Jon Goranson's page

Okay, I'm done with this. I don't know what I did but feel attacked hard in these past two posts, even as nice as most of @Ruzza's response is. My apologies for upsetting people or wasting your time. It doesn't help that people are liking the posts that attacked me.

ETA: Okay, that's as much of an over the top response as the responses I got. I don't understand how people are offended over the way I run my games.

I came here to discuss RAW, how it works, how it was intended, and for the most part I got that.

I offered my opinion on game theory that a breath weapon that only does 1/3 hit point damage and can only be used every 3 rounds on average is not scary, having seen that in action. Only when the breath weapon did 80% hit point damage to a character or drop one, did the players feel any threat at all. In explaining that, I got decent responses which explained to me PL and how it isn't CR, how boss monsters aren't a thing, and how to adjust a dragon if I felt the need. Those were helpful; attacking me is not.

Basic saves are another big issue for my group. I suggested only allowing them for PCs and NPCs or is that too much as well? In my limited experience, having the wizard do no damage over two rounds of mid tier spells (4th and 5th) is a huge morale hit. To the point the player didn't see the point of spell casters in PF2 because it would have been better to be a fighter than not do any damage at all. These are questions I have, which is why I posted here in the first place. What have others seens with basic saves?

If these are not appropriate or I need to post them in another forum, please inform me of that and where to go. I'm not trying to create house rules. I'm trying to understand RAW.

I think people have forgotten how much of a learning curve PF2 is. Keywords are things that GMs and players have to memorize. I keep forgetting that Interact triggers Reactive Strike. So does Manipulate. Until they don't. (Guns and Gears PF2 v Remaster Reloading Strike calls out that it did allow for a Reactive Strike in PF2 but not remaster.) Not to mention all of the other subtle changes that will be happening due to remaster.

I'm using Forgotten Realms. I have been using FR for the past forty years with my own timelines. I have reset it several times back to 1357DR and I don't have the Time of Troubles or the Spellplague happen, for those that know of them. I mention this because I'm using the lore of FR as my guide or to make decisions about dragons. That means that dragons are solitary creatures, per the lore, except when hatchlings or for mating purposes. (Dragons of Faerun for 3.5E) That's why I think of them as solo creatures. I need to decide what to do with this going forward. It also means that metallic and chromatic are the most common, followed by gem and then undead. I'm working on placing the other PF2 types.

I do agree that, in my case, using a PL+2 dragon did mean I had to increase the breath weapon to challenge them in the way I wanted. It was only a critical failure on a breath weapon that brought one of the player characters down. The others were hurt but with potions and the cleric, were back above bloodied soon enough. The rogue, as expected, took no damage.

I disagree that the white dragon is a "even the dumb ol’ bestial white dragon, that overgrown labrador" by far! The young white dragon as INT -1 with adult at +1 and Ancient at +2. The Beast definition says -3 or higher. -1 is possible for a starting character with an INT flaw. I get why it was said but disagree. In my case, I was using the +1 Adult.

At a certain point in PF1, around tenth to twelfth level and higher, numbers could overcome huge CR differences. In PF2, though, numbers can't make up for a large PL difference. In other words, it becomes dependent on luck of the roll. In a different fight, I had a copper dragon join the group against cloud giants. The dragon was Creature 7 and the cloud giants being Creature 11 was too much of a difference for the dragon. It hit only with breath weapon, resisted by a basic save, and a few lucky first attacks.

The good and the bad of PF2 is the tight math. The Cloud Giants Creature 11 against players of level 9 was almost too much for the group. They had higher than average magical gear for their level and the barbarian still needed a nat 20 to get a crit. This is not a bad thing. It's a feature of the game. I think it means that a PL+3, much less higher, is going to be too much for a party. I will see.

Yes this isn't enough to make the dragon win but we have to remember that the main objetive of a TTRPG isn't make the dragon win. It is make the dragon dangerous and challenging.

Again, we get into game design here. If you are defining challenging as the dragon may win, then we agree. If my players weren't stubborn and challenging meant they retreat, then we agree. If monsters are designed to lose, no matter how interesting, I find that bad design. That assumes within the standard guidelines for encounter design. That is the downside of any level based game. It's trivial for a GM to kill the player characters. Pick any monster at PL+5 and the player characters lose. For me, the PL system needs to tell me how close the fight will be, which is almost synonymous with how tough the fight is. I keep reading how tight the math is and to keep within the guidelines for treasure and encounters. I have already found exceptions to these rules. That is merely me having to learn those exceptions to PF2.

@Mathmuse, thanks for the clarifications! Interesting on the shield. I find that very interesting. That does make shield use non intuitive.

I think PF2 has a lot of these strange situations. No game is going to be perfect, of course. PF1 was more simulation. The system tried to simulate reality. It breaks down after twelfth level but works reasonably well until then. Mostly. PF2 seems to have these ideas that look to simulate reality, as well as a game can, and then throws them out the window at times. My best example of that is crafting. Going back to my crafting example, someone making a breast plate, with the formula, has a start up cost of a day. Then it will take them several months in Craft checks to finish it, which is reasonable. Or we can throw reality out the window like the rules do and by paying the rest of the gold, it's done in a day or two. These are the kind of contradictions I keep finding in PF2.

I'm rambling and please don't take these as anything other than me figuring out the system. I appreciate PF2 for many of the things I will nit pick it on. I much prefer it over PF1 where the Reflex of the rogue was so high that they couldn't get hit by Reflex save effects. I do wonder how big of a range I will see with bonuses among the player characters.

@ruzza, that is awesome! Thanks for sharing!

While that answers my question of how to bring down a flyer, Trip attack probably with a readied action, it does create some issues for me. Mainly, a medium, or small, sized creature being able to trip a dragon to bring them down! Again, that's the trade off for a fun game and so something I have to work to overcome in my mind.

Thanks for the replies and conversation!

Jon Goranson wrote:

It's because I don't know how do you rule shields. But my players learn learned the hard way early that to not block critical with shield. Instead is better to take all damage and then heal once that repair a shield during an encounter is unfeasible and switch shields wastes too much actions. So they just restrict to block only normal damage this basically stop them to break shields.

It is a good tactic - but this is so much the opposite of expectations that it really hurts my enjoyment of PF2.

I'm not sure what you meant here? Could you please clarify what your expectations were? How does it hurt your enjoyment?

Jon Goranson wrote:

If an area of attack by a solo monster does a third of any characters hit points, was that an effective attack for it to win?

There are no solo monsters in PF2. Well, maybe of 25th+ level, but not less. 17th level dragon is not a boss for 20th level characters.

CR doesn't exist in pf2 either.

Fair points. I'm still learning PF2, so that's on me. I will try and watch it but appreciate the corrections.

One thing I need to explain about my DMing is that my players, over the past thirty years, come to the table expecting to be able to handle what is thrown at them. No matter how many times I tell them retreat is valid, that's not what they do. Someone might say to have a TPK, which I did, and then they weren't happy with me that the fight wasn't winnable. All of that to say that when I design an encounter, I try and make it something they can win, even if it's tough.

More to say but interrupted.

Thanks for the discussion!

Thanks for the replies and conversation!

On shields, I think we are using RAW with regards to shields. They need to have their shields raised before they can block, unless they have feats or other things that allow for it. My players seem to be the opposite of yours in that they want to save the shield block for a critical hit but will use it on a hit to reduce some damage. As a group, they probably have one shield break per combat that they need to repair.

On Dragons: A lot of things on that, as I said in my post, where I talked about game design. I may be doing some things wrong in my combats, per RAW, since I used the white dragon in my example as a solo. The dragon was CR+2, which seems like it should be a good encounter.

I think you have two questions. Let me flip your first question back on you. If an area of attack by a solo monster does a third of any characters hit points, was that an effective attack for it to win? I say no because if that's all it does on its turn, they aren't even bloodied, they can last another round. Even if it could use its breath weapon again the next round, it still wouldn't take out on character on average. With no penalties based on hit points, until zero hit points, they all have full actions. Further, they can spend their last action to take a potion, to further reduce the effect of the breath weapon. In that same fight, if the breath weapon did two thirds of their hit points in damage, the cleric is probably going to heal, which takes them out of inflicting damage. Even then, the dragon, or opponent, still faces the other three characters' full actions.

For the seventh level characters where they take half damage, that's better but almost as ineffective. Since the dragon can't follow that up the next round with its breath weapon, it's likely many will have received healing or used a potion to get back up over half, to know they can survive another hit like that. Again, is that good?

The second question you have is about fireball. Do I think fireball does low damage? No. A fireball is two actions out of the standard four character party's 12 total actions. Further, by RAW, it's a basic save so there is a chance the dragon takes no damage. (That is very disheartening from what I have seen among my players, which is a small sample.) If it was upcast, it might be doing more, and if the monsters have more than one creature, the fireball spreads out the damage. When looked at with all other factors, the fireball is at the correct place to me.

Again, though, I'm looking at a dragon as a solo, which it isn't supposed to be in PF2, if I understand it better now.

As fo flying, as I said, sure, I could have the dragon fly and harass them with breath weapon and a few fly by attacks. It's good tactics but it's not a fun fight. That's me, though.

I'm equally asking both what Paizo did in their monster design and if others think they did well in that design. Should the dragon take out one character a round by hit point damage? By a condition? Do they need to reduce the standard four party group to nine actions, with some of those going to help the party member who dropped? I don't know. I don't have the answer to that. What I do know is that I really liked the Ground Slam ability of the white dragon and how it worked, on a rules level, to control the battlefield. I don't see the other dragons, of any kind, having something like that.

I apologize, but I don't understand your last statement. It could be my tired brain.

Thanks for the conversation! Take care!

Thanks to all of the responses! I really appreciate it! My questions below are for clarification on what the poster said, not an attack on them or what they think.

@YuriP - I'm surprised you don't see shields broken but of course, I don't know your group. In my group, all but the wizard have a Sturdy Shield (lesser) and use it often. Two players weren't using shields until they saw the effectiveness of them and decided to use them. Not every combat sees one of their shields broken but usually hit. Shields have been a great add, IMO, for the tactical thinking it brings to combat.

I do think the breath weapon needs to do more damage, upwards of 75% more dice. This gets into a lot of topics about game design, monster design, roles of monsters, and more. I'm not saying I'm an expert. More on this below.

@OrochiFuror I do want clarification on a few things you said. Going back to game design, I agree that PF2 doesn't have Solo monsters. Maybe I'm lamenting that? There are some monsters that I want that but might be asking something from the system that it doesn't do.

Encounters with a creature that can fly and attack, like a dragon, can be tough if a group has no ranged weapons or way to bring them down. (Are there rules for how to stop a flyer from flying? If so, please point them out to me.) In my specific case with the white dragon, she was trying to lure them away from their camp, so didn't fly until they were over a hundred feet away and she could get to the camp and attack the NPCs they were protecting and it took two rounds (about five actions) for them to get back in range.

I think the DM can always plan an encounter that will take out their group. It could be a high CR or a group designed to target the player characters weaknesses. It's not a fun combat, though, for me or my players. I want combat to be tough and give the players a sense of accomplishment in having defeated something as powerful as a dragon. I want that in such a way that it doesn't feel like I'm pulling my punches. That's why I really liked Ground Slam. That's an ability a dragon can use while on the ground to make the dragon feel like they can land to attack. Without that, I don't know why the dragon wouldn't use their breath weapon on them until the characters were dead. For me, that's good tactics but it's not a fun game.

I do think you say that a dragon shouldn't go toe to toe with a group but then have some good tactics that could allow it. I don't disagree with those tactics. As I talk about above, it is what the dragon should do but it's a boring fight that is probably frustrating a group that can't negate the fly ability of the dragon.

The Ground Slam and its Step negated two actions from the players every round for any who fell prone, because they had to stand and Step back. The rogue usually went first after that and if they were still standing due to reflex being their best, they lost flanking or two actions to step and use a feat to get the dragon off guard to them. Then the fact that the white dragon could do this every round, multiple attempts of it, really made the white dragon feel like a solo monster. A one action option that does some damage, potentially knocks their enemies over, and they get to Step as well? *Chef's kiss*

Thanks for pointing out some other good options, like the impaling charge or swallow whole. I agree good options. For me, it's finding that balance of fun but playing the dragon to win. I think overall Ground Slam is better due to action economy. In this case, Impaling Charge is two actions, which could provoke Reactive Strikes, especially if they fly as their last action. Swallow Whole ends up being two actions, the grab and the Swallow Whole attempt, if I understand it, is a MAP after the bite. Ground Slam seems better in comparison but I could be wrong.

I do need to get better at telegraphing a dragon. I read and use a lot of ideas from other games, such as Level Up:A5E, and the Lore sections and hinting at creatures is great.

@Mathmuse Thanks for the summaries. I do agree that PF2 dragons are better. I think I want to see even more on that front by RAW. (I know I can add it, and will, but discussion is easier with RAW.) I think dragon lairs need their own entry, description, and abilities to make attacking a dragon there more dangerous but more reward. I could see an air based environment being electricity, especially for a Cloud Dragon, but that's me. I think expanding on dragon tactics would be great, so if there is a book like the draconomicon for PF2, let me know!

Again, thanks for the replies! I really appreciate them all!

Part of this discussion is due to the release of the 2025MM and the discussion on ENWorld about the Gold Dragon stats. It got into game design, which I found interesting. I'm oversimplifying this but two ideas were brought up the most often. A dragon needs to take out a character a turn versus a dragon needs to do a lot of damage to more than half the party each turn. I do think that 2025DND assumes a dragon as a solo monster, but I could be wrong on that. As @OrochiFuror said, and many agreed which is why there was the debate, the dragon couldn't stand up to an equal level, much less the listed idea of the party being even seven levels lower. (Darn inconsistency of CR.) One person ran in Roll20 an Ancient Gold Dragon of CR24 against a group of four 17th level characters. While the dragon won, it was not an easy win and the dice "failed" the characters at just the right time on what should have been a 90% success chance.

In that case, CR is different and a seven level difference in PF2 means the lower level doesn't stand a chance. If I understand the encounter building rules, a CR+2 or CR+3 should be a tough fight. I do see that the examples in GM Core don't have anything Solo, so that may require me getting over dragon's being alone and have them bring minions of some type along.

Again, thanks for the discussion! I really appreciate it! Take care!

I am playing PF2 but know PF1 better so probably use some terms from there. Sorry for any confusion.

Any thoughts on the Ground Slam of the White Dragon for all others?

I also think that dragon breath weapons need to be 50% more.

Yes on shields. Last night in a fight, the party were getting hit by big hits that were breaking their shields and leaving them at less than twenty percent hit points on the shield. That tracks better. I still like the idea of the option of using it for one final block but it does destroy the shield. Discussing it with my players for a house rule.

I think I'm finding some weird places where PF2 exists. Some gamist elements for balance, some simulation stuff for realism, while leaving most story elements up to the group. No game will be perfect for me but PF2 is a good high fantasy base game for me.

Thanks for the discussion!

Thanks for the replies!

Thanks for the clarification on crafting. I missed the change in days for the times.

I apologize. I am trying to discuss RAW and if the answer for a reason, is because of "the rules say so" or "balance" that's fine. At least I understand the intent of them. In talking with a player, sure, if the shield is damaged and then they get hit by a critical hit, that might break the shield. Otherwise, shields were broken in the game at only half hit points, which is why I wondered why they can't still be used. I could see at quarter damage, it's useless but still repairable but that's as subjective as half! I'm not sure if I will do that or leave it.

As for Foundry, yep, hate to lose the automation! I did figure out with the movement. I had Elevation Ruler installed and wasn't using the PF2 rules on it. I will miss the color coding of movement but that's minor to having it.

New question.

Why don't all dragons have Ground Slam like the white dragon? Or do they have something that's similar but I'm missing it? The fight, which I think should have been more difficult with a Dragon at CR+2, was easy for them. If not for Ground Slam costing their characters two actions to get up and move, for the free Step the dragon got, the dragon wouldn't have gotten away. (I know there are feats for it, but I let them reload, change weapons, or pick one up with a move action. If not for that, Ground Slam would stop all attacks from those characters that failed.) I think I had to double the breath weapon dice as well. Even then, only a failed save dropped a character. That made the breath weapon scary!

In my limited experience in running dragons, that sort of ability is needed by all of them. Maybe not Ground Slam specifically, although I'm pretty sure all my dragons going forward will have it, but something that allows that control of the battlefield for them. It makes them feel like a Solo Monster at CR+2.

I also think it's too bad that Freezing Blood is not a free action for every attacker using slashing or piercing damage. I'm also disappointed that at least the chromatics don't have damage causing aura's. It's very thematic to me. I probably will add them to mine!

Thanks for the discussion!

I am now running two PF2E groups and loving it. I'm still new to the system, so have questions. We use Foundry, so I think some of the questions I have are from its automation. When it works, it's great, but it seems my second level group overwhelmed Foundry with all of the automation such that it struggled to work. Movement is still janky with it. Those are Foundry issues, though, not PF2.

Crafting - Am I correct in thinking that the system still assumes X amount of gold, or time, spent on equipment? The crafter spends half the gold and four days then spends the rest to finish it then or uses the crafting table to keep going until the other half is paid for. (If I have done the math right, a 2gp level 0 steel shield takes four days base then 20 days at 5 cp per day, or 24 days total.)

I get that depending on the GM, world, that some equipment might only be available if the characters make it themselves, so it's a good option to have. It's either a lot of time or full cost + four days.

(For fun, level 0 chain mail would be four days then sixty days. A level 2 full plate, top mundane equipment, would be four days then fifty days.)

On shields, has there been a reason that they aren't usable for partial AC in broken condition? In the games I have going, I have not seen a shield get destroyed in a level+2 appropriate encounter. Immediately get broken by a critical hit, yes, but not close to destroyed. I think the option to use the broken shield for some AC, and some blocking, more meaningful than it can't be used at all and can be repaired.

If these have been asked and answered, point me to them! I searched but couldn't find anything like this.

Thanks for the discussion!

And it arrived with everything in it and mint condition.

Impatient cow is impatient.

Thanks for the reply!

Yes, I have sent customer service three emails. They usually respond faster than this.

Paizo might not have any other control but UPS bounced it back to them saying to check with them since the tracking number doesn't have any information.

I know, I'm being rudely impatient.

Thanks!

Greetings!

I have emailed and hadn't heard back so I thought I would try here.

I ordered several things back on July 18. I saw the update that it shipped Aug 5 but I have not yet received it yet. It's marked as Complete in My Account but I have nothing.

UPS has nothing on the tracking numbers and their system says to check with the shipper when that happens.

Can I get an update on this? Or an answer to my emails?

Thanks!

Jon Goranson

Oh, I should mention, I do throw out balance in favor of the players, which also means I don't use, in PF1 games, flat bonuses for Bard abilities. I let the Bard roll their performance for Inspire and it can go higher based on the roll. Completely throws out balance but makes the Bard even more valuable and the players love it! Yes, I do it for both sides.

I let concept of the character to guide things more so allow spell casters to create spells on the fly if it fits the character. Or the group says, "Wow!"

Oh, I wouldn't mind seeing a silver standard system. I went back to the non decimal system of coins (1 gold = 20 silver = 200 cp) because I find that to be more real. However, the main reason I want that is so that items aren't so expensive. Top tier PF1 items cost more than the biggest manor house in the most expensive city in Golarion and that makes no sense to me.

Really, I also want more support tools. I am making some of them myself but the idea is all items in an excel spreadsheet with costs and then I can create columns to allow some changes in costs. It's not to create a full on economy to create merchants of the PCs but to have variations in prices.

Thanks again!

Lots of good ideas here! Thanks!

New Paths Compendium does have a White Necromancer which a player used in a campaign and it was good. It has an option Priest, a Warlock, and Theurge as well, all twenty level classes. And more! (I'm not affiliated with it but I do like the options.)

What I would want are books that expand the Unchained rules. (with full hero lab classic support, preferably) Now, this may end up being small as there is a lot in Unchained already. I use three action economy in my PF1 games already, with 3 actions on their turn and one reaction outside of their turn. I'm also pretty forgiving on what that reaction is. Maybe they use it to move out of the way on another player's turn, for example.

I like the consolidated skills, mainly because I like Athletics and Acrobatics as good, generic skills to handle, STR and DEX based actions. I do like the proficiency levels of PF2 as a way to show when certain things can be made. I want to see cleaned up feats or at least pared down. This assumes the same number of feats to allow options. For example, maybe all metamagic feats that add one level are one feat and a spellcraft check. Although, I wouldn't mind Ancestry feats as well as adding them as separate feats gained every other or third level on top of the standard feat. I'm not for bounded accuracy, at least not forced, but fewer bonus types to AC, maybe non armor type is limited to five, could do that.

I do like PF2 multi class rules and wouldn't mind some way of allowing that as an option, where feats or skill points control when things are learned in the second class. But at a third or half rate of base class.

I like bringing back the randomness of 3E. Instead of flat bonuses, make it a roll but make it a roll every round. Bless adds d4 to attack and fear based saves and they get to roll every round. Prayer, then, adds d4 to attacks, damage, all saves, and they roll every round. It's a lot of fun and I have been doing that in my current PF1 games. Could do this for the attribute spells and any spell that is fixed, instead make it variable for more fun with it. (It also allows magic to be more magically and less predictable but hopefully in a fun way.) Heh. This could go on other spells. Blink or displacement give flat fifty percent miss chances but what if that varies by up to twenty percent each time it's rolled?

(Now, yes, anytime this is done, it goes against the players and their characters, who are there all the time and rolling more than any given NPC. That's what the DM is for, to help make sure it's fun and works for the group.)

Now, there is more but this gives an idea basically of what I was hoping from PF2. I don't think a game can achieve balance and would rather see them give advice on how to run unbalanced games by talking to players, setting expectations, and going by rule of cool rather than thinking that one more rule will make it balanced. For example, I rarely see any players take Prestige Classes. If Prestige Classes "broke" balance and did do more things, I think they would be even more valuable and sought after, than what I have seen.

Thanks for the discussion!

I'm still playing PF1. Two games a week, remote, started due to the pandemic. One is in person coming back next week. The other will remain remote.

I'm doing my own adventures but using FR as my world.

I'm sure PF2.0 will have its own recommendations regarding the amount of xp to award for an adversary of a given challenge level. Since you need a flat amount for each level, the xp award will also have to be flattened, so an APL1 group will get just as much xp from a CR2 foe as an APL8 group gets from a CR9 foe.

I took it a different way but obviously don't know for sure. If they are trying to simplify the math for the DMs, having foes be worth a variable amount seems counter-intuitive to that goal. Instead of having an xp per foe, as they do now, they are going to have to go back to the ECL v EL chart to figure out xp.

I took it that this is going to allow them to look a monster and decide how many of them should be a level, based on their own goals for the game. If they think it's worthy of gaining a level defeating a monster, they make that monster worth 1000 xp. (I never remember if you divide or not, so I guess up to 4k xp for the standard four character party?)

Yes, CR is also an indicator of when it should be fought and how tough it will be but now xp will do that as well at a glance.

The secondary effect of that, which I also surmised but could be wrong, is that monsters will be a challenge at all levels. A party can't ignore the group of orcs with the giants anymore. This also allows better "team ups" in my opinion because it does allow orcs to be with a giant, instead of some lesser giant progression. (i.e. orcs with ogre with ettin with hill giant with fire giant.) Now you can put orc servitors with any giant type. Further, if the DM wants, now it's an option for the orcs to rise up against the giants if they don't like the giants anymore, whereas in current rules, the orcs wouldn't stand a chance against giants.

I could be completely wrong; it's just how I took it.

Jon Goranson wrote:

The question was asked why it doesn't fit fantasy and, again only for me, it evokes a later time than the fantasy I prefer or think about.

So, how do you feel about the alchemist and investigator? They are also very Victorian/Edwardian character types.

Thanks for the questions and reply!

The reason I don't find Alchemist Victorian is that the term alchemist has been around a while. Egyptian alchemists learned how to gold plate things. Then it went to the Middle East and came back to Europe in the Middle Ages. The term itself doesn't take me out of my thoughts on fantasy. Now, to go a step further, the abilities of it can at times. Making bombs, and that term, isn't fantasy. I guess I accept it because in a world of magic, the medieval scientist, the alchemist, learned some spells and limited technology that works. It works for me in a way that (the terms) Occultist, Spiritualist, and Medium don't.

As for Investigator, that's because I'm a Grognard! :) This was a term used back in the 2E Complete Rogue's book as a way to think of Rogues that made sense for them to be in a group. It's more than that but specific to me.

As for complexity, only for me, I use Hero Lab, so a lot of that is figured out for me in game.

Again, haven't had time to reread them but want to do so!

Thanks!

Late to the game but will offer my opinion.

Occult Adventures turned me off due to the name, both of the book and the class names. Occult, Mesmerist, Spiritualist, Medium, Psychic, and mind powers in general, aren't fantasy to me. These terms in particular, evoke Victorian London, seances, and eventually Houdini debunking them. I, personally, never found psionics or powers like this satisfying in fantasy.

The question was asked why it doesn't fit fantasy and, again only for me, it evokes a later time than the fantasy I prefer or think about. Again, I think more of a Victorian/Edwardian times than fantasy when I hear these terms. I also see combat having changed from melee to ranged, with revolvers and rifles, with little or no armor, which again isn't fantasy to me.

(As much as I loved Dark Sun, the 2E psionic system was rough. I think I like it better now that I think of Dark Sun as magical post apocalyptic world.)

Having said that, the discussion here has made me want to relook and reevaluate, and try and get past those terms. The Kineticist sounds like the 3.5 Warlock, which I liked.

So, thanks for the discussion and want to look again at this and see what I think about it with, hopefully, fresh eyes and insights into it!

Tablesmith has this already for Golarion in the Pathfinder files area. It has its limitations but would be a good start.

Jon Goranson wrote:

So, what do I want? I want the creator/designers to have a plan.

We do have a plan. And part of that plan is knowing more than we publish or reveal. We have answers for all the mysteries that folks are interested in, but aren't going to reveal them all.

Overall there are actually very few of those secrets we never plan to reveal answers to. Most of the other secrets we'll answer eventually, but not all at once, and not before the stars are right.

Oh, okay. Thread's over.

Well, we could throw in a Buddhist, a Neo-Pagan and a Shintoist in the debate as well, polytheism isn't quite dead yet after all.

But honestly, that's a question that theologies of various sorts have been trying to answer for ages, and you can mine them for seriously researched arguments as to why we're not having Buddha, Odin and Jesus tag-team North Korea next week.

Okay, my apologies if I misunderstood your post.

My reasons for talking about this are because it's all fiction. I'm not talking real world. I'm trying to come up with what the gods of Golarion are doing such that they don't act and why they don't act, especially when they don't have to act, since they don't gain power via worship. As TWP said, it's interesting to think that these powerful beings acted because they wanted to rather than because it was in their own interest. I'm trying to take that further and figure out what the fictional gods are doing in the background of the fictional world. That helps me place them in context for when the PCs would run into them or what kind of religious motivated quests are out there.

I know we can make them near real-world like and call them mysterious or that the characters can't understand all that they do. But I don't think that is thematically satisfying. I want to have some ideas of what the creators had in mind, which is why I started then and with the contents of the setting book itself. However, other than these powerful entities embodying aspects of the world, there isn't much to say about them. I don't know if the world needs them or not. If the world doesn't need them, can we have atheists or agnostics who acknowledge the gods power but not their divinity?

Tacticslion brings up an excellent point in his TRON analogy. (Thanks!) However, it's also depressing in that the conclusion he seems to get is that the gods (USERS) that created the universe and people (Programs) did it for themselves to make their lives easier. And even the most devoted god (USER) who loves his creations (Programs) dearly, still has no problem using them, removing their free will or getting rid of them to further his own plans. Wow. No wonder the Programs revolt! :) (If I put words into Tacticslion's mouth, I apologize.)

In a way, that is exactly what the gods of the Exalted world did. The primordials created the gods to serve them. Then the primordials went to play the Games of Divinity and left the world to the gods. The gods saw the Games of Divinity and wanted to play but had to usurp the primordials to do that. So the created their champions, the Exalted, to fight the primordials and rule over creation all so the gods could go play their game! However, in Exalted, prayers to the gods manifest in heaven as a real, tangible thing that can be used as currency and to mark a god's wealth, power and status.

So, while I agree that these are the big questions of life and have no answer, I want an answer for the game! Or a series of answers where I can pick the one that works for my and my game group! Even if it's something as generic as "they play the Games of Divinity" and don't let themselves be distracted from it.

Maybe what would fit Golarion better is that the gods are at war with each other, Good versus Evil? Law versus Chaos? They have to protect their own realms while also attacking their enemies?

Or are they manifestations of the physical world? They keep the world going for without them, the river would run up and over and not along the ground?

My question then became once we figure out what the powerful gods are doing, we can ask how and why they giver of their power to mortals in the case of spells. (And I'm old school enough that I think of low level spells a function of faith, mid level spells as coming from the god's servents, Angels, Azatas and the like, but high level spells needing to be answered by the gods themselves.) And once we know this, we can answer whether or not all prayers are automatic or not.

In the end, I agree that it might not matter. I might use the rule of drama or the rule of cool. At the moment, what PF has done is make arcane and divine power known, defined and consistent. That's why people who can be mages are! Power. Or whatever they can get from that power. So the question remains, do we hand wave divine power away and make it as consistent and mysterious as arcane but it works? Do we give it purpose? Do we merely use the most dramatic thing?

Again, reading about how magic, divine or arcane, is more powerful than anything mundane but unpredictable is usually a good read. But it makes for a lousy game! Players wouldn't like that and they shouldn't. So, since we have to have defined rules for magic, I'm merely suggested we have defined rules for the gods as well.

Hopefully I explained this better. Thanks for the discussion!

I think part of the problem is that I'm not sure Pathfinder (3.X) is defined well enough to answer mechanically what is Epic and what is Mythic.

Background. In my opinion, 3.X/PF has four distinct flavors of play based on levels. 1-5 is Apprentice or Grim & Gritty, 6-10 is Heroic, 11-15 is Paragon or Super heroic and 16-20 is Epic. Each of the tiers of play will play differently. In the apprentice tier, things are very swingy by the die rolls. A lucky damage roll by the orc or even goblin can take down a character. Or multiple lucky hits in a row by the monsters but average damage.

Heroic tier, as I defined it, is where the numbers come together well. There aren't a lot of save or die effects, characters can take several hits and can dish it out and the spells are fun.

Super heroic, then, is when things get swingy again but because of high damage dealing spells or save or die effects, such as finger of death, death spell or the like. Too much hinges, again, on a single die roll that can kill a character.

Epic, then, is a tier where the characters are able to travel vast distances in the blink of an eye, battle terrifying monsters and destroy armies. It still has save or die effects but the spells and items the characters have help mitigate those effects somewhat.

All of these can be fun! But I think they play differently. So, I am going to use those as a basis of my ideas, going forward.

(A lot of the above depends on the world used and the DM. If most DMs use NPC classes and keep NPCs with PC levels less than 10, then Super Heroic could easily seem like Epic and Epic could seem godlike in terms of what the PCs can do. On the other hand, if the DM or world scales with the PCs, then it might be tough for them to see how powerful they have become. Some of that is because it might not be fun for DM or players to run a battle of 12th level characters against an orc horde but another group may love it. Again, none of those are bad and it's up to the group for what they do. But depending on the style of play, layering Mythic on top of that might not work well for the group, depending on their style of play.)

So now what's happening is that we are adding mythic on top of that. What does Mythic Apprentice mean? A spell casting prodigy? The scion of a god? Are we actually shifting the apprentice up to heroic level but with some limitations of apprentice level? What about Mythic Heroes or Mythic Epic characters? Again, does it just mean higher numbers? Or should it look beyond the numbers?

I think there is too much happening here to simplify it. On the one hand, I do think we need some specific mechanics to tell us what a Mythic hero can do, perhaps broken down further by the tiers as I described. However, in other instances, maybe all we need are good ideas of how to describe, as a player or DM, a mythic action or adventure and let it be done in role playing, judged by the DM.

One thing I do agree with, whole heartedly, though, is that we should NOT be using real myths as our guidelines. As many have pointed out, the demi-gods or heroes of myth didn't do something twice. While that makes for a good story, it doesn't make for a good game. So, maybe instead, we need to define niches in which the mythic heroes fall and use that as our guidelines?

The Scion RPG has nine ability scores and has epic abilities tied to them. But it also has degrees of success and I don't think I have seen a good implementation of 3.X/PF that has degrees of success. I think that's because once you add it into skills, there is no reason not to add it into combat rolls. But then all it does it complicate things. Anyway, back to Scion. In Scion, a character with Epic STR is able to gain automatic successes on any STR checks, which includes damage in combat. Scion has three tiers of play, called Hero, Demi-God and God. Heroic level STR checks are picking up a car and throwing it at someone two blocks away. Demi-God level STR checks are picking up a car and throwing it across town to stop the car bomb from reaching its destination. God level STR checks are throwing a car to knock a satellite out of orbit. These levels are mostly well defined, although the system is hardly perfect! But it gives good guidelines about what is meant at each level of play.

And so maybe that's what we need from PF? Maybe they first need to define the levels of play, similar to what I did above and what a character in those levels is able to do. And then step it up and define what a Mythic character in that level can do. But having said that, I think people here have also hit on the problem. If all we had was apprentice level, then Mythic apprentice would mean something. But having heroic level muddies our classification ability. Is Mythic apprentice merely heroic? Heroic++? Is Mythic Heroic level Super heroic? Epic? Something else? So, I think in defining these things for us, PF is going to have to answer those questions as well, both in terms of mechanics as well as role playing definitions. At least, if they want to satisfy both sides of the discussion I'm seeing here.

I'm hopeful they can do it and look forward to more updates to the document!

JG

I also LOVE Alternity. I'm sure Neil has me beat, though.

Anyway, I'm currently running a modified Dark*Matter game. It's more supernatural than aliens and we are enjoying the mechanics a lot. (My campaign notes are here: http://dmgaming.pbworks.com/w/page/59882409/Alternity%20-%20Urban%20Fantasy %20-%20Denver )

My group and I recently tried a lot of games. Dresden RPG, Star Wars Saga, Castles and Crusades, Shadowrun 4E, Vampire Requiem, Exalted, d20 CoC, as well as 3E and 4E DND and PF. At the end of it, we decided to go with Alternity. And my players completely surprised me by saying that they thought that Alternity was a very good system that could be used for nearly anything and they would enjoy it. I was caught off guard by that!

I have found Alternity to be a very good system mechanically that also allows my group to tell the stories we want. It's heroic but has elements of realism there. Really glad we are using it!