Witch Doctor

John Lynch 106's page

RPG Superstar 9 Season Star Voter. Organized Play Member. 2,863 posts (2,865 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 12 Organized Play characters.

1 to 50 of 1,340 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I didnt gall them hardcore PF1 gamers. They were just PF gamers. When the new edition was announced they had a choice:
* Play an unsupported edition
* Switch to the new edition when it came out
* Switch to a more popular game
* Give up on gaming

I dunno what happened (I didnt meet them). All I know is PFS died close to the start of this year and almost zero locals have expressed interest in any type of Pathfinder game (the one table I got decided to move on pretty quick).

Meanwhile 5e's popularity has not taken a hit and continues to grow.

It takes diehard fans to evangelize and push a game to get it off the ground and to keep it going. It seems those who were doing it for PF1e decided to stop at the start of this year. Which was always a risk with the new edition. Alienate the diehard fans and your new edition wont succeed.

That said this seems to have strictly been a local phenomena.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Smite Evil was never a named in-world ability. 1st level Champions can do Good damage, which is really a pretty similar thing in-universe.

You can dismiss whatever you want to. But I find it notable that a few people have flagged this. It's just like Rage isn't a named ability in world. But GEE WILLIKERS would barbarians feel weird without it.

[EDIT]: Replaced an "offensive curse" (apparently Paizo's coders/board administrators find g++!&@n offensive?)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Carog the Fat wrote:
yeah but by RAW for Society games I can just wiggle my fingers and heal my self

If that's how you choose to flavour the mechanics then by all means go ahead. If this was the fiction my GM was creating I would probably find myself a new GM.

I do believe you are right in that separate actions are not required to stow whatever you are holding, make the check and then pull it out again. I personally prefer to use a different fiction to describe this. You do what makes you and your players happy though.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well what his requirements are depends on the edition your drawing your lore from. James Jacob's has made his thoughts on the issue abundantly clear. GMs are free to deviate as far or as little as they want (I think NE and LN would definitely be possible with a slow slide likely occurring into LE. This is 100% in line with the idea of Asmodeus corrupting people. But James Jacob's clearly disagrees).

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Abandoning the old in the name of modernizing is a risky move. WotC doing that literally paved the way for Paizo's current success.

That said, I'm enjoying PF2e for now. We are only playing low level so it will remain to be seen whether or not Pathfinder 2e is fun long term. But current signs point to yes.

Well done to Paizo.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Your right. For motivated people being evil is really easy to do. But much of society isn’t motivated. They follow the path of least resistance, lead fairly inconsequential lives and worship whatever deity their society says they should. Being evil for a lot of those people is simply too much effort.

My big question is: Is Asmodeus a legitimate deity for them? The “follower alignments” entry seems to say no. With some suggesting that restriction is only meant for clerics. That seems really ambiguous to me (follower = worshipper in my mind), so I’m wondering what people think and if there is any clarification anywhere that I’m missing.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:

It's not a joke encounter. The bit about having his twin show up was a stop-gap in case the GM wanted to play BOTH encoutners out as written, because they're fun encounters. If your PCs kill the guy off in encounter one and then they get to encounter two and there's NO twin, that's fine as well. I'd suggest giving them full XP for that second encounter nonetheless, assuming they resolve the situation left behind by the missing villian. Or maybe just throw in a jungle monster to fight.

That all said, I've certainly heard the feedback, and we won't be doing a "replace them with their twin" stunt again. It's obviously not satisfying. Fortunately, you can adjust as needed for your game so that your players will never know.

Hey James. Thanks for the clarification and openness to feedback :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@vagrant-poet: my op talks about two types of people. Someone who gets divine powers by focusing on different aspects of asmodeus’s teachings (which was perfectly legal in Golarion 1.0, no longer is), but also the lay worshipper who gets no spells.

Is a lay worshipper permitted to have an LN alignment? The table clearly says “follower alignments” or is follower referring to clergy? Typically I’d expect follower to mean worshipper, but that expectation may be wrong.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Joana wrote:
Is it worth noting that the NPC in question explicitly "backs down without a fight" the first time they encounter him? The only reason he might get killed "early" is if the PCs go out of their way to chase down and kill a guy who does no more than argue with them, but the AP writer has to consider the possibility that they'll go off-script.

IMO anytime an adventure writer needs to remove player agency by undoing anything they might do in a situation, that’s an adventure that needs a serious rethink on how it’s handling the situations. I’ve done it before with a Paizo AP simply by changing what was learned, when it was learned and how it was learned. Based on what others have said Starfinder’s later APs don’t include such clauses. So it’s just possible I stumbled upon the two adventures/adventure paths that do it (both were the launch AP for their editions too which may provide a clue as to why it happened).

Although an optional encounter that is inconsequential to the greater adventure seems an odd time to pull the “there is a twin,” move. And “it being a joke” also seems strange if the players have to go out of their way to trigger the “joke”. I guess I’ll see for myself if I end up getting this adventure.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kasoh wrote:
I would probably just add the twin brother even if they didn't kill him. Fights with Twins are great.

I’d have no problem with that. It isn’t reminiscent of a classic “screw you” DM move and if the PCs do kill one of the brothers beforehand they get to reap the benefits of that.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Peachbottom wrote:
If your players don't like occasionally being railroaded, maybe adventure paths are not the way to go.

Its all about degrees of railroadiness. As I said, NEW players (whether they be new to the group or new to gaming) will typically balk at the railroad the most (I dunno why. It’s just a consistent behaviour I’ve seen over the years). But even those who enjoy APs want their actions to matter. I’ve never met a player who doesn’t. Coming out with “and the identical twin brother appears to take his place” teaches the PCs their actions don’t matter (whether it’s done for humour or not).

Peachbottom wrote:
If your players don't like jokes...

Ive never uttered this before, but this is such a clear case I have to: this is a straw man argument. Reread my posts. I even acknowledged I might include this encounter as written under very specific circumstances. Given this AP is the first one for PF2e And so is more likely to have new GMs and new groups running it, I think it’s misplaced to have it included. The fact that (based on what people are saying here) the encounter is entirely optional and inconsequential makes it even more baffling.

But hey, if I’m the only one with that opinion, it’s okay. We won’t always agree on everything. Cest la vie and all that.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
vagrant-poet wrote:
An average Chelish person who is rigid on the law, but not very dedicated to self-empowerment at the sake of others is a great and interesting character. They aren't an actual worshipper of Asmodeus though.

Wait, really? If you arent the perfect embodiment of a diety's teachings you dont count as a worshiper? This certainly doesnt jive with my real life experience on this subject.

People go to church services regularly, consider themselves to have a particular god as their patron deity. But they're not allowed to be Asmodeus worshippers without undertaking their requisite number of evil acts? How does that work? The priest throws them out of the church until they become better worshippers? Because that doesnt seem to be a winning method of gaining worshippers. Especially in a country where it's the state religion.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
I can understand the logic that explorer brothers sets up bad precedence, but I still think its restrictive that you can't use that kind of idea in what is essentially random encounter disconnected from the main story.

Well I said I would never do it so noone else is being restricted. In my experience players are predisposed to certain hang ups (and it doesnt seem to matter if they've been playing for years under other GMs or are brand new to gaming) which is to:

1) not trust NPCs (including questgivers)
2) wanting to get off railroad tracks and doing whatever it takes to achieve that.

Having a quest giver turn on them or having an adventure say "regardless of what the PCs would do which should reasonably have an affect on the AP, their actions dont"* reinforces their negative expectations. And so yes. I would never do either of those things.**

*This is of course what happened in Dead Suns rather than this adventure.

**Unless I knew the players really well, had earned their trust over years of GMing doe them and knew they would appreciate the plot development and not feel cheated by it. And even then, I'd do it once and never again for those players lest I start reinforcing their negative expectations.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
I'm not dismissing any criticisms.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
It does add value when you take umbrage with the scenario, reinforcing to you and others reading yes you can change this, it's not that important nor integral to the adventure or plot, it's a joke encounter.

I guess it is a good way to dismiss criticisms. I can see why someone might see value in that.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
I understand now what your reasoning is, but that's not what is in the scenario, since the setup is a mockery of the "My character Bob died so here's his twin brother Rob to avenge him" character replacement scenario. It's also the only instance of it and in the second book as well, so an isolated incident as well.

That definitely helps lessen the problem, but it is still definitely a risky thing to include. There are some things I just avoid including at all costs and I would only ever include this if it was clear up front that it's a joke, and if I'd gamed with that group for quite a while and they knew this is something I wouldn't pull on them AND if they were in the mood for some levity. That is a highly niche situation in which I include this. I think including the entire scenario in an introduction adventure path for a new edition (which will likely attract new GMs who don't have the experiences to know that including something like this is dangerous) is very risky.

Rysky wrote:
And that's without getting into the fact that the GM is under no obligation to introduce the brother in the first place.

Yes, thankyou. I am aware that GMs can change whatever they want. Pointing this out adds zero value to the conversation.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Terrible things can be done in the name of a nation, not due to evilness by every person in that nation, but simply from a lack of empathy by the people of that nation for the victims of that evil. A popular culture example of this is Man in the High Castle (I found it quite chilling watching ordinary people in Nazi America and the nonchalant way in which they speak of the horrors that is being done. They would never do the horrors themselves, but they don't even blink when it's done on their behalf).

In Golarion this is how I liked to portray Cheliax and worshipers of Asmodeus. Not everyone in Cheliax eats babies. The church is evil. The true hardcore believers/nobility are definitely evil. But most people are simply apathetic. I had a PFS Inquisitor of Asmodeus (LN in alignment) and it was really fun playing him to that lawful neutral alignment to the hilt. He would often take LG paladins to task for the terrible (unlawful) actions they were advocating. People would start nodding along and the paladin would start to get a bit sheepish and then suddenly someone would say "wait. Which one of you worships a devil?" In Golarion 2.0 that PC is no longer legal.

So how can "nice" NPCs who worship Asmodeus be included in the game now that they're obligated to be LE? I was thinking of a Sheriff in Isger who rescued a halfling from being carted off back to Cheliax because the halfling was in fact not an escaped slave but a free person. That would certainly fulfill the "lawful" requirement of a worshiper of Asmodeus. But how would such a character fulfill the evil requirement?

Does the NPC have to kick X number of puppies per month in order to keep to their LE alignment and not slip into LN? The Core Rulebook says

Your character has an evil alignment if they’re willing to victimize others for their own selfish gain, and even more so if they enjoy inflicting harm.

This seems like such a cartoonish take on the evil alignment. A lot of people aren't going to stab everyone they can find in the back. Maybe it's just because I'm Australian and therefore inherently lazy (we don't even know our national anthem and we just pretend to mouth the words), but people just don't have the energy or motive to be constantly trying to get ahead. Similarly, most people aren't going to go out of their way to worship a very specific deity. They'll just worship the one their parents worship, the one their neighbours worship and the one the state tells them they should worship because doing anything else is too much effort.

So how does Cheliax stay a predominantly Asmodeus worshiping country without everyone having to constantly

victimize others for their own selfish gain


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
I'm just not seeing how a joke encounter is a screw you to the players since it's not something that hinders them in nay way.

That much is clear. I would suggest it's because your focusing on "it's just a joke guys" rather than it's actually teaching the players "nothing you do will matter! If you kill my NPCs, I will just shoehorn in replacement NPCs to get you to follow the tracks. How dare you think you have agency!"

I've explained it as well as I can.

Given you don't understand, I suggest you move on and simply accept that I will have a different opinion to you.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
No it's not

Well... that's your opinion. I disagree.

I would never introduce a twin out of nowhere who picks up exactly what the deceased sibling was doing with the exact same motives and the exact same stats. That is a classic "screw you" move by a DM (especially if the twin has no other part in the adventure and does not appear except if you kill their sibling). Your welcome to disagree.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Reposting as the other thread is getting moderated and everything on this subject is getting quarantined to this thread:

I’m considering running this AP despite my opinions of how this edition will shake out. I haven’t read the adventure yet, but have read the thread to see what people think of it.

Mary Yamato wrote:
there is also a question of attitude and tone. Neither episode 1 nor episode 2 sold me in any way on the gameworld being a real place. This reaches its nadir in the encounter in #2 where, if the PCs inconveniently kill an NPC, the GM is told to have their identical twin brother show up so that nothing will change. But that's far from the only example.

This is definitely something I’ve started to notice of late with Paizo’s adventures. Player agency takes a backseat to the adventure’s narrative anytime there is a slight conflict. I don’t remember this in Carrion Crown (the only AP I’ve run), nor have I experienced it under good GMs. But I have seen it in Dead Suns (which I ran half of) and now apparently this adventure.

It could be Paizo has always done this, and feels it has to due to how APs work. But it’s something I’ve certainly only picked up on “recently”.

Rysky wrote:
The thing with the twins is that it's a joke encounter, it's not something dire to the AP that requires either brother to be there to continue on.

That makes it even more nonsensical. Having “a twin” come out of nowhere who carries on the dead twin’s work is a classic “screw you guys. You have no agency in this campaign. Get back on the tracks” jerk move by the DM. If it’s not crucial to the plot, I don’t understand why the adventure writer would include it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I’m considering running this AP despite my opinions of how this edition will shake out. I haven’t read the adventure yet, but have read the thread to see what people think of it.

Mary Yamato wrote:
there is also a question of attitude and tone. Neither episode 1 nor episode 2 sold me in any way on the gameworld being a real place. This reaches its nadir in the encounter in #2 where, if the PCs inconveniently kill an NPC, the GM is told to have their identical twin brother show up so that nothing will change. But that's far from the only example.

This is definitely something I’ve started to notice of late with Paizo’s adventures. Player agency takes a backseat to the adventure’s narrative anytime there is a slight conflict. I don’t remember this in Carrion Crown (the only AP I’ve run), nor have I experienced it under good GMs. But I have seen it in Dead Suns (which I ran half of) and now apparently this adventure.

It could be Paizo has always done this, and feels it has to due to how APs work. But it’s something I’ve certainly only picked up on “recently”.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Edge93, it's obvious you have a very different experience with these games than me, and your way sounds awful to me. Finding the broken stuff on things that bypass encounters is so much fun

Out of interest are you playing PF2e? If so, why? It is diametrically opposed to your way of playing and PF1e is perfectly tailored to your way of playing.

james014Aura wrote:
HOWEVER, what this does is beleaguer many more GMs with players asking for access to something thematic, but not technically in the list. For example, for wizards, some schools (*cough*divination*cough*) have a distinct shortage of decent spells that aren't at least Uncommon.

I don't think this is a problem for GMs at all. GMs no longer have to give players "ban lists" but can instead give them "here's a list of extra options you have access to." If the GM doesn't want to go to the effort, they can just as easily say "everything in the CRB is selectable" or "everything is selectable regardless of what book it's from." No GM is being forced to do something they don't want to do.

Anguish wrote:
Personally, I loathe default-deny rules

Fortunately it's easy for you to undo it "everything is allowed except Blood Money and Sacred Geometry." And your players will love you for it (unless it completely destroys the game but even then they might still love you).

With a default-allow rule a GM has to say "Only these things are allowed, everything else is banned." And the players are going to hate him for it (unless they've had bad experiences with an everything goes game).

I know I'm glad Paizo has gone for a default disallow.

Bandw2 wrote:
in this modern digital age, restricting to source books isn't that easy to do for some people.

I have little sympathy for people solely using digital resources to play the game for an extended period of time. I'm all for try before you buy, but sooner or later I expect players to actually buy the material they want to use. On a merely selfish front: The more people spend on Pathfinder material the more money Paizo has to produce more Pathfinder material.

On a practical level: I find using online resources and digital character builders in lieu of physical books greatly inhibits people's ability to learn the rules completely and quickly.

YMMV of course. This is only based on gaming with dozens of people across 11 years.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
...the developers covered their bases really, really well this time. You're not just limited by the rarity system; you're also limited by source.
Franz Lunzer wrote:
Paizo intended to empower GM's in this edition, and I like that.

Just for comparison, the PF1 CRB says:

A wizard casts arcane spells drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list presented in Chapter 10
A cleric casts divine spells which are drawn from the cleric spell list presented in Chapter 10.
A druid casts divine spells which are drawn from the druid spell list presented in Chapter 10.


So this isn't new language. Not sure why people are treating this as some major paradigm shift in how Paizo's presenting the rules.

A new edition is a chance to look at things with fresh eyes.

Also I would argue that wording is different. "In Chapter 10" is a direction on where in the book to look for things. "In this book" is not a direction on where to look for things. It serves no purpose beyond restricting people.

Also PF1 was sold as "you can use all your 3.5 material as well!" PF2 is not being sold with the same marketing so different attitudes will be brought into the game.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Angel Hunter D wrote:
I still don't get people like you, empowered players was the best thing about 1e. The main selling point for me.

As a player I love having a wide range of flavorful options to choose from. As a GM I like to have my players have a wide range of flavorful options to choose from.

D&D 5e completely fails me because there has been no meaningful expansion beyond the PHB. However PF1e often failed me as well.
The reason PF1 failed me is that there was an expectation that anything goes in terms of player options. There was flavour, but it was drowned out by the power gaming.

Having the books set the expectation that isnt true helps a lot. It means I can be permissive and say "in addition to these classes and the options that support them, the following is also available because it reinforces the flavour of the campaign rather than everyone taking Pirahna Strike because you want to dump strength."

Now PF2e might ultimately fail me as well. But at the moment they're making efforts to cater to me so there is a chance it won't. Importing PF1e's philosophy with no change would have guaranteed my preferences would not be catered to.

Finally if you prefer a "everything goes" philosophy and your group also wants it, then PF2e does nothing to stop you. The rules are explicit in that GMs can allow any option regardless of rarity (and GMs can ignore source restrictions as well).

I personally will be running by the book with specific exceptions for flavorful stuff in the campaign. I will, however, broaden the spell selection for spontaneous casters (if prepared casters are limited to CRB, then I'm likely to allow spontaneous casters access so CRB+APG). It gives spontaneous casters a small boost which I think they need (you may disagree of course).

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Tender Tendrils wrote:
So the rogue rolls to pick the serious locks, and maybe 10% of the doors that are opened that you don't roll for have locks that are just automatically unlocked because they are so trivial that they aren't even worth mentioning (the rogue picks it without even really having to think about it, or the fighter just pulls open the door despite it being locked because she is that strong).

That's actually a really dangerous habit for a GM (and adventure writer) to get into. I played in a river journey adventure and every time there was a port that we stopped at we would get off the boat to explore and we would get attacked. After 3 or 4 sessions of this happening when we got to the next port we said "we stay aboard because all we're getting are murder jetties and there is no actual compelling reason for us to ever get off the boat before we get to our destination." The GM obviously wasn't happy at his railroad getting derailed (despite the fact we were almost literally on a set of train tracks). The GM tried to force the combat onto us anyway and we defeated it. Afterwards he complained we weren't really getting into the spirit of the adventure. When we explained how every port had been a murder jetty he said "Oh no. You've stopped at lots of ports. I just didn't bother narrating those because nothing interesting happened." By not describing the peaceful ports in addition to the murder jetties, our perspective of the region (and the adventure) was substantially warped.

By saying "What do you mean the world keeps leveling up with you? Last adventure you unlocked 20 doors! I just didn't bother narrating 15 of them because you were guaranteed success" you substantially warp the perspective of the players of the game world and potentially ruin their enjoyment of the adventure.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
FowlJ wrote:
I'll add another voice saying that PFS adventures normally work this way, yes - if you look at any PF1 scenario that can be done at multiple levels you see the same thing.

I had forgotten that (it’s been 7 years since I ran PFS so I had forgotten. Yet another reason to dislike organised play).

Although I am curious what the non PFS adventures are like. So far we have the following answers: sometimes they’re arbitrary, they are never arbitrary and they’re always arbitrary.

I’m definitely curious to hear people’s thoughts who’ve read the (non-PFS) adventures.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

The higher DC is for identifying traits to do with a stronger monster and maintaining the odds between levels for that creature (providing consistent experiences is a goal of PFS to some degree).

A plague zombie is 3 levels higher than a zombie shambler.

Not really accurate at all:

Society (10 minutes): A PC who succeeds at a DC 16 Society check (DC 19 in Subtier 3–4) recalls that this type of fine clothing was very popular among minor nobles in Taldor.

All the checks are like that.

It’s disappointing to hear Paizo are using suspect DCs. I’m glad to hear it’s not the rule though...

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I’ve got a one shot coming up, people completely new to Pathfinder. I decided to use a PFS module as I’m already GMing another campaign. I decided on Escape from the Grave. Simple premise, provides a dungeon-esque experience and is nice and easy to get into. It seems to have a good setup with consequences for taking too long in the adventure. Exactly what I want in an adventure.

However on page 10 we have the same information being provided to PCs with two separate DCs depending entirely on their level. There is no in setting reason for the higher DC if the PCs are higher level. The DCs are simply arbitrary and exist solely to provide level appropriate challenges.

Now I’m not running this as a PFS module so I can change whatever I want. But we are a few months into the new rules. We have several PFS modules, 3 AP books and one stand alone module. So we should have a good grasp on how Paizo is handling setting DCs.

So the question is: do the DCs match the in world reality of Paizo’s adventures? Or are they being assigned arbitrarily to provide level appropriate challenges?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
John how do you know its "extreme" and not worth the devs time? Also, this thread doesn't need that derail.

By listening to their argument, looking at the rules and applying logic.

One person's "clearly this is what the devs intend" might be another person's "this is the most extreme possible interpretation". But if someone wanted to, they could deliberately misinterpret the majority of the rules. Eventually there will come a point where a line must be drawn and the devs say "this is worth clarifying" and "this is not worth clarifying". Otherwise there will be no time to develop new rules or they'll have to expand the dev team and increase the cost of the products which impacts their commercial viability.

My comment also wasn't targeted at any single person. Some people might fit the description, but it's a phenomena far bigger than one person within our community.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:

I honestly can't see a reason NOT to fix every error and to clarify confusing areas. I hope everything gets fixed and if that requires lots of errata, then that's fine with me. IMO, far too many things that were errata got 'fixed' in PF1 by using an FAQ and that's something I'd rather not see for PF2.

For the OP, if you don't care about the fixes as "it matters very little to actual game" the it shouldn't matter one way or the other to you as neither way changes how you play.

Thrre are two categories of issues:

1) Flat out errors
2) Deliberately interpreting rules in the most extreme way possible, fighting everyone on the boards who disagrees with you and then declaring that clearly the issue is confusing and needs to be fixed.

#1 is worth the devs time. #2 isn’t.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seems right to me.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:

Like it or not my table is changing a single word in the disarm description.

We are changing the word their. To your.

They receive a negative 2 to their attack rolls until the start of YOUR next turn.

Simple fix. Brings it inline with other maneuvers and doesn't over power it.

It actually doesn't bring it in line with other maneuvers. It could also create cognitive dissonance by making the fiction not much the reality (why do they have a -2 for exactly 6 seconds? Depending on how much your players accept your answer will depend on whether or not they experience cognitive dissonance).

Trip makes a target prone until THEIR turn when they have to spend an action to fix it. Bull rush (or wahtever it's called in this edition) moves a target back a few feet until the THEIR turn when they have to spend an action to move back to where they were.

If you want to make disarm inline with these other maneuvers then you should require an action for a target to adjust their grip to undo the -2 penalty. This way there is always an affect (they either experience a -2 OR they lose an action) and there is no chance for cognitive dissonance (the in game fiction without any room for doubt matches the mechanics).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The ShadowShackleton wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
Gaterie wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
Well if faced with arbitrary GM decisions like this
To follow the rules isn't arbitrary. It's, you know, to follow the rules.
My reply was not in relation to the familars rules, but in relation to the "not-allowed-to-split-the-party-in-exploration-mode" post. I am perfectly fine with the familiar rules as written, even if they do not make sense apart from game mechanics.
As was mine. The rules are fine as they are. Some clarification would be helpful so people don't interpret them to this extreme.

Anyone interpreting them this extremely is almost certainly doing so on purpose. If a GM is doing it, it is like,y they do not want their players to enjoy PF2e. I don’t think clarification is really needed and it can be a good litmus rest on whether they should play with a particular GM.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It wasn’t sarcasm, but it was a joke.

For your info:
(of a person or mental process) intelligently analytical and clear-thinking.

Almost certainly incisive was a typo (possibly for divisive?)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel bad for anyone wanting to make a hellknight as they’ll have to buy BOTH Lost Omen books.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Count me as someone who would appreciate having the CRB hyperlinked.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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?

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Liking 4e and hating PF1 doesnt really make you an unlikely convert to PF2. In fact some might argue your the core audience :P

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So far I like the descriptions of monsters based on their level. I don’t think I would throw an encounter of nothing but level+1 creatures against a party, because they don’t feel like bosses, just a hard and frustrating fight (for the same budget I could have 4 Level-1 creatures which is “severe” but the players don’t have to contend with a flurry of misses).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We got through about 7 encounters last game (plus introduction scene). 5 of the encounters were combats (there was an opportunity for as few as 4 combats and as many as 7 combats). We got through the content in about 3.5 hours (Using roll20 with most of the maps predrawn).

There were 3 PCs (one of the players couldn’t make it). The trivial fight was trivial (monk one shotted a reflavoured duergar which instantly ended the fight). 2 fights were moderate with 1 high and the last one was severe. Moderate fights consisted of goblin warriors as did the high combat. Moderates could deal damage but otherwise the PCs made it through without issue. High combat certainly got there attention (despite just being goblins) and needed a 30 min rest. Severe fight had 2 goblins and a bugbear.

The severe fight was dangerous and the cleric was invaluable in keeping the monk and champion standing. The monk did ridiculous damage on one turn but only brought the bugbear to half HP. Goblins didn’t last long enough to help flank with the bugbear. But the bugbear has an ability to fix that.

Overall the players earned 560 XP (mostly from encounters, 0 XP from the trivial fight and then some bonus XP for adventure completion and doing the right thing). They also got 22 gp each (including the absent player) for completing the adventure. They all got excited at earning so much money and one of them instantly spent it all.

So overall I’d say the system works as advertised. Encounters were well balanced and easy to build (a lot less calculations then PF1e). Handing out treasure was easy (I just used the lump sum column, divided it in half then split it by 4). Had they tried to Greyhawk the bodies and dungeon it would have been as difficult as a PF1e adventure, but they didn’t so hooray.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I dunno. The fact you guys think PF2e is a casual game would suggest you haven't played 5e. Now THAT is a (boring) casual game.

I can definitely agree it's a side grade, with some simplification. But I dont think it's a casual game by any stretch of the imagination.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I like what I see, but I'm really, really concerned about the fact a "double length archetype" is a thing (and that it means 2 pages). Many of LOWG's archetypes was really hampered by the fact the archetypes were only 1 page in length. Archetypes should be the size they need to be realised. Standardizing on 1 page length archetypes with anything bugger then that being "notable" is really going to hamper the development of character options. If an archetype needs 3 or even 4 pages, give it that length. Dont get locked into the idea of archetypes should be 1 page (with 2 pages exceptional).

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just to be clear, I wasn’t actually advocating for wheelchair ramps in dungeons. I was interested in exploring what people thought who appear to be advocating for a wider spectrum of abled heroes (apologies if I give any offence in the language I use).

Malk_Content wrote:
Yeah the multitude of different views on what would be an appropriate response to disabilities leads me to believe paizo was in right in making it explicitly an in group discussion.

So I can actually relate to the topic at hand. I was born different to most people (on a statistical level). This difference has had a profound effect on my life and will continue to have an effect on my life and the life of my family until I die (barring any radical advances in technology. Here’s hoping!).

If someone who didn’t have the condition I have voluntarily chose to play a character with the condition, I would politely tell them I find it offensive and ask them to not do so. If they refused I’d probably tell them in colourful language about what I thought of their actions. If someone who did have the same condition voluntarily chose to play a character with the condition and was doing it for respectful reasons and not taking the piss, I would respect their choice and excuse myself from the game. It is not something I wish to explore in a game of make believe and someone else doing so would completely remove my enjoyment from the game.

If people want a wide spectrum of characters to be possible, that’s fine. But definitely include guidance in a GMing book about the possible reactions and making sure to be as inclusive as possible in a respectful way keeping the experiences and attitudes of the people at your table in mind.

I don’t think rewriting the CRB is necessary. But that is only my opinion based on my own experiences.

1 to 50 of 1,340 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>