paizo.com Favorited Posts by Kerrilynpaizo.com Favorited Posts by Kerrilyn2023-11-10T20:15:20Z2023-11-10T20:15:20ZRe: Forums: Rules Discussion: Range kiting and the poor dwarfKerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42slz?Range-kiting-and-the-poor-dwarf#332019-10-07T15:28:12Z2019-10-06T23:00:34Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Squiggit wrote:</div><blockquote>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. </blockquote><p>Would PF2 be ruined if elves <b>weren't</b> slower?
<p>I think peoples are making a mountain out of a molehill here.. . t.t</p>
<p>#nerfdorfs (just kidding! ^.^;;)</p>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! ^.^;;)Kerrilyn2019-10-06T23:00:34ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Things you assume from 3.5/PF1 but are different in PF2!Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42sex?Things-you-assume-from-35PF1-but-are#362019-10-03T16:32:33Z2019-10-03T09:42:24Z<p>• There's no take ten (I think? mog?)
<br />
• No rolling for hit points. Yay!</p>
<p>I had something else but I's forgot~</p>* There's no take ten (I think? mog?)
* No rolling for hit points. Yay!
I had something else but I's forgot~Kerrilyn2019-10-03T09:42:24ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion: Update 1.6 - ChannelingKerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42ct4?Update-16-Channeling#52018-11-06T18:35:47Z2018-11-06T06:07:49Z<p>The rationale for this was stated as "<i>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.</i>".</p>
<p>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?</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Ediwir wrote:</div><blockquote> Indeed, the new Cleric has 0 channel if she has Cha10, and 4 channels if she has Cha18.</blockquote><p>I think I might have to move one of my Wis boosts to Cha then >.<
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Ediwir wrote:</div><blockquote><p> 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.
</p>
Still needs a spell list update. </blockquote><p>Yes please..Or..maybe 1 every 3 levels, or something?
<p>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?</p>
<p>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 ^.~</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">KATYA OF VARISIAN wrote:</div><blockquote>Why don't we just play starfinder? </blockquote><p>We do play Starfinder here.
<p>If they updated it with that nifty 3-action round thingy, we would probably be ignoring the playtest entirely ^.~</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">ikarinokami wrote:</div><blockquote> yeah I dont get it either. so pointless. with treat wounds, the channel nerf was just unfun. made no sense to me. </blockquote><p>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.tThe 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...Kerrilyn2018-11-06T06:07:49ZForums: Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion: Update 1.6 - ChannelingKerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42ct4?Update-16-Channeling#12018-11-06T10:44:02Z2018-11-06T03:41:32Z<p>Um, in the Update 1.6 file, it said a thingy like this:</p>
<p><i>Page 71—In the second paragraph, in the first sentence, remove “3 plus”.</i></p>
<p>Okies two problems with this...</p>
<p><b>One)</b> That sentence it mentions says, "<i>For borderline cases, you and your GM determine whether other acts count as anathema.</i>"</p>
<p><b>Two)</b> There's a paragraph about um something like two or three paragraphs down that does say that stuffs but it says, "<i>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.</i>"</p>
<p>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:</p>
<p><b>One)</b> A cleric could have zero or negative channels in a day if they have negative or zero charisma bonus.</p>
<p>and</p>
<p><b>Two)</b> 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'.</p>
<p>Can we have a new PDF main book please? The cross referencing is already pritty bad in the main PDF when it's <i>~not~</i> being updated by another, different PDF. t.t</p>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...Kerrilyn2018-11-06T03:41:32ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Why are Wands of CLW such a problem?Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uzfs&page=8?Why-are-Wands-of-CLW-such-a-problem#3862018-04-11T14:12:22Z2018-04-11T10:37:18Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Dasrak wrote:</div><blockquote>I don't want any character to have to 'invest' in healing to be able to heal</blockquote><p>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?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?Kerrilyn2018-04-11T10:37:18ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Wildly inappropriate questions about PF 2EKerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uyd4&page=3?Wildly-inappropriate-questions-about-PF-2E#1442018-05-06T00:01:40Z2018-04-11T09:49:34Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Cheeto Sam, Esquire wrote:</div><blockquote> 120. How will i make witches into enemies if there are no witches in p2e? </blockquote><p>121 - How do you <i>know</i> she's a witch?
<p>Do I get an auto-crit or auto-fumble now?~</p>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?~Kerrilyn2018-04-11T09:49:34ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: HealingKerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v016?Healing#72018-03-24T19:44:41Z2018-03-24T10:57:46Z<p>I like a lot of it, Fuzzypaws. It's well written and has great ideas! </p>
<p>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.... </p>
<p>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)...</p>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....Kerrilyn2018-03-24T10:57:46ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Why are Wands of CLW such a problem?Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uzfs&page=6?Why-are-Wands-of-CLW-such-a-problem#2682018-03-22T18:04:26Z2018-03-22T17:25:35Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Mathmuse wrote:</div><blockquote>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)</blockquote><p>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.
<p>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).</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>For more "everybody knows" stuff, try checking some of them like.. "everybody knows you need to drink 8 glasses of water a day".</p>
<p>So um, is it ironic that the faultiness of common knowledge isn't commonly known? O.o</p>
<p>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." </p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">graystone wrote:</div><blockquote><p>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...</p>
<p>So IMO, the only thing that is clear is how incorrect your claim of meta is...</blockquote><p>Yes, a badly written thing in a <i>Player's Companion</i> totally overturns literally decades of experience and established practice. Not. Especially when it never explicitly states that it's <i>character knowledge</i>.
<p>Pathfinder sometimes lacks clarity on that, prolly because of word count/page number limitations. Like for example:</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">CRB wrote:</div><blockquote>A cleric may channel energy a number of times per day equal to 3 + her Charisma modifier.</blockquote><p>OMG THE CLERIC TOTALLY KNOWS HER CHARISMA MODIFIER!!! >.<
<p>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.</p>
<p>Well, in the default setting/paradigm. You can always houserule/homebrew a system where the <i>characters</i> 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.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Wikipedia wrote:</div><blockquote><p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming_(role-playing_games)
</p>
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 <i><b>facets of the game's mechanics such as abstract statistics or the precise limits of abilities.</b></i> </blockquote><p>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!".
<p>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.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Nethys, 'Elder God' wrote:</div><blockquote>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.</blockquote><p>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 <i>character</i> know of the delta chi square test method? O.o
<p>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 <i>free</i>. There's a thingy called a 'trade secret'...</p>
<p>Sweet wispies, the thread got moved out of playtest. I wonder if it will eventually end in some 'off topic' forum.</p>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...Kerrilyn2018-03-22T17:25:35ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Sooo any chance of including metres in this one?Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uyyv&page=4?Sooo-any-chance-of-including-metres-in-this-one#1832018-03-28T08:01:07Z2018-03-22T15:20:55Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Doktor Weasel wrote:</div><blockquote>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.</blockquote><p>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.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Doktor Weasel wrote:</div><blockquote>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. </blockquote><p>No! Name everybody Kerri! I don't want to be named 'Bruce'. t.t
<p>(It's not my actual name but I do respond to it~)</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">gustavo iglesias wrote:</div><blockquote>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 </blockquote><p>Is a quintales a fifth of something, or five of something perhaps?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...Kerrilyn2018-03-22T15:20:55ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Why are Wands of CLW such a problem?Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uzfs&page=6?Why-are-Wands-of-CLW-such-a-problem#2562018-03-22T08:17:04Z2018-03-22T05:13:22Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">BigDTBone wrote:</div><blockquote>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.</blockquote><p>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?
<p>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?</p>
<p>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".</p>
<p>Master shipwrights in the days long ago would regularly make sailing ships that would capsize in a stiff breeze because they did <i>not</i> know how their world works, despite centuries of accumulated experience (Vasa, Mary Rose, etc). Metacentric height? dynamic stability? righting action? what's that? •splash•</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">BigDTBone wrote:</div><blockquote>When someone casts death watch that is literally exactly what they see.</blockquote><div class="messageboard-quotee">CRB p265 wrote:</div><blockquote><p>Using the powers of necromancy, you can determine the
</p>
condition of creatures near death within the spell’s range. You
<br />
instantly know whether each creature within the area is dead,
<br />
fragile (alive and wounded, with 3 or fewer hit points left), fighting
<br />
off death (alive with 4 or more hit points), healthy, undead, or
<br />
neither alive nor dead (such as a construct). Deathwatch sees
<br />
through any spell or ability that allows creatures to feign death.</blockquote><p>No - only if they're dead / alive+about to die / alive+NOT about to die / full / undead / construct.
<p>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).</p>
<p>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.</p>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...Kerrilyn2018-03-22T05:13:22ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: End material components!Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v00a?End-material-components#232018-04-06T04:19:21Z2018-03-22T01:56:55Z<p>Are we talking about the little components that don't have a listed price, or like the 25000gp diamonds for resurrect?</p>
<p>because:</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">worldhopper wrote:</div><blockquote>Because honestly, they're in a weird place right now of being technically necessary but pretty much entirely irrelevant given component pouches. </blockquote><p>Yah. The no-cost ones basically don't exist anymore.
<p>I've never felt sad because of cheap spell components, and the 'spell component pouch' thingy made them irrelevant anyways.</p>
<p>The high-cost ones are kinda scary. I think my previous cleric has something like 25% of her WBL tied up in diamonds >.<</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">The Sideromancer wrote:</div><blockquote> 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.</blockquote><p>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" ^.~Are we talking about the little components that don't have a listed price, or like the 25000gp diamonds for resurrect?
because:
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...Kerrilyn2018-03-22T01:56:55ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Sooo any chance of including metres in this one?Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uyyv&page=4?Sooo-any-chance-of-including-metres-in-this-one#1742018-03-23T21:27:01Z2018-03-21T13:59:02Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Hythlodeus wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">CrystalSeas wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Beer comes in pints</p>
<p>A gallon is 8 beers. A quart is 2 beers. </blockquote>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? </blockquote><p>Uhoh there's another thing - you're writing the decimal thingy as a comma.
<p>More troubles!! >.<</p>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!! >.<Kerrilyn2018-03-21T13:59:02ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Wildly inappropriate questions about PF 2EKerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uyd4?Wildly-inappropriate-questions-about-PF-2E#482018-07-31T05:28:42Z2018-03-20T18:26:55Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Ambrosia Slaad wrote:</div><blockquote> 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. </blockquote><p>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...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...Kerrilyn2018-03-20T18:26:55ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Damiel got Gimbled!Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uzv8?Damiel-got-Gimbled#62018-03-21T03:09:43Z2018-03-20T17:44:35Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:</div><blockquote> I’ve been joking that the new iconic is still Damiel, he just drank something he shouldn’t have and got permanently polymorphed. </blockquote><p>Omg I got ninja'd.. >.<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.. >.<Kerrilyn2018-03-20T17:44:35ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: I want my 15 minutesKerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uzt2?I-want-my-15-minutes#322018-03-24T23:23:47Z2018-03-20T16:15:56Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:</div><blockquote> 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.</blockquote><p>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.
<p>The lack of things like cheap PDFs, d20pfsrd / neyths etc are a no-no for 5e for us.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">master_marshmallow wrote:</div><blockquote>And I'm fine with a simpler system, but simple also does not mean better.</blockquote><p>Um, nopers. Simpler is always better, unless it costs something <i>else</i> 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.
<p>What's that quote my husband loves so much? Oh yes, here it is (thanks google!):</p>
<p>"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"</p>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
...Kerrilyn2018-03-20T16:15:56ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Why are Wands of CLW such a problem?Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uzfs&page=4?Why-are-Wands-of-CLW-such-a-problem#1892018-03-20T14:51:42Z2018-03-20T14:30:41Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Dasrak wrote:</div><blockquote>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.</blockquote><p>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•
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Dasrak wrote:</div><blockquote>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.</blockquote><p>The book actually <i>says</i> 15% spent on consumables, but your math <i>proves</i> 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).
<p>Anyways my whole point is that the WBL will, in many if not most games, re-create any missing wealth spent on these wands.</p>
<p>Increasing the available money from 15% to 25% makes them even cheaperierer... um, even less expensive. </p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Dasrak wrote:</div><blockquote>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.</blockquote><p>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.
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">graystone wrote:</div><blockquote><p>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.
</p>
</blockquote><p>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!
<div class="messageboard-quotee">BigDTBone wrote:</div><blockquote>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.</blockquote><p>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.
<p>If you made them less cheap, the problem would solve itself either way.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Matthew Downie wrote:</div><blockquote>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?</blockquote><p>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...
<p>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!</p>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...Kerrilyn2018-03-20T14:30:41ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Paizo Blog: Fighter Class PreviewKerrilynhttps://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkm9?Fighter-Class-Preview#32018-03-20T15:15:17Z2018-03-19T21:08:53Z<p>Yay more infos!! Hugggs!!</p>Yay more infos!! Hugggs!!Kerrilyn2018-03-19T21:08:53ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Paper Cuts We Want To See Changed In 2.0Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uz9z?Paper-Cuts-We-Want-To-See-Changed-In-20#152018-03-19T20:23:20Z2018-03-19T20:20:33Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Snorter wrote:</div><blockquote>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. </blockquote><p>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.
<p>Hopefully they'll tidy that up.</p>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.Kerrilyn2018-03-19T20:20:33ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: End The 'Balanced' PartyKerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uzpi&page=2?End-The-Balanced-Party#512018-03-19T19:43:12Z2018-03-19T19:36:23Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">gwynfrid wrote:</div><blockquote>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. </blockquote><p>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!
<p>But I'm a nice Kerri, it doesn't have to be a <b><i>severe</i></b> disadvantage. Like.. -1, just to remind them to think of the Kerries, not -10.</p>
<p>Anyways the posts from Paizo staff said that it's entirely possible for a Barbarian to heal the whole party so...</p>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....Kerrilyn2018-03-19T19:36:23ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Why are Wands of CLW such a problem?Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uzfs&page=4?Why-are-Wands-of-CLW-such-a-problem#1782018-03-20T15:16:15Z2018-03-19T19:21:31Z<p>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>I</i> could do so that I could create those charges myself without the stick? </p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Dasrak wrote:</div><blockquote><p>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 <a href="http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/gamemastering.html#placing-treasure" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">the wealth by level table with the suggested treasure table</a>, 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.
</p>
</blockquote><p>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.
<p>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 <i>regenerated spontaneously</i>.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">RumpinRufus wrote:</div><blockquote>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</blockquote><p>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...
<p>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.</p>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...Kerrilyn2018-03-19T19:21:31ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Pathfinder 2 product requestKerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uzr0?Pathfinder-2-product-request#92018-03-21T16:41:31Z2018-03-19T17:06:04Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">QuidEst wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">RumpinRufus wrote:</div><blockquote> 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. </blockquote>No. You can’t sell reprinted Paizo material as 3P, just reference it. </blockquote><p>You can print any Pathfindery thingy as long as it's covered by the <i>Open Gaming License</i> —ie not Product Identity. They would have to use their own artwork and stuffs, but the text is basically open source.
<p>You could totally print and sell a <i>Magic Missile</i> card as a third party publisher, as long as it had it's own art.</p>
<p>If it involves the proper name or title of a god, person, or place in Golarion, that's <i>Product Identity</i> 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" ~</p>
<p>Pathfinder itself only exists through the grace of the OGL. <i>Magic Missile</i>, <i>Fireball</i>, and <i>Cure Light Wounds</i> are all TSR thingies but were given to the community under the terms of the OGL.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Our table won't even play a game unless it's OGL-compatible.</p>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...Kerrilyn2018-03-19T17:06:04ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Will bows still be the only worthwhile ranged weapon in PF2?Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uzh5?Will-bows-still-be-the-only-worthwhile-ranged#332018-03-20T14:28:29Z2018-03-18T20:01:39Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">gustavo iglesias wrote:</div><blockquote><p>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.
</p>
That would not be very balanced, so let's use a dose of handwavium here </blockquote><p>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.
<p>Also those 700 pound crossbows? They're cranequin-drawn. You would be very lucky to reload those once in <i>two</i> encounters' worth of time.</p>
<p>Anyways in Pathfinderies, the crossbow just puts you a feat behind for the light variety.</p>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...Kerrilyn2018-03-18T20:01:39ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Why are Wands of CLW such a problem?Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uzfs&page=2?Why-are-Wands-of-CLW-such-a-problem#842018-03-16T20:46:58Z2018-03-16T20:23:28Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Matthew Downie wrote:</div><blockquote>Unlimited healing consumables can also reduce martial/caster disparity. If healing hit points is easy, then casters have an incentive to hold back their best spells whenever possible and let the Fighter have his chance to shine.</blockquote><p>? I think the opposite would happen wouldn't it? There's the BBEG. I've spent nothing on healing, and probably won't have to during or after.. so... nova time!
<div class="messageboard-quotee">AaronUnicorn wrote:</div><blockquote>Can we just agree that arguing about whether or not <i>Die Hard</i> is a Christmas movie or not is more contentious than any "Should this Paladin fall?" thread, and leave it at that? </blockquote><p>Actually um, nobody's really disagreed. I'm sort of indifferent about it ... like, it's <i>odd</i>, but not wrong either. It's set at Christmas time, but yet is an action film. So I just shrug and watching it anyways. It makes him happy.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Dasrak wrote:</div><blockquote><p>It's actually closer to 1% per day. CLW may be cost-efficient, but they don't heal very much by the standards of 10th level characters. Presuming average rolls and no wastage, a wand of CLW will heal 275 hit points in total over its 50 charges. A 10th level party can blow through that much healing in a single encounter if the dice go poorly.</p>
<p>That expense seems reasonable to me. These are getting to levels where clerics are starting to become bottomless wells of healing, so why shouldn't cleric-less parties have a cheap and efficient alternative?
<br />
</blockquote><p>Clerics of 10th level aren't anywhere near to bottomless wells of healing. If you do nothing but heal, are at least somewhat casting-focused (so no 17 str, 12 wis melee clerics), and have a healing domain .. your total daily healing power is about 520 health of single-target spells, plus 109 of CLW:M for a 5-person group. Channel adds about 438 to that. Total of about 1070 or a bit less than four wands. That's including using the healing spells as domain spells btw.
<p>A non-healing-domain cleric is 790, or just a bit less than three wands worth. Keep in mind that they've done nothing but cast healing spells. No restoration, buffing, crowd control, damage, or anything.</p>
<p>Now, a 10th level, 5-person party has about a total wealth of 310,000 gold according to WBL. The guidelines state that no more than 15% of their wealth should be disposable items. That's 46,500 gold...or 62 wands. Each wand is about 1.6% of their disposable-item wealth, or 0.8% if player-crafted.</p>
<p>Days isn't a super duper measurement for wand consumption .. per encounter would be better. It takes about 20 CR10 encounters for a party to level up, or about 7-8 for CR13 encounters. How many wands per encounter are being consumed?</p>
<p>A 10th level barbarian with toughness and +5 con bonus and the +1 hit point favored class bonus should have about 140 health at that level .. and that's pritty much the high end. I'll have on average about 68 health by then? Anyways I guess that would mean that a party might have as much as two wands worth of health if they're all hit-point barbarians. So you could need as many as 40 wands in that case. However if health is more like my own, that's only 20 wands (one per CL10 encounter, but a CL10 encounter is only supposed to drain 1/4 of resource)..and if you only take half damage.. 10 wands between 10th and 11th.. out of 62 buyable without impacting permanent items.</p>
<p>So I guess in really rough terms the opportunity cost at that level is about 1/6th of your disposable item income?</p>
<p>Or a 10th level healbot is worth about 7,750 gp. You'd have to rest overnight at least three times to let her recharge, whereas the wands would be good to go.</p>
<p>totally sorry for the big wall of text everybody! t.t</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Yrtalien wrote:</div><blockquote><p>If you look at this solely as a reaction due to wand spam then yes, it does seem to be an over reaction, but in light of the other issues it touches upon perhaps it's worthy of the playtest and critique.</p>
<p>Have a good day every one. The 20th is International Happiness Day so hopefully game this weekend and approach the day glad : )
<br />
</blockquote><p>I'm certain that you're right - if they <i>just</i> wanted to look at CLW wand spam, they would have simply raised the cost of CL1 wands.
<p>Is... is that Happiness day a thing? There's a day for everything now. Oh well! Happy Happiness Day! ^.^</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">thflame wrote:</div><blockquote><p>For healing, Resonance makes the higher level healing items more efficient. Sure, it may cost you 3 times as much for the next level of healing item, but it is more useful. Nobody buys Cure Moderate/Major wands, because they are less efficient gp-wise, and time isn't a factor when you can heal outside of battle.
</p>
</blockquote><p>Yep.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">RickDias wrote:</div><blockquote>It's a damn headache in terms of bookkeeping. After a fight, I have to roll, no lie, 30-50 dice just to get the party back to proper health. "UMD... failed. UMD... failed. UMD... failed. ...UMD, success, here's 1d8+1 heal and I'll mark the charge off the wand... UMD failed natural 1, switching to second wand... UMD success, there's 1d8+1 and I'll mark a charge off THAT wand... UMD failed nat 1, switching to THIRD WAND... UMD success, there's your 1d8+1 and marking a charge off the third wand..."</blockquote><p>Um, leaving aside whether or not CLW wandspam is good or not, don't you have any divine casters? The requirement for a wand without UMB is just to have the spell on your class list.. you don't actually have to be able to cast it at all:
<p>"Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin."</p>
<p>So someone could dip a level of ranger, cleric, druid, bard, paladin, oracle, thri-kreen, witch, or other divine caster... or maybe even alchemist (not sure bout that!) and not have to roll UMD.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Tarik Blackhands wrote:</div><blockquote>Doesn't happen in any fantasy novel either. Turns out that most RPG mechanics don't actually translate to other mediums. Weird that.</blockquote><p>Actually um, the (much hated) spell memorization thingie was invented by Jack Vance.. in his Dying Earth novels. So I assume it <i>does</i> happen there. Blame him!!Matthew Downie wrote:Unlimited healing consumables can also reduce martial/caster disparity. If healing hit points is easy, then casters have an incentive to hold back their best spells whenever possible and let the Fighter have his chance to shine.
? I think the opposite would happen wouldn't it? There's the BBEG. I've spent nothing on healing, and probably won't have to during or after.. so... nova time! AaronUnicorn wrote:Can we just agree that arguing about whether or not Die Hard is a...Kerrilyn2018-03-16T20:23:28ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Healing: How would you like to see it work in PF2?Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uz9h&page=2?Healing-How-would-you-like-to-see-it-work-in-PF2#592018-03-16T19:35:05Z2018-03-16T11:56:38Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Fuzzypaws wrote:</div><blockquote><p> • Make the Heal/Medicine/whatever skill actually... you know... good.
</p>
</blockquote><p>Well if they made Treat Deadly Wounds:
</p>
• once per encounter rather than per day
<br />
• not have that stupid penalty for consumption of heal kit
<br />
and
<br />
• maybe reduce the DC a bit </p>
<p>It would already be pretty good in the hands of someone with some ranks in it. If you changed it so that it gave more with skill unlocks or better DCs (+5,+10,+15 and so on), it would be very potent.</p>
<p>And I feel that would be far more cinematic and suspension-of-disbelief-maintaining than a random heal surge that somehow magically heals mundane people because they what, grunt really hard?</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Gideon Stargrave wrote:</div><blockquote><p>I would like to see the characters heal skill points added into a healing spell - so 1d8 + caster level + heal skill points. a reward for putting ranks into it. The idea that all your heal spells really increase in potency as you level up.
</p>
</blockquote><p>Yay!
<p>As I said elsewhere, I always have max rank Heal skill, even when I'm only getting 3 skill points/level.</p>
<p>I'll be tending your wounds and taking care of you, even in an anti-magic zone.</p>Fuzzypaws wrote:* Make the Heal/Medicine/whatever skill actually... you know... good.
Well if they made Treat Deadly Wounds:
* once per encounter rather than per day
* not have that stupid penalty for consumption of heal kit
and
* maybe reduce the DC a bit It would already be pretty good in the hands of someone with some ranks in it. If you changed it so that it gave more with skill unlocks or better DCs (+5,+10,+15 and so on), it would be very potent.
And I feel that would be far more...Kerrilyn2018-03-16T11:56:38ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Can we have slings that aren't terrible?Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uzf5?Can-we-have-slings-that-arent-terrible#222018-03-16T10:12:51Z2018-03-16T09:56:58Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Doktor Weasel wrote:</div><blockquote>But also crossbows. Seriously, they were very popular and useful weapons, but the current rules have them as basically inferior to bows in every regard. And then of course repeating crossbows are /overpowered/ compared to normal ones. In reality they had really light draw-weights to allow for repeat fire so were weak and short ranged. The Iconic Ranger as a primarily crossbow wielder should be doable as a valid build, not one that is crappy. </blockquote><p>Um...Crossbows <i>are</i> inferior to regular bows in skilled hands in real life. The short staves don't transfer energy well, and they take a looooong time to load.
<p>Their main draw was that they could be used easily by anybody, whereas a longbow took a lot of training and you had to be rilly strong.</p>
<p>That carries over into the game - just about everybody is proficient in crossbows, there's no strength penalty if you have low strength, but they're slow to reload. Bows are fast reload, require martial proficiency (or elfiness, yay!), and have a damage penalty for low strength on regular bows and an attack penalty on composites.</p>Doktor Weasel wrote:But also crossbows. Seriously, they were very popular and useful weapons, but the current rules have them as basically inferior to bows in every regard. And then of course repeating crossbows are /overpowered/ compared to normal ones. In reality they had really light draw-weights to allow for repeat fire so were weak and short ranged. The Iconic Ranger as a primarily crossbow wielder should be doable as a valid build, not one that is crappy.
Um...Crossbows are inferior to...Kerrilyn2018-03-16T09:56:58ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Are we heading back to mandatory healer territorry?Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uzcq&page=2?Are-we-heading-back-to-mandatory-healer#992018-03-16T10:09:38Z2018-03-16T09:36:17Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">HWalsh wrote:</div><blockquote>Also even a channel positive is only doing 4d5 or avg 18 with ways to get it up to avg of 27 with the right feats... Either way... Compared to a wand? It's a heck of a lot better. </blockquote><p>Ugh why are all the channel feats in books we don't own? Channel Surge is .. quite costly for what it does. Two charges and a feat slot for 50% extra? t.tHWalsh wrote:Also even a channel positive is only doing 4d5 or avg 18 with ways to get it up to avg of 27 with the right feats... Either way... Compared to a wand? It's a heck of a lot better.
Ugh why are all the channel feats in books we don't own? Channel Surge is .. quite costly for what it does. Two charges and a feat slot for 50% extra? t.tKerrilyn2018-03-16T09:36:17ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Why are Wands of CLW such a problem?Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uzfs?Why-are-Wands-of-CLW-such-a-problem#182018-07-17T22:19:18Z2018-03-16T09:24:50Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:</div><blockquote> Die Hard would be a very boring movie it John McClane had a wand of Cure Light Wounds. </blockquote><p>"Glass? Who gives a •••• about glass?"
<p>>.<</p>
<p>He must have had like three hit points left at the end of that movie.</p>
<p>The hubby insists we watch that every Christmas since it's a "Christmas Movie"....somehow?</p>DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:Die Hard would be a very boring movie it John McClane had a wand of Cure Light Wounds.
"Glass? Who gives a **** about glass?" >.<
He must have had like three hit points left at the end of that movie.
The hubby insists we watch that every Christmas since it's a "Christmas Movie"....somehow?Kerrilyn2018-03-16T09:24:50ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Why are Wands of CLW such a problem?Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uzfs?Why-are-Wands-of-CLW-such-a-problem#162018-07-17T22:18:15Z2018-03-16T09:18:11Z<p>The issue is that there's no <i>real</i> opportunity cost. After a few levels, the gold is trivial, especially if the party is pooling to buy these things. </p>
<p>A cleric gives up several of her highest spell slots or very limited daily use channels to heal the party. She cannot use them for other purposes afterwards.</p>
<p>A rogue gives up spellcasting altogether to be able to evade, move silently, and be sorta okie at dealing with traps and have a bunch of skill points.</p>
<p>A fightie gives up sneakiness and magic to get a handful of combat feats, armor and weapon proficiency, full bab and d10 hit die.</p>
<p>The wand? It's about one percent of a level 10 character's wealth..assuming the party didn't split the cost six ways.</p>
<p>There's no scaling to it. It's useful forever. It's not like 15th-level characters can't use it or something. Compare that to an in-combat wand. Do you want to use a CL1 wand of magic missile as your main attack at level 15?? Of course not! It rapidly became useless. Same for like a Cure Moderate Wounds wand. It might be good as an emergency heal in combat .. for three levels, then it's junk.</p>
<p>By the way, "it's traditional, it's always been this way" isn't a good argument. In 1st ed, wands took forever to make and were rare, epic loot (a wand of magic missiles was 35,000 gold...but could be used by anybody), not tied up in bundles of 20 at the general store of a thorpe of 50 people. They could be recharged, but only by casting the wand's spell back into it over and over and over again. It would take less time to heal by resting than it would to recharge that Cure Light Wounds wand.. except the CLW wand didn't even exist back then.</p>The issue is that there's no real opportunity cost. After a few levels, the gold is trivial, especially if the party is pooling to buy these things.
A cleric gives up several of her highest spell slots or very limited daily use channels to heal the party. She cannot use them for other purposes afterwards.
A rogue gives up spellcasting altogether to be able to evade, move silently, and be sorta okie at dealing with traps and have a bunch of skill points.
A fightie gives up sneakiness and...Kerrilyn2018-03-16T09:18:11ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Bounded Accuracy Isn't BadKerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uz5s&page=3?Bounded-Accuracy-Isnt-Bad#1402018-03-22T16:47:28Z2018-03-15T23:24:46Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Bloodrealm wrote:</div><blockquote><p> OH BOY. +3. Yeah, sure, it means more than in PF1 because of the bounded accuracy they're enforcing and from the dumb new crit/fumble system, but that is not something to be proud of.
</p>
Untrained is Level + Ability Mod - 1. The other levels are each only 1 better, up to Level + Ability Mod + 3 for Legendary. </blockquote><p>I actually like the sound of the system, although a 3 difference sounds a bit small. 3 is probably good between a fighter and a "rouge" (rogue), but it sounds a bit small for the difference between a fightie (or similar) and say, a wizard.Bloodrealm wrote:OH BOY. +3. Yeah, sure, it means more than in PF1 because of the bounded accuracy they're enforcing and from the dumb new crit/fumble system, but that is not something to be proud of.
Untrained is Level + Ability Mod - 1. The other levels are each only 1 better, up to Level + Ability Mod + 3 for Legendary.
I actually like the sound of the system, although a 3 difference sounds a bit small. 3 is probably good between a fighter and a "rouge" (rogue), but it sounds a bit small...Kerrilyn2018-03-15T23:24:46ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Is the "pass the magic dagger around the circle" really going to be allowed?Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uzdn&page=2?Is-the-pass-the-magic-dagger-around-the#622018-03-15T23:56:16Z2018-03-15T23:14:18Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:</div><blockquote> The peasant rail gun has worked since 3.0 and people all of a sudden believe the sky is falling when a new edition rolls around. </blockquote><p>The railgun doesn't actually work. The last peasant in the line makes an improvised weapon attack with a BAB of 0 and -1 strength. There's no impulse or momentum in D&D or PF1. And prolly not in PF2.
<p>I can't speak for everybody here, but I just think it's silly cheese, which isn't much more than a minor immersion break and fixable with a simple rule. It's not a "sky is falling" situation...specially since there's a cost associated with it and NPC counters to it.</p>DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:The peasant rail gun has worked since 3.0 and people all of a sudden believe the sky is falling when a new edition rolls around.
The railgun doesn't actually work. The last peasant in the line makes an improvised weapon attack with a BAB of 0 and -1 strength. There's no impulse or momentum in D&D or PF1. And prolly not in PF2. I can't speak for everybody here, but I just think it's silly cheese, which isn't much more than a minor immersion break and fixable with a...Kerrilyn2018-03-15T23:14:18ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Are we heading back to mandatory healer territorry?Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uzcq&page=2?Are-we-heading-back-to-mandatory-healer#582018-03-15T21:11:00Z2018-03-15T21:08:26Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Mark Seifter wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:</div><blockquote> Healing wizards you say? Am I in heaven? </blockquote>As with the barbarian, it would have little to do with the fact that I was a wizard; I just want to try it out some time. There's a lot of cool character ideas that I really want to test out in the new system when I get a chance! </blockquote><p>Are we going to get a detailed post on this stuff in the near future (pretty please)? This seems exciting but also terrifying at the same time.Mark Seifter wrote:Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote: Healing wizards you say? Am I in heaven?
As with the barbarian, it would have little to do with the fact that I was a wizard; I just want to try it out some time. There's a lot of cool character ideas that I really want to test out in the new system when I get a chance! Are we going to get a detailed post on this stuff in the near future (pretty please)? This seems exciting but also terrifying at the same time.Kerrilyn2018-03-15T21:08:26ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Please rebuild the Cleric into something awesome!!Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uzag?Please-rebuild-the-Cleric-into-something-awesome#112018-03-20T01:12:39Z2018-03-15T16:58:17Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">doc roc wrote:</div><blockquote>A cleric should be a robed holy man with a bare minimum of combat training.... not the 1st ed D&D relic that Paizo cant seem to let go of!</blockquote><p>Is a robed holy elf woman okay?
<p>By the way, I saw something..somewhere .. I forget where.. that let clerics use the channel feature (or was it turn undead from 3.5?) to power metamagic instead of higher slots/longer casts.</p>
<p>Um wait... I just started rebuilding my character in my mind as a robed cleric (isn't there an archetype for that already?) and realized that I would probably need better spellies for that.. so unless they're willing to buff healing and buffing... I'd need more crowd control, utility and blasting.</p>
<p>That would be....a wisdom-based wizard.</p>
<p>>.></p>doc roc wrote:A cleric should be a robed holy man with a bare minimum of combat training.... not the 1st ed D&D relic that Paizo cant seem to let go of!
Is a robed holy elf woman okay? By the way, I saw something..somewhere .. I forget where.. that let clerics use the channel feature (or was it turn undead from 3.5?) to power metamagic instead of higher slots/longer casts.
Um wait... I just started rebuilding my character in my mind as a robed cleric (isn't there an archetype for that...Kerrilyn2018-03-15T16:58:17ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: What about Strength?Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uzd2?What-about-Strength#152018-03-16T08:25:05Z2018-03-15T16:46:00Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">ChibiNyan wrote:</div><blockquote>Well, if you're a fat cleric in a tin can then you can comfortably hop onto medium encumbrance since it does kinda the same as Medium Armor. The people who are really limited by this are the DEX-to-damage guys that wanna retain their full mobility. </blockquote><p>I'm not fat! T.T I'm 96 pounds. My gear weighs almost as much as I do!
<p>My previous cleric was this crazy 4d6-drop-lowest-based system (from a DM who used to run for us, before he moved away to a scary realm known as You Knighted Steaks or something), and she had stats like..everywhere. She was lightly encumbered but carried more and wore heavy armor. We didn't do armor encumbrance back then either, so I was super fast.</p>
<p>My new cleric is built on a 20-ish point spend and I had nothing left over for STR and it made me very sad and almost heavily encumbered.. I feel so slow.. T.T</p>
<p>Wait.. I just realized I've fought like six major battles, and didn't have my armor in <i>three</i> of them. Maybe I should dump STR and go for light armor instead. That way I could sleep in it without that stupid endurance feat.</p>ChibiNyan wrote:Well, if you're a fat cleric in a tin can then you can comfortably hop onto medium encumbrance since it does kinda the same as Medium Armor. The people who are really limited by this are the DEX-to-damage guys that wanna retain their full mobility.
I'm not fat! T.T I'm 96 pounds. My gear weighs almost as much as I do! My previous cleric was this crazy 4d6-drop-lowest-based system (from a DM who used to run for us, before he moved away to a scary realm known as You Knighted...Kerrilyn2018-03-15T16:46:00ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: What about Strength?Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uzd2?What-about-Strength#92018-03-16T08:21:56Z2018-03-15T16:03:35Z<p>Tarik - The other Microlite20 changes sort of work neatly, making it a simple three-way balance. A trinity of neatness.</p>
<p>It's a very very simple system though so I imagine people would get bored of it quickly.....</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">ChibiNyan wrote:</div><blockquote><p> People in my groups were always dumping STR. THen I started tracking weight. They don't dump STR nearly as much anymore. It's pretty much the only mechanic that makes STR relevant for non-melee chars, so it can be troublesome when you "ignore it".</p>
<p>And no, bags of holding don't remove the need for strength. 8 STR guys REALLY can't carry anything! They are lucky if their weapon+armor doesn't exceed their light load. </blockquote><p>Um, tell me about it. I have 10 str, and my weapons and medium armor put me right to the edge of being heavily encumbered. I can carry six more pounds of stuff...and the party has a cart which is carrying 19.5 lbs of stuff which is specifically mine (and also "party" shared goods).
<p>We've always done encumbrance, but HeroLab and PCGen make it very easy nowadays.</p>
<p>four squares, four squares, four squares onwards.</p>Tarik - The other Microlite20 changes sort of work neatly, making it a simple three-way balance. A trinity of neatness.
It's a very very simple system though so I imagine people would get bored of it quickly.....
ChibiNyan wrote:People in my groups were always dumping STR. THen I started tracking weight. They don't dump STR nearly as much anymore. It's pretty much the only mechanic that makes STR relevant for non-melee chars, so it can be troublesome when you "ignore it".
And no, bags of...Kerrilyn2018-03-15T16:03:35ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Are we heading back to mandatory healer territorry?Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uzcq?Are-we-heading-back-to-mandatory-healer#182018-03-19T14:21:25Z2018-03-15T15:52:47Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">BretI wrote:</div><blockquote>I played a Cleric in 1st edition AD&D and in Pathfinder. I got a lot more respect as a healer in Pathfinder where it isn’t required.</blockquote><p>Really? I found it the opposite. People are like "meh. At least you don't have to UMD the med stick" now. Forums and Reddit are like "red alert! very dis-optimal build detected! stop wasting turns/slots!" and stuffs.
<p>Before, the DM would always try to knock me out of the action as first priority, even though I never did any damage unless undead were around. This was 3.5 and 3.0 though, not 2e, and I had heavy armor and was one of the tougher party members.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">BretI wrote:</div><blockquote>That said, I would like some <b>mundane</b> healing options. Even in Starfinder I think they went too heavily into magical healing, not allowing skills to do enough.</blockquote><p>Well, I have always max out my healing ranks and carry a healing kit, as there is such a thing as an anti-magic zone..and/or being completely out of anything that isn't at-will. I'm not opposed to that being buffed somewhat.
<p>Can we make it so that healing kits don't lose their bonus as their uses are used up though? That's annoying and always gets house ruled away in my groups.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">CRB page 99 / Treat Deadly Wounds wrote:</div><blockquote>You take a –2 penalty on your Heal skill check for each use from the healer’s kit that you lack.</blockquote><p>..why??
<div class="messageboard-quotee">BretI wrote:</div><blockquote>I’m waiting to see more of the rules. At this point, I feel that there isn’t enough information to do more than guess at how things will work in actual play. We will have the playtest to find and report our experiences with this sort of stuff. </blockquote><p>Yah, it's very speculative at this point.BretI wrote:I played a Cleric in 1st edition AD&D and in Pathfinder. I got a lot more respect as a healer in Pathfinder where it isn’t required.
Really? I found it the opposite. People are like "meh. At least you don't have to UMD the med stick" now. Forums and Reddit are like "red alert! very dis-optimal build detected! stop wasting turns/slots!" and stuffs. Before, the DM would always try to knock me out of the action as first priority, even though I never did any damage unless undead were...Kerrilyn2018-03-15T15:52:47ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Wildly inappropriate questions about PF 2EKerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uyd4?Wildly-inappropriate-questions-about-PF-2E#212018-07-31T05:25:13Z2018-03-15T14:57:23Z<p>22) Speaking of half-this-half-that races.. we don't currently have any rules about .. you know.. will we have rules for that in PF2?</p>
<p>(it IS an inappropriate question thread...)</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Jeff from the Overwatch Team wrote:</div><blockquote> 18) Will the devs finally be removing Hanzo's Scatter Shot? It's terribly OP. </blockquote><p>buff Mercy~!
<p>Signed,
<br />
Angela Zi—er.. Cathy?</p>22) Speaking of half-this-half-that races.. we don't currently have any rules about .. you know.. will we have rules for that in PF2?
(it IS an inappropriate question thread...)
Jeff from the Overwatch Team wrote:18) Will the devs finally be removing Hanzo's Scatter Shot? It's terribly OP.
buff Mercy~! Signed,
Angela Zi--er.. Cathy?Kerrilyn2018-03-15T14:57:23ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Are we heading back to mandatory healer territorry?Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uzcq?Are-we-heading-back-to-mandatory-healer#152018-03-16T00:22:11Z2018-03-15T14:49:48Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Milo v3 wrote:</div><blockquote>Except we've already seen 83.3% of the 2e classes have had healing options already in 1e (with Fighter and Rogue being the only ones without it).... It's already an accepted part of the game that nearly all the 2e classes have the potential to heal themselves or others. </blockquote><p>Yes, plus there's always treat deadly wounds, long term care, and resting overnight, which is available to <b>all</b> characters in the PF1 CRB.
<p>If they don't want to heal, well, they can spend the extra time. It's an opportunity cost for being psychotic murder-hobos who only take pleasure in killing things.</p>Milo v3 wrote:Except we've already seen 83.3% of the 2e classes have had healing options already in 1e (with Fighter and Rogue being the only ones without it).... It's already an accepted part of the game that nearly all the 2e classes have the potential to heal themselves or others.
Yes, plus there's always treat deadly wounds, long term care, and resting overnight, which is available to all characters in the PF1 CRB. If they don't want to heal, well, they can spend the extra time. It's an...Kerrilyn2018-03-15T14:49:48ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Martial - Caster DisparityKerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uzbq?Martial-Caster-Disparity#392018-03-19T18:56:06Z2018-03-15T14:27:51Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Matthias W wrote:</div><blockquote>FWIW, although 4e has all the OGL/support issues as 5e and is exponentially harder to find a game for, and my tastes do run a bit more simulationist, I do think its chassis is way more competently designed than 3e's, and it would be a shame if good ideas were rejected because they're seen as too similar to 4e.</blockquote><p>I don't know too much about it's chassis, but yes, disposing of an idea <i>just</i> because it's in 4e (or 5e) is definitely wrong. If it's good, and works well with the PF2 system, and helps make the game more fun or fair or other good things, then yes.
<p>Conversely bad ideas from good systems shouldn't be adopted just because the system they're in is good.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Matthias W wrote:</div><blockquote>You probably could have had a smaller edition reset just by altering what counts as core. I'm kind of surprised they didn't go down that route, actually! To go back to the thread title, C/MD issues would be a lot less aggravated with just a different selection of classes, for instance! (Say, slayer, magus, warpriest, inquisitor, alchemist, bard, hunter, or something.) </blockquote><p>Well, we haven't rilly seen it yet, maybe that's what they're actually do. I might find out I'm <i>effectively</i> a warpriest or inquisitor in PF2, while wearing the class name 'cleric'.Matthias W wrote:FWIW, although 4e has all the OGL/support issues as 5e and is exponentially harder to find a game for, and my tastes do run a bit more simulationist, I do think its chassis is way more competently designed than 3e's, and it would be a shame if good ideas were rejected because they're seen as too similar to 4e.
I don't know too much about it's chassis, but yes, disposing of an idea just because it's in 4e (or 5e) is definitely wrong. If it's good, and works well with the PF2...Kerrilyn2018-03-15T14:27:51ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Bounded Accuracy Isn't BadKerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uz5s&page=3?Bounded-Accuracy-Isnt-Bad#1042018-06-10T00:09:54Z2018-03-15T13:57:13Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Nathanael Love wrote:</div><blockquote> Yes, basically bonded accuracy is the idea that the Wizard and the Fighter should have the same chance to hit, and that everything should have a virtually static AC, so that nothing ever becomes easier for the players, and you can kill players with lower level creatures more easily so that the characters never feel as though they've advanced and the game is basically played at first level in perpetuity. </blockquote><p>Um, no. While you can still be hit by lower level creatures, they are very unlikely to kill you. Your hit points and damage you do still progresses, whereas these low level creatures are still the same. You'll still win every time, unless you're catastrophically unlucky, or mobbed by a huge number of them.
<p>Anyways, the PF2 system uses +level for attack rolls as per the Glass Cannon podcast, so we already know it's going to be across a 20 (well 19) range, vs. the 2-6 range of 5E, so it's "less bounded" at the very least.</p>Nathanael Love wrote:Yes, basically bonded accuracy is the idea that the Wizard and the Fighter should have the same chance to hit, and that everything should have a virtually static AC, so that nothing ever becomes easier for the players, and you can kill players with lower level creatures more easily so that the characters never feel as though they've advanced and the game is basically played at first level in perpetuity.
Um, no. While you can still be hit by lower level creatures, they...Kerrilyn2018-03-15T13:57:13ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Sooo any chance of including metres in this one?Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uyyv&page=3?Sooo-any-chance-of-including-metres-in-this-one#1352018-03-30T08:14:02Z2018-03-15T12:21:01Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Doktor Weasel wrote:</div><blockquote>We shouldn't have gone with a base 10 numbering system. Base 12 is superior. 10 is divisible by 1,2,5,10. 12 is divisible by 1,2,3,4,6,12. Then do a metric based on multiples of 12 instead of 10. The problem is base 10 is so ingrained that it's probably more trouble than it's worth to replace it as well as all measurements. Even our language of talking about numbers would need to be redone because it's base 10 thinking.</blockquote><p>Yes, it would be a massive effort to convert it. We'd have to add two more fingers or adopt a more complicated hand-counting system, we'd have to add two more number glyphs after 9 (and words for them), and..
<p><b>REDEFINE THE ASCII TABLE.</b> (omg!) (and any tables based on it like latin-1 and unicode)</p>
<p>And that's a <i>sin</i>. It would be like... human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.</p>
<p>(0 to 9 are 48 to 57, which makes converting strings to and from integers fairly easy... but 58 and 59 are colon and semicolon, characters that are already used, so you can't just overwrite them with the "9+1" and "9+2" numbers, without causing problems.)</p>
<p>...what? I said I'm STEM-oriented. •defensive• •hides•</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">ryric wrote:</div><blockquote><p> There is one legacy of base 12 in the modern world - time keeping. Notice that all the subdivisions of time are multiples of 12 - 2•12 = 24 hours in a day, 5•12 minutes in an hour and seconds in a minute. I think base 12 also factors into why there are 360(30•12) degrees in a circle. Thanks ancient Babylon!
</p>
</blockquote><p>Well, it's more of a base-60 thing with time. Base 60 is actually better than 12 for mental calculations, so many factorings. The Babylonians used a combined base-10 and base-60 system.Doktor Weasel wrote:We shouldn't have gone with a base 10 numbering system. Base 12 is superior. 10 is divisible by 1,2,5,10. 12 is divisible by 1,2,3,4,6,12. Then do a metric based on multiples of 12 instead of 10. The problem is base 10 is so ingrained that it's probably more trouble than it's worth to replace it as well as all measurements. Even our language of talking about numbers would need to be redone because it's base 10 thinking.
Yes, it would be a massive effort to convert it....Kerrilyn2018-03-15T12:21:01ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Bounded Accuracy Isn't BadKerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uz5s&page=2?Bounded-Accuracy-Isnt-Bad#1002018-03-15T14:34:11Z2018-03-15T11:47:10Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">MerlinCross wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Stupid question;</p>
<p>As someone who's only played about 3 systems, Pathfinder being the main one, just what is Bounded Accuracy and how does it differ from what we have? </blockquote><p>There's no such thing as a stupid question.
<p><a href="https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Understanding_Bounded_Accuracy_(5e_Guideline)" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">There's a description of Bounded Accuracy here..</a></p>
<p>But the short of it is that WotC decided to limit the range of accuracy (attack rolls) and AC so you don't end up with the situation of trying to hit a 1400 AC monster with an attack of +1408...or being completely useless since your attack is only 1381.</p>
<p>In 5e, you attack by rolling d20 plus your class "proficiency bonus" which is a tiny number between 2 (at first level) and 6 (at twentyith), plus a handful of small bonuses that they intentionally trimmed down (there's fewer of them and they're also smaller).</p>
<p>They did it because they wanted to get rid of the treadmill of constant item upgrades, reduce the giant pile of bonuses and math and bookkeeping, and also because they wanted a level 1 orc to represent at least a minor threat to a level 20 PC. There's still a huge difference in hit points and damage and capabilities in 5e so it's not like you'll <i>lose</i> to the orc, but it has a good chance of getting in a hit or two before being vaporized.</p>
<p>I actually don't mind most of that, except for one thing: it makes progression feel less progress-y. A level 20 character whiffing like a level 1? >.<</p>
<p>PF2 sounds like it will be adding your <i>total character level</i> to <i><b>everything</b></i>, so it will be +1 to +20 instead of this +2 to +6 stuff.</p>MerlinCross wrote:Stupid question;
As someone who's only played about 3 systems, Pathfinder being the main one, just what is Bounded Accuracy and how does it differ from what we have?
There's no such thing as a stupid question. There's a description of Bounded Accuracy here..
But the short of it is that WotC decided to limit the range of accuracy (attack rolls) and AC so you don't end up with the situation of trying to hit a 1400 AC monster with an attack of +1408...or being completely...Kerrilyn2018-03-15T11:47:10ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Self HealingKerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uz9b?Self-Healing#72018-03-16T08:13:01Z2018-03-15T02:45:44Z<p>Both of my groups would abandon PF2 instantly if it started feeling like 4E. We wouldn't be playing PF1 if it weren't for 4E anyhow (well 4E and the OGL).</p>
<p>We probably wouldn't immediately flee if it was Starfindery (limited maximum healing, requires an expendable, valuable resource).</p>
<p>Also.. omg, I think I'm getting downgraded from a mobile cure moderate wounds wand to a mobile remove fatigue wand. Maybe I should have taken Merciful Healer.</p>Both of my groups would abandon PF2 instantly if it started feeling like 4E. We wouldn't be playing PF1 if it weren't for 4E anyhow (well 4E and the OGL).
We probably wouldn't immediately flee if it was Starfindery (limited maximum healing, requires an expendable, valuable resource).
Also.. omg, I think I'm getting downgraded from a mobile cure moderate wounds wand to a mobile remove fatigue wand. Maybe I should have taken Merciful Healer.Kerrilyn2018-03-15T02:45:44ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Resonance: what do you think?Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uz6u&page=6?Resonance-what-do-you-think#2842018-03-14T23:50:06Z2018-03-14T19:28:23Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Covent wrote:</div><blockquote>Now this still leaves the "Who's turn is it to play the cleric" issue. </blockquote><p>Just quoting one thing, but this sort of thingy has come up in this thread a <b>million</b> times.
<p>Here's my response to some of the things that have been brought up:</p>
<p>1. Me! oh oh, pick me! •hops• me me me!</p>
<p>2. Maybe this wouldn't be such a burden (but see point 1 again) if healing was more interested in varied (there's at least two threads out there about that). </p>
<p>2a. Maybe people would enjoy healing if they just <i>tried</i> it, instead of crying about change and sticking their heads in the sand.</p>
<p>3. The "give everybody healing" sounds like a great idea. Why don't we call it.. <i>Healing Surge</i>? Who needs varied classes? let's just make everybody one class - every class can do everything, so why not? Homogenized classes for the win!</p>
<p>4. To all those saying things like, "oh noes parties without a healer will be at a disadvantage" .. Check your entitlement at the door, please. You want to be effective with teamwork? Well, maybe you should try some teamwork.</p>
<p>5. omg pick me! ME!! •hops wildly•</p>
<p>6. Time for the CLW training wheels to come off. They're not allowed in my groups, and we seem to get by.</p>
<p>Anyhowww... Kerries supports CHA uses. Item resonance sounds neat. The potion thing where they also use resonance is a bit weird though. I would make it instead that potions made you sick if you had too many, in a way completely unrelated to worn items. As for people who dumped cha being burned - um, yes, you chose to do that. Maybe min-maxing in that manner should have a consequence?</p>Covent wrote:Now this still leaves the "Who's turn is it to play the cleric" issue.
Just quoting one thing, but this sort of thingy has come up in this thread a million times. Here's my response to some of the things that have been brought up:
1. Me! oh oh, pick me! *hops* me me me!
2. Maybe this wouldn't be such a burden (but see point 1 again) if healing was more interested in varied (there's at least two threads out there about that).
2a. Maybe people would enjoy healing if they just...Kerrilyn2018-03-14T19:28:23ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Sooo any chance of including metres in this one?Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uyyv&page=3?Sooo-any-chance-of-including-metres-in-this-one#1232018-03-26T09:23:06Z2018-03-14T11:04:59Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Were-wraith wrote:</div><blockquote>To me, the biggest disadvantage of the metric system is there aren't as many ways to evenly subdivide things. It's great for dividing by 10s, not so great when you need other divisors.</blockquote><p>10 divides into 2, 5 integer-y wise, and 4 if you don't mind a single decimal place after the point. That's sufficient for most uses, and for others, well, there's calculators, fractions, and 100, 1000, 10000, etc scale. 1/3 of a meter too complicated? well, just divide it into 3 sections of 33cm (or 333mm) and ignore the remainder as it's prolly lost if you're cutting anyways.
<p>12 divides into 6, 4, 3 and 2. That's nice, but if that's super important to you, you should really be using a 60-inch foot. 60 divides into 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20 and 30, or everything that 12 does, plus many more. That's why time is .. sezi..whatever..decimal... weird..stuffs .. number base..</p>
<p>I guess since feet and inches are so practical for a lot of things, they came up with "metric feet" and "metric inches" that are very close to the imperial counterpart.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Were-wraith wrote:</div><blockquote>Maybe that's the solution here. When people in metric countries read measurements in Pathfinder, they can simply assume metric feet. </blockquote><p>The best thingy would be to use squares and time instead, and then have a localized conversion table. That's what we're mostly interested in anyways. Extending the spell ranges to cover more things as range bands would be good too.
<p>Ex. the movement tables in the CRB would use squares for tactical and local (so for 30-feet peoples, walk would be 6, hustle 12, run x3 would be 18, and run x4 would be 24), and time conversion for the overland stuffs.</p>
<p>Distances on maps would be measured in hours or days - Town A is two days travel (at speed 6) to Castle B. At speed 12 (like a horse), that would be one day, or four days at speed 3 (like a small creature).</p>
<p>Then there would be the conversion table, for those times when you need to know:
<br />
1 square = 5 ft or 1.5m
<br />
1 hour's travel = 3 miles or 5 km.
<br />
1 day's travel = 24 miles or 40 km.</p>
<p>Just like how <i>specific impulse</i> is measured in seconds, which makes it common to both imperial and metric.</p>
<p>Besides, I don't care how much distance to the next town, I care about time. I don't have 8 miles of rations, I have 8 <b>days</b> of rations.</p>Were-wraith wrote:To me, the biggest disadvantage of the metric system is there aren't as many ways to evenly subdivide things. It's great for dividing by 10s, not so great when you need other divisors.
10 divides into 2, 5 integer-y wise, and 4 if you don't mind a single decimal place after the point. That's sufficient for most uses, and for others, well, there's calculators, fractions, and 100, 1000, 10000, etc scale. 1/3 of a meter too complicated? well, just divide it into 3 sections of...Kerrilyn2018-03-14T11:04:59ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Nonlethal Damage: Do people prefer PF1-style or SF-style?Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uz6f?Nonlethal-Damage-Do-people-prefer-PF1style-or#292018-03-19T08:41:29Z2018-03-14T10:24:39Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Claxon wrote:</div><blockquote>I've never tried to run a pacifist character, which may be why I'm not concerned. I guess I look at it under the guise of "If the enemy NPC isn't willing to lay down arms and surrender before being knocked unconscious or killed they probably weren't that open to redemption anyways".</blockquote><p>There's more than just redemption to capturing someone:
<p>• someone is cursed or magically compelled and the caster level check to break the curse/spell rolls a 2.
<br />
• the fight was caused by some sort of misunderstanding and the evidence to prove such is not at hand / diplomacy checks fail / and such.
<br />
• the enemy is required in some way like.. important politically, they know something critical, or killing them without bringing them to trial first will look like a cover up/corruption.
<br />
• You're just capturing a cutpurse. No need to go full murder-hobo on someone just because they have sticky fingers. Subdue -> town guard -> reward. Or I guess you could just murder them. Murder -> town guard -> prison.
<br />
• you need more people at your birthday party.</p>
<p>Evil people can also benefit from subduing a foe. Ransom..or worse. Ew.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Wicked Woodpecker of the West wrote:</div><blockquote>What happens in Pathfinder when your non-lethal players kicks the enemy let's say for 40 hp, leaving him with 5, and then assassin player with sneak him with a big cleaver into o belly for 20 points, leaving him on -15 HP???</blockquote><p>Um, the enemy has 25 real hit points left, and 40 non-lethal damage. The next 5 non-lethal damage would be normal, and then any non-lethal after that turns into lethal damage. So if he took another 10 non-lethal, he'd be at 45 non-lethal, and 20 real hit points.
<p>The way we do it in our campaign (well some of us, the DM and myself at least), is we use little boxes to represent hit points, and have two rows (or four or six rows at higher level). One for real / lethal hit points, and the other for non-lethal. We fill in the non-lethal from the right, and the lethal from the left.</p>
<p>Like currently I have 16 hit points (imagine that the Os are little hollow squares):
<br />
OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO O (lethal/real hit points)
<br />
OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO O (non-lethal)</p>
<p>If I take 10 non-lethal damage, it then looks like this:
<br />
OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO O
<br />
OOOOO OXXXX XXXXX X</p>
<p>12 lethal damage would knock me out:
<br />
XXXXX XXXXX XXOOO O
<br />
OOOOO OXXXX XXXXX X</p>
<p>(the characters will line up better if you copy-paste the above into notepad or other text editor with non-proportional fonts)</p>
<p>I can still take 6 non-lethal, and 4 lethal. I'm not dying until I take 4 lethal.</p>
<p>It makes the system a lot easier to understand. I never understood it in 3.5 <i>at all</i> until the DM came up with the little-squares idea.</p>Claxon wrote:I've never tried to run a pacifist character, which may be why I'm not concerned. I guess I look at it under the guise of "If the enemy NPC isn't willing to lay down arms and surrender before being knocked unconscious or killed they probably weren't that open to redemption anyways".
There's more than just redemption to capturing someone: * someone is cursed or magically compelled and the caster level check to break the curse/spell rolls a 2.
* the fight was caused by some sort...Kerrilyn2018-03-14T10:24:39ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: I Played Pathfinder 2.0 Demo at GaryCon (My Thoughts...)Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uyzu&page=3?I-Played-Pathfinder-20-Demo-at-GaryCon#1222018-03-14T12:16:53Z2018-03-14T09:49:45Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Doktor Weasel wrote:</div><blockquote>So is Heal now a different lower level spell than it currently is? Sounds like a mix of one of the Cure X spells and the Channel Energy class feature. </blockquote><p>...Cure Wounds? (ie, 5E..)Doktor Weasel wrote:So is Heal now a different lower level spell than it currently is? Sounds like a mix of one of the Cure X spells and the Channel Energy class feature.
...Cure Wounds? (ie, 5E..)Kerrilyn2018-03-14T09:49:45ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Dying rules dropped in GTM Live gameKerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uz7c?Dying-rules-dropped-in-GTM-Live-game#142018-03-23T16:08:05Z2018-03-14T09:47:07Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Seems like the 5e method, but made complex to just be complex.
</p>
</blockquote><p>Yeah, it does seem rather 5E-ish.
<p>Plus being unconscious in a non-dying state as a "dying" state seems um.. counter-intuitive?</p>
<p>Oh well, it would be worse, they could use 1e or 2e stuff. <i>Dead instantly at <b>0</b></i>.</p>
<p>I feel that they're probably going to drop PF1 non-lethal damages too and give us the icky Starfinder non-lethal system instead. Ew!</p>Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:Seems like the 5e method, but made complex to just be complex.
Yeah, it does seem rather 5E-ish. Plus being unconscious in a non-dying state as a "dying" state seems um.. counter-intuitive?
Oh well, it would be worse, they could use 1e or 2e stuff. Dead instantly at 0.
I feel that they're probably going to drop PF1 non-lethal damages too and give us the icky Starfinder non-lethal system instead. Ew!Kerrilyn2018-03-14T09:47:07ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: What is going to be your test of the new system?Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uz6t?What-is-going-to-be-your-test-of-the-new-system#42018-03-19T23:33:38Z2018-03-14T00:59:05Z<p>I'm going to play a cleric~</p>
<p>>.></p>
<p>what? I want to know how the new action system will work with the new variable healing stuffs.</p>I'm going to play a cleric~
>.>
what? I want to know how the new action system will work with the new variable healing stuffs.Kerrilyn2018-03-14T00:59:05ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Bounded Accuracy Isn't BadKerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uz5s&page=2?Bounded-Accuracy-Isnt-Bad#692018-06-13T21:47:48Z2018-03-14T00:43:07Z<p>Um, I don't think PF2 is going to have the same issue as 5e.</p>
<p>5e uses that proficiency bonus for like.. everything, and um, it goes from +2 at level 1 to +6 at level 20 — very little spread.</p>
<p>It sounds like PF2 will be adding your character level to everything.. that's sorta the same thingie, but you'll get +1 at first level and +20 at 20th, just like a fighter's BAB. So you should have a +19 advantage (instead of +4) over some level-1 appropriate creature.</p>
<p>I guess that might be sorta like bounded accuracy (maybe?) still, as I think Paizo might be adding flat bonuses for fighties and flat penalties for wizzies, so they all have a reasonable chance of hitting the monster.</p>
<p>Example:
<br />
Jane McFighter is level 15, and has a total bonus of +5 to hit, so she adds 20 to every roll.
<br />
Bob T. Wizard is also level 15, and has a total .. penalty of -3 to hit, so he adds 12.
<br />
Kerri MacCleric is also 15, with a +0 bonus to hit because omg who said clerics were a SAD class ~ nerf~</p>
<p>ahem. Anywai, they encounter a beh—er, a mind—er, some sort of homebrew turtle-like monster with a thick shell and no Product Identity attached. The turtle has a high AC from it's thick shell - 32. Jane needs 12 or better to hit, Kerri needs 17 or better to hit, and Bob only hits on a natural 20. Ouchie!</p>
<p>Later on, they encounter some sort of enormous Gelatinous Cube, but it's only AC25. That's 5, 10, and 13 to hit. Jane is ahead in hitting (75%), but the other two aren't too far behind (50%, 35%).</p>
<p>Finally they meet a goblin cr 1/2, ac16 - -4, 1, and 4 to hit (practically all the time for all three characters).</p>
<p>With current BAB progressions, it would be like 17, 12, and 5 bonuses for Jane, Kerri, and Bob..or even a bigger spread.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Fuzzypaws wrote:</div><blockquote>All bounded accuracy <i>really</i> has to mean is that characters and creatures of similar level, are within a similar range of capability to each other. </blockquote><p>That sounds good to me. I think that's what they're aiming for..Um, I don't think PF2 is going to have the same issue as 5e.
5e uses that proficiency bonus for like.. everything, and um, it goes from +2 at level 1 to +6 at level 20 -- very little spread.
It sounds like PF2 will be adding your character level to everything.. that's sorta the same thingie, but you'll get +1 at first level and +20 at 20th, just like a fighter's BAB. So you should have a +19 advantage (instead of +4) over some level-1 appropriate creature.
I guess that might be sorta like...Kerrilyn2018-03-14T00:43:07ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Do we stil need Attribute Scores?Kerrilynhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uz4c?Do-we-stil-need-Attribute-Scores#412018-03-14T08:03:49Z2018-03-13T16:06:10Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Steve Geddes wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
I’d really struggle with this. If they go this route I’m definitely going to need to accurately map 4d6 drop the lowest to resultant modifiers. I guess I’d roll “the old way”, get my answer and then just record the bonus. Feels a bit inelegant though. :( </blockquote><p>Um you do this anyways already. When you calculate the bonuses (or use that big table on page 17 of the CRB).
<p>The only difference is that you would discard the base stat at the end.</p>
<p>Personally I think just defaulting the Paizo character sheets to emphasize the bonus over the stat would be good enough. That would make it clear that the bonus is the important thingie, and that the stat is just a reference..stuffs..whatever. Keeping the stat would also make things like 1-point increases easier to track. +1.5 con bonus? -_-;;</p>
<p>Just to be clear, I mean having like a giant box for <b>DEX BONUS [ +3 ]</b> and then having a little box or circle for the stat dex(17) after it.</p>Steve Geddes wrote:I’d really struggle with this. If they go this route I’m definitely going to need to accurately map 4d6 drop the lowest to resultant modifiers. I guess I’d roll “the old way”, get my answer and then just record the bonus. Feels a bit inelegant though. :(
Um you do this anyways already. When you calculate the bonuses (or use that big table on page 17 of the CRB). The only difference is that you would discard the base stat at the end.
Personally I think just defaulting the...Kerrilyn2018-03-13T16:06:10Z