Duke Arvanoff

Kiln Norn's page

Organized Play Member. 100 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 3 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ya, it's something.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well the Anathema is just damaging the local environment. But I don't feel that a 30ft radius is not enough to "damage the local environment."

The ritual Control Weather probably can if you pull in unnatural weather. But that is the only one that competes with Storm of Vengeance. So you have nothing that can trigger your Anathema until at least 15th level.

In addition to that its very reliant on DM/GM interpretation of what is going to be both unnatural and damaging... Unless you are actually using the only weather/storm spell in the game.

The fact that casting Storm of Vengeance is Anathema to a Storm Druid is... insane. If you are the storm why can't you actually use it. I can cast Volcanic Eruption and Earthquake without consequence. But the Storm spell? Nope, lose your powers.

Sovereign Court

Sorry, think that was autocorrect.

There is one spell in the whole book that is big enough to have a lasting impact on an area. Storm of Vengeance.

Control Water (5th level and not weather)
Punishing Winds (8th level, 30 ft radius, not big enough to effect a region and therefore not Anathema)
Storm of Vengeance (9th level and definitely Anathema)

Control Weather (8th RITUAL with a 1 day cast)

Is there any spell across ALL books they've ever printed that would cause a lasting WEATHER effect big enough to be anathema besides Control Weather and Storm of Vengeance?

Anathema should give me some concept of how to play my character and what they believe. Animal druid venerates animals, leaf druid venerates pants, wild druid venerates the untamed places of the world, storm druid venerates not having the wrong type of storms in the wrong area?

Sovereign Court

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Kiln Norn wrote:

Yes but again there is only one storm spell and acid rain IS one of the effects.

Control Weather is a ritual that takes a day to complete. Sure, using that to terrible effect makes sense to me. There is no 'Tornado' spell. There is no 'Hurricane' spell. No monsoon, no, thunderstorm, no powerful rains, no sunny day, nothing.

There IS Storm of Vengeance that causes hail, acid rain, and lightning strikes. So you can perform a day long ritual OR use the only actual storm spell in the game. Wait, no you can't you lose your powers. Storm Druid has no storm. Maybe they can be called lightning druids but that isn't as thematic.

Yeah for the play test but they will probably have more of the old spells in the final product. They need a version of strom of venagnce for the strom druids however that doesn't do the acid rain.

They need to change Storm Druid Anathema so that it doesn't force them to ignore Storm spells. Also in a way that effects you from early on rather than the end of a campaign.

Sovereign Court

PossibleCabbage wrote:

It does seem like the druid anathemas, for the most part, are hard to break without trying to. Like the easiest one is probably Animal, since you could just go around kicking puppies but that's a deliberate choice and unlikely to come up a lot. Wild seems genuinely difficult to break, since you have to be "fully domesticated", and the Leaf druid anathema seems unlikely to come up much (since when was the last time anybody destroyed plants for no good reason in one of your games?).

So if the Storm Druid one rarely comes up, that's in keeping with the others.

The plant one says you can't cast fireball in any forested or plains environment.

Animal is harder to break but it still effects you from level 1.

As for Wild, almost every adventurer is fully domesticated. It'll change how you RP the character significantly so long as that's a thing in your group.

Sovereign Court

Yes but again there is only one storm spell and acid rain IS one of the effects.

Control Weather is a ritual that takes a day to complete. Sure, using that to terrible effect makes sense to me. There is no 'Tornado' spell. There is no 'Hurricane' spell. No monsoon, no, thunderstorm, no powerful rains, no sunny day, nothing.

There IS Storm of Vengeance that causes hail, acid rain, and lightning strikes. So you can perform a day long ritual OR use the only actual storm spell in the game. Wait, no you can't you lose your powers. Storm Druid has no storm. Maybe they can be called lightning druids but that isn't as thematic.

Sovereign Court

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I figure the Anathema for the various orders basically serve to ask the player to be responsible with the power that they are granted through the order.

For storm druids it's not "do not cast big powerful spells that bring down powerful weather or natural disasters on something you want to mess up" it's "choose your targets with care and avoid using such force that will permanently damage the environment you are in."

So like if you're in the desert, conjuring earthquakes are fine and sandstorms are great, but torrential rainfall might be a poor choice. A hurricane to wipe out a fleet of ships in the shackles? Fine. A blizzard or "drying up the ocean"? Anathema.

Yes but they made it specifically tied to weather not other natural effects. So earthquake is fine anywhere you want. Also why would an earthquake be fine in a desert and worse elsewhere? More than a few major earthquake zones are not in deserts.

Besides that though a large part of the issue is that it means nothing until at least 15th level as is and then it still says "Don't ever cast the only actual storm spell in the book." If you lose your powers for using storm stuff that damages the environment you can't use Storm of Vengeance. Acid Rain (3d8 damage worth), Hail Stones (3d10 damage worth), 10 bolts of lightning... Ya, the only storm that is castable in the book is Anathema to the Storm Druid.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So Anathema is something that should have a meaningful effect on your character and the concepts and beliefs that shape these characters. All of the Anathema from the other orders are pretty good at this. However Storm Order is much less effective.

"Creating unnatural weather patterns that could be damaging to the local environment (such as by using a 9th-level control weather ritual) is anathema to your order."

This is very open to interpretation of your DM/GM as a first issue. Sooner or later that'll cause issues somewhere.

Second this doesn't matter for your character until at earliest level 9 and that is assuming that you count 'Control Water' as weather. I don't. After that at 15th level you can learn 'Punishing Winds' which makes a tiny area of massive winds which it might count... maybe?

Then the biggest one here is this thing. Storm Druid actually says, "Never, ever, cast the most powerful and only real storm spell in the book. Casting 'Storm of Vengeance' in any location that is not a city is Anathema to you.

As a side note I realise you can be involved as a side participant in a control weather ritual prior to being good enough to lead it yourself and still do something Anathema to your order. However Storm Order as it stands doesn't effect you until high teir 3 90% of the time. Besides that when it does effect you its very much a question of what does the DM/GM think it means and which spells trigger it?

Sovereign Court

I don't see how magic missle got nerfed. 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 missles is pretty good. Now I'd probably not dump a 9th level spell into it but still. No chance of failure it always nice.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Bascom wrote:

Please, please correct me if I am wrong, but a level 20 who is untrained in a skill gets a +18, where a level 20 who is legendary in the skill gets a +23?

A +5 difference? Previously, it would have been a +20 difference (0 ranks vs 20 ranks)

Sure, the legendary gets some cool, but niche feat options. But for the normal roll, which will be the majority of game-play, legendary amounts to a +5 compared to someone who is untrained? That is it?

That is way to similar to 5e where you scale with level as well, making all characters seem samey.

Dislike! Make each rank equal a +5 and it scales fine again..

John Lynch 106 wrote:

So in this blog post we see Paizo have gone a particular route in divorcing skills from ability scores that make sense (Int for knowledge) and instead gone for whichever ability score best suits a particular class (wis for knowledge religion). Can't say I'm a fan* and I know the reaction my table will have to this (based on how they reacted to other games that implemented this) and it won't be pretty.

Which is unfortunate because everything else was such good news. I am glad to see being untrained means you don't get +level to the skill. It was believed this wasn't the case and I am very glad to see it will be. The rest of the info is really positive.

*And I really hope we don't get something silly like clerics using wis to attack or bards using cha to attack.

This is so painfully wrong that it's insane. You are thinking of Pathfinder 1e again and you need to stop. In Pathfinder 2e if you fail by 10 it's a critical fail no matter what you are doing. If you succeed by 10 you critically succeed no matter what you are doing.

If there is a 25 point swing between the best and the untrained that means any check that actually challenges the best is an Automatic Crit Fail for the untrained. Likewise something that is pretty ok for everyone to try is an Automatic Crit Success for the best. They don't care what they roll. The 5 point swing means this doesn't happen. Skill checks have crit success and fail in this edition as well so anything you do is measured with that +/- 10 swing.

DC 30 at level 20 means the best guy (using no stat bonuses) needs a 7 to succeed and a 17 to crit succeed. While the untrained fails on an 11 and crit fails on a 1. Now we are probably going to see other modifiers in play besides just the stat bonuses but keep these things in mind. If you got no level to untrained skills at all you would just auto crit fail everything you weren't trained in which would make the game horrific.

Sovereign Court

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
FedoraFerret wrote:
Not gonna lie, unless Remove Blindness/Deafness and Cure Disease have been turned into much higher level spells I'm not super impressed by that legendary Heal feat.

Seconded.

Remove Poison/Disease and Remove Blindness/Deafness are 3rd level spells that Divine spellcasters of 5th level or higher could cast in PF1. The fact that they think Legendary proficiency with a Skill Feat being even just comparable to a 5th level Cleric's spell power (again, assuming no major spell level change) is just laughable.

Let me guess what's next, Legendary Stealth allows a "Hide in Plain Sight" skill feat that grants a form of Invisbility, something that 2nd level+ Arcane Spellcasters can do? Cool, sure, but you could at least raise it to Improved Invisibility for a Legendary Skill + Feat.

Remove Blindness/Deafness

Remove blindness/deafness cures blindness or deafness (your choice), whether the effect is normal or magical in nature. The spell does not restore ears or eyes that have been lost, but it repairs them if they are damaged.

Regenerate
The subject’s severed body members (fingers, toes, hands, feet, arms, legs, tails, or even heads of multi-headed creatures), broken bones, and ruined organs grow back. After the spell is cast, the physical regeneration is complete in 1 round if the severed members are present and touching the creature. It takes 2d10 rounds otherwise.

Legendary Medic seems to mimic BOTH of these effects, not just one of them. If I rip your eyes from your body the way Legendary Medic is worded, it can fix that. Cure Blind/Deaf... not so much. So before you rant about copying a 5th level ability also look at the fact that you are also copying a 13th level ability without expending any magic.

Sovereign Court

Rules Artificer wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
1 hand to hold it and one to trigger it. Pulling granade pins with the teeths only happens in films.

What a coincidence, we happen to be playing a fantasy game as well! :D

But seriously, from everything that's been said, these are flasks packed with dangerous reagents, not grenades with fuses to be lit.

As such, I don't see why you can't throw it with one hand.

Go throw a baseball. Even still you hold it in one hand, direct it with one hand. You don't stand straight and statuesque and throw it. It uses the whole of your body to get a good throw. Even if not being 'held' in both hands for the period of the throw your other hand is... lets call it occupied.

Dragon78 wrote:
A bomb that does only 4d6 damage plus 1 splash damage at level 11! That is weak.

Yes, super weak... for one out of your 3 actions that round. Longsword... 1d8. Bomb 4d6. Yep. Weak.

Now even with a +2 sword (assuming it scales like we think they do, and I'm not convinced that's the case). They've said they can't wait for someone to pick up their first +2 item. We know a +1 adds a dice but I'm not sure that's what a +2 does. But assuming it works like we think it does, it's still 3d8 longsword meets 4d6 bomb. Still the same number of actions.

Sovereign Court

RumpinRufus wrote:
I don't know what kinds of other dangers or restrictions are involved, but if I could just visit the local apothecary and spend 5 gp for a poison that has a half-decent chance of slowing and maybe KOing my enemy, I would probably poison 100% of my weapons 100% of the time. Obviously drow sleep poison will not be that readily available, but if other poisons are similarly deadly with similarly low costs I can see a massive shift in the percentage of characters that use poison.

And so much this. Also it was listed as 'Item 2' which we don't have a great understanding of yet. If this is in fact a level 2 item however a DC 13 is great. If there are higher level/tier poisons that scale DC accordingly it'll be awesome.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nah, the number of hands makes a lot of sense. Pulling pins, mix liquids, lighting fuses. All of this takes both hands.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:

I'm worried that none of these new spells listed will be nearly as good as a 14th level Fighter being able to add their +2 Shield AC to Reflex Saves against a few narrowly defined types of attacks.

I just don't want casters feeling like they can't keep up with the new reality warping powers that are being granted to martials in PF2, so I hope their primary class features are also doing amazing things like providing minor highly situational numeric boosts.

While this made me laugh really hard I still think this is a narrow interpretation of that ability. Just because a basic shield is +2 didn't mean that a legendary one isn't +5. Not do we have the full extent of the ability. Can you then shield block the damage? Can you build into spell turning/reflect? We just don't have the info yet.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.

So my only real concern here is with Heal. Define willing creature? If my friend is unconscious is he willing? How about that bleeding it civilian? Is that guy that doesn't know me willing, or the guy who is passed out and dying?

How about the bad guy that we may want to save for whatever reason? The dominated friend we really don't want to kill? If I can use magic to forcibly melt someones face I think we should be able to force healing magic as well.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Perfect balance is basically impossible you realize this right? Also 'Balance' has absolutely no meaning in a debate about 'remove alignment restrictions.' Alignment is NOT balance. They two don't even have the same meaning or context. CN paladin is no more balanced than LG paladin than is a LE paladin.

So... what was this about balance? Also I'm not telling you to play my way. I'm telling you why the book has specific restrictions. Get off your high horse and take a good like at why things are the way they are. You want your alignmentless game go play a home game without it.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:

The fact that it takes 0 balancing to do so is the kicker. Because removing restrictions by it's very nature means there is still alignment. All the spells and mechanics that work off alignment can continue to do so, all while not stomping all over a character idea.

Except that isn't the case. By removing restrictions you make that guy who is beholden to a power that is far above him and DEMANDS that he act thus and so... not what it was. Sure you could still play this character. But it would be so less meaningful to play. If that guy could go off and do whatever he wanted and retain all the blessings and powers he had gotten he wouldn't be the same character.

Temptations don't matter when there are no consequence. Power without the work to maintain it is not so much fun. It's what makes a paladin a paladin. Now I'm sure you are going to say, "He could just be beholden to a different god." Or something. Sure he could be. Restriction still exists.

But why is a paladin Lawful? Why are they required to be Lawful? Because they follow the edicts of the god they follow and are expected to follow it to both as written/spoken as well as to the intent. Without this they are a fighter with meh. Monks are the same. They are not lawful persay because they follow the law of the land to a point. They are lawful because they build themselves a regimen that they adhere to daily. Meditation, physical training, study.

Being lawful isn't about following the law of the world, these are cosmic concepts. Law is the opposite of chaos. Law is repetition, adherence to a code or concept, tradition, and order. This doesn't mean a monk can't wander on whimsy but that while doing that he is going to maintain his abilities and studies while he does.

Chaos none of that. Chaos is flipping a coin at a cross roads to see where you are going to go, absolute freedom from expectations, and often a lack of responsibility... or at least taking responsibility. These things stand at odds with one another.

A paladin can't be chaotic because he has to take responsibility and answer to a higher power than himself. A monk can't be chaotic because if he ceases to repeat his training, his studies, and his meditations he will grow no closer to that state of enlightenment. BUT Paizo made a chaotic monk for all of those people that wanted to play one. They called him 'Brawler.'

Sovereign Court

Smite Makes Right wrote:

Why should a jump attack be exclusive to a fighter? A fighter is a guy who focuses on martial training, but it is just training. Everything he can do should be theoretically available to everyone. Anything that is closed off to nonfighters should be due to the amount of of feats and proficiencies required.

Only fighters can jump attack is even more arbitrary and ridiculous than only 4th level fighters can specialize in weapons. If I want a ranger that focuses on aerial foes, I can't take them down without splashing into fighter? Why? It reflects poorly for PF2.

Are we sticking with only rogues can disarm magic traps and only rogues can study a trap to bypass it? (Because there is something special about examining something)

You talk like you have options as to how to implement your concept, but you every so often, in even just this thread, you say something that indicates that you are dedicated to artificially attaching generic functions to classes.

I was hoping that Pathfinder 2 would be a system where I would be able to say that my Holy Crusader is a pure Paladin, a Cleric, a pious Fighter/Sorcerer, a pious Monk/Wizard and through options such as spell and feat choices be fairly effective at fighting evil/undead/fiends, but it is looking like PF2 is going to be even worse in this regard than PF1 and 3.5. Give me a reason to play a class that isn't "we took this generic ability that everyone should be able to do and tied it to one class."

As far as I recall the jump attack thing was listed as something you could do with a skill at a master/legend rank not because you were a fighter. Could be wrong but ya, that was what I recall.

As for the Paladin/Cleric/Fighter-sorc/monk-wizard being a holy crusader... why does this system stop you from doing that? In a home game I played a NE wizard that followed Norgorber to the point of living and abiding by the code that his anti-paladin's are supposed to follow. He upheld the tenets, offered sacrifices, abided by everything an absolutely devout follower might do.

If you want to be good at fighting undead/evil/fiends have your character do some research. Seek out weapons and/or spells that work better against your desired enemy and use them. You might not have smite evil but you were never going to get that without a pally dip anyway.

Sovereign Court

Steelfiredragon wrote:

actually we don't need paladins to be LG, we need them to be good aligned

AND we need paizo to kill one of the holy cows for holy hamburgers and that is to get rid of the lawful and chaotic alignments

you make my character from ng to cg for doing something you and the rules deam chaotic when what I had my character do was the right thing to do? then you have an issue with the alignment system that had that issue just sitting there in plain sight for the past 30+ years and nobody ever wanted to notice it...
times change things change
the more things change, the more they stay the same

now if you want a really good lawful act? ( well it would be lawful to me anyway hahahahahahaha) it would be to lock this thread, but really the chances of that lawful act happening... isn't all there

but even if paizo did get rid of the chaotic and lawful alignments, many players would want something to put in its place... so they could have that attached to the paladin and any other alignment restricted class.

edit: this was said elsewhere, but it is worth sharing here. Being good aligned does not mean you have to be nice

The edit there is beautiful for it's accuracy. As for doing something that is deemed the right thing to do shouldn't change your alignment... if done once. Perhaps twice or a third time depending on what the action is. One time is an outlier. If you continue to follow the same line of action again and again and again that is when your alignment is starting to shift.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

Because it's now a trap option that wastes paper.

If it's not viable for anyone to take, then why would anyone take it? It's like getting rules bloat in the core rule book.

It ruins the economics of the game's design, it wastes two actions to use and is demonstrably worse than just making two attacks in all cases save for critical hits.

Plus there's the whole variance thing where we don;t have consistent enough numbers to know how to design encounters around damage if both Power attack and +x weapons are just adding extra dice to the equation without anything else going on to adjust for the inevitable swingyness that the law of averages forces upon us.

Math says it's bad, therefor it's probably not good. Fistfulls of dice are not always the best way to design a game around unless you can account for the margins of variance they create.

I don't like it therefor trap. Love it.

As discussed before this is going to see tons of play. Hey, I'm in a situation right now where I don't need to run away, am in no danger of being dead and want to hit something really hard without much of a concern about missing. I'll give up that -10 and 50% increase fumble chance to hit this guy REALLY hard right now.

That sounds like a total trap to me. Yep. Definitely a trap.

Sovereign Court

Gygax also has some very interesting quotes about what a LG paladin would do with a prisoner. Concepts that I tend to agree with but people love to argue are evil.

Sovereign Court

While the issue of who you are killing matters I was speaking in a vacuum. However, 5 evil people to save a saint might matter. 5 nondescript people to save nondescript person I like more is pretty much evil. People sacrificing themselves in the line of their duty is not the same.

Context matters of course, but there is still in the lore of the world a Yes/No answer in there and the exact response of the person is also going to vary by... *gasp* their alignment. A follower of Iomedae is going to react differently than say... Sarenrae.

Sovereign Court

Ckorik wrote:

Incorrect - as long as a human makes a judgment call on actions taken then it's subjective.

Until you can point to the rule page that lists every action that counts as good and every action that counts as evil - when that's 'left to GM interpretation' then it's subjective. The GM making a judgment call is the literal definition of a subjective rule.

No. Just because it's left to a DM to interpret doesn't mean the setting itself isn't objective. There are obviously basic actions that are either inconsequential or otherwise unimportant. Is waking up in the morning good or evil? Ya. I get it. That said there are actions that just don't matter. Notice that demons don't practice banditry? Is it still evil? There are still entities out there that can objectively state what is good or evil even if it is through the DM.

I'm not speaking of the idea that a DM makes decisions though. I'm speaking of the legitimate fact that in setting there are objective definitions of what these things mean.

gustavo iglesias wrote:
True. But pathfinder gives us a clear and objective view of what is Good and Evil (or Law and Chaos) but not what it is right or wrong.

This is true. I admit that there is not much that can be said here. And there are always grey areas. That doesn't mean that there isn't one. It can make for some awesomely fun points in a game as well. There are arguments to be made for the kill 1 to save 1000 if you know for a fact that it will work out that way and the repercussions for that choice.

But if it's kill 5 people to save that one person I care about it's probably not doing good or being right.

Sovereign Court

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Kiln Norn wrote:

One, what your character accepts as a moral authority is not relevant.

To my mind it is the only thing that is relevant.

Quote:


Again, cosmic forces dictate what is and isn't right.
They dictate how the universe works. They can take away your class powers if you disagree with them, they can sentence you to an afterlife of their choice, but none of that gives them moral validity.

Again, D&D and Pathfinder are NOT SUBJECTIVE on good and evil. They are OBJECTIVE. There are cosmic and divine forces of GOOD and cosmic and divine forces of EVIL. Without that there could not be an actual alignment system.

Demons and Devil's are evil. They are Angels and Archons that are good. There might be one in a million, one in ten million that is an exception to the rule. But these creatures are ABSOLUTELY good or evil. They are not some in between as are the gods that lord over these creatures. They have moral validity because they are so aligned with what that part of the cosmetology stands for.

As for the characters, no. Their intent and belief of what they are has no place in what they actually are. A serial killer that has voices in his head telling him that he is slaying demons but is cutting down innocent after innocent is NOT a good person because he believes he is killing demons. Now perhaps he is not evil until he is presented with facts and continues to do what he's doing anyway.

The character's acceptance of moral authority might matter for that character's RP. That doesn't mean that any entity of good is going to deem them good because they THINK they are good. That doesn't mean a god of good is going to grant them powers when every action they've taken is evil. These things matter and it's more than just a characters opinion on them.

Sovereign Court

Ckorik wrote:
See there is the problem again - a CG person can follow and choose to follow a LN god. The problem is only related to Clerics. As you are being pedantic, I will grant - I mean a N god in the case of this cleric - A CN character can follow a N god - but if they case protection from evil 5 times they turn CG and loose powers - my example has a small mistake and the point wasn't impacted, but I am certainly glad you spent so many words to show how wrong I was - but I think you missed the point.

I did not miss the point, admittedly 5 spell casts might to far to few. However a cleric should be trying to emulate their chosen god which means that they are going to more toward his alignment and way of thinking and not away from it. If they do something that shifts their alignment to the point that they are thinking differently than they should be for his service he is going to stop giving them power.

Your CN person following a N god casts a ton of good spells but never an evil spell. He's not being neutral is he? He's being good. He casts a ton of evil spells and does evil things exponentially more than he does good things. Still not being neutral is he?

The idea of 'I want to be able to do whatever I want without consequence to my moral standing' is where the difference is. How many shows/movies/stories have one of the bad guys becoming a good guy or at least helping out in the end? These are alignment changes. Some go so far as to have good guys become bad guys. Alignment change. Watch the last season or two of Burn Notice. Alignment changes. They happen. Use them. They are great story devices. If you and your players can't handle that I'm sorry but you might want to stay in the dungeon and murder all the things and ignore the narrative world that evolves with the story.

Ckorik wrote:
Is there really a problem with trusting your players to put down how they feel their character acts? You keep acting like I believe all GM's are out to be malicious - but every argument you make assumes the exact opposite - that the GM is making arguments in good faith while the players are out to cheat the system somehow.

I trust my players to put down exactly what they think their character acts like. I do not trust my players to always be accurate to how their character actually is. There are cosmic alignments in the setting and things change. They might have started out as CG but that doesn't mean they are going to stay that way forever and always.

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

It's a pretty big sign that the Empyreal in question does not agree that what you are doing is right, no argument there.

Whether your character accepts that as moral authority, or regards it as every bit as much a coercive action as a Balor punching you in the face because you are doing Good things, is a roleplaying decision. And one that I believe has potential for lots of interesting character options.

There is another thing here though. One, what your character accepts as a moral authority is not relevant. Again, cosmic forces dictate what is and isn't right. They might not accept that but it doesn't matter in the large scheme of things. They either ARE wrong or right OBJECTIVELY given that the gods themselves stand for these alignments and what they mean. They might think they are LG, doesn't mean they are LG.

Second a Balor punching you in the teeth could mean you are doing something so incredibly good that a Balor was sent out to deal with you. It could also mean that the Balor is just being a Balor and punching you in the teeth sounded like fun before he decides to eat you alive. An Empyreal however is the embodiment of what it is to be good. They aren't going to intervene in something that doesn't directly require them to.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really do love all the 'Having to raise my shield is terrible' talk. One way or another using a shield is active. Are you moving your body to get the shield in the right position to block an attack? You are actively thinking about and using it. Are you moving your arm to put your shield in the way of an attack? You are actively thinking about and using it.

Not to mention there is one other step here that people aren't getting yet. Swing, swing, block is not a bad thing in this edition. Forgoing that -10 swing is forgoing a 50% increased chance to fumble and possibly get slapped for it while increasing your AC by (lets say 2) 2 and decreasing your chance to be crit by 10%. That's not a terrible action.

Now we have Expert, Master, Legendary equipment that for weapons gives a +1, +2, or +3 to hit. Possible that will transfer to shield AC. Then suddenly that +2 for raise shield is not a +5 for raise shield and the chance to be crit went down 25%.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

You can think it's silly, but please don't call me or my playstyle dumb.

I roll plenty of dice to make sure I land my attacks, it's the d20 system after all.

I'm not calling a play style dumb. I'm calling a singular feat that is the root of the damage scaling problem in all of 3.x style systems dumb. If that entails the whole of your play style in just that one feat... I think it speaks for itself.

There is a reason it's a feat tax to any melee character in the game that isn't a dex build. Oh right. Dex builds... ya doesn't work does it? Why not? Oh, right. Can't take PA.

There are a couple builds that use it I know but they are supplemental to someone dealing real damage and not all that powerful themselves. A single feat that is this overly powerful IS a problem and always has been. You might being able to look at the DM and tell him you just hit for 20051asdf204 damage. Doesn't mean it hasn't always been a problem.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

Blasters are considered and have always been considered not optimal uses of spell slots exactly because they rely on variable dice and cannot guarantee numbers.

Honestly I've seen the same argument used for rogues. How many threads exist claiming the rogue was useless?

These concepts can't suddenly become the most amazing things ever that no one complained about, just search the forums and you'll prove yourself wrong.

Yes, blasters have been sub optimal since oh... when was that again? 3.0 when PA became the thing it is now ya? Hmm... awfully suspicious.

Now that said, is static damage fun? Sure, I know what I'm going to do and don't even need worry about dice. But what's the point of a dice game without dice? I've never been a fan of so many stupid static bonuses that my actual weapon attack doesn't matter besides, "Is it a 2h weapon?". That's silly.

Honestly the damage PA has been needing a rework for about as long as it's existed. The answer was either, allow everyone to have something akin to PA with a 2-hander for damage numbers or rework it. Now why do I say give everyone something like that? Because if you don't you fall back into the same problem we have now. All the PA-ers win and no one else does. Also feat tax.

Besides that to go along with that same problem then you run into the 'Why does this dragon in the Bestiary have 2500 hp?' 'Oh because he needs to live more than 2 rounds with a party of 4 18+ characters beating on his face.' As you have been saying, THAT IS A DESIGN PROBLEM. "Here's a meat wall, beat on it until it dies, have fun."

PA is the dumbest feat in the book. Static damage numbers about 20 are just flat stupid. My GREATSWORD is capable of dealing 2-12 points of damage. WITHOUT the sword I deal twice that. Why do you have a sword again? Just rip the enemies apart with your hands.

Now, I do hope magic and rogues and such are balanced around this, but I think they probably will be.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

This was never the problem with wizards. 10d6 is an atrociously weak use of a 3rd level spell comparatively speaking. Narrative influence, battlefield control, and out of combat utility were the problems with wizards over fighters.

I didn't say that you have to squeeze every drop of math out of the game. I'm saying that the options we are being presented which make the characters less mathematically reliable in practice at the table which ultimately creates less fun characters if they are not able to beat encounters due to the second set of dice they are forced to rely upon not landing where they need them to to succeed in the encounters they are supposed to be designed to succeed at. You don't have to be a genius to understand that a fighter that does 2d6+20 three times per turn is going to have more consistent and reliable numbers they can play with than a fighter who gets 4d6+4 and then 2d6+4. If the player can't win their combats because the 'simpler system' created a scenario where they were punished by dice and not by their own choices when playing the game then odds are they won't be having more fun than in a system where their choices mattered.

My point was that casters have along with say, anyone who wasn't power attacker, relied upon RNG dice numbers for as long as we've been playing 3.x/Pathfinder. We haven't died because of it. And your argument is narratively stupid. "I want to know how many swings it's going to take to kill this dragon." Answer - You shouldn't have a clue. Your character doesn't know how much health that monster has. You shouldn't walk in, look at a monster and be like... "Hmm... I can take this guy down in... eight or ten hits with my axe. Give me, hmm, ten... no twelve seconds." That's dumb.

Yes, more dice introduces more random chance and less reliable known damage. That is a GOOD thing. You hit him, just because you hit him doesn't mean you should chunk 1/5 of his HP off every swing BEFORE dice. You hit means you did damage. It doesn't mean you landed an impactful solid blow. You'll get over it or keep playing P1. If not you'll get over it.

This adds potentially more burst damage and less constant damage. However that allows people like say... the rogue to not just be terrible by comparison. Why play a rogue? We have PA Fighter/Barb/Paladin for all that damage. Have fun! Ya, no thanks. I've seen enough of that.

Sovereign Court

Ckorik wrote:

Wow - I've said this before - but if you have "good" written on your character sheet the same thing happens with 'my system' as it does *now*.

How is this hard for you to grasp? My changes do *not* affect this in any way - regardless of if you use the optional rules or not - the *only* thing that would change is if your alignment shifted (or you chose to be a CG follower of a LN god say) you wouldn't loose your class abilities.

My system just trusts the player to put down on their character what they *intend* the character to be - and keeps the game from screwing their player if that happens to change in the game (for whatever reason) - it doesn't remove any spell effects, or any consequences (otherwise) - it just keeps the class abilities intact.

See there's a problem again. A CG person would not choose to follow a LN god. CG and LN philosophies don't match. CG likes to go out, drink beer, have a good time with friends, and overthrow the tyrant. LN in a lot of ways may support that very tyrant, tell you how much beer you are allowed to drink, and put up a curfew about when you need to be home and not hanging out with friends. One does not go well with the other. They are very opposed ideals.

A person who was staunchly CG would never make it through the training to be a cleric and the likelihood a LN god would grant that person spells is almost non existent. Why? Because they can't be sure that the person is going to use that magic to further the gods cause which is EXACTLY what a cleric is supposed to be doing. Furthering the goals of their deity.

Likewise if something causes your alignment to change the god may well cease granting you those powers that he's been giving. Why? Because your alignment is your absolute concept of how the world works, sure it can change with your character but a god isn't going to have someone with entirely opposite ideals to his own being given power when that power may counteract everything he is working toward. So yes, it can screw your character over. Welcome to Roleplaying.

A) Your god gave you lemons, find a new god.
B) Attonement
C) Go on a quest for redemption and character development.
D) Wait what? Characters can grow and change and not everything in a roleplaying game is about murdering the monsters and stealing all the loot? I can have actual character growth and concept that builds on ideas of what my character is and does and that is something that's ok within the system of the game ohmygod!

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I like how Power Attack is automatically better on bigger weapons now- that feels right.

I am also curious as to whether power attack can be combined with sudden charge, because "you can't vital strike on a charge" has been a personal point of annoyance for some time.

Shifting the focus on doing damage from "accumulating a bunch of static bonuses" to "rolling more dice" is a positive change. I had one character who by the end of the campaign was rolling like "1d8+45" for damage and at that point, the die is pretty much superfluous.

The die should be superfluous, because it means your character can be reliable regardless of the weapon they are using.

It won't be good design when killing the dragon becomes two battles of you vs. the dice landing correctly instead of making sure your properly trained fighter hits and the team can rely on him/her to kill the dragon within a small margin of #of hits landed. Now you could see a swing of something like 6 damage per hit to 28 damage per hit on the same weapon.

This is not good design, I'm not being rewarded for learning the system. This is not Pathfinder.

Have you ever in your life thrown a fireball? That is very pathfinder. Take xd6 roll. Damage. Yay. Do you see my static pluses there? Good. Neither do I.

Sovereign Court

Agreed. Though there are lost of players now that get pissy even if a DM thinks they did something that is going to shift their alignment and no item was involved.

Sovereign Court

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Ckorik wrote:


I'm curious - when my solution leaves alignment on a character, leaves the system in place for spells and npcs, how you get 'get rid of it' as what I'm proposing?

Because on the first page of this thread you said "it can stay - just not for player characters" and you are now saying otherwise ?

It's beginning to make me wonder whether the defining thing that all your experiences where alignment was a problem have in common is your (still unsupported) assertion that "hardwired alignment means characters have no power over what they consider right and wrong" as it seems that not holding that perspective is a common thread among players for whom alignment issues have never been a problem.

I'm not arguing with you here but just wanted to point out that even if characters consider themselves right or wrong holds no relevance to the fact of IF they are right or wrong. Gods of both good and evil exist and therefor there is a definitive answer as to what IS right or wrong. The character might THINK they did right and then get slapped in the face by a Empyreal. That's a pretty big sign that you were, in fact, wrong.

Sovereign Court

Ckorik wrote:

Quote here

James Jacobs wrote:

I often see this type of sentiment on the internet, and it frustrates the hell out of me.

The ONLY person who gets to decide if something is insulting is the person being insulted by it. If someone says something that ends up offending someone else, the responsible and mature solution is not to justify their insulting/offensive actions by trying to describe how they don't see it's insulting. That just digs their hole deeper and makes them condiscending as well as insulting to the person who's offended.

The right solution is to either nod your head and stop using that sort of offensive behavior (preferably altogether, but certainly when speaking to the person you, perhaps inadvertently, offended).

This is why alignment needs to go. Any other part of the game that causes as much hurt at the table as alignment is gone over with a fine tooth comb or given BIG WARNINGS ABOUT CONSENT (such as in the horror rules book).

Morality is SUBJECTIVE and as such has no place being used as a game mechanic. The rules of pathfinder are crunchy - morality rules are squicky, moist, and libel to smell like last week's cheese.

When the creative director (and company honestly) understand why trying to explain away why something is insulting/offensive is in fact just digging in deeper - after so many years of anguish about alignment and codes and evil spells and how it ruin's peoples games why is this still a core mechanic?

New edition - time for alignment to go - at least for player characters who should have sole authority over a subjective category that two reasonable college professors who spent lives studying ethics and morality could argue all day over.

See, you might have a point here... if you had a point. Alignment is NOT SUBJECTIVE in the setting of D&D or the setting of Pathfinder. Want to know why? Asmodeus is not in ANY WAY good, he is OBJECTIVELY evil. He would not say he was GOOD. He might say he is RIGHT but not GOOD. Rovagug is not in ANY WAY good, he is OBJECTIVELY evil. Sarenrae is OBJECTIVELY good. Iomedae is OBJECTIVELY good.

In a setting where there are gods and creatures that embody the very philosophy of what it is to be GOOD or EVIL there is not subjectivity in that. There are forces that rule the universe that put out OBJECTIVE meaning to what good and evil are. You might think or try to reason what is SUBJECTIVELY good, or that your evil character BELIEVES that he's doing good. It doesn't make him good.

Sovereign Court

I have both a Starfinder Society Guild and a Starfinder Adventure Path subscription that I need cancelled.

Sovereign Court

I want to see what people can come up with. Names for a company that operates almost exclusively in the drift rather than 'realspace.'

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RyanH wrote:
Has someone written a concise post convening the DC70 so we can all FAQ it and make sure it's not just a mistake?

We will get nothing until tomorrow or Friday at the earliest. Any official errata isn't going to hit until GenCon either starts or is in good swing.

Besides that, this thread has the math and other elements in it that is needed, as well as the DC 70 concept being posted on their possible errors thread that Owen said he was watching for things to address.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

... please. I am being educated by the two of you pointing out solid arguments, and would like to continue to be.

Telling him, "No, shut up." is poor form, especially when he's explicitly acknowledged that not only does he agree with the premise of the thread (that...

You are right, I apologize.

That said saying it's possible is still wrong. It is only a possibility when the stars align and the sleeper in R'lyeh wakes. Yes, perhaps possible in those situations it is not possible for everyone, or even close to MOST of everyone. Using an outlier as proof of something is is a horrible idea. Sure you "can" do it. But it's never going to work.

It's like quoting Henry Ford, "You can have it in any color you want as long as that color is black."

Except in this case it's, "You can do this with any race that you want as long as that race is Lashunta."

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The point he's making is yes, everything 'possible.' It's possible under the absolute best circumstances and situations. It's 'possible' if you are Lashunta master race. It's 'possible' if you min/max everything at the cost of everything else.

It is NOT possible if you are playing anything other than those specific circumstances, races, or one of two classes. So yes, if I min/max a soldier into INT I can do engineering stuff with him IF he's a Lashunta or Ysoki. But when are you going to literally EVER see that character? It's just not going to happen.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You are assuming that every single person in the game is Lashunta WITH the student in the ability they are doing, or a Ysoki engineer or a Shirren captain. STOP.

Also, your calculations are always giving your people the absolutely BEST circumstances. Such as, using a SHUTTLE at tier 20 as an example of 'you can make piloting checks as long as you are doing this thing.'

It's a poor argument technique, learn better ones. Or you know, do relevant to the problem math. Such as, you are a Human, a Vesk, a Android, a Lashunta who put student points in things that aren't going to help with this one singular specific task, a Ysoki captain, a Shirren engineer, or anything else that isn't so stupidly maximized as 'everyone is playing Lashunta with student in their starship role that supports my claim that every class can do their part because they are the single best race in the game to prove things with.' Also, stop bringing up the one and only relevant theme as a way to say all ship actions are possible.

Also I'm not sure how many times I have to point out that we are going to see a fair number of characters that don't start the game with 18's in one stat, even less likely so that they can specialize into space combat.

In your engineering example earlier, did that soldier start with an 18 int? Because that's just stupid on part of the character. Like... absurd levels of stupid. He might do ship stuff alright occasionally but he's not worth anything anywhere else.

TLDR - Asari superiority isn't a valid arguement for every class is capable of doing this thing we are talking about.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Porridge wrote:

(E.g., in the Engineering example I gave above, replace the Envoy with a Soldier with Skill Synergy and Skill Focus, and they'll be able to hit a 71 DC. And in the captain example I gave above, replace the Operative with a Soldier with Skill Focus, and they'll be able to hit a 71 DC.)

Except that it's really not. You are relying there on two feats that are both insight bonuses. Skill Focus is a +3 insight bonus and Skill Synergy is a +2 insight bonus and thus don't stack.

9 stat 9
20 ranks 29
3 class skill 32
2 captain 34
3 insight 37
10 computer 47
2 captain 49

Still can't make 70 on a roll of a 20. A Ysoki can do it as can a Lashunta who decided it wanted Engineering as it's racial. But that's it, and that is with the captain deciding buffing you for a 10% chance is worth trying, which it really isn't. I'd rather reinforce a sure thing than try to support a long shot that is 90% certain to fail.

Awesome actions will NOT be used if their chance of success is only 10%. If they are ~30% people might use them. This also doesn't solve the issues that for the captain to give someone another action he has to use one of the two computer +10's which ensures that whatever extra action is granted can't be a big one, nor can almost anything else done that turn because all of those checks are being done at -10.

This is also again assuming that you started with an 18 in a relevant stat and can do literally nothing else with your character save punch things or shoot them with a gun or talk your way out of stuff or or or or or or.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
g0del wrote:
Kiln Norn wrote:
Quote:
How are you getting around the fact that RAW, expertise die (and operative's edge) don't work for crew actions? That 84 DC (with 3 perfect rolls on a char optimized specifically to pass crew action checks) becomes 68 without True Expertise.
There's an unofficial FAQ on thier twitter, I believe it was twitter, that said things that modified skills still worked. It'll be that way until at least this weekend when an actual errata drops.
Thanks. It's too bad that even if that becomes official errata, it doesn't do anything to address the problem that every crew action gets harder and harder to do as the group levels up.

The real problem is actually that this makes Envoy and Operative the absolute best starship characters in the game and shoehorns soldiers and solarians into gunners. It also kicks most mystic characters in the mouth.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RyanH wrote:
Kiln Norn wrote:

Ryan while you aren't wrong there are other ideas there.

Does a Nissan 350Z with aftermarket parts and racing flats or a stock Saturn SL2 drift easier?

Because souped-up cars take more skill to drive just youtube idiots in their sports cars

I would agree that the Saturn shouldn't be ABLE to drift. But also would say a low level driver could quickly turn a Saturn around easier than they could quickly turn a souped-up Nissan around. (There's a video I saw posted recently that showed a police officer (high level driver) not knowing how to put a lambo (high tier car) in park.)

EDIT: You said races better. Yes it would, but put a tier 1 driver in a race car... again, in a high-tier race car... they'll crash.

Now, if you took your Saturn and just kept making it "better"... yes, it seems like it should be easier to do things with it. But really, a Saturn is going to go from about tier 1 to tier 2 and max out.

I think given the need to keep the rules manageable, balanced, and interesting, it is ONE method that works ok (and might start to fall apart at level 20... but only if the DC 70 ISN'T a mistake.)

I think it will work for me fine in my level 1-12 SFS play, and my campaign play that will probably max at 15-16. I also think we'll see new materials that will boost the character abilities.

I don't disagree with most of what you said here. The problem is that police officer (high tier driver) could get into the SL2 and burn donuts around an equivalent tier in the Lambo. That's because the Lambo's DC might be 64 where the SL2 is 16. Guess who wins.

I'm not saying that things need to be a cake walk at high tier. I'm saying that you should be able to do them and have improved in doing them in some meaningful way besides, 'I can now also do this other new thing if I make my check.'

A system where your check to do the exact same thing always stays the same or actually grows steadily harder removes the feeling that you are getting better as a character. When there is no feeling of progression or improvement what's the payoff? I won't argue that pulling trick turns in a Juggernaut should be very hard. Flipping a full 360 in a fighter though shouldn't be by that level. (I know these things are not the hardest DC's in the book but I'm just using them to illustrate this.)

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or should I just say races better?

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ryan while you aren't wrong there are other ideas there.

Does a Nissan 350Z with aftermarket parts and racing flats or a stock Saturn SL2 drift easier?

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My thoughts exactly. There is the high performance vehicle arguments people have been making but they are a bit of a fallacy. Yes, the vehicle has more power but driving it is roughly the same as any other vehicle until you put more power down. When you do it is a bit harder to -learn- to control but one you have that understanding the new things the extra power allows you to do are open to you.

Sure, if you fail the consequences are much higher. But pressing down a gas petal, pulling a lever, or pressing 'execute' on a computer are not harder from one vehicle to the next.

A turn and burn might require you to cut power to the engines, flip the ship around and reengage the power in six seconds. At tier one you might have to do this manually. At tier 20 why is there not a built in way to do this, or sine rapid access because you are some hotshot pilot that knows what he's doing? By that point this should be something you are really prepared to execute without question.

Sovereign Court

This doesn't addresse a higher level character on a low tier ship.

Sovereign Court

Also as gigyas stated in another thread, if I just keep my tier 10 ship but continue level I'll be in a much better place in regards to skill checks and ability performances than someone upgrading at every opportunity.

At tier 10 the highest DC is 40. Now I'm 20th level and might just autopass.

I'm fighting a tier 20. He'll succeed medium checks 30-40% of the time, hard checks much, much less if at all. We can win this just by out outmanuvering him because we don't even need dice to do anything that isn't shooting.

The problem is that all these cool things I can do with a ship are getting harder because I'm leveling up. I can take a tier 1 ship and 'Flyby' without lifting a dice. To do so in a tier 20 I would need a 55. The more powerful ship should be compensating some for this action when to a tier 1 ship it's a joke when using the same pilot.

When using a level appropriate pilot it's a DC 17 vs 55. Still well over a 50% probability for a non min/max build.

Sovereign Court

Because saying, "Quick! Do a barrel roll!" Is clearly the hardest thing ever ever.

The problem isn't that they are hard. At level 6 the DC is 28, Dard but obtainable. At level 20 it's so stupidly niche that is not worth even building for. Also, hope gig are an Envoy or an Operative because if not... well get out, we'll hire someone new.

This didn't even account for having to use the computer bonus for the captain to grant another action which is going to be severely limiting to the team because they now have one fewer bonuses to use. This ensures that this bonus action is going to be pretty mundane, as is the rest of everyone's actions because you just didn't buff anyone by +2 or +4 AND you used one of the two +10's.

1 to 50 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>