Khudzlin's page

417 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Arcanist-style for the win. I'll NEVER play a Vancian caster, it's too much of a hassle to choose an exact combination of spells every day.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Comparing PF2 characters with PF1 is irrelevant. What matters is PF2 characters being balanced with each other and the challenges they face.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The translated versions are in metric (and use the rough conversion @GRuzom described). That said, plenty of players still buy English versions even when a translated version is available for their language.

I've played a D&D campaign in English a dozen years ago, and the hardest part wasn't the foreign language (I'm French), but the unfamiliar units.

Also, the explanation in Create Water is necessary as written because US gallons and Imperial (UK) gallons aren't the same size (due to the UK redefining some units after the US gained independence), so confusion could arise between English speakers from different countries.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to see the size system completely reworked, so that it can be extended indefinitely on both ends and that you only have to care about the difference in size categories, not what the size categories actually are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thunderlord wrote:
It certainly can be abusive and even obstructive. "Why does your Rogue have two levels in Paladin?" "Cause saves." "But you're a thief." "A thief of Iomedae."

Use Unchained's fractional bonuses. They really cut the crap out of multiclass saves, whether they're over the top (combining good saves - like Reflex for a Rogue/Paladin) or absolutely tanked (combining bad saves). They also prevent tanking BAB when combining non full BAB classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cat-thulhu wrote:
Is it the case then thata spontaneous caster will need to learn spells at higher levels or can they upcast on the fly?

Apparently, spontaneous casters don't get to upcast.

Nathanael Love wrote:
Seems to me to be another way PF2 is turning into 5E in Golarian.

I'm sure there'll be plenty of differences between D&D5 and PF2... One of them being that pure Vancian doesn't exist in the former (prepared casters work similarly to the PF1 Arcanist). Another being a bigger gap between characters of different levels. Casters being toned down doesn't look like a big problem to me...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slithas wrote:
Ah that's a nice feature to have. I'm also impressed you managed to perfectly roll average there

The more dice you roll (and the smaller they are), the more likely that becomes (can't be bothered to calculate the probability on 10 dice that aren't even all identical right now).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:

For shrinking, you can reduce the damage type. It is easy to go 1d6 -> 1d4 -> 1d3 -> 1d2 -> 1 point. It's harder to go 1d8-> 1d10 -> 1d12 -> 1d14, because we don't have 1d14s. And if you go 1d20, the step is too big, and the next step (1d100) is absurd.

So adding dice for extra damage is good enough. You only need to reduce damage for size a few steps anyway. Small does the same than medium. There's tiny, then diminutive, and Fine does not really matter, unless we start seeing mosquitos wearing two handed swords.

Actually, Tiny is almost the smallest you will find ever.

There are d16s and d24s (not part of the standard set, but not as weird as d100s). The progression could go 1d8 -> 1d10 -> 1d12 -> 1d16 -> 1d20 -> 1d24 (the old progression was 1d8 -> 1d10 -> 2d6 -> 2d8 -> 3d6 -> 3d8, so it's not unreasonable). Though I doubt Paizo will do that. And flat negative modifiers on top of reduced STR scores make very small creatures not deal any damage at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Now on to a bit from the blog. A great sword is now 1d12 instead of 2d6. Will similar changes be made to other weapons that had more than one die, like Falchion?
Yup, it was confirmed last Friday's twitch stream that base weapons won't have multiple damage dice anymore.

Now I wonder how they will handle size, because the damage progression relied on multiple dice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shinigami02 wrote:
Nah, sometimes just DR can make a fight nigh unwinnable, depending on party makeup. For instance, DR 5 at low levels when your party has no big single hit characters.

We had a fight against an enemy with flight, invisibility and DR at level 2. We're lucky that enemy failed every single save against my color sprays (and that we were able to track it around so I could aim those color sprays). I was out of spells after that fight (sorcerer with maxed CHA). If things hadn't gone so well, we'd have needed to come back with stuff like powder of apparition.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ellias Aubec wrote:

I imagine they will already have done this - Starfinder had their feat trees done in this manner with things like

Psychic Power;
Psychic Power, Minor;
Psychic Power, Greater.

For those, the logical order would be:

Psychic Power, Minor;
Psychic Power;
Psychic Power, Greater.

That is, put the feat in the order you have to take them. Those feats usually refer to the less powerful versions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Having to choose my spells exactly, to the point of preparing multiple copies of the same spell if I want to cast it multiple times, for each day, is a hassle I don't want to deal with. Arcanists still have some choice after selecting their daily spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

+1 for Arcanist-style casting. The reason I've never played a caster before 3.5 or a divine caster before PF is that I hate Vancian casting. And though I wouldn't play a Wizard, I'm willing to give the Arcanist a try.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spontaneous casters being nerfed in comparison to prepared casters would be a big turn-off for me. I hate prepared casting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not just a trick of the mind. 1d8+6 averages to 10.5, so DR 5 is about half of it; 1d6+3 averages to 6.5, so DR 5 is about 3/4 of it (also, DR 5 can reduce the latter to 0, but never the former). Also, if you normally deal the same total damage across more attacks, DR will reduce your damage more, since it's applied separately to each hit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KujakuDM wrote:
It isn't hard to play the game and not be a jackass about it.

True.

KujakuDM wrote:
And if you need to do point buy to make sure your players aren't being crappy perhaps you should find new players.

We need it to ensure similar power levels between characters and putting players in control of their stats. Jackasses are going to be jackasses regardless of the stat generation method.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CactusUnicorn wrote:
If you roll a 6 you don't gain anything (I would like to point out that it is more likely to roll an 18).

They actually have the same probability in 4d6 drop lowest (21/1296). It's only when you add rerolls or other bad-roll mitigation measures that 18 becomes more probable than 6.

CactusUnicorn wrote:
In point buy you are stronger mechanically if you dump a stat to 7. It isn't a sacrifice for Fight McSwordy to dump Cha down to 7 so he can have 18 Str and 16 Con. It would be to dump Con for Dex but what fighter would do that? Answer: Only the extreme roleplayer's. So about 0.1% actually sacrifice a meaningful stat for their class.

Rollers would do just the same (put the highest values in Str and Con and the lowest in Cha for a Fighter), except for extreme roleplayers. No meaningful differences there. It might not be possible to balance between optimizers and non-optimizers, but I'd rather have the difference be based on skill (knowledge about the game and ability with numbers) than luck. Optimizers can share their knowledge, lucky rollers can't share their luck. And the game is designed around characters having similar power levels, not widely disparate ones.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Ede wrote:
The other problem I have with Point Buy, aside from Class "X" always having the same stats game after game, is that SAD Characters do a lot better out of it than MAD characters.

The SAD/MAD discrepancy is a problem of balance between classes, rather than a problem of point-buy. And rolling is not really friendly to MAD, either. Also, I'm not sure SAD chars do that much better than MAD chars, given the way point-buy works (two 16s cost just a bit more than a single 18).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Add me to the chorus for "nat 1 or 20 should only move the result 1 degree".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
So are the bands Air and Daft Punk and so was the Arthurian legend in its popularized form but neither the statue of liberty nor any of those were from Revolutionary France in the 1790s nor inspired by an attitude of destroying the traditional because it was traditional without regards to its merits, whereas the metric system was.

The goal of the metric system was to replace hundreds of units, each with many different definitions (depending on location and usage), with a single easy-to-use system based on nature (length of the meridian and weight of water).

Quote:
It has been estimated that on the eve of the Revolution in 1789, the eight hundred, or so, units of measure in use in France had up to a quarter of a million different definitions because the quantity associated with each unit could differ from town to town, and even from trade to trade.

This was in France alone. Imagine how many more definitions there were in the rest of the world. Tradition is not worth putting up with such nonsense.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
cfalcon wrote:
It's entire shtick is that some arithmetic is easier, should you be without a calculator or a phone or a computer or a pen and paper or a stick and dirt.

The metric system's shtick is that it's actually a system of units: the units fit together instead of having been selected independently. Can you tell me how many gallons there are in a cubic foot without looking it up? I can tell you there are exactly 1,000 litres in a cubic metre. Not having to memorize conversion factors is a nice bonus.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:


The divide by 10 rule is fine, save that it makes the meter too big to measure things which we use feet for, the centimeter too small to meaningfully measure things we use inches for, and the kilometer far too short to measure things we do in miles- unless you get into multiple decimal places, which immediately discards it's usefulness for anything save science.

Stuff being too small for metres, but too big for centimetres makes little sense. We measure our heights (and similar lengths) in metres with 2 decimal places (though we often round to the nearest multiple of 5 cm). That's hardly "multiple decimal places". A kilometre being too small for the stuff you measure in miles is utterly ridiculous, given the 1.6 conversion factor (which requires only a single decimal place if you're ballparking like in everyday life).

And about the guillotine: it was meant to be a quick and painless death, in contrast to the torture-based execution methods employed previously.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Just be glad you don't have to use Harry Potter currency . . . .

It's a deliberate mockery of the pre-decimalisation system used in the UK before the 70's. Using prime numbers as the conversion factors is really over-the-top (and something that would never have been done in medieval times).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For me (a French guy), the hardest part of doing a D&D campaign in English was the units (though I did have to work on the language). As you can guess, the French translation uses metric.

@TheFlyingPhoton Nah, the main argument is that "imperial" is inconsistent (with the same names used for slightly different measures) and unwieldy (with different conversion factors all over the place), while metric is easy to do math with (decimal everywhere, units designed to work together).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
You roll only once for the whole spell. Unless a spell expressly call for saving for every square you pass, the save and the damage happens only once/round.

Don't you have to save each time you cross (say, if the barrier is a ring that blocks the whole corridor)?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:
If you need a language to generate lovecraft-seeming names, there's always Welsh, which uses y as it's only vowel a frightening amount of time.

Also, W is a vowel in Welsh, which makes words look even more difficult to pronounce.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

We need some [Basic] spells to balance the [Acid] ones.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:
Barbarian players do everything violently. They drink in a bar violently. They drive violently. They shop at the grocery store violently. they prepare tea and drink it with an outstretched pinky violently.

You're forgetting that you can't do anything requiring patience or concentration while raging.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
To roll a 2 and then act like my character was 100% sure there were no traps seems like intentional self-sabotage.

It's keeping in character. Your character doesn't know they were unlucky when looking for traps (at least not until someone opens the chest). You can assume there are traps before making the check, but you shouldn't base that decision on your roll.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Goblin_Priest wrote:
I don't know about you, but at our all-male table, roleplaying this thing is more than a brief passing would come off as extremely awkward and creepy. Honestly, I think it'd be even worse in a mixed table.

That would really depend on the people around the table. Though I think it could only work at a table of longtime friends. With strangers? Definitely awkward, possibly creepy.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

You misunderstand my point if that's the conclusion you draw. Let's try this from another angle:

If a deity's portfolio includes Strength, why would he have outsiders in his service that promote the exact opposite of Strength, which is, in this example, Weakness?

Lymnieris has both Lust and Purity as subdomains (and both prostitution and virginity in his portfolio), so that opposition isn't supported in Golarion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Darksol First, what term would you prefer to "consensual casual sex"? Second, while I agree that dominant religious standards in our world condemn casual sex, this is not necessarily the case in Golarion. When I look up Erastil (whose family focus makes him a good candidate for viewing lust as a sin) on the site Weirdo links to (I'll add Cayden Cailean to the list of good deities with the Lust subdomain), I don't see anything about lust. So I think you need to give us an example of good-aligned deities who view casual sex as a sin (non-consensual sex, more properly called rape, is evil, so no good deity would approve of it).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Based on the price for a Lantern of Revealing, I'd say 22,500 GP if a wizard crafts it* (both are based on a level 3 spell, but Tongues' duration is 10 min/level, compared to Invisibility Purge's 1 min/level).

* It would be cheaper if a bard or inquisitor crafted it (not quite 50% off, since they get Tongues as a level 2 spell at level 4), but a wizard seems a more likely crafter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

He'd have a bonus for having the high ground (which does not depend on flying).
Also, I don't think Fly checks should be too much trouble for an archer, provided he can get the ranks (an INT headband made to order would do it). The DC for hovering is only 15, which means an automatic success at level 10 with full ranks (it's a class skill, and the DEX bonus should cover the armor penalty and the difference).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ah, I see what I got wrong. It's armor proficiency that counts, not weapon proficiency.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A creature's space is usually larger than the creature's actual size (some creatures do take up all of their space, but they're exceptions), to account for it moving and turning around. A non-square space implies some sort of facing by making the sides distinguishable from the head and rear.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Somewhat related to epic levels: XP. The 3.5 formula for XP was very simple (you need your current level x 1,000 XP to gain a level), so it's easy to extend. PF's formula is a lot more complex, so it's much harder to extend.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Goblin_Priest wrote:
For racial modifiers, an easy way to get rid of the stereotypes of 1 race per class combo, more or less, is to convert the bonuses into floating bonuses. A +2 to str can become a +2 physical, for example. Gives way more flexibility withiut breaking anything imo.

Let's go over core races to be sure I get it:

- Dwarves (normally +2 CON, +2 WIS, -2CHA) would get +2 in any physical stat, +2 in any mental stat and -2 in any other mental stat
- Elves (normally +2 DEX, -2 CON, +2 INT) would get +2 in any mental stat, +2 in any physical stat and -2 in any other physical stat
- Gnomes (normally -2 STR, +2 CON, +2 CHA) would get +2 in any mental stat, +2 in any physical stat and -2 in any other physical stat (just like elves)
- Halflings (normally -2 STR, +2 DEX, +2 CHA) would get +2 in any mental stat, +2 in any physical stat and -2 in any other physical stat (just like elves and gnomes)
- Half-elves, half-orcs and humans would still get +2 to any stat


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Moss trolls are described as having especially long arms, so I'd say the extra reach applies to any weapon they wield with them. On the other hand, I'm not sure a longspear would give them an extra 15 ft. So probably 25 ft reach with 15 ft dead zone (or maybe only 10 ft dead zone). I think a comparison with Long Arm would be relevant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is exactly what stat dumping means. And it's an integral part of the point-buy system (choosing which stats are important for your character and which aren't). Notice that the system already sets a limit to stat dumping (the minimum for a stat in 7 in point-buy, compared to 3 when rolling). Also, increasing high stats costs more than increasing low stats, so you can't get crazy stats with the points you scrounged. In case you haven't noticed, absolutely no D&D ruleset puts the minimum for a stat at 10 for point-buy (it's 8 in 3.5, 4e and 5e).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Has anybody assembled a proper equivalents table? Like the Deck of Many Things has for playing cards and tarot decks?

EDIT: Nevermind. Found one!

I found the logic behind the table. Suits correspond with alignments:

- LG and NG: Hearts
- CG and CN: Diamonds
- LE and LN: Clubs
- CE and NE: Spades
- N: any (see below)

And values correspond with abilities:
- STR: 7's and Kings
- DEX: 6's and Queens
- CON: 5's and Jacks
- INT: 4's and 10's
- WIS: 3's and 9's
- CHA: 2's and 8's

Neutral cards get Aces and Jokers:
- The Bear (N STR): Hearts
- The Peacock (N DEX): Diamonds
- The Teamster (N CON): Clubs
- The Foreign Trader (N INT): Spades
- The Owl (N WIS): Joker*
- The Twin (N CHA): Joker

The * is used to distinguish between the 2 jokers in the table, but without any more details. I assume the Owl gets the red joker and the Twin the black one, given the ordering used for suits (Hearts, Diamonds, Clubs, Spades).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Skill ranks (by 5 or 10 in a skill) are a possible enhancement for intelligent items (table 15-24 on page 534). Unless the item has some ability to move, only skills tied to mental abilities are allowed (so Perception is OK).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Lady-J Nonsense. This is a module written by Paizo (not a GM customization) and 15 point is the standard Paizo writes their modules for. Your comment about monstrous races makes no sense either. In pathfinder, playable races are categorized as Core, Featured or Uncommon. In this party, there are 3 characters with featured races and 1 with an uncommon race (the Kitsune). Both Aasimar and Tengu are stronger than core races, according to the race-building rules (15 and 13 RP vs 8-11).

@Speaker for the Dead: Paladins are not known for being stealthy. So once the pixies know he's nearby (from the aura), they shouldn't have trouble locating him with mundane senses.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wonderstell wrote:
I've been told that roll 3d6 is equivalent to 15 point buy, and 4d6 drop lowest with 20 point buy.

3d6 is significantly worse than 15 point buy. It's equivalent to basic NPC stats (13/12/11/10/9/8) or monster stats (11/11/11/10/10/10), which are 3 point buy. 15 point buy is equivalent to heroic NPC stats (15/14/13/12/10/8). I'd guess that the heroic NPC array was an attempt to emulate 4d6 drop lowest (back in 3.5), but they got the math wrong. 20 point buy is probably closer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I had to make a decision, I'd say that you use the Inquisitor Mastermind's trained bonus and skill focus bonus (because those seem linked to skill ranks), and trait bonuses from the target (because traits are as inherent to a creature as ability modifiers).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
but getting exacts for every ethnicity would be pushing them into mechanical territory, which leads to the other ugly situation.

How would it push it into mechanical territory, when height and weight have negligible* impact on the game?

*Weight might come into play when dragging or carrying another creature, but ethnic differences aren't likely to change much about who can drag or carry whom.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chemlak wrote:

I'm with Rysky - Hard-coded would be a table.

As it's written now, you have ethnic tendencies, but no-one is required to follow them. Want to play a short Ulfen? Go for it. A tall Tien? Sure. But the lack of actual rules means that while the ethnic descriptions describe the ethnic averages, they do not describe a mechanical restriction upon "your PC".

So play a tall Tien who everyone at home thought was magical. Play a short Beykar known affectionately to his family and friends as "Runt", even though he's 6' 8".

The racial height/weight tables are already guidelines rather than strict rules, because height/weight is flavor, not mechanical (the Bred for War trait notwithstanding). Having tables you could refer to for random generation wouldn't prevent you from playing a tall Tian or short Bekyar, but it would give you a clearer reference point.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
you're not going to get any exact measurements on differing ethnicities any more than you're going to get which one usually has a +2 to Strength and which one has a +2 to Intelligence.

That's a false equivalency. Ability modifiers are mechanical, but height and weight are pure flavor (or should be), and you agreed on that earlier.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
I've always found it a little interesting that a Shoanti woman (max height 6'1" by the table) can only barely qualify for the Bred For War race trait (which requires 6'+ height).

I thought that height and weight were pure flavor (like gender). Having them pushed into mechanical territory just seems wrong.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
pH unbalanced wrote:
You can also just go with plurals (they/them) which is increasingly becoming standard.

Singular "they" is really old (according to Wikipedia, it dates back to the 14th century) and has survived attempts by grammarians to get rid of it (some of the reasons given were openly sexist). Recent pronouns don't really stand a chance against it. Also, it should be noted that "you" was originally a plural pronoun (the corresponding singular being "thou"), but is now used as both singular and plural.

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>