools and better in combat healing on the PC side, mean fights are longer, which mean spending time adjusting the odds in your favour matter more, you're more likely to roll an attack 10-20 times than you are to make 2-5 attacks so percentage adjustments start to really become significant. I've noticed DOTs (Damage over time) effects like acid or bleeding are actually really significant tools in equivalent level fights, whereas in PF1 they were an insignificance.

It's a very different metagame in PF2, people who learned the "correct" way to play in PF1 could well be experiencing shock at the lower hit rate and large health pools of the bad guys, but its worth trying to modify your play a bit and see if the experience changes itself for you.

I definitely feel their are issues with the new system, but the core chassis feels solid and the updates have all been very positive.

Lantern Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Bartram wrote:
BryonD wrote:


Speaking as an engineer and math wonk, to hell with the math. Please give me narrative builds, warts and all. If you do that good, we will be there.

As someone whose maths all day long, and whose job title includes the words "Data Analyst" I could not agree more.

I love math. I make spreadsheets for fun. I'll spend hours just tweaking the numbers on every character I make.

The game does not need to be built for people like me.

The story, the flavor must come first. Design your math to fit the flavor, not the other way around.

We want to play Heroes. Heroes do not fail 50% of all tasks they attempt.

Ok, when you say story, do you want scene editing meta currencies? Because that is one of the few ways to actually mechanise story. Otherwise I'm not sure what element of the current games design demphasises story.

Flavour driving design results in degenerate design every time, let's say you decide a fighter should be better at fighting than a rogue and a magic fighter should be better at fighting than a fighter because that makes flavour sense because he has magic, you've just put yourself into a hole where fighters are sub-optimal and rogues are dreadful. Design should incorporate flavour whenever possible but it can't determine how that game is designed or balance is inevitably sacrificed.

If the high failure rates bother you, your problem is not with the core design, its where the success chances have been set. Those can be adjusted without a total redesign, in fact I'd guess that's why 1 of the playtest scenarios has you fight a pack of underleveled adversaries and another has a very overleveled opponent, they're checking how those numbers play out.

Lantern Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

I think you have valid points especially 1 and 2.

After reading the survey Q's I was very surprised to not see a simple question, "Did you have fun in this section?"

MDC

"Fun" is not a terribly useful metric, one player might only find combats which are never challenging fun, while another player might find ones where the party TPKs fun. Fun is so variable that its almost impossible to have something that is found universally "fun". You're better off striving for a particular approach for your game and letting the audience for that game find it.

Lantern Lodge

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I think some of the issues people are experiencing are due to mistaken assumptions about the playtest.

Some people wanted the playtest to be a promotional exercise. We'd all play some adventures in a new tweaked system, nothing was really going to change and the only goal was to have fun with our sneak peek.
However that's not what the playtest is, it's actually more like tedious stress testing, where we test deliberately narrow targeted elements of the system and parts of that system are regularly changed and new responses checked. This isn't fun, but its not being put together to be fun, its to stress test things so the game is a better game after the playtest. It's why they've stressed its not intended to be fun and to run the game as close to the RAW presented as possible.

Some people want to co-design the system. They'd like if any suggestion they make be implemented as a priority. They view this playtest as an opportunity to make sure the game is designed in accordance with their preferences.
This also isn't what the playtest is for, Paizo don't need 500 extra designers making suggestions which range from deeply insightful, clever ideas to half baked suggestions which fix one problem while creating a dozen more. The point of the playtest is to stress test the scenarios we are presented with and fill out surveys that accurately model our experience. Paizo are trying to get enough data that they start to discern patterns of experience and can modify the playtest to better achieve what they want.
I'm sure Paizo would like to carefully read every topic and try every idea but there isn't the time and as designers they need to trust themselves when the feedback is as expected and root for answers when it isn't.

Some people are disappointed by the lack of content.
While it's definitely got less options than a 12 year old RPG line with 100s of books I think people need to be realistic about how much can be fitted into the core book.

This is the most authentic RPG playtests I've ever seen, they have made significant changes in response to issues that have cropped up and the game has noticeably improved from version 1.0 to version 1.4
I'm very optimistic about how it's going and while I'm not sure the game will be to everyones taste, I think it's still going to be the options heavy crunchy game PF1 is at heart.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'd actually love if some of the weaker class feats got the general tag so you could grab them with a general feat. Some of the monk movement ones are of similar strength to a skill feat so it'd be nice to have that as an option.

Lantern Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I think cantrip damage should land above a wizard using an appropriately potent runed crossbow. That might mean making a few weapons for wizards that boost cantrips or lower level spells.
If you had a Staff of Flame that added +1d6 fire damage to a fire cantrip and +3d6 fire damage to a fire spell of level 3 or lower, that’s one way to give casters an additional loot option and make the lower level damage spells a little more competitive.
It’s a fact that some players want to play blaster casters, its a common power fantasy, so putting a few tools in there to make it work well is probably a good idea.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Have the Crossbow Ace feat let crossbows target TAC and give the crossbow Fatal d12 against Hunted Targets. Make the Crossbow Ace the one giant dangerous attack ranger as a different playstyle.

Lantern Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I think running monsters specifically targeting downed PCs rather than attempt to win the fight is a good tactic if the monsters goal is to weaken the PCs at the expense of their own lives, treating themselves more as RTS units, weakening an advancing force rather than individuals with goals of their own.
I have no doubt tactics like that are effective given NPCs offensive bias, but its very much winning through the metagame in which NPCs are disposable tools to weaken then defeat the PCs. Players will develop a hostile OOC reaction to those tactics unless rules enter the metagame that punish tactics like that from NPCs.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

It's a point worth considering that if a GM is playing an encounter without holding back NPCs have a number of advantages.

1) They are controlled by a single mind, so don't need to discuss any plans and can co-ordinate for maximum effectiveness.
2) Their turns are often simultaneous which means co-ordination is easier and harder for players to disrupt.
3) Environmental factors often suit them better, darkness, underwater, cliffs. NPCs in these areas often have abilities that ignore these factors players have to deal with.
4) Higher attack numbers makes focus fire easier and lower defenses matter less when you can whittle down your opponents quicker.
5) Focus fire can often target the characters capable of healing or dealing with larger numbers of foes leaving the players without valuable tactical options.

Points 1 and 5 are probably best dealt with by GM advice, restricting focus fire like that as an advanced tactic to particularly brilliant or coordinated foes.
On Point 2 I think hero points are a great idea but their use could be expanded, such as spending 1 to change your initiative to act immediately if you have not already acted this turn which could help disrupt these gang ups and unfortunate initiative orders.
On Point 3, I think abilities and equipment to help deal with these unusual encounter factors need to be checked for specifically, is Light the cantrip good enough at dealing with foes in Darkness and so on. Shold it be one action to cast, with the option to add a second action to cast it at range?

Lantern Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

At the moment no other character comes close to the performance of a positive energy cleric in terms of healing delivered and thus ability to keep adventuring. That's an issue as that makes Cleric an almost mandatory choice.
Alchemists atm struggle with healing as to extend the adventuring day they should really conserve their Resonance for Elixirs of Life, which limits the classes freedom to spend their own resources. Had an idea while trying to build an Alchemist that does healing. What if when another character drinks an Elixir of Life created by an Alchemist with Quick Alchemy and they spend a Resonance, the Alchemist then gains a point of Resonance. That way they Alchemist can regain Resonance spent on healing other characters.

Lantern Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'm a huge fan of this system, in it in exchange for a decent stat commitment and a significant number of your fests you get to import additional flavour and capability from another class. It's powerful but with steep costs and it's both more forgiving and more open than PF1 multiclassing.

If we were to be fair to PF1 multiclassing it was something that could yield massive payoffs with sufficient system mastery but significantly more often was a terrible idea. Someone going "My new character will be a even split Oracle/Druid!" was setting themselves up for a disaster. The new system is easier to use, less prone to insane backfires and sidesteps a lot of the dip issues that made very low level characters samey and boring and kept them from doing their thing until level 3.
How many people have played a class that didn't start working until then to avoid people dipping in for core class features?

This is just a huge step forward.

Lantern Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

So I think Sorcerers potentially needing to learn multiple versions of heighten spells to avoid cutting into their Spontaneous Heighten, is fairly restrictive. In place of Spontaneous Heighten could Sorcerers instead get to pick one spell per spell level that they can flexibily heighten.

So at level 1 they have Magic Missle, Mage Armour and Featherfall and they choose Mage Armour to be freely heightenable.
Then when they get second level spells at third level they pick Scorching Ray as their free heightenable.

They have less flexibility in their heighten but they have more choices to work with.

Lantern Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Could the ranger get a feat where when they roll initiative using stealth or survival at the start of an encounter the choose one square to set a snare in or something?

Traps in nearly every game suffer from action economy issues or not getting to chose the battlefield so even something small like this would be a nice option to have.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

If you want Staves and Wands to occupy a different design niche than each other you could try the following.

Staves are expensive, provide a numerical buff to some spells, grant you extra spells and you can use Resonance to cast those spells.
So pretty much as currently designed just deleting the spend charges/spell slots.

Wands are cheaper, have a power level between 1 and 9, provide 1 spell and let you convert your spell slots into that spell.
A wand will let you convert the equivalent spell slot you spend into the spell in the wand. You can spend a Resonance Point to heighten the spell to the power level of the wand.
So if you have a Power Level 3 Wand of Magic Missle, you can spend a level 1 spell slot to cast a level 1 Magic Missle or you can spend a level 1 spell slot and a Resonance Point to cast Magic Missle heightened to level 3.

Lantern Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
thflame wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
an item with charges (which seem common, Wands and Staves seem to all fall into this category)
Wands and staves, and only wands and staves, fall into this category. Staves are almost certainly the most complex item type in the game right now.

This is good to know, and if it were only Staves I'd be less concerned. Wands are super common and gonna continue to be so, though, and by far the most logistically difficult item to keep track of in PF1. Adding Resonance costs just makes that worse.

I mean, lower number of charges would help (and seems likely based on stuff you said in another thread)...but I still remain very concerned about the specific Resonance/Charges interaction.

I think as long as wands remain a multi-use consumable, it's definitionally and tautologically going to have charges, or at least a synonym for charges (I mean, they are basically similar to scrolls in bulk, like in PF1). Staves could lose their charges in their current incarnation and still function just fine, though.

Perhaps just don't make wands consumable?

Here's how I would handle it:

-Spend 1 RP to attune a wand.

-Spend 1 RP to cast the spell from the wand. (And any required actions for the spell.)

From your earlier response to my post, I assume that these items exist, they just aren't "wands". I guess what I am suggesting is that those items SHOULD be wands, and "wands" as they are(or "charged items"), just should not exist.

This is all coming purely from a ease of use stand point. I don't want to have to track Resonance AND charges simultaneously. I feel like doing so defeats the point of having Resonance in the first place.

If so, a wand of invisibility is going to cost more like 1,000 gp and be something you find/buy/get closer to 10th level than to 4th. And it would invert the relationship between staves and wands, insomuch as...

What breaks if I can use a Wand of Invisibility (Resonance -1) times a day?

If wands are meant to be "scrolls but in in bulk and a bit cheaper" I mean, does that deserve it's own system?

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Cellion wrote:

Here's the attempt:

CLOAK OF ELVENKIND wrote:

CLOAK OF ELVENKIND ITEM 10+

Descriptors: Illusion, Invested, Magical

Method of Use worn, cloak; Bulk L

This cloak is deep green with a voluminous hood, and is embroidered with gold trim and symbols of significance to the elves.

Investment: When you invest into the Cloak of Elvenkind, the cloak transforms to match the environment around you and muffles your sounds, giving you an item bonus of +3 to stealth checks. Additionally, you gain the use of the following abilities.

Activated Abilities:
[[A]](vocal), [[A]](somatic): You cast the ghost sound cantrip as an arcane spell.

[[A]](interact), [[F]](focus), Pay 1 RP: Your interact action draws the hood of the cloak over your head while your focus action triggers the magic of the cloak. You are affected by invisibility for 1 minute or until you pull the hood back down, whichever comes first.

Type standard; Level 10; Price 1,000 gp

Also just quoting this for emphasis, the items should all be formatted as clearly as this and hopefully printable either by your good selves at Paizo or online. Being able to give a player a card with their new magic item is just a boon to both player and GM.

Lantern Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Just no to Wands and Staffs using charges and Resonance. It's just extra book-keeping without any real management choices. If Resonance is the resource you are managing, that should be the opportunity cost of the using the staff or wand.

Like, how many times are you going to use that staff or wand in your games lifetime? Are you going to use it for an adventure, then toss it for a better version to make more efficient use of your Resonance.

Pathfinder 2e should be looking for places to jettison the fiddly book-keeping of 1e in favour of more interesting decisions.

Lantern Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

A lot to digest from the preview but I want to raise one thing about Ki Strike.

"ki power feat, Ki Strike, which gives you a pool of Spell Points equal to your Wisdom modifier, which you can spend to cast ki strike. This power is a Verbal Casting free action you can use when making an unarmed strike to get a +1 bonus to your attack roll. So you let out a shout and hit better!"

First off I'm assuming you have to use Ki Strike before your attack roll.
If so it's terrible, even with more restricted accuracy +1 before a roll say 3 times a day is awful, games are interesting when you are making informed choices about the use of limited resources, shifting the odds 5% in your favour before you determine RNG is beyond frustrating, given this power will only effect 2 rolls out of 20 (missing by 1 and missing a crit by 1)
What's worse this is a feat nearly all monks will take to get access to Ki powers and shouldn't be a total lemon.
Please change that to be usable after hitting or missing has been determined, that way 3/4 times a day you can use up a resource to turn a miss to a hit, or hit to a crit when you determine it really matters.

Lantern Lodge

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Ok so riddle me this.

Why is it bad and stupid for a Str 8 Level 20 Wizard to have a better Athletics modifier than a Str 18 Level 1 Fighter

But a Con 8 Level 20 Wizard having more hitpoints than a Con 18 level 1 Fighter is acceptable?

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

1) What rules are preventing you from converting Masks of Nylarthothep to Pathfinder 1e? I genuinely don't see any rules that would prevent you converting an adventure to another system.

2) If maintaining backwards compatibility to Pathfinder 1e, would make Pathfinder 2e a weaker game, then backward compatibility should be sacrificed. There are eleven years of mechanical content for PF1, there is plenty of game in there and making PF2 less good to satisfy people who wont buy it seems foolish.

Lantern Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

They might indeed see more play, however its still likely to be the level of the game people play least and part of the fun of Pathfinder is acquiring new abilities, new levels, new gear and at 20 you stop getting new levels and abilities and so become more likely to go play a new character in a fresh adventure.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Currently Capstone Abilities are unique class features each class receives at level 20. They represent a significant power upgrade for the class, often the ultimate expression of that class. They also almost never come up in play, unlike an MMO or other video game with "Ultimate" abilities, Pathfinder has almost no official content aimed at 20th level characters. Even games that get to level 20, will in the vast majority play a few sessions at that level and then finish. Capstone abilities are on the page to tempt you, but you never get to use them.

Proposal: Move capstone abilities to a lower level, maybe 15 where you might actually get to use them. If need be require someone using a capstone to be a single classed character.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

For some players, Pathfinder is a game of tactical RPG combat, where resources must be used carefully to achieve victory. The groups who play like this want robust rules. The question that must be asked about healing in this context, is how are encounters "meant" to challenge players?

Is it
(a) Each encounter should be an extremely hard fight, where death is always on the line and combat is punishing.
(b) Some encounters are extremely hard, but most are intended to only drain some resources to make the final encounters harder.

In (a) you can generally only do a few encounters in a day as you will need to burn resources like mad. In that format healing is more of an in combat tool as the fights are often brutal. These fights can end in TPKs and if every fight is this stressful it can make the game more like work.
In (b) you tend to be able to do more fights, but any way you have to get undercosted healing becomes very valuable. The CL 1 Wand of Cure Light Wounds is disproportionately valuable, extending adventuring time and often trivializing these encounters. Without it though players run out of healing and look to rest more often, which puts GMs in a pickle. Force them to go on and they may fail and usually die or let them rest which means they recover their resources and trivialize a new set of tyoe b encounters.

It's a difficult problem, I look forward to see how 2E handles it.

Lantern Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

So, anyone think of a rules reason this doesn't work?

Lantern Lodge

6 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

If my Solarion Bull Rushes (pg246) a Goblin and successfully moves the Goblin back 5 feet, moving him out of my threatened space. Do I get an Attack of Opportunity using my reaction? (pg248)

I'm struggling to find anything that prevents it.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

There are no fooling dozens of ways to implement Gravity for the Solarion. Opponents unable to 5 foot step away. The wall/floor is now down. Weapons become stuck to the Solarion when attacking them, you can use gravity to bind two weapons together so that you then use your solar mote to fight with. Alter gravity to make projectile weapons more accurate.

I'll take a standard action to try and stop someone moving isn't really up to snuff.

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>