Goblin

Kaelizar's page

Goblin Squad Member. Organized Play Member. 110 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 3 Organized Play characters.



1 person marked this as a favorite.
W E Ray wrote:

Hey, I just booked my room at the Doubletree for PaizoCon 2017 and I'm wondering if anyone has stayed at the Crest Motor Inn across the street.

For six nights at the Doubletree I'm paying $795 but if I choose to go with the Crest Motor Inn -- a significantly less impressive hotel, it's $445 for a standard or $550 for one of their two "nice" rooms.

Has anyone stayed at the Crest Motor Inn during PaizoCon?

Just stayed there. I want out. I'm canceling my other 3 nights and trying to find somewhere else to stay while at the con. Not worth it. I wasn't comfortable at all there.

Rooms were 70 a night. But there are other charges. It was 345 for 4 nights.

If you're looking for a roommate to split cost at double tree I'm in


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel we should move the replay conversation to another forum, I'd like to see more discussion about the rest of the blog. Scrolling trough replay arguments are much less useful for Paizo as well.

Chronicle Sample:
Unless there are only 3 factions I would like this section to be larger to allow for every faction to be tracked on each chronicle. Have Player Name/Character name be on top of each other or something to get more space out of the top box. For Items I feel like there will not be enough space for some Scenarios, especially if there is a Scenario specific item that needs to be stated out. I'm with other posters that the right "XP/GP section should have the '-', '+' on the lines to better differentiate them as well GM Initial section that can easily be seen (GM Only) sections as in PFS1

Tags:
I like this a lot. Being able to easily look at Scenarios and get a bit more information from them. It would be nice to incorporate tags not only for 'Vehicles' but also tag them for 'Social' or 'Combat' or something to help GMs prep


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I am very curious on the color choices here. Why a bright red shield? Why the goldish-yellow armor? I would have liked to see a more tarnished, brassy, colored armor, and as for the shield, anything that wasn't so bright would be okay, but would have liked to see a more earthy/wood color.

Lastly, the shape of the shield. Since he is the Iconic Fighter, it would have been nicer to see a more..... traditional shield. Something with less of a point at the top, and rounded coming down to the bottom. I'm all for Fantasy getting away from historical designs, but something less "Kite" shaped and more "Shield" shaped. I can only hope that will shields being dented and broken, that Valeros finds something a litter nicer as he levels. :D


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
It does seem like the expectation for starting age has changed from 110+training time in PF1.

I'm fairly certain from the playtest rules and from Twitch streams, that they are changing the starting age of Elves to 20.

Not sure how Forlorn was dealt with in the past, but my understanding of it now isn't an age or maturity thing, but something that can happen to any Elf at any age that has contact with those outside of the Elven race, or outside of 'traditional elf society'

PF1
"Having lived outside of traditional elf society for much or all of your life, you know the world can be cruel, dangerous, and unforgiving of the weak"

PF2
"Watching your friends age and die fills you with moroseness that girds you against harmful emotions"

Additionally it's a trait that you can take at any level in PF1, and it looks like in PF2 you can take it at Level 1 or at level 5, 9, 13, or 17 as additional Ancestry feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For the QSG, here are some things I would have liked to know/have.

-Chronicle #0
-Knowing that I can completely change my character up until it's level 2. I spent way to much time trying to make something I thought would be useful, but turns out it wasn't... at all
-How to fill out / use a Chronicle sheet and knowing to bring/keep it
-Character Creation rules: point buy, ancestries, classes, etc
-list of what's banned or a link to one


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Unicor Might I suggest moving relevant discussions to another thread. I really want to have this discussion and try to give Paizo as much research from Players here on the forum so they don't have to try to think of everything on their own.

My input from what I've read is that

A) people seem to want a middle ground OR something lower than untrained so that you're not completely incompetent when untrained. A "I've never focused on this, but I'm also not an idiot" rank.

B) We want additional understanding of what Proficiency actually means, and how much freedom a character will have when determining/choosing them, outside of class options.

C) What differentiates Skills / DC's / Saves / Weapon / Armor Proficiency. And what that means in terms of advancement and choices. [this sort of goes with B]

I've started a thread on Proficiency but think we could create additional threads for keeping discussions as specific as we can for Paizo.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's 2 alternatives for those still looking: (which I went over in October:)

spoiler:
1) As your character levels, it allows him/her to utilize their training more effectively. (instead of level dictating) Below is a very rough and non-balanced for level option that perhaps could include flat bonuses or not. But a maxed out Legendary proficiency would be = 10. [And would feel like those who have training are 'better' instead of just level.........

Untrained = -2
Trained = ~1/5th of your level
Expert = ~1/4th of your level
Master = ~1/3rd of your level
Legendary = ~1/2 of your level

2) Your proficiency determines bonus. (Because you can't achieve certain levels of proficiency until certain levels anyway, it show how dedicating to one thing pays off) The way I describe this is that if you're Trained then you should be perhaps on par with someone who's naturally good at something. If you're Expert then you should be a little better, but on par with someone who's has a natural talent. If you're Master then you should be better than someone who has a natural talent. And if you're Legendary it is something that is impossible for someone with a natural talent to perform. (And using 'naturally good' and 'Natural talent' as say, oh I don't know, ability Modifiers. then it's fairly easy to calculate, but if we want Legendary to be Truly Legendary, then we can use Powers of 2.

Untrained = -2
Trained = 2
Expert = 4
Master = 8
Legendary = 16

I'm 100% behind OPs ideas. I think that your choices as a player should be the most important part of your numerical bonuses on your character sheet. Not your level.

I mean they made the awesome system of Proficiency, and completely made it basically pointless numerically (what, you're 15% better between trained and Legendary?) something sounds off


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I seriously hope that in the final 2e that they fix the inconsistencies between monsters and PCs. It's only really come up in forums here (except the Pale Mountains Gnoll b/c that's as far as we've gotten)

Being able to disassemble a monster into it's working parts and applying those is important. Having weapon size be a factor in damage, applying consistent bonuses, etc are all very important. Hopefully this was overlooked for the playtest to keep things simple, but it seems to have caused more controversy than simplicity in the forums, and in practice.

I do believe Paizo has said they do intend to do something about it. but now sure exactly what or when they said it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Brandon Hammond wrote:

Wow... No more core "Paladin?!". Bold! I like it! "Divine Champion" sounds great.

Giving Wizard Quick Prep? I love Wizards, they're my favorite class, but making them more like the Sorcerer in regards to casting doesn't fit right as a "fix" to issues presented. I actually think this makes the wizard more powerful. The reason I took Quick Prep was because it was eminently powerful! Like I said Wizards are my favorite but sorcs should remain the versatile casters. Wouldn't just giving Wizards another spell slot be better?

We were hoping the ability to be especially good at preparing would be seen as more of an interesting/versatility increase, as opposed to a raw power boost, based on the feedback you guys gave us. Of our other ideas, I think the best one we didn't use was customizing your arcane bond from wizard to wizard (something like: amulets give you defensive benefits, staff for the extra spell, etc, with the possibility of adding more in later books) but then that would leave the wizard making two subclass choices as opposed to one for most other characters. Does that strike you as a wizard fan as adding more to the "interesting" factor than the "power" factor?

Just to chime in on this. Mark, Yes I do think Adding things to the Arcane bond to be more interesting. [additionally adding something special for the School of magic would be good too, or perhaps limiting Quick Prep to a spell of your selected school]


1 person marked this as a favorite.
masda_gib wrote:

I think "Characters with legendary in something aren't legendary because of proficiency but because they are level 15" nails it.

If a character gains level 15 and chooses a legendary skill they can't yet choose a legendary skill feat. All they have is a +1. If they meet a level 16 masterful character they have exactly the same numerical proficiency and skill feat categories.

I see this as the major problem.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thalin wrote:

I still think my top issue is Trained Vs Legendary only amounting to +3; the minor differences in what you are "specialized" in makes you feel, well, not very special.

I actually think the spells are quite good; though the number that are quite good relative to their level are limited. Magic-types seem to have plenty to work with.

I think they've handled the bland race issues; or at least "vastly improved them". At the very least, I now think races are better than PF1.

I'm with you. Proficiency training should be the most important numerical function, otherwise there's not much to the proficiency training system, which I really want to move forward. instead of having skill ranks like P1, using the proficiency training take that place feels right, but mechanically it doesn't work that way.

As it stands level is the most important numerical function of the playtest.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RazarTuk wrote:
Granted, that would lead to the interesting mental image of a fighter being able to pick a branch up off the ground and murder people to death with it, dealing more damage than a greatsword could in other people's hands.

THIS!

As discussed in the Proficiency talks, training should be more important than anything else I think otherwise why have Expert or Legendary, when the difference is a +2? As everyone has said, it then requires the arbitrary Magic weapon rules to even come close to a caster.

Not only that, but has anyone considered attacking a weapon? (AKA Sunder?)
We have hardness and dent rules for shields, but how does it work for weapons? I would be curious to see if how much hardness a magic sword gains. Additionally are characters able to target shields without the wielder of the shield?

With the current rules Any sort of Adamantine, Or magical, weapon would destroy any item, and heck structures without much problem. Going through the hardness no problem. I see current Magic Weapon rules combined with item/object damage as a big problem


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lyee wrote:
Different desires for the system, then. I do want level to be a primary source of advancement. I want level 10 to be an entirely different universe to level 1, and level 10 characters to dance over any challenge a level 1 character could consider. Level 10 characters are regional heroes, super-famous knights and wizards, compared to level 1 nobodies. I want every level 10 character to be better at everything than every level 1 character. That trained, 18 Cha level 1 is the head of the high school debate club, sure. He's got potential at diplomacy and a winning smile, but Grognor the guy who slew an entire orcish camp on his own can hold his own socializing at the galla due to the stories he has. A lot happened in 10 levels!

I agree, it's a different desire for the system. You did sway me here a bit, to the thought that 1 vs 10 are definitely on a different playing field, but I feel with level added the numbers just get silly where they could be much smaller and fulfill the same purpose, and to RazarKuk's point, making it some simple calculation for difficult to DC would be nice to have.

As it stands now, with Level being primary advancement. Then a Bard trying to balance all attributes, not going for any maxes, and becoming trained in all skills would have the best chance to defeat any encounter. They would most likely have an upwards of 65-75% chance to succeed at most checks (and attacks) dealing acceptable damage and have the ability to cast spells and use Inspiration.

I dont want to see Pathfinder 2nd Ed become a game where there is 1 or even 2 superior ways to play. Sure, full Attribute, full training will be better, but by how much? +5? is that +5 to 1 thing better than being +5 better at literally everything else?

I might be drawing some bad conclusions,but it just doesn't feel right.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lyee wrote:
Heck, it can go to +20 different at high levels (untrained->legendary,-1->+7 attribute,+0->+5 item) if you stretch, meaning something the wizard fails on a 19, the fighter succceeds on a 2. This is before considering feats & features that can move results an entire category.

It's true that specialization matter for individuals of the same level, that's how the system works, but make level a variable to any of that and I feel the system breaks down to an extent.

I'm fine with having a portion of level modify how much your training give you in terms of modifiers, but I dont want level to be the main source of improvement.

LVL 1, 18 CHA, trained Diplomacy: +5 (trained(level)- +1; CHA mod- +4)
LVL 10, 8 CHA, untrained Diplomacy: +5 (untrained(level-4)- +6; CHA mod- -1)

I don't like this. To me the level 10, 8 cha, untrained, should not have the same bonus as anyone trained. This means that EVERY SINGLE level 10 character is better than every level 1 character at EVERYTHING. PERIOD.

Basically the biggest boost you can give to yourself as you level is to spend all your skill increases on going from untrained to trained to get the +4 and screw going Expert/Master/Legendary, unless you really need the boost from the Master/Legendary skill feats.

I want to see more benefits to skill increases and being trained and less benefits from just leveling [and to balance this with attribute modifiers I don't think any sort of level based bonus should go above +10.

Check out this post: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42byg?It-must-be-that-time-of-the-month-again# 7


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Lyee, I'm all for obstacles that are basically level locked. In your river example Why does the level 18 elf wizard better at crossing that river just because he's 4 levels higher than the encounter.

It makes specialization almost pointless, even less for those skills that happen to be higher because it's based on an Attribute that you use for your class. I want the fact that my Fighter has Trained in Athletics to mean that he's on point in the river crossings and must help the other get through using the party's wits instead of everyone being able to cross just because they're level 4.

I don't want the whole party to have a roughly 40+% chance to succeed in most challenges, I want some character who have an 80+% helping those with the 10% or less chance get by. Otherwise specialization and Attribute increases are pointless and EVERYTHING is either challenging or trivial for EVERYONE instead of SOME THINGS being trivial/challenging per character.

I can understand the reasoning behind it. You don't anyone who didn't specialize to be locked out of doing anything, but that's inclusive and arbitrary. A highly skilled level 7 MASTER climber should out climb ANY untrained climber. PERIOD. an Ultimate DC for level 7 is 27, but DC 27 is between easy and medium for anyone over level 13. And thinking further. a rough climb for level 13 "Incredible" is 35, which is basically impossible for the level 7 Master, but why, he's a master. and those level 13's aren't even trained... but they have a better chance? Explain this.

I can completely get behind this, but an explanation would be nice. [Just trying to play the devils advocate here, not trying to say anyone's opinion is wrong.]


4 people marked this as a favorite.

This is why I'm not a fan of +Level to proficiency. It's basically an arbitrary +Level to any DC to keep it challenging. (It's not like Jumping and hanging on a ledge all of a sudden become a DC 30, where 10 levels ago it was a DC 20..) I just don't understand the justification.

It seems somehow un-Pathfinder to have a level 5 wizard swinging a club, or shooting a crossbow, having the same bonuses (or higher) to attack that a level 1 fighter has.

It's an arbitrary "Game" thing that's messing with my understanding of Pathfinder's "In Game" rules/laws.

Like why would any mid/high level NPC offer a quest to any level 1 PCs? they could do everything they are doing but better....


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Yolande d'Bar wrote:

Why is the 18th lvl wizard so boss with a sword? How does Ostog the Untenured know so much about Everything?

How am I supposed to describe this stuff as a GM with no idea of what exactly is happening?

This is exactly why I don't think a proficiency system should include full level at all. Raise the bonuses for actually training in that skill.

Currently Level is the most import part of proficiency, training and ability modifier are almost negligible. I mean the basic difference between trained and Legendary is +3, so having a 16 in the relevant stat basically makes you Legendary (since most of the time the 'Legendary' actions don't come up)

I see 2 fairly acceptable ways to represent this. 1 would be to include a fraction of your level based on your 'trained' proficiency. And another would be Flat, but Large bonuses based on 'Trained' proficiency.

1) As your character levels, it allows him/her to utilize their training more effectively. [instead of level dictating] Below is a very rough and non-balanced for level option that perhaps could include flat bonuses or not. But a maxed out Legendary proficiency would be = 10. [And would feel like those who have training are 'better' instead of just level.........

Untrained = -2
Trained = ~1/5th of your level
Expert = ~1/4th of your level
Master = ~1/3rd of your level
Legendary = ~1/2 of your level

2) Your proficiency determines bonus. [Because you can't achieve certain levels of proficiency until certain levels anyway, it show how dedicating to one thing pays off] The way I describe this is that if you're Trained then you should be perhaps on par with someone who's naturally good at something. If you're Expert then you should be a little better, but on par with someone who's has a natural talent. If you're Master then you should be better than someone who has a natural talent. And if you're Legendary it is something that is impossible for someone with a natural talent to perform. [And using 'naturally good' and 'Natural talent' as say, oh I don't know, ability Modifiers. then it's fairly easy to calculate, but if we want Legendary to be Truly Legendary, then we can use Powers of 2.

Untrained = -2
Trained = 2
Expert = 4
Master = 8
Legendary = 16


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As I've mentioned in other posts, I honestly dont want to see level at all in skills/proficiency. [maybe 1/2, 1/3 or 1/4 your level, but never full level]

Sure you're getting better as you level, but is a level 4 with 10 Dex really the same skill level at Acrobatics as a level 1 with 18 Dex?

I'm NOT saying Paizo should adopt a type of "Bounded Accuracy" like 5e, but something that a balance between that and how it's calculated now.

If full level is added to proficiency bonuses, then that makes your choices of Attributes, and Skill training that much less important. It's one thing to get awesome at some things as you level, but to get awesome at ALL things as you level is a bit much.

As I think about this something like you get -2 if untrained, +1/5 level if Trained, +1/4 level if Expert, +1/3 level is Master and +1/2 level if legendary. That means that at Level 20 Legendary is +10, Master is +6/7, Expert is +5, Trained is +4, Untrained is -2.

This is just an example and I would defiantly would need to be tweaked, but having all level 20 characters have a min bonus of +15 (assuming untrained &8 Attribute) and a max of what 28 (assuming Legendary & 20 attribute), sure that's a difference of 13 between trained and untrained, but that means that the worst untrained level 20 character is still better than the best level 8 character at any given skill. And sure that's a 12 level gap, but how do you justify that 8th level bard diplomat Master in Deception is a worse liar than a level 20 dwarf Untrained in deception?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fuzzypaws, thank you so much!

This is exactly what I wanted! This is exactly what Paizo should be doing. I'm very happy with this. (I didn't even realize till looking at that PDF that signature skills were scrapped as of 1.2) Shows how well I've been reading :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm with 1/2 bonus as well or even 1/3 or 1/4. Having an Untrained high level character having a higher bonus than a 7th level master of that skill is a bit absurd. As it stands now, it basally makes the bonus from Attributes/Proficiency(untrained, trained, Expert, Master, Legendary) less important than your level. Sure you'll be able to 'do some more stuff' but any of the basic actions you can perform with a skill, anyone who's higher level can do it better than you, (on average). Sure the -4 for being untrained helps a bit, but i dont think it's enough.

"Oh your a Master at Acrobatics? Well I'm 4 levels higher so our bonuses are the same" or "Oh you have an 18 in an Attribute and I have an 8, 5 levels will fix that!"


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with this, for the most part. Doing a mundane activity/action shouldn't become harder just because you leveled up. That basically makes the Assurance Skill feat pointless.

Why would it matter if you could auto succeed on a 15, 20 or 30 if every DC that you'll be facing will be over that amount, and if it's not, anyone of that level will succeed unless they roll a 1 or something.

On the other hand, how do you represent continued progress while leveling, but still making the skill system easy enough that you're not getting 5-12 'skill points' to put somewhere.

It would require an entire re-write of the proficiency system, which might not be a bad thing.

I mean as it is now, an level 20 dwarf with 10 Dex and Untrained Athletics can still Long Jump with a bonus of what +16? (level -4 for untrained) allowing a Min 12 foot and Max 31 foot

Where a 2nd level Elf with 18 Dex and Expert Athletics can long Jump with a bonus of +8 (Level +2 for Expert) allowing a Min of 4 foot and a max 23 foot.

And a 7th level Elf with 18 Dex and Master Athletics can long jump with a bonus of +14 (Level + 3 for Master) allowing a Min of 10 foot & Max of
29 foot.

I see a problem with this. I feel Expert and at very least a Master of a skill should out perform any one who is untrained at that skill, no matter what level they are. I can see where Paizo would want to keep some sort of challenge at all levels no matter the skills you've chosen, but I think if you're an Expert or Master, it should allow you to do things without rolling.

To fix this they would need to take level out of skill proficiency, and instead have the type of proficiency (Trained, Expert, etc) have a larger bonus applied to them, in which case they could lower the DC's for EVERYTHING and skill keep balance and challenge even for those trained or untrained in certain skills at all levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not sure If I've missed something in my absence, but I just want some clarifications on rules updates.

Should I only be looking at the latest updates and ignoring the previous ones? [ie. do the most recent updates contain the the entire set of updates that I need to address as a Game Master?]

Additionally I've seen posts regarding updates to Resonance that include a link to a new set of rules, but you must find the post, and download from there instead of from the bundle.

Honestly I would like to see the updates to be address in the Rulebook as they come out, versioning the rulebook downloaded from the homepage of Paizo to stay up to date.

As it currently stands, as a GM I need to download the latest rules updates and distribute those to my players, and then when we meet, I need to check every Ancestry/Class/etc option with them to ensure they have addressed it on their character. What I really want to do is to say, "Go on Paizo, download the Rulebook again, and it will have all the updates in it" currently it's a nightmare to review and ensure I've addressed all the updates into the rules. Especially with Doomsday Dawn, I printed out the updates to the DC's etc, but I completely forgot about them during play.

Can anyone address why the base Rulebook, bestiary, Doomsday Dawn PDFs aren't updated when the Update notes come out? There's bound to be someone at Paizo already doing this to ensure their documents stay up to date. All's I'm asking for is a copy of that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would suggest re-reading the Reincarnate spell and consider the following:

Reincarnation wrote:
First eliminate the subject's racial adjustments (since it is no longer necessarily of his previous race)

So removing the -2 and the +2 to Con/Wis

Reincarnation wrote:
The subject of the spell gains two permanent negative levels when it is reincarnated

He rolled good, I don't think there should be a 'tone down' for being lucky, not to mention he's receiving 2 negative levels.

Oh and he's a bugbear, my guess is that bugbears aren't that popular in most worlds (aka, people will run or attack him)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is pretty interesting that this is an issue. My players and myself have always done our best to pick through every room or desk. I've even nearly killed a Gnome Summoner I was playing when I reached into a Giants trap door on his desk.

As Kolokotroni said, maybe they don't find searching for the loot 'fun' but maybe instead of having it hidden, add the loot as part of the room.

"To the left you see a wall encrusted with valuable gems" or "In the center of the room you see a pedestal with an ornamental, yet expensive looking ceremonial dagger on it"

The fun for you here is determining the difficulty of retrieving the seemingly obvious loot, be it adding traps or cursed items, or some sort of puzzle to get to it.