KageNoRyu's page

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber. 160 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Perpdepog wrote:
Keep in mind that, assuming we are still going by the old method of classifying dragon ages--and I don't see why we wouldn't be, given that some are described with terms like "wyrm" and "great wyrm" in the sidebars--none of the dragons we see in the bestiary are at their highest age categories.

That is one point iam confused about though. I dont remember an ancient wyrm from pf1 ao i thought that ia the new word for great wyrm?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

1 am i seeing it right that now even the oldest and mightiest sragon can o ky reach a size class of huge?

2 is there any “canon” about dragons being able to have a nom standard alignment or changing it during their life? Example a golden sragon becoming lawful neutral. If so are there any side effects to this?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Is the char going to be a true fighter? There was a shield guy in anime: raise of the shield hero. He could cast spells using the shield even. In pf1 he would be fighter/magus witz a multiclas into cleric also for heal. In pf2 i would gueds champion (as hecould heal) with multiclass into sorcerer (until magus exists) so he could heal and cast spells and fight. The shield being a trquitement to cast spells though.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I've currently got a group using playtest rules and switching to 2E in august.
One of my players brought up the arcane trickster and using rays in combination with sneak attacks.

Now my question is is there anything known already about this? Or can it work at all with how rogues will work (is that maybe known already)


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Albatoonoe wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if they dropped the generic tieflings/Aasimar/dhampirs and instead went with just the subtypes. Those are a lot more interesting and we are no longer attaching all these ability scores to them.

Thus you mean "outsider" heritage and then via heritage feats you gain abilities according to he alignment/plane of the outsider?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Is there any info out yet how those three will be treated? If they are their own races or if they will be handled like half elfs and half orcs?
(as they are halfbreeds themselves imho it would make most sense if they are treated the same...but then again they got the most differentation from their "base races" more so than half elves and half orcs).


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Am I reading it correctly that hardcovers are gottenalmost a month before the pdf's? (the dates in the book entry of ths product page)


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

is it known if its more uniform now than in the playtest? (every class had their very own level when they would be able to become expert in a weapon or a skill)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Did I understand everything correctly?

Bonuses are now:
untrained +0
trained +2 + level
expert +4 + level
master +6 + level
legend +8 + level

Or am I wrong somewhere?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Hi
I've ot a question. A player of mine gave me an idea to combine an adventure I lvoe with an AP I also like much.

In details its the adventures surrounding falcons hollow and the kingmaker AP.

Still though I'm drawing a bit blanks on how a combination could be done there.....later on you are so strong when you have the kingdom that you will just march through the first few falcon hollow adventures. and in the beginning I could not fit it in :/

So asking: Does anyone have an idea there?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Btw as those skills dont exist any longer (even in playtest): How is it handled when someone needs to ride a beast, steer a ship, fly around obstacles, ...? not over skills or if over skills over which ones?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The playtest saw quize a reduction in skills. And with podcasts underway iam wondering if there is any info already on which / how many skills amde the final cut?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

2 auestions there: the ghoul abilitywas it seen what it foes in detail? (Intrigued)

And did we see so far any non class powers of the pcs? (Thus the 3x use powers from the playtest. If they are still like that or use spellpoints instead)


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

As far as I remember it was mentioned once that the difficulty table is going to change a lot.

Is there any info already on that one? Or how it could look?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
I certainly hope it will be more of "okay, here are those 4 skills you can't get trained in at level one, choose wisely and bask in the glorious comfort of being poor at those, because we know that being crap at Profession(basketweaving) is something that's very important to you" and less of "okay, here are those 4 skills you can be trained in at level one, well, it's more like 1 skill once you take those with in-combat application, have fun tripping over your own legs, heroic adventurer"

From what I gathered from one post made it seems only 1 in the aprty needs a specific skill at trained for the party to not suffer too much (aka always automatically failing at stealth as example).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Is there any info if the skill list will be expanded?
(time and again during the playtest it felt as if some skills were missing. Especially during times when a monster was to be identified that was not a natural animal, but something else like a drow,...)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Uh...Quality says what it does on Armor very specifically on p. 190. It reduces Armor Check Penalties. It in no way adds to AC.

Also, I was talking about Mage Armor there, but that's really secondary to you misreading the armor rules.

Yepp saw it (read it up already and wanted to edit my post accordingly).

Thus it is correct: AC: 7 TAC: 5 for studded leather is its max (sry there^^')


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
KageNoRyu wrote:

While doing a bit of a conversion I just noticed soetthing about mage armor.

its highest incarnation gives +6 to ac, +0 to tac and +5 to saving throws.

It's actually +6 TAC, check out p.16 under Armor Class, where it specifically says that any spell that adds to AC also adds to TAC unless specified otherwise.

That said, it's probably still inferior to Studded Leather. The reasons to use Mage Armor (or, more likely, Bracers of Armor) instead of Studded Leather are as follows:

1. As mentioned, it has no maximum Dex Modifier, which can be handy.

2. If you lack Proficiency in Light Armor, or, like a Monk, have better Unarmored Proficiency.

It is +10 ac....I made the same mistake at first. Untiol I noticed quality adds not only to weapons.

Thus the complete ACs for studded leather:
Base stats: AC 2, TAC 0
Legendary quality: AC: +3, TAC: +3
Magic +5=> AC: +5, TAC: +5
=> AC +10, TAC +8


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

While doing a bit of a conversion I just noticed soetthing about mage armor.

its highest incarnation gives +6 to ac, +0 to tac and +5 to saving throws.

Still though I noticed that that is quite weak vs. what other characters at that level could get. Even compared to light armor.

If I take a studded leather and give it +5 (with legendary quality) I would get an AC of: 10 and TAC of: 8. (not taking proficiencies into account there).

So I'm wondering aside from being a gimmick is mage armor worth anything at all? (as seemingly even light armor bests it without the player giving up a limited resource for it).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

After looking up things in the core rules I noticed that there seems to be a massive difference in regards to size (pf1/pf2).

In the past size usually modified your to hit, damage and ac and also stats for characters.

But now it seems (aside from enlarge spell) size does not do anything at all but telling you how much space you occupy?
(aka the races don't have any modifiers and also no combat modifiers,...).

Or did I overlook something there?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Did you take also the magic weaponns into account? (Including properties?)


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Hmmmm makes sense at least until later on. 3 attacks per round could produce enough for up to 6 dents a round. Do you use a to hgit roll (what dc?) to hit a wall?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

ah found it. so I need to do at least 15 points of damage in one go vs. stone wall. a force wall (spell) has +3 dents it can take. could that be the "realistic" value also for a normal wall?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The 30 damage needed in one go ?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm currently in a discussion with a player of mine about at which level a mage could possibly destroy a city wall (either stone or wood or darkwood) and destroy buildings / towns.

Most notably this is about pure damage output not via special spells like clouds that kill living beings,... .

Is it known how much hit points(and DR/durability) walls / buildings have? (stone/wood) ?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

My fault hand crossbows have reliad 2 (hmmm overlooked that so far will have to adjust there next game). Bows though have reliad 0 thus can be fired 3x per turn


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
shroudb wrote:
Blave wrote:
shroudb wrote:

At level 1 a sorc with a crossbow should only have 16 dex and a total attack mod of +4

He's firing on average 3 bolts per 2 rounds (fire, load, fire followed by load fire load) with a total attack mod of +4/-1/+4 for 1d6 damage

Crossbow deals 1d8, which closes the gap a bit.

But yeah, cantrips do their job pretty well at levels 1-2. They fall of at level 3-4, but so do Crossbows unless you invest into ae expert/magic which is not really worth it.

Yup, brainfart on my part, fixed my numbers.

Cantrip is still better damage and better action economy

hand crossbows deal 1d6 and have no reload time. They are like bows thus can be fired 3x every round


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Interesring do you use magic weapons there for the other chars?

As for 1 at level and crossbows. The pkayer usually hits with 2 attacks (around 60-70% of the time)

And yeppfor rhe damage only had memorized
The pre change values


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

My player is using a draconicnsorcerer and his statement was that he can do more damage with the bow and more reliable than with his spells.
(He has 18 dex btw and dipped into fighter for the proficiency. Before that he used a hand crossbow for the aame reason. Now a longbow)


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Meant d6 not d4. Miswrote there. And yepp i went with a 100% hit

@blave that is then what i asked the dieect damage iant really worth it only special spells like charm. Magic weapon,... and aoe vs more than 2 monsters is then wortg the slots.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

To add to lvl 1 if a magic user casts magic weapon on the weapon it does increase the mundanes damage to 12 per hit thus 36 dor all 3actions combined


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

As the title says. Iam asking due to a player of mine who plays a sorcerer and dipped into fighter to use a bow instead of magic for 90% of the encounters. He told me he felt dansgewise ubderpowered compared to bows then i myself started calcing

If i take first level. Lets say chars have 18 in strength/int/cha. The mundane guy uses a bastard sword
And lets say we use avg damagr each disregarding crits.

This means then mundane at first level:
Lvl 1: 8 damage per turn thus 24 total
High level with a +5 sword and 3 damage peoperties:
6d8+3d6+7 for attribute. Thus: 40 damage per action so a total of 120

The caster:
Level 1: Endless resource: 1d4 thus 2
Burning hands (strongest spell i found) 3d6 thus 9

High level i took meteor shower and csme at sround 100 damage

One can argue about them being aoe there. Still though single target wise i disnt see anything stronger
Meaning the spell damage to a single target can be almost 1/3 to 70%
Of what mundanes can do (without using up one of their four daily uses)

So as thr title says. Is there anything iam overlooking or are damage spells just not worth the time to learn them any longer?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Iam currently in a discussion about the sorcer r trained skills pre and post recent updates.

In the pdf it seemingly stands that he is automatically trained in all bloodline skills Iam sure in rhe print d book i didnt see that nor is it on hero labs that way.

Now the question is: pre change how many skills did the sorcerer have trained at level 1?
(If really 5+4+int. why was it reduced)?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:

If you don't think a wolf should be a fair match for a 1st level PC, then you don't think they should be level 1. And arguing that wolves should be level 0 monsters is definitely an argument you could make...but not really the point of this thread.

Now, whether they should be as much a match for an optimized PC as they are is another question, but whatever you consider 'default PC optimization' a level 1 monster should be about on par with it.

As for the party of 14 attack-stat people with AC 12...how? I'm honestly and legitimately confused by how that can even happen in PF2. I mean, a Wizard can easily wind up with terrible AC, sure, but a Fighter or Paladin? You basically have to be trying to not be good at your job to wind up with less than Str 16 and Dex 12 (on a melee character) and that should make for an easy 16 AC with medium armor.

And finally, no wolves had a +2 to hit in PF1.

For +2: Yepp one of the posters mentioned +2 thus I corrected it to +4.

For the stats: As I mentioned my groups are going mostly for non opzimized realistic chars. For example one of the fighters was renowned for her beauty and gave up on becoming a cleric after having to hit her admirers in the face too often (peaceful god so it was a problem). Thus str 14, dex 14, con 14, int 10, wis 10, cha 16

ac 17 due to breastplate (she is one of the higher ac ones but as mentioend I talked about avg not the highest AC).

Sorcerer: Has 14 dex and leather armor thus 14 AC
Cleric: has AC 15 due to chain mail (and str 16)
Another cleric that is not a combat focused one: str 10, dex 14, con 12, int 14, wis 14, cha 14 has leather armor thus also below 15 with AC (she is an all rounder).
Barbarian: str 18, dex 14, con 14, int 10, wis 10, cha 8 AC 14 with leather and 16 with fur.

First attempts we overlooked that arcane spell failure is no longer and thus sorcerer, wizard had no armor at all.

Still though normal non opzimized chars don't ahve AC 16+ they are around 12-15 normally. thus avg. 13. And 1 fighter in the group.

And even most CR 1 creatures are not dumb....."my teeth dont get thorugh this hard shell...the one with the less hard shell looks more tasty".
Besides even the fighter with AC 17 has only ac 12 when she wasn't on guard duty when the wolves attacked (else she is quite fatigued the whole fight and day).

As for the stats: Like I mentioned they went with realistic stats according to what the chars did. I mean "Scholastic", trained to fight and purely str 18, dex 14 making much sense?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
KageNoRyu wrote:
In 4 combats with lvl 1 chars I noticed it is killing at least one pc if I go 1:1 with wolves vs chars (even some optimized ones inside).

Isn't that roughly what CR1 is intended to mean? A CR1 enemy is supposed to be a threat to a level 1 group on its own; two CR1 enemies at once is about the limit of what they group is expected to be able to take on.

That is the question. In pf1 I understood that CR 1 means threat to a single party member. IF its CR 1 = threat to a WHOLE 3-6 man group of lvl 1 chars then........I honestly don't get how the hell civilizations in Golarion survived. I mean 6 wolves are enough to squash a whole village.......... gg civilization. Food time for wolves and similar.

Aka from a fluff and setting perspective some of the CR 1s then make absolutely no sense at all as the setting would not be possible at all.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The problem is for the olves as exmple in combat als o they seem to be optimized for BEST of the best.

in my group most had 14 for their to hit attribute (thus a total of +3 or ü+4 for the warrior) and their armor class was of average 12.

If we only use optimized chars then yes the wolves are okay. But if we want to use REALISTICAL chars then.....the wolves are "elite" wolves able to easily kill lvl 2 chars without much trouble.

In 4 combats with lvl 1 chars I noticed it is killing at least one pc if I go 1:1 with wolves vs chars (even some optimized ones inside). If I got 1/2 wolves and 1 chars (thus 1 wolf for 2 chars) the chars have a good chance to survive with only half hp lost.
(although in 2 of the 4 combats I had to retreat the wolves after THEY lost half hp...else they would have squashed the party still!)

And in all honesty that feels completely wrong vs a WOLF.

And to correct a foreposter: Wolves had +4 to hit in the PF 1 not +2.

And in all honesty: With +4 to hit they would be good against optimized and normal chars of level 1-3 while giving the chars a fair chanbce and a gm the chance to use a whole pack instead of "okay 3 wolves vs. 6 party members and I have a chance that nobody has to die".


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

wolves also got their hp doubled and if oin groups of three+...got double damage as well on a hit


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Requielle wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

Starfinder combat - more explosive rounds where you hit harder and with more accuracy, against enemies who do the same.

As opposed to grindier, defensive encounters.

But that's exactly not what is happening - the enemies are hitting harder and with more accuracy, the party is not.

I'm curious about the change, too.

Edit - damn typos.

One thing I thought about was to make the wolves so that they can also be opponents for higher level groups than lvl 1-2. But still different variatns could have done the same there so I guess it won't be that one reason.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I've run a few level 1 sessions now and did also some calcing.

First: Don't misunderstand me, I'm liking the new rules (most of them) so far. But for the monster stats I couldn't understand / get to the why.

When I looked at the monster stats I was baffled by the +7 to hit for wolves and other similar Cr 1 creatures. In essence if we took an average fighter (str 16) he would to be at level 3 to be at the same +7 total to his to hit. I was quite surprised there (quite experienced wolves so to say^^)

Then I compared the +7 to the usual +1 to +4 for the chars in my group and also the AC of the group (usually 11-15).

thus statistically and also in praxis the wolves had a very easy time hitting wehile the chars had troubles beating the AC 15 of the wolves.

With the wolves hitting that easily while having such high defenses I had drop a default scenario of mine for wood adventures....attacking low level chars by a pack of wovles (4-5) as the wolves would overwhelm any party (thanks to hitting extremely easy while being hard to hit).

sooo with the background dwon to my question: Is there any known reasoning behind why the former +4 for many CR 1 creatures is now +7?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

As there are some situatoins where you can get a skill rank in the same skill during character creation I'm wondering if that means you have to choose different skills each or if taking the same skill twice means you become expert in it?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Good points.

The trained doesnt count as its a separate „pool“ of trained skills as far as ism understanding things. For the skill feats i had interpreted it as prereq ignored. But lets see


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

One thing i honestly find s bit confusing is. Why do ppl have problems with ac getting increased automatically. When the same mechsnic slmlst was there the whole time for thac?

A lvl 10 wizard was in pf1 and d&d WAY better st hitting rhings rham a lvl 1 or 2 ot 3 dightrr.

But that dowsnt seem to bother anyone?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

A the title says. Am I overlookiing something or is that a thing of the past?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Open Questions rm character creation:
Do chars have 1 set of clothes for free or not.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm a few char creations and sessions in and going to post in this post all things I notice (and using new posts in this thread to update what I notice and then add it here). Games are 2x falcons hollow online, 1x kingmaker online

Character creation:
It looks neat and nice so far. A bit to get used to with the attributes part, but fast non the less.

One point that is strange is backgrounds. You gain blacksmith and can gain quite good money doing that job....but on the other hand you can be completely untrained in crafting meaning you can't craft but you can make good money as a blacksmith.

Maybe one single skill related to the background should become trained thus (similar for hunter/scout there). Thus the skill where you get the feat for.

Monsters:

Wolves feel off. They are pack creatures but in their current incarnation with +7 to hit roll they.....are better at fighting than a level 3 fighter (in terms of hitting things I mean). That doesn't feel right. The +4 from the past seemed more like it to me there.

Skills:
This works quite good so far. Surprisingly good even. Ppl are good in the trained skills and quite bad in the untrained ones. Similar for combat and hitting things.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

btw a spell wth 1 minute / concentration duration: does that mean after 1 minute I need to concentrate to uphold it still or does it end after 1 minute regardless?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

on an additional note AOO is that now only figher or genreally useable?

good point about the enlarge (although in pf1 enlargedworked differently than using a large weapon sadly thus could be the same here)


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Also am we doing crits correctly?

Barbarian with a base damage of 2d8+4 (he is using a large weapon and has giant as a totem)
scored a critical hit and rolled 4d8+16

damage was: 8++5+5+16 = 42 !!!!!


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

So my first group is on its second session, a second group to follow with a first session.

I found a few things that are confusing me a bit.

1.) Wolves
They are CR 1, have +1 strength and an attack of +7?
I would have expected them to have +3 or +4 being expert or master appropriately in biting but +7 really took me and my players by surprise. It does seem a bit high especially in combination with the +1d6 damage speciality of theirs (pack attack).....which means a high propability of a dying pc if 2 wolves attack one.....while another is near enough.

Is there anything I'm overlooking with the wolves and their +7 there? Or is there any special reason there that they have that high of a bonus?

2.) Attack of opportunities:
Am I seeing correct that ONLY fighters now can do them? (and those taking the appropriate fighter feats).


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

thanks alot. only had remembered the dragon disciple myself so wasn't sure if there were any real classes nowadays beside it (the dragon disciple I wasn't sure if I should count it as a normal class or more something akin to legacy^^')

1 to 50 of 160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>