Kasoh's page

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber. 180 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 180 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
CorvusMask wrote:
Kasoh wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
But most players makie heroic or mercenary adventuring types that are licking at the chops for adventure and to get out and do something.
I have never seen this, ever. Only being slightly hyperbolic. It is very rare though.
And I have never seen anyone making adventurer that avoids adventuring <_<

A lot exuberance for adventuring gets sucked right out of PCs after an alligator springs out of the water, grabs a member of the party and deathrolls them to negative in six seconds, and a fun source of recurring nightmare fodder.

The players are usually for it, its the PCs who end up traumatized and reluctant to continue on. They will continue on, but its nice when you can hang that on something heavier than 'Well, we don't have anything else to do.'

It can depend on the style of game that's being run, but my group has never found 'Adventure awaits, tally ho' to be anything but the battlecry of the short lived and foolhardy.

On the other hand, we also never have the problem of 'what do all these High level characters do after the adventure' because its 'avoid adventuring'.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deriven Firelion wrote:
But most players makie heroic or mercenary adventuring types that are licking at the chops for adventure and to get out and do something.

I have never seen this, ever. Only being slightly hyperbolic. It is very rare though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Salamileg wrote:
Basically title. Rogues have the most options for what their primary ability score should be, and seem to be set up to allow for more in the future. What would these hypothetical new ones look like?

An intelligence 'Mastermind' rogue who got lackeys who functioned like animal companions or something and she commanded them in battle would be neat. A pain to balance and probably not worth the effort, but that would be entertaining.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Kasoh wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
I mean, at this point they have already done so twice, so why quit at this point even without external incident motivating them?

Depends on how good a time they've had on the ventures.

'Every time we go through one of those portals, we almost die, let's just not.' And so on.

What group of adventurers would do this? Maybe the funny guy in the group, but most would be like let's do this.

In my experience, both playing and as a GM, PCs rarely actually want the plot they're given. Its usually thrust upon them and it makes their lives absolutely miserable. Chased by cultists, targets of ire for evil wizards, national conspiracies arrayed against you, in addition to repeated and prolonged attempts at murder. Its frankly awful.

Going through those portals has so far, two out of two times, invited trouble into the PCs lives. Not wanting to invite more trouble when you've got a castle to maintain that has to come with certain obligations as any medieval landowner would engender.

Monetary concerns for funding the castle could also be a motivating factor, but with a portal to exotic location, the amount of money to be made by importing Mwangi expanse goods is substantial already.

Acquiring personal power could also motivate, but that also leans heavily on the 'This is the game and you want to level up' wall. Unless you have the power mad wizard, its not a common motivation.

Sheer curiosity is a strong motivator, but that could be tempered by how badly (Or well) the previous excursions went.

That they also always uncover clues about some strange dragon cult whenever they do so is the only compelling argument for continuing to explore the portals--if the PCs have even put together that there's something to be done about it, otherwise its just jaunting off to meddle with other people's business.

That would actually be an interesting way to prolong the campaign: by putting a span of months or years between each portal venture.

All this to say, "Because it's there" is not always a good motivation for the PCs and as added fun, that quote is from George Mallory when asked why he wanted to climb Mount Everest. He died trying.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Book 1? Definitely not. If it was a later part of the path I don't remember it.

There's two instances of that then. In Book 1, the two guys in charge of the ship send you with water barrels to the island to refill them, and if you bring up create water, they scoff because they don't trust magic water. That's also the location where most likely Sandara Quinn, the NPC cleric (and water caster if the PCs don't do it) and ally of the heroes was taken by Grindylowes.

In Book 2, you take your ship inland for...reasons and get stuck by a Chelish Warship and you have to sabotage it and sneak by. It could be for water or it could be for raiding riverside villages or whatever. I don't remember the reason, only the encounter.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:

I don't think you can say "I don't pretend Pathfinder is a survival game" while citing one of its few survival based scenarios as supporting evidence. Also, as written, Create Water doesn't actually impact the abstraction that is ration points because you still need food. There's like one point you find water that counts as ration points, but it is otherwise largely just food.

And much as Treat Wounds can fill the narrative gap left by CLW wands, the new skill system can help you pick up some of that slack. The Forager feat can do a lot to alleviate the difficulties in ration tracking. One trained or expert survivalist with the feat won't feed the entire group, but you also have lots of ways to assign NPCs the feat. And training a group of refugees to work together and overcome supply based challenges is significantly more in the spirit of that campaign than a single caster spamming a cantrip.

Ironfang Invasion came to mind because it solidified my hatred of the game simulating survival. It was awful. I hated every second of Book 1 of Ironfang Invasion because of it, but if you skip it, there's not a lot left to hang the adventure on. I felt my hands were tied to use the mechanics.

And in the new system, the skills can do a lot of things. Which is great for the skills. Go skills.

Magic changed dramatically in AR 4719 and no one is going to talk about it. That's a solution. That's the one I'll probably use.

I don't have to like it, just use it. Just like I don't have to like arcanists, Variant Multiclassing, or that stupid rule about every +10 feet of move speed giving a bonus to acrobatics checks to jump.

If I was really into this, I'd go through my APs and find all the plots that have to be patched over with 'Weird ritual' or 'happened differently, but end result was the same' I have no idea what I'd find, but the amount of effort involved is not worth my time.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rysky wrote:
In P1 was "unlimited water" something regularly pointed out and used or was it purely a player thing?

I have no idea. The only time I remember unlimited water being a problem that was solved by this move is a contrived scenario in an early book of Skulls & Shackles.

Because of magic I never had to wonder why a city or town could be somewhere. Just the knowledge of what magic can do stopped a lot of nitpicky questions.

It can still, but not as well, because magic just isn't as efficient as it used to be. When an unseen servant only lasts 10 minutes, its not really good for anything.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rysky wrote:

I think making Create Water not be a cantrip actually fixes a lot of things for exactly the reason you point out.

Not only in that scenario but also in places where water is scare, why isn't that being spammed? So no world breakage there.

See, I don't think it fixes anything, I think it ruins them. Unlimited water was something that wasn't broken.

Admittedly, I have no love for pretending that Pathfinder is a survival game in any fashion, so 'unlimited magic water' cured half of the problem immediately and I think PF1s Create Food and Water was priced too high at 3rd level.

So, yeah. Its in the eye of the beholder and season to taste. I'm not happy about it, but its the new reality and I'm going to play in it, at least I can complain about it on the internet.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

It bothers me.

Spells are just missing with no explanation. I'll spare the world my rant on the absence of Divine Favor and Divine Power.

Others are just different in impactful ways. Create water isn't a cantrip anymore, prestidigitation takes a minute to clean something now instead of six seconds. Maybe that doesn't matter to some people in the grand scheme of things, but they are different.

For example, the entire first and second book of Ironfang Invasion require the PCs to help provide food and shelter for more than 20 people. Having freely available infinite water cuts down on the amount of manpower needed to fulfill that requirement and allows them to assign people to other tasks which impacts the survival rate of survivors and the entire timeline of the campaign. The amount of time tasks take matters in that one, quite a bit.

So, yes. These things matter.

Like, fine, its a new edition, things are different. But claiming that its a seamless transition is untrue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
CorvusMask wrote:
I mean, at this point they have already done so twice, so why quit at this point even without external incident motivating them?

Depends on how good a time they've had on the ventures.

'Every time we go through one of those portals, we almost die, let's just not.' And so on.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
archmagi1 wrote:
She didn't set of any of the Radiant Fires. Book 1's was set off by agents of the WW. Book 3's were planted there by agents of the WW. In Book 4, she uses her quasideity tricks to essentially time stop, message, greater teleport the entire party away before TB blows her up. The party are a means to an end for Aranzi 100%. She is still CE lich at that point and couldn't give a rat's ass whether the party dies, she just wants to stick it to TB for killing her, and indirectly contributing to her being Geb's lackey.

I don't have the text in front of me, but there is a point where if the party has treated her well, it states that she likes them and wants them to succeed/survive. I suppose you could think of it as "like in a pet sort of way" as opposed to "Maybe they aren't all bad." sort of way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
keftiu wrote:
Any interesting stuff, mechanical or otherwise, about the various ethnicities? Especially curious about any Mwangi ones, like the Taralu and M’beke dwarves.

There are 3 new dwarf heritages. Not a lot of wordcount on the Mbe'ke and Taralu. They get a paragraph and a sidebar. There is neat art of a Taralu dwarf.

Racial feats have prereqs like "Surface Dwarf" or "any Mountain Dwarf ethnicity" so there is some interesting granulation going on there.

Every section on the ancestry does mention various places on Golarion where the ancestry shows up and a bit of specifics about that region's culture.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Bramble Knight wrote:
What are the archetypes like for Pathfinders, if you don't mind skimming? Got a player considering joining the Pathfinders, wanna know if they'd be usable.

4 new feats for the Pathfinder Agent archetype in the Lost Omens World Guide, and the new archetypes that have predecessors have text that says "Qualifying characters with the Pathfinder agent archetype (Lost Omens World Guide 23) can select one of these dedication feats even if they have not gained three feats from the Pathfinder agent archetype, and each of these archetypes’ feats fulfills the Pathfinder Agent Dedication’s special requirement despite not being from the Pathfinder agent archetype." Which means, the new dedication archetypes can be built out of the previous ones without having to go super deep into them, which is nice.

Scrollmaster is...odd. The dedication feat lets you recall things you've heard or read in the past 24 hours. "For 24 hours after learning a prominent fact—such as the name of an NPC you have met, the details of your mission briefing, and similar information—you can recall it without attempting a check, though this doesn’t allow you to automatically memorize long strings of numbers or text." It also provides numerical bonuses to recalling information about the adventure.

I have never played or GM'd a game where that information was behind a check simply because the player of a character didn't remember it. Still, good insurance for GMs who are fond of saying "If you don't remember, your character doesn't remember."

The rest of the feats help with recall knowledge, interpreting languages, and deciphering writing.

Spellmaster dedication lets anyone pick up Conceal Spell at level 8 with 'Surreptitious Spellcaster' Other feats give bonuses to saves against enemy spells or versus a specific tradition.

The coolest one is Absorb Spell, level 14 feat. When you crit succeed against an enemy spell, you can cast it back within 10 minutes or so.

Swordmaster dedication gives bonuses against Disarm and aiding allies. You can get a press attack that penalizes speed (10), intercept a Crit (12), or gain Temp HP when you would be reduced to zero HP(14).

Spellmaster looks the most interesting, I guess but they all have some utility. But I can't say if they're good or not in comparison to taking your main class feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
How do the three Ancestries look?

Hobgoblins are tough, good at fear, and fighting. The most interesting racial feat to me is one that causes mental damage when a foe you feared is still fighting you.

Leshies are...well plant people. And the art creeps me out. I skimmed their section. Fungus Leshies get Darkvision, Leaf leshies are immune to falling damage, Gourd leshies have backpacks in their heads.

There's a racial feat at 9 that lets them heal from standing in the Sun.

Lizardfolk are interesting. Five varieties to choose from. A few interesting feats, like "Parthenogenic Hatchling" which says "You were hatched from an unfertilized egg during hard times for your people, and you are a biological copy of your mother." It gives bonuses to saves and surviving without food.

Good overall feat support for their natural weapons and a few other tricks.

Aasimars, Catfolk, Changelings, Geniekin, and Tieflings are mentioned and get art, but no stats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
CorvusMask wrote:
BTW, were Lacunafex a big thing in Hell's Rebels? I know from wiki that Mialari was arcane trickster in PF 1e, but I don't remember if she is major npc from Hell's Rebels or not.

She has a headshot inside of the back cover of book 1, and appears once or twice in the story and can be an ally of the Silver Ravens, she and her organization don't get a lot of page count.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
keftiu wrote:
Since subscribers should start getting theirs fairly soon!

Quick thoughts,

I thought there would be more stuff on the organizations. The ancestry stuff is okay. The headshot art running down the side in the book is a really nice touch.

I hate just about everything concerning the Firebrands. Except the art on page 64.

Hellknights are cool. From reading it, I got the impression that the Hellknights are being presented as an organization that just goes around enforcing laws because they like it and stuff, and I didn't see a lot of information about how they pay for all this. They're still largely mercenary, aren't they?

Knights of Lastwall are okay, and I'm only a little annoyed that the Crimson Reclaimers have Chaotic Good listed as their majority alignment. They accept any non evil, so its a minor thing to be annoyed about.

Halcyon spells look interesting, but I haven't taken time to read or digest that.

Didn't even read the section on the Pathfinder Society. Sorry.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
CorvusMask wrote:

I was kinda assuming the twin thing was more of joke than straight up "this is method to have encounter happen anyway" just because of how goofy the explorer guy is O_o;

Like, at least make the brother be just regular brother so its not as obvious to players he is supposed to be just replacement for the other guy if it wasn't supposed to be funny.(plus that would have been less offensive to twins) So yeah, pretty much agreeing with Rysky there, either both twins should have been there from start or there should be larger differences between two.

My first instinct is to really lean into it. Use the same opening dialogue for them and everything. Because PCs are paranoid. They'll start searching for Dopplegangers and Shapeshifters before they come across the idea that they're just twins who love confusing other people.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
That much is clear. I would suggest it's because your focusing on "it's just a joke guys" rather than it's actually teaching the players "nothing you do will matter! If you kill my NPCs, I will just shoehorn in replacement NPCs to get you to follow the tracks. How dare you think you have agency!"

The AP does have several conflicting needs that can cause scenarios like this to happen. For example, there needs to be enough xp to hit the level progression, so presumably another encounter is needed. But the book is also constrained by word count, so there isn't room to create another statblock. You could use another Bestiary creature in a more generic combat, but getting double duty out of a new statblock is efficient from a design standpoint.

Does it matter to the narrative if they kill the guy and have to fight his brother? I don't know. Probably not. In terms of not impacting the narrative, there are bigger hills to die on than some jungle encounters.

I would probably just add the twin brother even if they didn't kill him. Fights with Twins are great.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
DRD1812 wrote:

I've got a chase sequence planned for an upcoming session. The only problem is that a dwarf (20 ft. movement speed) can never escape a human (30 ft. movement speed). This is a known problem, and I've seen a couple of different solutions and subsystems to address it (notably the 1e chase system). Do you guys have any favorites from other systems? Any that worked especially well in your own games? I'm set to try something new, and I could use a little direction!

Comic for illustrative purposes.

If you're going to resolve it in encounter mode, then it is unlikely that the dwarf will be able to escape without good usage of hiding or applying some sort of crowd control or movement impairing status on the chasers.

That's why the chase system uses the level of abstraction that it does, to enable that sort of thing.

As a GM, if I want the Dwarf to escape, I just say 'They escape' and if the players want to chase after them, I either double down on escape or just let them kill the guy with ranged weapons. If they're chasing to catch alive, its because whatever plot is being run involves them catching the dwarf, so I usually just have them surrender.

All that to say, I don't use chase mechanics unless the adventure tells me to. I have never had a player say 'Oh boy, a chase sequence!' or something along those lines.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rysky wrote:
Art and support for Pike and Torrent please!!!!

I too, would really enjoy details for the Order of the Torrent.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Kennethray wrote:

If a character falls 15 feet and they have catcall while trained in acrobatics, do they take no damage? Catfall will let them decrease the fall by 10, and falling states they must fall more then 5 feet before they take damage. I'm assuming these "stack".

K-ray

That was my experience with the rule, yes. No damage and remained standing.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Doshkin wrote:
So the AP I'm running gives the option for me to allow for the drawing from the Harrow Deck of Many Things. Planning on doing it because I love train wrecks. Have a question about the effects though. Do the players know what the effects are when they draw the card? Or I guess I should say, do I tell them the effects that aren't obvious? The AP gives them a chance to spend Harrow points to draw a different card with no effect so I'm confused why they'd redraw if you didn't know what the effect would be. thanks

After looking over the list of options, most of the cards stipulate what the PCs know and don't know about the cards effects. The Betrayal, for example says 'Upon drawing this card, the character knows that someone or something will turn against him, but nothing more.' but the publican says 'The GM chooses one of the character’s enemies. This enemy has a complete change of heart and now favors the character.' so the PC doesn't know which enemy.

That said, I expect the players don't know what the cards are, and if they have an ability to redraw then the only way that ability makes any sense is if they can make an informed decisions based on what the card they drew does.

So, yes. They get to read the effect description, make the choice to keep it or not, but if the specifics are vague as written, they won't get to know what those are.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
CorvusMask wrote:
Are you one of Colette's players or are you just arguing because some posters feel harsh?

Its something I have strong opinions about in general. Any encounter whose difficulty relies on 'Gotcha' tactics or the players not knowing something is bad encounter design. Is it fun when they attack the construct thinking its undead? Sometimes. Depends on the group. I am also annoyed when players ignore the fact that they know exactly what a troll is and why aren't they using fire or acid on it? Whatever, if that makes them happy.

And I do think some people need to relax. I probably need to relax, but occasionally I can't help but offer my unsolicited opinion. I hope, that sometimes it helps someone.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Have you really experienced a "don't you dare bring a spellcaster to Starfinder" culture? I haven't.

Yes.

I play Dead Suns with my Mystic and I'm the sole caster in the party. As a result, I've never been able to push for a long rest. I started to buy truck loads of spell gems after part 2, after a frustrating gaming experience. I play SFS, so I can do that between parts, but in campaign mode, you can't do that as you are far away in the Vast. Without these spell gems, I would have stopped before part 4 and rerolled a martial.

It's not "don't you dare bring a spellcaster", it's "long rest? What for?".

But why are your fellow players saying no to a long rest if one of the party members needs it?

Either the impact of the single spellcaster's spells aren't enough of a benefit compared to the risks of leaving, resting, and ceasing progress on the objective, the other players are jerks, some people might even think that the need for a long rest is the fault of the spellcaster for not rationing their spells 'correctly' and thus not their problem, or or some myriad of possibilities.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
CorvusMask wrote:
It is true, part of what made 1e Pathfinder combat hard IS players not knowing what is the optimal way of dealing with encounters, that kinda applies to all rpg systems to be honest.

What is the CR value of ignorance anyway? How much challenge does it add to an encounter? PCs don't get extra xp for being especially ignorant of monster abilities. I'd say knowledge of the encounter isn't a factor for difficulty at all. In PF2 its entirely math based.

Any system that relies on ignorance for its difficulty isn't actually difficult. Its just obtuse. Pathfinder can be an obtuse game, certainly.

PCs with perfect knowledge of the monsters can make more optimal decisions, but Players are hardly tactical supercomputers.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Claxon wrote:
The CR table is a useful tool to guide how challenging something might be for your party, but there's so much more that factors in that experience is far more important.

Because pedantry, I will note that the PF1 CR chapter mentioned that favorable terrain for either side can affect the CR of the encounter, but we don't agree and that's fine.

My point was that stacking encounters in a dungeon is more difficult than not, and if that's the intent it should be reflected in the difficulty of individual encounters.

SuperBidi wrote:
If you give your players enough time to heal without using resources you allow your party to fight without end. So, your dungeon can have 100 combats, it's doable. It gives a great incentive in going martial instead of caster, as you don't need casters much (utility spells can easily be acquired through multiclassing) and because martials keep their efficiency fights after fights.

I saw this happen in a Dead Suns Starfinder game I ran that had no casters. They would clear every dungeon in one go, taking short rests to recover stamina.

I have to say, it felt pretty great. I didn't have high opinions on the difficulty of Starfinder in general afterwards, but as a play experience, the party was thrilled.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Mathmuse wrote:
Better math

Yeah, that sounds more correct. I feel like the point I was trying to make is still fundamentally correct, even if the math wasn't.

But, based on the adventures I've read so far, I think the expectation is that a party should feel 'guaranteed' one short rest of 10 minutes per encounter. Anything else is at the GMs discretion.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Claxon wrote:

Except experience as a GM will tell you that despite what the table says, it isn't really a CR+7 challenge. A CR+7 challenge should kill the party.

A group of 12 human zombies isn't much of a threat to level 5 adventurers. They'll take some damage, but the zombies slow movement makes them easy to take out without getting ganged up on.

And that is an example of why CR tables are bad, and experience should be gotten rid of and leveling by plot should be de rigueur.

Granted, I was assuming a APL of 1, as the PF2 example but I didn't specify, so my bad. Zombies aren't terribly dangerous no, but the point was that regardless of how much xp something is worth, if the encounter is balanced or budgeted at X threat level, and you add three times as many, that makes the encounter much more challenging.

If the intention of the adventure is for them to be fought at once, then they should be budgeted appropriately to provide a challenge as 12, not as four, three times.

And if you don't use XP, great. That's not relevant.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Mathmuse wrote:
Kasoh wrote:
And if it is supposed to be one big fight, it should scored appropriately for xp and number of enemy combatants as a single encounter.
Under both the PF1 and PF2 experience point rules, defeating a dozen zombies earns the same XP per PC regardless of whether the zombies are encountered isolated one at a time, as a steady stream of zombies one every three rounds, or in a full group all attacking at once.

The xp may be the same, but the encounters are drastically different.

In PF1, a zombie is cr 1/2 creature worth 200 xp. Table 12-3 says 12 creatures is equal to CR+7, so 12 zombies is a CR 7 encounter, worth 1400 xp. Or maybe 3200, I don't actually know. I'm a 1400 man myself.

In PF2 a zombie shambler is a -1 level creature, and if fighting a level 1 party is worth 30 xp. Four such zombies is a severe encounter, worth 120 xp. A single encounter of 12 zombie shamblers against a level 1 party is so out of the capacity of PF2's encounter construction mechanics it doesn't even tell me what the encounter level is for 360 xp worth of creatures. And really, you shouldn't be calculating xp for the encounter like that, because you should pick the threat level first to get the xp budget that you pull monsters from.

So, if PF2, if you're going to chain encounters together, they should probably be at least Party Level -3 or -4 or you're probably just going to kill the party.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:

To clarify for Mathmuse and Claxon: I'm not saying a new wave of enemies arriving mid combat is a bad thing. It is indeed working as intended and very good to use for any dungeon held by a single organized force.

I'm saying it doesn't really address the topic of the thread: what is a reasonable post fight respite? Because enemies from the adjacent room joining the fight just makes one big fight. Which is all well and good, but eventually the party is going to reach a point where that fight is over and will want to Treat Wounds and such. At which point you gotta figure out how long you let them do it without consequence.

And if it is supposed to be one big fight, it should scored appropriately for xp and number of enemy combatants as a single encounter.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
John Templeton wrote:
So I have a player who has taken Nimble Dodge which over all very straight forward but as it a new system and I am still getting my bearings on it something wavers in my mind. Do I tell the player the attack value against them before they make the call to use their reaction? I am thinking yes because traditionally you just ask if X hits their AC or not, which would cover the Trigger for Nimble Dodge and the player can decide to take that sweet +2 to avoid the damage or reduce the Crit to Normal Success BUT should I tell them they are targeted, let them decide then tell them the attack value? Now obviously I am not going to trick them with area attacks and make an area attack potentially trigger Nimble Dodge; just talking straight forward Strike on the player.

Given how play at the table usually goes, I would say 'The Dire Hydra is going to bite at you...' and roll some dice. But I'd also be rolling to resolve all the attacks the creature is going to make against that character. So if the Rogue wants to use it on the second or third or fourth attack or what have you, they'd have to speak up.

A lot of die rolling resolution stuff is for ease of play and time efficiencies. They shouldn't be sabotaging a PC's abilities, but also, changing how you roll dice at the table for one PC is really annoying.

Generally, I'd allow it to be used retroactively after the number has been revealed, though I think by the wording they are supposed to use it when the declaration of attack has been made.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:
Also, on another topic entirely, disabling a dragon pillar takes "Athletics DC 26 (expert) to push the pillar over, or Thievery DC 26 (expert) on the pillar to erase the magic runes that power it, or dispel magic (4th level; counteract DC 22) to dispel the pillar’s magic." Do the Athletics and Thievery checks take two free hands? One free hand? This is very important in determining just how difficult the dragon pillar encounter fights. The Shove action, for reference, takes one free hand, but this dragon pillar might require two hands, or even none at all.

If the people I play with are any indication, I'd expect it to be "no hands, I'm going to kick it over."

From the description in the book, I'd assume pushing with athletics is a two hand activity, but if the Athletics character purports to be strong, I'd let them do it one handed.

Similarly, I assume Thievery is also two hands because that requires tools.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Campbell wrote:
The game is designed to highlight a sense of risk, uncertainty, danger, and drama.

If that was really the case, players wouldn't spend hours trying to minimize the number of die rolls they have to make, or scrape up every obscure bonus available before even attempting any challenge.

I have never seen a group of people generally more risk averse than Player Characters.

When there's 23 locked doors in a dungeon, I don't want 'risk, uncertainty, danger, and drama' I want the rogue to open the stupid door so they can find some risk, uncertainty, danger, and drama.

And without attempting to derail too much, I don't like 'Sometimes Dispel Magic' and 'Maybe Remove Curse' in PF1 and they made it even more difficult in PF2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

I'm actually a little curious, do people believe that a high bonus to skill in PF1 equals the 'skill-monkey' vibes to someone maxed out in the same skill in PF2?

Can we do as much with skills in PF1 as in PF2 in the end?
Not counting class abilities, is it more skillmonkey to never fail the DC, or to be able to use skills in ways other can't even attempt?

If someone is going to claim to be a skillmonkey, then I would expect them to be as good at skills as the wizard is at casting spells, as they're fighting for the same niche in the party (non combat problem solving). So a skill monkey should succeed at whatever skill it is they've been brought on the job for.

I don't care what they can do with the skills so long as they succeed at doing it when we need them to do it. That's why they were brought along.

Performance on command, at the drop of a hat. That's the kind of reliability that I expect from someone who claims to be a skillmonkey.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:
The two books are in disagreement. Which is correct?

Whichever one you want, I suppose. I'd go with the adventure myself, but that's just me.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:
That would not explain moving through 2 hexes in one day with no exploration activity, then.

If they travel through one hex in one day with exploration activities, then by forgoing them, they move twice as fast, since in both cases the party is hampered by the same difficult terrain.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
GameDesignerDM wrote:

I guess I find it kind of odd that needing to the roll the die in a d20 tabletop game is somehow a flaw?

To each their own.

The die represents chance. And in some cases, the situation requires chance. In others, like the skill level of someone who is a specialist in their area, it is just an opportunity to engage in bufoonery because fate was fickle. (Thanks, critical failure on skill rolls!)


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:
So how is it possible that the adventure prescribes moving through 2 hexes in one day, or 1 hex per day with Investigate or Search? This seems to be an error; either the listed times should be doubled, or the terrain is not actually difficult at all.

If I was going to justify the mechanics of the exploration, I would simply assume that with the difficult terrain and moving slowly to investigate (or search) doesn't produce a speed of quarter, but rather that the difficulty of the terrain averages out to half speed when all is said and done because investigating (or searching) can produce shortcuts or other efficiencies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:
I have been lamenting the "all adventure paths have been completed, so now there are nearly two dozen parties of very high-level characters running around the 2e setting" issue for some time, but what really gets me is the part where, yes, Avistan and Garund alone, not including any of the other continents, produce at least ~8 very-high-level heroes per year. As of 2e, Avistan and Garund generate at least ~8 max-level (20) heroes per year. None of this is including any other high-level entities that may arise in Avistan and Garund alone, or any villains.

Its not like Golarion has a cap on how many high level characters that can live on it. Rovagug isn't released when there's 1000 level 20 characters alive at once.

It doesn't matter how many high level characters there are.

Though, I wonder. In all the campaigns I've completed (as a GM and player) none of the adventuring parties stayed together. They all went their separate ways. Is that common or uncommon?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Xenocrat wrote:
Kasoh wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:

Yes, it seems that heightening a few key spells to your highest possible level is really going to be a thing.

Whereas in PF1 you'd almost *never* do it.

Ah yes, can't have those pesky players filling their fifth, sixth, and seventh level spell slots with fifth, sixth, and seventh level spells. Why that would be madness.
In PF1 you'd have greater/lesser versions that were different spell levels. Don't think of it as putting a 2nd level Dispel Magic in a 5th, 6th, or 7th level slot, think of it as being able to use Greater Dispel Magic without having to learn it separately.

That distinction is relevant to Wizards, I suppose. I do forget about that utility quite often as I usually play Divine Casters who don't need to learn spells, they just prepare them, so there being a dispel magic and a dispel magic, greater isn't relevant, but yes. Fair point.

However, dispel magic is just as functional as greater dispel magic for its intended purpose: Dispelling magic. Greater lets you dispel more magic. Keeping a single dispel prepared as you leveled up made sense, it was useful. Now, like many of the low level slots in the game, it just becomes fodder for True Strikes.

I wouldn't mind this as much if Dispel magic was just more functional. If it automatically dispelled magic, I'd be more okay with paying higher level spell slots for it. But that's not as relevant to the topic.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Neo2151 wrote:

I'm curious - why is the idea of resurrection magic any more or less fantastical than any other magic in the setting, in that it needs to be so much more rare or restricted?

Or is it actually just the unpleasant thought that you think players popping up again and again from death eliminates tension?
Can your players' party actually afford that? Why are you showering them in diamonds, etc?

Is this a legit problem at tables or is it armchair math gone crazy?

I don't know. If a game takes more than 15 table minutes to get a dead PC back up and running(after the encounter resolves), I consider it a failure on myself as a GM.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:

The option for delegating work to an NPC is mentioned for Administrate, the repair tasks, and the upgrade tasks, but it is never once mentioned for Organize Labor.

Are we to assume that Organize Labor can, in fact, be delegated under the same rules?

For that matter, if NPCs always succeed but never critically succeed, does this mean that NPCs always ignore the penalty from, "If you perform downtime activities involving Citadel Altaerein when it’s not successfully Administered, you take a –4 circumstance penalty to your checks"?

I mean, sure. When you hire a contractor to complete a job, the point of hiring a contractor is that they supply the materials and personnel otherwise they're just your employee and PCs don't need to get into the masonry business too.

And NPCs don't actually roll. They just succeed. Delegating is the PCs paying for peace of mind. Rolling is basically tossing dice for the chance to pay half for the upgrades with a chance to critically fail.

I suppose you could say that if the castle isn't administered properly either via a successful check or a NPC administrator then work can't get done because no one can find the building permit and the castle failed its drainage inspection.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Wheldrake wrote:

Yes, it seems that heightening a few key spells to your highest possible level is really going to be a thing.

Whereas in PF1 you'd almost *never* do it.

Ah yes, can't have those pesky players filling their fifth, sixth, and seventh level spell slots with fifth, sixth, and seventh level spells. Why that would be madness.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:

How exactly does delegating Organize Labor to hired help work?

I cannot see why the PCs could not tell, for example, Amera Lang or Rorsk Axebane something like, "You go organize your own workers. I am contracting you, and it is your company with all the workers."

I cannot find any guidelines on doing such a thing.

It says that when the PCs delegate work to an NPC, the NPC succeeds, but never critically succeeds, so tally the costs in money and time and be done with it, I presume.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:
Real-world history does not have nigh-demigods battling genuinely world-ending monstrosities. These are the sort of deeds I would expect word of to spread, between sending, teleportation methods, and printing presses.

To the people of Sandpoint, there is no difference in the four people who came together during the Swallowtail festival to stop a goblin raid and when those same four people came back and killed the giants and dragon attacking their town.

Just people who helped them when they needed it. People are throwing out words like 'Superhero' and 'Demigod' around for high level PCs, but they simply aren't that special, especially in setting.

I mean, what is the Society check required to know who Azghaad is, a man who slew a spawn of Rovagug? Unless you have Lore (Osirion) or Lore (Spawn of Rovagug) Its probably a master or expert DC. Granted that was 85 centuries or so ago.

General Arnisant is a very famous, high level cavalier, but unless you're in Lastwall (So it goes) or Taldor I doubt his name raises much of a glance. Probably a simple Trained DC of 15 to know who he is.

The PCs are heroes, yes. Heroes in a setting that is designed to produce heroes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:
This interpretation of the setting, I find sketchy. It essentially telling players, "Wow, your characters made it to 20th level in these brand-new 2e adventure paths! But unfortunately, your PCs have not actually made all that meaningful a mark on history, for the same reason that the heroes of previous adventure paths did not matter all that much from a world history perspective. Your characters definitely are not going to make it into the history books." It is a punch to the metaphorical gut to be faced with an interpretation of the setting that, no, all those great deeds did not reshape the setting that much.

It depends on your players. And on the PCs. Because the PCs did do great things. They saved hundreds and thousands and sometimes millions of lives. Maybe even the entire world. These are great and fantastic acts. But heroism and doing the right thing don't always equal fame and rewards commensurate with the deed.

The acts of the PCs reshaped the setting. They are among the greatest heroes on the planet. Just don't expect the rest of the world to actually care.

For some PCs, doing the right thing, then fading into the background is exactly what they want. For others, dying heroically in defense of Absalom suits them just fine.

Only a subset of PCs and by extension, players want to have their deeds acknowledged as world altering. And their GM might accommodate them.

In general, I don't expect a PC to become world famous just because they killed some high level Giant with a Sky Castle and an Orb of Dragonkind. It seems counter to everything I know about how history works.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:
I am doubtful that this is the case. Golarion has printing presses, sending, teleportation, and other methods of rapidly transporting news, up to and including those high-level heroes themselves.

A PC could use their abilities to spread information about their grand accomplishments, but if a bard with a +49 Perform check teleports into a new city and puts on a play about the recent going ons in a place on the other side of the world, people might be more informed, but nothing about their life changes. Its just a neat story and they have more important things to deal with.

The Worldwound Closing, for example, is very important to a lot of nations. It means they have money and soldiers that can be redirected to other purposes. And that's all it means to most of the rest of the world aside from a few plays and ballads about the heroes. The specific PCs aren't important. Even if they leverage their mythic power to personal and political gain, they're limited to where they decide to plant their flag. So a Mythic PC took over for Queen Galfrey. One tried to rally an army to succeed where the Glorious Reclaimation fails. One becomes a demigod.

None of it matters in the large history of Golarion. It might warrant an entry on the timeline, but nothing about them will be remembered any more than what we know about Old Mage Jatembe.

Tar-Baphon is probably the most notable NPC in Golarion, and his sphere of influence is a handful of nations.

The political upsets of various nations aren't that relevant to other nations unless they already have a vested interest. It simply doesn't matter who the Hurricane King actually is because it doesn't change much of the political landscape. Only a new leader that makes radically different policy choices would have a lasting impact.

That a PC could become the ruler of Korvosa might be relevant historically. That high level PCs help Abbie Thrune put down the Glorious Reclaimation isn't.

In the War for the Crown, the high level PCs put a Grand Princess on the Throne and might continue to be her agents, and even have a strong hand in determine how her rule goes, but they aren't important history wise to anyone outside of Taldor. The bureaucratic rot that infests Taldor keeps any progress slow. Its years before their actions show any kind of historical significance and that is determined by the rule of NPC.

In a world history sort of way, PCs just aren't that relevant to anyone but the PCs.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:

We do not know how spellcasting for cities works in 2e. There is nothing saying that metropolises grant 8th-level spellcasting by default.

What I am not a fan of is this notion of, "Wow, my buddies and I just saved the world and hit 20th level, because these new adventure paths go up to 20th! But... now that it is all over, I guess I am just another cog in the grand scheme of things, because this world is already crawling with high level heroes, some of which do not even receive a mention in the history books, not even passingly." It really undersells just how big a deal these very high-level heroes are.

I think the mistake is assuming that they are big deals at all.

Depending on the AP, PCs can go from level 1 to level 17+ in a few weeks. In my Hell's Rebel's game, the PCs went from 10-13 in 3 days. The populace has no concept of a high level party, most people barely have a concept of what high level magic lets you get away with.

A group of local heroes deposed a local tyrant. The details of this are not world shattering nor are they all that interesting in a historical perspective. Only in local history would anyone remember their names or their activities.

What is important and who the heroes are is entirely dependent on where you are and what event is being discussed. At the rate knowledge is transported on Avistan, by the time someone wants to write the "True and Correct History of the Shackles Political Upheaval of 4712" most of the participants will probably be dead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
DRD1812 wrote:

Not so long ago, my players came upon a puzzle and trap-themed level in my megadungeon. I tell the full story of the interaction over here, but the TLDR is that they spent well over an hour IRL brute forcing their way through a hidden door puzzle.

When your players have no clue where to go, how do you go about giving them useful hints to move the game along? Should you? Or does it cheapen the experience when they don't 'figure it out for themselves?'

On one hand, the party could have given up at any time, accepting defeat. Unfortunately, PCs don't work that way. There is an assumption in most play that the party is actually capable of meeting the challenges set in front of them. If that's not the case, its probably best that the group be aware of that in the beginning.

On the other hand, play time is valuable as it is hard to acquire in most cases.

Since it didn't matter how much noise they made, the solution to the problem is simply

PCs: "We're going to brute force it."
GM: (Check notes, no consequences for doing so..., roll dice) It takes 6 six hours, but you find the secret door. Its here."

Takes two minutes of table time, and we're all moving along.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Tangent101 wrote:

At the VERY least, Tar-Baphon has LOST HIS MYTHIC ABILITIES.

I can state this reliably: Golarion has shifted to a 2nd edition rules setting and Mythic Adventures is not a part of the rules. Thus we have no write-up of Tar-Baphon's stats and should not assume that the Whispering Tyrant is as powerful as he was. In fact, given that Wizards were given an overall weakening in upper-level power (while strengthening them at lower levels and improving their extra-low-level versatility), Tar-Baphon's powers have been cut in half in all likelihood.

That's true of all spellcasters. The entire definition of spellcaster has changed for everyone, so Tar-Baphon should be proportionally powerful to other spellcasters. And do we need mythic rules when all you need to make the Lich Wizard unstoppable is to make him Level 30? (Would they make him level 30 when 25 is the demon lord guy, Treerazor? /e shrug, I dunno man. I thought Unseen Servant would last longer than 10 minutes.)

I mean, they made a CR 25 creature in the Bestiary, and its only the first one printed. We'll see more high level monsters of which Tar-Baphon is undoubtedly one of.

1 to 50 of 180 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>