Kerrilyn's page

147 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 147 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
While I agree that this hypothetical scenario of fighting on an arbitrarily large open plain with no meaningful terrain of any kind is pretty absurd and a poor balance argument, I also think it's a bit of a stretch to say that PF2 would be 'ruined' if elves were slower.

Would PF2 be ruined if elves weren't slower?

I think peoples are making a mountain out of a molehill here.. . t.t

#nerfdorfs (just kidding! ^.^;;)

So naughty~ Ahem.

You don't have to roll to tie them up, as long as they're restrained. It happens automatically. They contest against your Thievery DC.

To get them restrained, you have to critically succeed on a Grapple check (Athletics).

If you've restrained the um last enemy, combat has pritty much ended, right? So you could go to Exploration mode and tie them up there. Also you could use non-lethal damage to knock an enemy out, assuming your DM cooperates.

I'm glad that it has to go that way, or I'd end up tied up two rounds into every battle. We rolled for stats, but I ended up with 6 strength t.t

  • * 10-30 seconds is 2-5 combat rounds btw
  • * Athletics/Grapple p.242 PF2e CRB.
  • * Encounter mode end thingies are on p.468 PF2e CRB.

(wow the list thingy is basically just BRs >.< )

2 people marked this as a favorite.

* There's no take ten (I think? mog?)
* No rolling for hit points. Yay!

I had something else but I's forgot~

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The rationale for this was stated as "However, we’ve had consistent feedback that the cleric could use channel energy too many times, especially now that there’s easy out-of-combat healing with Treat Wounds, making clerics feel too powerful and mandatory.".

Um, wouldn't it be better to add moar ways of healing or reduce it's requirement (less monstery damage), if 'mandatory' is a problem?

Ediwir wrote:
Indeed, the new Cleric has 0 channel if she has Cha10, and 4 channels if she has Cha18.

I think I might have to move one of my Wis boosts to Cha then >.<

Ediwir wrote:

I'd have made it 1-3 at first level, but I guess that didn't fly. In either case, Treat Wounds is a thing, so that's fine.

Still needs a spell list update.

Yes please..Or..maybe 1 every 3 levels, or something?

Treat wounds could prolly use some work too. I was treating our ranger and it took forever - she's all range and dex and has zero con bonus...and I have expert medicine. I feel it's just tooo slow, and that maybe um every rank of medicine should add +1/level or something?

Oh, I read in another thread that take-10 isn't a thing anymore (weird!). Please don't let our DM know. I use it with Treat Wounds all the time ^.~

Why don't we just play starfinder?

We do play Starfinder here.

If they updated it with that nifty 3-action round thingy, we would probably be ignoring the playtest entirely ^.~

ikarinokami wrote:
yeah I dont get it either. so pointless. with treat wounds, the channel nerf was just unfun. made no sense to me.

Yah! I have Heal 1 (and 2 now) with Healing Hands, and it hardly feels good enough with all of the hit points floating around now >.< I used to make up some of the difference with all of my channels, but now I only have two t.t

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Um, in the Update 1.6 file, it said a thingy like this:

Page 71—In the second paragraph, in the first sentence, remove “3 plus”.

Okies two problems with this...

One) That sentence it mentions says, "For borderline cases, you and your GM determine whether other acts count as anathema."

Two) There's a paragraph about um something like two or three paragraphs down that does say that stuffs but it says, "This pool of energy allows you to cast either the heal spell (for positive energy) or the harm spell (for negative energy) a number of times per day equal to 3 plus your Charisma modifier without needing to prepare the spell in advance."

If it's talking bout the right paragraph, um, there's no such stuffs there. If it's talking about the paragraph in two, there's two thingies that make me a very sad Kerries:

One) A cleric could have zero or negative channels in a day if they have negative or zero charisma bonus.


Two) That's more than half of my own channels. I's not made out of stat points! I didn't see anything about spontaneous heal-swapping, so I guess my spell list is going to be like 'heal, heal, mending, heal 2nd, restoration'.

Can we have a new PDF main book please? The cross referencing is already pritty bad in the main PDF when it's ~not~ being updated by another, different PDF. t.t

Um, what if the camel is pulling a cart? How much can the cart hold? Does it slow the camel down? If so, how much? I can't seem to find any of that! >.<

Ew? Only 600 years for elves? Why does it get less and less with each edition? *pout*

1200 years, then 750, now 600? t.t

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:
I don't want any character to have to 'invest' in healing to be able to heal

Why? Why does this always get a pass? A fighter has to invest in wizard levels to cast wizard spells, so why shouldn't people have to invest in healing features to get healing?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cheeto Sam, Esquire wrote:
120. How will i make witches into enemies if there are no witches in p2e?

121 - How do you know she's a witch?

Do I get an auto-crit or auto-fumble now?~

Our primary DM is a man of 175cm height (5'9"), and our secondary is a woman of 165cm (5'7") and neither can see well over the screen at any of our tables.

I think they would appreciate a shorter screen.

Steve's idea of player-oriented tables sounds nice too.

graystone wrote:
Kerrilyn: In pathfinder, it's possible to detect someone's level, hp's, class, feats, ki pool, grit pool, ect... It's not meta when you can get an in game source for it. Add to that the fact that people with IQ's FAR outstripping 'real life' are wandering around and I really don't see an argument for the game's characters to be ignorant of the basic facts of pathfinder life. SOMEONE has to have figured out that a 9' fall is safe while a 10' one isn't, even if that experiment requires a few orphan peasants to figure out. I just don't see pathfinder characters as 'dumb' as you seem to think they are.

The simplified mechanics of the PF world aren't supposed to be it's underlying reality btw. They're just abstractions that players can handle, so the game runs simply and swiftly.

I think neither of us are making any progress here so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

RumpinRufus wrote:

My GM just said "out of combat, CLW wands heal 5 HP."

So instead of rolling 9x(1d8+1), then realizing you're still 9 HP down so rolling another 2x(1d8+1)... you just say "I need 11 charges from the wand" and you're done.

Yah, that's what I would assume people do. But it's still book-keepy, why not just assume you get healed to full always if you find this acceptable, and have the DM award like ten percent less treasure? That auto-scales with level, and is very non-book-keepy and super-fast for the players (they just erase the damage).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like a lot of it, Fuzzypaws. It's well written and has great ideas!

Just a lil thing - adding something to constitution? CON is already a critical stat...does it rilly need more stuffs? I mean, how many times do you see a CON-dumped character in PF1? It's both hit points and fortitude saves....

As for the healing kit, it's charges should only apply to the higher level functions like status affliction removals. Treat Deadly Wounds should be considered a lower level function in this set-up. Also don't forget, there should be some level where it's not curing things like poisons or diseases, but suspending them (like Delay Poison)...

The Sideromancer wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
At least change the material component for color spray to RGB from RBY. It's a pattern spell, you are not throwing paint at them.
No comment?

I did make a comment on it on the first page...

Shadow Kosh wrote:
graystone wrote:
and keep 45 extra in a bag of holding.
Keeping extradimensional containers inside each other is generally a bad idea. And as I pointed out a couple of posts ago, spell component puches are pretty much epic level mythic bags of holding.

It's only the portable hole and bag of holding that have an interaction. Other extradimensional spaces are safe to store in each other, but you can't use one inside of another. So if you have a handy haversack inside a bag of holding, it's fine, but you have to take the handy haversack out of it if you want to get anything out of it.

Actually um, you would prolly want the bag of holding inside the haversack. Bags of holding are HEAVY~

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
Thank you, Kerrilyn, for providing names so that I could read references. The English ship Mary Rose sank in 1545 A.D. and the Swedish ship Vasa sank in 1628 A.D. The Mary Rose gave 33 years of service before it sank, so I would not call that one a design failure. But the Vasa sank on her maiden voyage, definitely a design failure. The shipwrights added an extra gun deck for the 72 large brass cannons on the ship, which made it too tall and too topheavy. The captain and vice admiral noticed that it was topheavy from observing it in dock, but launched it anyways because the project was ordered by the king and the vice admiral did not want to disappoint the king. (Wikipedia link)

The Mary Rose spent most of her service life in reserve (over twenty two years) and sank almost instantly in battle after refit, so whatever shipwright oversaw the refits obviously made some grievous error in the re-design.

As for the Vasa, the captain and vice admiral might have known, but the shipwrights who designed her clearly did not. And she's not some monster ship either, btw, a moderately-sized first rate like the HMS Victory is about three times the displacement and has three gun decks (her Spanish equivalent had four gundecks and four times the displacement of Vasa).

The shipwrights from the Vasa's era (and earlier) could not calculate these variables and would have to go with gut feelings. They knew that a ship had to be heavier at the bottom or it would roll over (like, duh), but the amounts were basically guesses..and sometimes wrong.

Similar thingies happen with modern ships, btw, but that's more my husband's area of expertise. It's usually not as severe since the mechanics are better understood in modern times, but you still end up with ships that are awash in heavy seas or have violent (but stable) rolling parameters.

For more "everybody knows" stuff, try checking some of them like.. "everybody knows you need to drink 8 glasses of water a day".

So um, is it ironic that the faultiness of common knowledge isn't commonly known? O.o

About the wands - Yes, characters might very well just get the CLW wand because it's cheaper. And discover after a CMW wand or two, that the CMW wand is junk due to the cost. "We seem to be burning through money much faster now, and not getting much more healing. Let's switch back to the cheap wand."

graystone wrote:

To you maybe but NOT to me. Too many abilities rely on HP for the character to have NO clue what they are or how they work. For instance, read Blood Reader: "While able to see a studied target, a slayer with this talent knows exactly how many hit points his opponent has remaining. This only works against living targets." The slayer LITERALLY knows the EXACT number of HP... It's 0% meta... People IN GAME can KNOW your EXACT hp total... They CAN SEE how much a healing spell can cure... They CAN DO SIMPLE MATH to figure out how much a charge cost/hp cured IN GAME WITHOUT meta...

So IMO, the only thing that is clear is how incorrect your claim of meta is...

Yes, a badly written thing in a Player's Companion totally overturns literally decades of experience and established practice. Not. Especially when it never explicitly states that it's character knowledge.

Pathfinder sometimes lacks clarity on that, prolly because of word count/page number limitations. Like for example:

CRB wrote:
A cleric may channel energy a number of times per day equal to 3 + her Charisma modifier.


No... no, calm down, the cleric only knows she can do it 5 times a day. She doesn't know that having a 14 or 15 charisma (or even that she has that amount of charisma) gives her a +2 bonus. She might know that having a certain 'force of personality' makes her able to do it more, and that putting on that weird enchanted circlet lets her do it one more time/day, or that weird curse reduced it to only 3 times/day, but she doesn't literally see her own character sheet. Only the player does.

Well, in the default setting/paradigm. You can always houserule/homebrew a system where the characters are innately knowledgeable about the exactly mechanics of their world, and sit around a table in a tavern discussing how dumping their charisma let them add two points to dex or how it's lame that crossbows only do 1d8 damage or whatever.

Wikipedia wrote:


Metagaming is a term used in role-playing games, which describes a player's use of real-life knowledge concerning the state of the game to determine their character's actions, when said character has no relevant knowledge or awareness under the circumstances. This can refer to plot information in the game such as secrets or events occurring away from the character, as well as facets of the game's mechanics such as abstract statistics or the precise limits of abilities.

You understand that the world of D&D and Pathfinder is supposed to be exactly like our very own, only with magical thingies added. The player knows that their character is down to 12 of 44 hit points, but the character themselves only knows that they're bruised, battered, wounded and getting close to death. "I'm very badly injured!" they might think or say. They don't think, "I have only 12 hit points left!".

There's even been pushes from time to time to move the crunchy stuff to the DM. It usually fails, but not because of love for meta, but because that would be an impossible workload for the DM.

Nethys, 'Elder God' wrote:
Suppose you have an attack that deals the minimum amount of harm required to be damaging to all creature types (i.e 1 point of lethal). If you repeatedly hit a creature with said attack (assume you have a way of detecting if a critical occurs, such as crit feats that apply non-damaging conditions) until it gains the disabled condition, you know the total hit points of your target. Any healing that brings them from 0 to full must be at or greater than their total hit points. You can then run as many trials as you would like to determine the probability that any given use of a healing effect produces this result.

You're basically underlining the limitations of the simulation. Hit points are presented as small integers as it's easy for peoples to understand and work in paper and pencil. That sounds exactly like that electron experiment thingie though. Very scientific, nicely empirical...but still meta. Does the character know of the delta chi square test method? O.o

Btw, even if you did have such a setup, it's unlikely that someone who went through all those troubles would offer this advice for free. There's a thingy called a 'trade secret'...

Sweet wispies, the thread got moved out of playtest. I wonder if it will eventually end in some 'off topic' forum.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Or how about this. How much is a billion? A thousand millions (10^9), or a million millions(10^12)? Depends on where you are and if the short scale or long scale is the local custom.

OMG I totally forgot about that! Fortunately that doesn't come up in pathfinder too much unless you're talking about the perception DC for seeing the Sun.

Doktor Weasel wrote:
That's it, we all need to switch to Planck Units, dozenal numbering and speak Esperanto! Only way to stop the confusion. Also name everyone Bruce.

No! Name everybody Kerri! I don't want to be named 'Bruce'. t.t

(It's not my actual name but I do respond to it~)

gustavo iglesias wrote:
That is how every country in the world did it. Once upon a time in Spain we used arrobas, quintales, leguas, pasos, varas, celemines, fanegadas and cántaras. Nobody knows what those even mean, or what are they used for

Is a quintales a fifth of something, or five of something perhaps?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Wait wait wait wait. “Trolls are scary monsters that eat goats and live under bridges,” is a DC 5 check in this reality where they don’t even exist. In a realm where they are real that information isn’t even a check. People just know it. Like they no how to eat, drink, screw, and that trolls are scary.

Actually they don't live under bridges and may or may not eat goats. They live in 'cold mountains' according to the PRD. So Skyrim I guess?

That was just an allusion to that old Three Billy Goats Gruff story... an example about how legends and stories that aren't first-hand knowledge could be.. tainted.. Wait.. did you miss that? Is it possible that.. the DC is higher than 5?

There's nothing in the knowledge skill that says the information is guaranteed to be correct. Even today, people have incorrect knowledge that they "know" is "true".

Master shipwrights in the days long ago would regularly make sailing ships that would capsize in a stiff breeze because they did not know how their world works, despite centuries of accumulated experience (Vasa, Mary Rose, etc). Metacentric height? dynamic stability? righting action? what's that? *splash*

BigDTBone wrote:
When someone casts death watch that is literally exactly what they see.
CRB p265 wrote:

Using the powers of necromancy, you can determine the

condition of creatures near death within the spell’s range. You
instantly know whether each creature within the area is dead,
fragile (alive and wounded, with 3 or fewer hit points left), fighting
off death (alive with 4 or more hit points), healthy, undead, or
neither alive nor dead (such as a construct). Deathwatch sees
through any spell or ability that allows creatures to feign death.

No - only if they're dead / alive+about to die / alive+NOT about to die / full / undead / construct.

So leaving aside dead, undead, and constructs, it's just < 4 hp, >4hp <full, and full. Personally I would like it if they expanded it so that it was like bottom / middle / upper third of health, might actually be worth casting then (aside from detecting undeads and constructs).

The only point that's open for arguing here is whether or not this level of meta is acceptable (and that's like an opinion and table-specific, and discouraged by pritty much every author and publisher since Gary Gygax), NOT whether or not it's meta. It's clearly meta.

graystone wrote:
I don't find it "meta" for characters to understand how their world works. In a world where everything runs of HP and having spells that heal it and sense it, it seems odd/meta to NOT understand them.

Um, hit points are supposed to be an abstraction, that may not even represent actual wounds. The characters aren't supposed to be aware of them. When they get hit by a sword, it hurts. When they get healed, they "feel a bit better". Obviously the player knows exactly how much as they have to write it down on the sheet for recordkeeping. But the only guide that the character themselves would have is "owie" vs "OWIE" vs "I.. I really don't feel so good" vs. "*thud*".

Do you imagine your character running around with a HP gauge over their head like in a CRPG? That's clearly and plainly visible to them? Do other people see it too?

Since it's a table top RPG, and open to customization, you're allowed to play that way if everybody agrees at your table. That's not the usual expectation though.

graystone wrote:
After a fight, use this... WOW was that difficult to parse... :P

Apparently some things are. Then again as a cleric, I have no skill points to put into writing so...

graystone wrote:
Not quite accurate. "For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster's CR." Wands of CLW SEEM mighty common as does healing and HP... SO maybe DC 10 is high?

The CR of the CLW wand thread is something like 55~ :P

Lady Firebird wrote:
Yes, there was! And other than the fact it runs on the aging D20 engine, it was quite good. In fact, they did a lot of interesting things with the system, and some of the races are pretty powerful, just how I like them. You can find the EverQuest PHB on Amazon, in fact. I'll PM you the link, if you'd like. It was pretty great.

Oh! Okie! That would be nifty! Thank you! ^.^

Lady Firebird wrote:
I really love that setting, especially Kunark. The Iksar were so awesome. One of my favorite fantasy races of all time.

I found Kunark kind of terrifying, but that's prolly just me being my usual scaredy-cat self. Luclin was prolly my favorite; being on the moon appealed to my kerri-riffic sense of weird.

graystone wrote:
Why should it be thought of as a big secret? What stops it from being commonly known? If the character can roll to know a troll's vulnerabilities why can't they roll to know CLW wands are the cheapest alternative? IMO that's a DC 10 [or lower] check.

Well, leaving aside how common knowledge can often be wrong, that's sort of falling in line with.. how many hit points does the troll have?

Do you let the players know that? If you do, well, then you're running a very meta-ish game, and they prolly would know how efficient it is. If not, no.

it's parsing rilly fine information too -- it's only bestest outside of battle. In battle, you would prolly use the highest wand/potion you could get, as it would cost a lot less than a 5000 gp raise dead. So would the myths, stories, and legends around the wand be able to discern that subtle distinction?

10 DC, btw, is silly. That means that anybody can make the check (knowledge only requires training for DCs above 10), and anybody can pass it by taking ten as long as they don't have an int penalty. It's for rudimentary knowledge. like... trolls are monsters and scary rudimentary, and maybe that they live under bridges and eat goats. The DC to know specific monster weaknesses is 10+CR for comparison.

While I can imagine heroes returning to the tavern and regaling the patrons with tales of the hideous monster that could only be harmed by fire, I doubt they boasted for hours on end how their little cure stick from Magic Mart™ healed them all up after the fight, like as if they had the troll's own regeneration.

Okie...now I'm imagining the Magic Mart shopkeep as being that Comic Book Shop Guy from the Simpsons. "Actually, the Wand of Cure Light wounds is the best value per gold piece, I'll have you know. You would be foolish to buy anything else. Best. Wand. Ever."

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Are we talking about the little components that don't have a listed price, or like the 25000gp diamonds for resurrect?


worldhopper wrote:
Because honestly, they're in a weird place right now of being technically necessary but pretty much entirely irrelevant given component pouches.

Yah. The no-cost ones basically don't exist anymore.

I've never felt sad because of cheap spell components, and the 'spell component pouch' thingy made them irrelevant anyways.

The high-cost ones are kinda scary. I think my previous cleric has something like 25% of her WBL tied up in diamonds >.<

The Sideromancer wrote:
At least change the material component for color spray to RGB from RBY. It's a pattern spell, you are not throwing paint at them.

Actually that's how the spell works. You throw the wrong colors, and the target becomes confused to the point of passing out. "W..why would you be using subtractive colors for a light-based effect? Why? It makes no sense! /faint /thud" ^.~

Lady Firebird wrote:
Fun as Golarion is, I think I may not be patient enough for the final release of the game and just convert some of my EverQuest RPG stuff to PF2 rules and adventure in Norrath. Some of the most fun I ever had was playing in that setting! So I'll tinker with creating ancestries for Iksar and so on.

There was an EverQuest RPG? O.o Is it d20? Adventuring in Norrath sounds like fun!

(we had an Iksar monk in our guild, we called him 'Fluffy' for some reason?)

Dasrak wrote:
Comparing CLW with the higher-level cure spells would be a bit more complicated in-universe, but at least by PF1E standards the pricing difference was so extreme that it would be pretty easy to conclude that CLW is better value even if you don't know by exactly how much. It's 4500 gp for a 2nd level wand, or 90 gp per charges, so CMW would need to be 6 times more potent than CLW to match it for value. It isn't even close (it's roughly twice as potent) so it would certainly be possible to conclude in-universe that the wand of CLW has the best overall value.

They might be able to do that, but also maybe not. It would be hard to determine in-character the potency of the spells...and they really should be testing in-character before they go bonkers when the Magic-Mart has a 25% off sale.

Remember, CLW can easily be like, 2,3,2,2, and CMW could easily go 12,15,14,19. In my last game, I had to channel all my channels because it was literally 1,2,2,1,1. 7 out of 30 possible! *stress* The characters might think that a channel is only worth about the same as a typical CLW.

PS: I like your posts. They're very well written and reasonable, and in a very balanced, neutral tone. Even if I don't always agree with them, they're good. ^.^

Ascalaphus wrote:
This one actually predates PFS. Pathfinder already took big steps to eliminate the "dedicated healer" job by allowing clerics to swap other spells for cure spells, so a cleric can have lots of fun spells which turn into healing spells when really needed. Instead of the rest of your party guilting you into only preparing spells that can save their life.

Yay other dedicated healers!

It was actually D&D 3.0e that gave us that, and it was still in 3.5e when it was copied over to Pathfinder. A very welcome change over 2e.

D&D 5e doesn't support it anymore, but it's not really necessary with their arcanist-style magics.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:

Beer comes in pints

A gallon is 8 beers. A quart is 2 beers.

Beer comes in 2 liters, 0,75 liters, 0,5 liters, 0,25 liters and sometimes 0,1 liters, depending what and where you order. so, is a gallon 8x2 liters, 8x0,75 liters, 8x0,5 liters, 8x0,25 liters or 8x0,1 liters?

Uhoh there's another thing - you're writing the decimal thingy as a comma.

More troubles!! >.<

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
43) Will Seoni's dress finally get pockets? I mean real pockets, not fake "fashion" pockets that are stitched shut or are too small to actually hold anything.

Um, she'd have to put one on first. I think those are her PJs, or maybe undies, but I don't want to embarrass her by asking...

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Primary Healer should be an optional, amazing path, not just a cog in the machine

I can live with that~ I'm just concerned though that in PF1, we've already been replaced by that stupid med stick, and in PF2, replaced (ie, been made totally obsolete by) whatever lets a barbarian fully heal a party on their own.

The Sideromancer wrote:

I look more at percentages of a team than total numbers (mostly because I'm very used to 4-6 person teams), so I would consider that example to be yes, healers are overshadowing other roles. There probably is some bias on my side, because I view important healing as a sign of poor tanks.

Oh! I think I understand what you're getting at. And yes, healers shouldn't overpower tanks. There's still room for plenty of synergy without turning healers into a small passive item though.

Overwatch btw - heals are mostly irrelevant except for post-fight top-ups there. You're either rezzing, a CLW wand, or useless there. Blizzard has a poor idea of healing in general anyways.

CrystalSeas wrote:

Yep, a gallon is 4 quarts.

A quart is 32 ounces, or 2 pints (16 oz each) or 4 cups (8 oz each).

So a gallon is 4*32 or 128 ounces

Trying.. to memorize.. not ... working.. *hair starts to smoke slightly* Ow!

...I looked up a table, and I'm still a bit confused. But I learned that the difference between the US and UK gallon is because an imperial gill is 5 fluid ounces and a US one is 4 fluid ounces.

Oh! If you keep gills in there, it actually smoothly doubles along teh whole way until you get to fluid ounces, and then does the 5/4 thing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
I’ve been joking that the new iconic is still Damiel, he just drank something he shouldn’t have and got permanently polymorphed.

Omg I got ninja'd.. >.<

Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Your husband is spot on here. 5e does have an SRD by the way, but WOTC only made one of each 3rd level option open. Which is bummer, but does not make it unplayable.

Yah, I saw it, but it was soooo tiny, covered so little.. like, it doesn't seem to cover any of the newer books, whereas PF1's OGL stuff covers so much. 5e's SRD only covers the Life domain for Cleric, and High Elf subtype for elfies. That's good if I want to play that, but what if I wanted to be a dark elf or wood elf cleric of .. some other domain?

PF1's SRD has fallen behind the last few books, but the new materials (like Ultimate Wilderness) are still OGL. Paizo's just slacking on updating the web page. They'll show up there eventually.

Matthew Downie wrote:

Removing CLW wands wouldn't, in itself, make much difference to Pathfinder. Let's say I'm playing in a campaign with plenty of downtime (Kingmaker or Jade Regent or whatever). If I can Scribe Scrolls, I can make scrolls of CLW for 12.5gp each, cheaper than a 15gp wand charge.

You'll have to go the buying route, you can only make 1 magic item per day:

CRB p.549 wrote:
Regardless of the time needed for construction, a caster can create no more than one magic item per day

Also scrolls are letter-paper-sized and double rolled rather than single rolled. I didn't know that! Somehow I imagined them being smaller and rolled into a single roll..

Claxon wrote:

Because the opposite conclusion makes the game unplayable to me. Because it increases the likelihood of death for melee characters while ranged characters and casters will generally take little to no damage (if melee has done their job properly). It's no fun for the player of the melee character to have to say "We have to stop because I'm about to die and can't heal". Or the party pushes on and the character dies.

I'm up there, every day, doing my best to keep those peoples alive. Even though it puts me into a situation where I have monk levels of MAD-ness, and I end up tanking things with medium armor and d8+1 hit dice.

What do I get in return? I cease to exist in most examples and get replaced by a little 375gp stick t.t

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
To be honest, My group has had far more fun, and far more roleplying, since the switch to 5e and the need to no longer master a super crunchy system with 47 conditions and 38 modifiers dominated game play.

We'd be playing 5e right now if it were covered more by the OGL. We do like thingies to be a bit crunchier than 5e, but it wouldn't take a lot of crunchy to make it acceptable.

The lack of things like cheap PDFs, d20pfsrd / neyths etc are a no-no for 5e for us.

master_marshmallow wrote:
And I'm fine with a simpler system, but simple also does not mean better.

Um, nopers. Simpler is always better, unless it costs something else valuable in the process. We still use THAC0 in PF1, but it's been simplified since 1e. The only thing we lost is those weird adjustments between specific weapons and armors from 1e, and there's nothing stopping us from putting them back into play with BAB/to-hit. If we wanted to.

What's that quote my husband loves so much? Oh yes, here it is (thanks google!):

"In anything at all, perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away"

The Sideromancer wrote:
so I'm uncomfortable with making healer a central role since it has a track record of bringing the rest of the roles down to make the healer look good, often starting with non-healer support.

I wouldn't want to nerf non-healer support. I used to be an Enchanter in Everquest afterall. Why would that be necessary to support healing? Healing was critical in Everquest -- if you didn't have at least a druid, you couldn't group. If you didn't have at least four groups of clerics, you didn't raid. It was also very powerful - full-group heals, regens, complete heal.. and yet enchanters were still adding to groups.

Well, they were, until the nerfs started rolling in. The problem was that a group-worthy enchanter could also serve to cover an entire raid...and the changes that made a raid need to have 2-3 enchanters (out of 150~) made an enchanter much, much less useful in a 6-person group.

Staffan Johansson wrote:
I'm pretty sure that refers to the previous sentence about Treat Deadly Wounds consuming two "charges" from the healer's kit. That would seem like the only reasonable interpretation: you really should have proper medical supplies (and quite a lot of them) for treating deadly wounds, but if you're short you can improvise some stuff at a -2 or -4 penalty.

Yah it was discussed in another thread. The wording around there needs to be changed, so very badly...

RumpinRufus wrote:
But guess what, he ran out of resonance after drinking one potion and so the second potion was wasted.

Another tangent as this is the CLW wand thread, not the resonance thread (sorry!) but um, I have to say, the wasting of the second potion was not nifty.

(just because I'm anti-CLW-wand doesn't mean I'm pro-resonance btw~ I am willing to try out this resonance stuffs but I have reservations too)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:
The material components costing 375 gp, that's where it comes from. If you had 375 gp sitting around, the craft wand feat, and 8 hours of spare time, you too could convert one spell slot into fifty.

So now all I have to do is figure out how to cut down that crafting time and cost I can cast like.. 150 CLWs a day at first level~ *ebil*

Dasrak wrote:
The benchmarks are actually designed to work just like that. They are the amount of gold reward you need per encounter to keep the party on pace with WBL guidelines, with the presumption that 25% of the money is spent on consumables.

The book actually says 15% spent on consumables, but your math proves that it's 25% >.< I verified it by checking to see what happens 9->10 and it's basically the same minus a lil tiny error (gain 19921.875 gp vs. expected 20,000gp, where the WBL increased by 16000).

Anyways my whole point is that the WBL will, in many if not most games, re-create any missing wealth spent on these wands.

Increasing the available money from 15% to 25% makes them even cheaperierer... um, even less expensive.

Dasrak wrote:
You can only ever reduce the chances of taking damage, not eliminate it entirely. If your entire game's pacing breaks down because of one unlucky die roll, that is a problem.

That would only be AC increases. If you went with a percentage based damage reduction-y system, or increased hit points, a party could continue for much longer, just like the CLW-wand-bundle party. A percentage-reduction party would also gain more from healing.

My point was that the lack of super-easy healing is not the only possible answer to that "problem". Not that it was a problem to begin with. The dramatic tension was far higher there because of that.

One-Unlucky-Die syndrome does need to go away though. PF1 is full of those (omg x3 crit enlarged level 1 barbarian >.< ). That's a different thread though.

graystone wrote:

Yep, pretty much this: if the logistics/optics of it is the issue, just list the total charges and mark them off: the actual number of wands can be off scene like bathroom breaks.

Um, if you're using the wands as presented/have no issues with this, you might as well just reduce treasure income by 10% and assume that you always heal to 100% after a 10 minute short rest. You could even skip the 10% part!

BigDTBone wrote:
Someone mentioned earlier in the thread having wands work using the rod mechanic (3-5 times a day, rather than a total number of charges) which really seems like the smart/sweet spot. Limits spamming and disposable feeling for the one group, allows you use everything you have without a troublesome/awkward/heavy-handed mechanic, and still encourages high level healing items at high levels.

The problem here is how cheap the wands are - if they're still 750 gold (or 375 if you make it yourself), then a party could simply buy more of them and just have a big bundle of reusable CLW wands by the time they're level 10.

If you made them less cheap, the problem would solve itself either way.

Matthew Downie wrote:
Wouldn't we find ourselves in a similar situation, where the most efficient method is to buy thirty rods of cure light wounds and cycle through them every day?

Yeps. And that's (prolly) how Resonance was born. The solution to cycling items would then be to limit how many times a given character could use a CLW wand.. but then tracking that becomes complicated, so it's all merged into a Resonance system...

Funny thingie is that I used to have a CLW rod back in 3.5. It had three uses a day, but one was CLW, another was CMW and then CSW, and it could finally do something like Breath of Life. It was a homebrew thingy, unique and uncraftable. Sort of a tangent though. Sorry!

Quandary wrote:
Imperial units are absolute train wreck when converting units, because numeric relationship is not obvious or intuitive, and in fact most "native" Imperial unit users CAN'T DO BASIC CONVERSIONS of many units for this reason (too many unit ratios to remember unless one deals with that conversion on regular basis). This cannot be emphasized enough when people try to defend Imperial's efficacy, it's own "fluent" population is functionally illiterate in it's application.

Yah, not many of them would be able to answer how many cubic inches there are in a foot~ Or .. cubic picas in a cubic foot.

On the other hand...there's a million cubic centimeters in a cubic meter (100x100x100)~

Doktor Weasel wrote:
Yeah, I'm still much more familiar with imperial units because I'm an American. But I never remember how many ounces are in a pound. Or how many fluid ounces in a gallon (I do remember that a gallon is four quarts and a quart is four cups). And for some odd reason I remember the number of feet per mile (5280), but only because the first test in an into chem class I took focused a lot on unit conversions in general and how to do it in equations. Conversions to or from metric are a pain. I only have 2.54 centimeters per inch memorized..

It's 16 ounces in a pound~ and that's the limit of my American Standard knowledge (including the miles/yards/feets stuffs I mentioned before).

I have no idea how many fluid ounces are in a gallon~ Prolly negative thirty seven and a half.

(Is that even a thing? Does a gallon divide into fluid ounces?)

Staffan Johansson wrote:
That's not true. If there are three targets, each 30 feet from the other two, you need a 35-foot diameter circle. to fit all three (well, 34.6, but same thing).

Wat? Oh is this one of those thingies that has to do with the spell effect emanating from a grid intersection etc? Or some limitation of the grid itself?

Otherwise though um the largest area those peoples could be in using that wording is an equilateral triangle with 30-foot edges..and that would definitely fit inside a 30-foot-diameter circle.

If you move anybody further from anybody else, it breaks the 30 feet thingy..

Staffan Johansson wrote:
I'm also not convinced that "in a 15 foot radius" is simpler, at least not unless you have some form of template to put on your battle map to see how many targets you can fit into it. With "no targets can be more than 30 feet away from one another", it's easy to look and say that no, you can't fit Amiri, Valeros, and Kira all in the spell, because Amiri and Valeros are 40 ft distant from one another

There are templates in the CRB for spell areas. Right now there's no 15-foot radius, but they could just use a 20-foot radius, or add the 15 in. There's rules for calculating new areas given a radius..

tonyz wrote:
Strip out the rule that requires a +1 BAB to draw a weapon as part of a move action -- it affects a few characters for one level (maybe 2-3 if they're dipping multiple classes). It's just an extra bit of annoyance to remember early in one's career and then never again.

All classes are full BAB now...so it will either be based on something else, or go away entirely.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yay more infos!! Hugggs!!

Covent wrote:

2.) The line
D20PFSRD wrote:
You must expend two uses from a healer’s kit to perform this task.You take a –2 penalty on your check for each use from a healer’s kit that you lack.

I always took to mean, you must use 2 uses of a healers kit to use treat deadly wounds and that if you did not have enough uses left in your kit, i.e. 1, or did not have a kit at all you took the -2 for each of the 2 uses you did not use. I had never read it as "your healers kit is at 6/10 uses so you take a -8".

I took that to mean 6/10 = -8. And complained to my DM. He agreed with that interpretation and immediately houseruled it away on the spot because it was crazy. Plus he lets me refill it at 5 gold/use (it costs 5/use anyways).

That's a perfect example of weird phrasing that was being discussed in another thread. /sigh

The first sentence says, "You must expend two uses". Must. So logically, you can't be using a kit that's 1 of 10 uses. But that other interpretation makes sense.

It should probably read something like this: "Performing this task uses two uses from the kit. If the kit is low or empty, a -2 to -4 penalty applies: -2 if the kit has 1 uses left, -4 if no uses remain". Assuming that this -4 interpretation is okie. That's a very flexible definition of "must" here. :P

If that -4 stuffs is right, btw, you could always carry an empty kit around and have 0 gold cures assuming you can handle DC24/29.

Oh um I think a medicine cleric can use it much faster than a regular person, FYI.

I don't agree with making it super-accessible though. Let's reward people that think outside the box and have like say, a high-wisdom fighter (and make it a class skill for fighties and monks as well). Maybe it could do like.. always have the wis modifier in there (0 if negative), and do +1 health/level for DC15, +2 for DC20, and +3 for DC25 and so forth?

Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:

Or have healing spells do like magic missile and cure more damage the more actions you use to cast it. But at the same time allow you to use more than a turn's worth of actions out of combat.

I like that idea. They're already doing that with Magic Missile, btw. It fires like.. one missile per action I think (and PF2 has three actions/round)..

That reminds me though, one of our 3.5 DMs made cantrips like they are in Pathfinder (long before PF1).... He regretted that instantly of course because I remembered that I had Cure Minor Wounds~

*Thelith wrote:
Personally, I love healing.

I do too! <3

*Thelith wrote:
Choosing to play without a healer should be harder... Not impossible but it should hurt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snorter wrote:
Why not just say '15 foot radius'? Since that's what it amounts to, if NO combination of two targets may have 30 feet between them.

Yah the Mass Cures are like that - it's a weird way of phrasing it, but um, half of the stuff in the books is phrased in a way that I feel is weird.

Hopefully they'll tidy that up.

I liked the idea of the Cleric - Merciful Healer archetype. It's flavor suits me perfectly....but it needs work. It's short on, um, mercies and healing, and has lots'n'lots'n'lots of Destruction and Flamestrike and other things I don't want or need.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
gwynfrid wrote:
One of the concerns with the Resonance concept is that it makes it likely that a healer-less party is at a severe long-term disadvantage. Hopefully, this potential gap will be addressed.

I want them to be at a disadvantage. I have two children, and my husband was killed in the Orcish wars over fifty years ago. I heal parties to make ends meet, and those same parties are doing their level best to make sure that I end up on the street with no job, no home, and starving children. So mean!

But I'm a nice Kerri, it doesn't have to be a severe disadvantage. Like.. -1, just to remind them to think of the Kerries, not -10.

Anyways the posts from Paizo staff said that it's entirely possible for a Barbarian to heal the whole party so...

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh yah that's another thing: why is it only one day to craft a CLW wand? Who has 50 charges of CLW in them? Does the wand create the charges out of nothing? *munchkinizing Kerri mode* Is there something I could do so that I could create those charges myself without the stick?

Dasrak wrote:

One mistake I think people make is using wealth by level as our benchmark. If we were talking permanent items that would be appropriate, but we're talking about an ongoing expense in the form of a consumable. As a result we shouldn't measure relative to total assets, but rather relative to income. These are two different things, as can be seen by cross-referencing the wealth by level table with the suggested treasure table, which are not in lock-step. So a 2nd level Fighter expects 137 gp income per encounter (his share of 550 in a 4-man party) and a 10th level Fighter expects 1362 gp per encounter.

Except that they aren't necessarily different things. If your DM doesn't track exact wealth rewarded by the adventure, then sooner or later they're going to sit down with the players, calculate how much they have (this is trivial in HeroLab or PCGen), and then increase or reduce the treasure given until things are proper again.

If a new character is created, the CRB recommends that they are allowed to buy their WBL in gear, right? So in essence, that part of their WBL stuffs regenerated spontaneously.

RumpinRufus wrote:
In the playtest a 1st-level character took enough damage that he needed two healing potions. But guess what, he ran out of resonance after drinking one potion and so the second potion was wasted. They had to rest for the night, inside an undead-infested dungeon, without saving the NPC's sister, so they could recover

Um, but you could argue this a different way, and say that perhaps instead of lacking healing, the player defenses aren't adequate, and that players should then have better AC, DR, DR%, and saving throws (or just more hit points). They wouldn't have had to rest then either. Or maybe the monsters are overpowered. Or those particular PCs just happen to be bad at their job...

I personally felt that them having to rest added to the tension of the moment anyways. Would they be safe there? Would the sister be rescued? Was that NPC going to snap and murder them in their sleep?? Is PF2 going to make Kerries even more obsolete??? No wait, that last one wasn't related.

Bardarok wrote:
I think this is something that 5e got right. When you multi class casters you get spell slots as a full caster but you only get spells known/prepared as an individual caster. Therefore a Wiz 5/Cleric 5 would have 5th level spell slots but only 3rd level wizard spells and 3rd level cleric spells but they can up cast those lower level spells using the higher slots. If you need to do vancian (which I am against but I think it is stuck) than this is a good way to do it.

We have a pair of 5E PHB here, but they're like.. shiny new because they've never been used in play.

I have read them though... does 5E have the caster/martial disparity issue? If yes, is it as bad as in 3.5/PF?

I'm a lil concerned that non-Vancian magic might make the gulf between martials and casters wider, but I haven't rilly seen it in actual play (aside from stuff like Critical Role). If it doesn't make it worse.. well, it sounded kind of nifty..


Castilliano wrote:

Tl;dr: A well-rounded party is ideal in a game system built to have a breadth of obstacles. An imbalanced party can usually adjust to handle the same obstacles, perhaps at a cost. So what's the worry?

^ I was going to write a long Kerri-riffic post but this is exactly how I feel.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
3PP should be able to do this too, right? With the exception of spells like "Abadar's Truthtelling", I think any publisher would be allowed to sell cards with all the content of the PF spells.
No. You can’t sell reprinted Paizo material as 3P, just reference it.

You can print any Pathfindery thingy as long as it's covered by the Open Gaming License --ie not Product Identity. They would have to use their own artwork and stuffs, but the text is basically open source.

You could totally print and sell a Magic Missile card as a third party publisher, as long as it had it's own art.

If it involves the proper name or title of a god, person, or place in Golarion, that's Product Identity and banned. RumpinRufus's example of "Abadar's Truthtelling" up there is Product Identity because "Abadar" is one of the Golarion setting's gods. The spell would have to be renamed to like.. "Lawful Neutral God's Truthtelling" ~

Pathfinder itself only exists through the grace of the OGL. Magic Missile, Fireball, and Cure Light Wounds are all TSR thingies but were given to the community under the terms of the OGL.

btw that's why we have like "Crushing Hand" and "Mage's Magnificent Mansion" instead of "Bigby's Crushing Hand" and "Mordenkainen's magnificent Mansion". Bigby and Mordenkainen are Producty Identity to TSR/WotC and cannot be used by Paizo.

Our table won't even play a game unless it's OGL-compatible.

Doktor Weasel wrote:
So I think it might be better to give them some other advantage that fits with their historical performance, such as being able to be used more accurately. And used more easily (already done with them being simple weapons).

Well, for the light crossbow, I feel like it's already cozied itself into that space. Non-martial-weapons peoples like (non-elven) wizzies or clerics or such don't want to pay the martial weapon feat, so would be -4 with a longbow, but +0 with a crossbow. If they have strength penalties, it gets even worse! It works out in practice to be a more accurate and effective weapon, unless you're a (strong) martial or spend feats..

The heavy crossbow is.. kinda a disaster. Although longbow damage doesn't justify giving it more damage (it should actually be d4 based on some of the thingies I saw), we could handwave that up to a higher number for a game-balance reason. Especially since Rapid Reload only changes the full-round reload into um, a move action I think? for d10? Doesn't seem worth it.. t.t

Doktor Weasel wrote:
Also cranequin and goatsfoot bows are suitable to be used mounted or prone, and there is the trick of having two bows and having a helper span one while you're using the second. I'm imagining a ranger with a particularly bright primate animal companion doing this, or someone with a hireling or the Torchbearer from the Dungeneer's handbook. Maybe have a feat so they can set up a large pavise (tower shield) to be used as cover for the two of them to represent a proper Pavise Holder.

Ooh.. if you had two helpers and three crossbows, you could fire two each round - they can be fired one-handed (but with a penalty).

The Sideromancer wrote:
Base 2 finger counting is pretty easy, provided people are aware of what you're doing during 4, 128, and 132. Possibly more, if they miss the thumbs.

Um, yes. That could definitely be misinterpreted ^.^;;

Base 2 isn't super hard but it's still not as easy as base 1 though.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:

In real life a crossbow should need several rounds to reload, yes, but then it should do something like 6d8, if a longbow does 1d8. English longbow had an estimated 100-150lb pull. There are medieval crossbows that beat 700-900.

That would not be very balanced, so let's use a dose of handwavium here

The little tiny prods of the crossbow could not impart the same velocity onto a bolt that the long limbs of a longbow could put into an arrow. The draw weights aren't directly comparable. 1 pound of longbow draw is worth many pounds of crossbow draw.

Also those 700 pound crossbows? They're cranequin-drawn. You would be very lucky to reload those once in two encounters' worth of time.

Anyways in Pathfinderies, the crossbow just puts you a feat behind for the light variety.

Doktor Weasel wrote:
I have seen a finger counting method for base-12. Use your thumb as a pointer and point to one of the individual long bones of your fingers, there are 12 of them (1 more than you really need). WIth both hands you can get to 144 by using one as the dozens place and the other as the...

Yep yep, I's heard of this counting system, but it IS more complicated than base-1 on the fingers, even if just a lil bit.

Doktor Weasel wrote:
We could convert to base 8 or base 9 a lot easier. We wouldn't need to add any new symbols to the ASCII table, and it's a lot easier to reduce the number of fingers someone has than to add new ones.

Umm nuuu I like my extra fingers. How about if I promise just to not use them? Please?

Anyways I've been all focused on fingery counting because the doctors are trying to teach me ASL (American Sign Language) and .. um, it's not going well. One of the stumbling blocks is that I'm getting older but also.. three is the two fingers closest to the thumb, and the thumb.

I always hold up three fingers to say three, and I almost always miss the thumb if someone shows me the ASL three.

Lil kerri thought: real world economics - why are CLW wands so cheap if they always sell out? The magic shopkeeps don't understand supply, price, and demand I guess?

Mathmuse wrote:
The problem is that a Wand of Cure Light Wounds is not a rare gift from the Queen of the Eastern Elves. Being affordable by 2nd-level characters means it is cheap to 10th-level characters. Small doses of healing are just as effective when applied early to top off a character's hit points as they are when applied when the character is low in hp, so there is no need to save them only for gravely wounded characters.

^ Exactly this.

I'm not saying the resonance system is the best thing ever, but there is definitely a scaling problem with CLW wands.

By the way I love your example, Mathmuse! It was fun to read ^.^

Angel Hunter D wrote:
In PFS we get hurt ALL. THE. TIME. and someone who can heal properly is rarely present

Um, this will be a bit of a derailment as this thread is about the CLW wand, but I feel this is .. sorta relevant .. at least..

There might be a reason why there aren't many healers present.

Maybe if there was more variety and power in healing, you might be able to find more healers.

1 to 50 of 147 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>