Valeros

Knightofthevoid's page

Venture-Agent, Louisiana—Baton Rouge 12 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 11 Organized Play characters.


RSS


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Cheburn wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
mach1.9pants wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
so the resonance caps are high enough that they don't matter anyway?
I think he's saying they only matter when you spam some limited resource item, such as wand or potion of CLW many times over.
so groups lacking a dedicated healer are now more f***ed than ever, I guess. That's nothing that bothers me on a personal level, but sometimes stuff like that happens. players have to drop out, no one else wants to change character and GMs still want to keep the game going even though the group is missing a Cleric. This complicates things for them

Player 1 is down 45 points of damage.

Strategy 1: Cure Light Wounds wand x10.
Strategy 2: Cure Critical Wounds wand x2.

One of these is unlikely to run into problems from resonance.

That's definitely a design decision. In the Know Direction podcast, I remember one of the participants (sadly, I don't remember which one) say that they felt that cracking open a CLW wand like guzzling it down like a Gatorade was a crappy system, and one that was not found in any fantasy story ... ever.

I feel the need to point out that in this example, the massive upfront cost of a cure critical wounds wand (unless it was found / looted) would likely keep strategy 2 from ever existing / being pitched as a possible alternative, at least until a party was very high level and gold was being received in much higher amounts.

In strategy 1, the wand has an upfront cost of 750 and the cost of the charges used totals up to 150. In strategy 2, the wand has an upfront cost of 21000 and the cost of charges used totals up to 840. It's very easy to justify spending 750 gold on a healing wand for the party, and even a lower level party can pool resources to nab one. It's much harder to justify spending 21000 gold when there is other gear slots you could fill / upgrades you need to purchase, or trying to convince the entire party to put off a gear upgrade to pool for an advanced healing wand.

I'm not making a case that greater healing achieved in a moment should not come at an increased premium, however when the healing from higher levels spells comes at such a higher cost, it is only reasonable for players to look for a way to make the most of the fact that a more cost effective option exists and that they also the time in which to apply it (regarding out-of-combat healing). I would be very happy if there were better / improved ways to heal higher amounts using resources in 2e, as long as they are more cost effective as well. Perhaps they could be items that heal larger amounts of health for a reasonable cost, however they take several minutes to use and have them take effect. This would keep them from being used/abused in combat, and also prevent CLW wand tattoos from occurring on characters.

All of that being said I have to say that I dislike everything I have read thus far about the resonance system. Forcing every player to keep track of a point system reminiscent of Occultist focus is not a simplification in my mind, it's restrictive when it comes to a player designing their character, and it certainly isn't new player friendly / intuitive. What if a player simply wants a character that does not have to track a daily resource limit like spell slots / ki / focus, etc such as a vanilla fighter? 2e is completely removing the option to roll a character like that any longer? I could also easily see a player running into the following type of situation when finding a shiny new piece of gear:

PF1 - "Cool, enchanted armor! I remove my current armor and put on the new armor."

PF2 - "I drank a few potions earlier, except the last one I actually threw past my head because apparently I didn't want to drink it badly enough, and now I can't figure out how to put on this nice upgraded armor I found. Oh well, I guess I'll try again tomorrow."

The fact that a situation like that could occur in the new system frankly boggles my mind.


Ok, but in the bane example even if one check was passed there was still a check failed. So if we're at the Glassworks (to use one of the earlier situations) when this goes on we still lose a card from the top of our deck as a check was failed.

Part of the problem for me was the phrasing saying that you can't fail a check if you never attempted one. It was too analagous to saying you can't fail to acquire something if you never attempted to, because the rules clearly state you can resolve a boon encounter in exactly that fashion. So since failing to acquire something more ordinarily includes failing on a check, I assumed that must be the mechanic that causes the failure of the acquire. It's not that I thought multiple / all checks listed on a boon were failed, just that acquisitions and checks were too tied together for me so it was resolving in the order of some check (even if none was rolled, just as a mechanical thing) being failed to trigger the failed acquire and card being banished, even when purposely making the decision not to acquire.

Edit: This does make a particular new season set 2 scenario remarkably less Scourge-y. We've needed loads less curse removal this season, although I will say that I kind of appreciate it letting up a bit after finishing up the six regular sets of season 3 :)


Fair enough, doesn't get much clearer than that :)

Sorry all if I came off as too pedantic.


Longshot11 wrote:

There's nothing wrong in doubting the intent behind a specific wording/interaction - in fact, you may very well ask that in a dedicated thread of its own. I would, however, caution against taking your doubts on one issue as a supportive argument for your theories on another issue. (Now, if you get an answer "yea, in Factions we want you to get hurt when you decline an ally" - this would be grounds to then ask "But why does Glassworks work differently then?"; but in any case, this would at most lead to a FAQ on Factions and/or Glassworks, but will not change the fundamental distinction between 'failing to acquire' and 'failing a check'.)

It very well could be something that needs its own thread, and honestly could just be a phrasing issue (replacing a line with "...fail to acquire" instead would change it completely). However I think it's dismissive to label it 'doubts on one issue'. If taking a basic rule interpretation that everyone seems to be agreeing on and applying it to a recently written scenario severely breaks the difficulty, there is a problem. It could just be a language problem or some disconnect in the way choosing to fail to acquire boons resolve, but I would like clarification on it.

skizzerz wrote:
Finally, see this post and Vic's reply below it.

My takeaway from this thread were these three posts:

1) Hawkmoon - "So, for the Burglar, what if someone chooses to not attempt to acquire it? That (I think) doesn't count as failing the check. So you would avoid the burglar taking an item or weapon from you."

2) Vic - "That would be correct. (Again, not sure we're going with that...)"

Initially, Vic confirms that choosing not to attempt to acquire a boon does not count as failing the check, and thus would not trigger the burglar's failure condition.

Then afterward:

3) Vic - "The current plan: Burglar stays as is. The rules get a few changes, though.

"Evade the Card (Optional)" becomes:

Apply Evasion Effects....etc

"Attempt the Check" gets the following addition:

If you choose not to acquire a boon, it counts as failing to acquire it.

What this means is if you evade, the burglar's second power does not occur. If you do not evade, and either choose not to acquire it or fail to acquire it, the power occurs."

So he first says that it would not count as failing a check, but then states afterward that they are changing the rules so that it is a failed acquire. To me that sounds like a reversal of his previous answer via rule change.


Another example, this one from the current season of Factions Favor, Adventure Set 2. Along with mentioning a cohort and henchman, one of the scenarios includes the following text:

"After building the location decks, shuffle an ally from the box into each location. When you fail a check to acquire an ally, suffer a scourge."

The scenario also features several ally-heavy locations. I doubt the intent behind this setup was to allow you to completely avoid the scourging scenario condition by deciding to dump the many allies you encounter directly back into the box and treat it as not failing a check.

Edit: Also, I would like to point out the above quoted language from the handbook again:

When you are required to attempt a check, you may not choose to fail it. This would seem to suggest that the reverse is true, that when you are not required to attempt a check you MAY choose to fail it. Otherwise it would be far simpler to say "You may never choose to fail a check." It would follow then that choosing to fail a check is what you are doing when you decide not to try to acquire a boon.


You never attempted to acquire either, yet you are still counted as having failed to acquire.

The question is, in a system where acquiring boons is nearly always tied to making a check, is a failed acquire also treated as a failed check ?

There are other effects which can cause you to gain cards using language like '...you may add them to your hand', but those ignore card text and do not count as acquiring. Since making a check is generally the only way you acquire boons, I would say yes.

Edit: It may be pedantic / only count in edge cases, but I think the distinction is important due to Glassworks-like effects.


Other member of his player group here. I definitely agree with the overall text being clear that you may choose not to acquire boons. I am wrestling with the distinction between failing to acquire and failing a check, and actually brought up the Glassworks as well.

If the only way to acquire the vast majority of boons (95% or higher?) is by making a check, and the booklet states that you are counted as failing to acquire them, I think it logically follows as failing a check as well for affects like the Glassworks. I doubt they intended for us ignore the 'At this location' text for fully 1/2 of the cards there as long as you choose to pass on all boons. I think the only cards this shouldn't be the case for are the few that present alternate options like 'bury a card'.


Having the same issue. I run ACG games as a VO and it wasn't added to my downloads, so I tried buying it recently to have it on hand tonight. Any chance that can be refunded with an order # once the issue is resolved and it is made available?


Aside from echoing what Cult said regarding uses per day, I would like to point out that you aren't trading away 'basically all of your offensive abilities' to gain Redirection. You still have your unarmed scaling damage, flurry, Ki, etc. All you trade off is stunning fist, and Redirection is a powerful defensive ability that resolves BEFORE your opponent's attack happens. If you build your character around tripping you can easily turn that trade into even more of a positive by flexing the offensive side of it.

Flowing Monk at 1st level, take Improved Trip as your bonus feat, Vicious Stomp as your level one feat. On every successful trip, you now get a free attack on the enemy, on Redirects they also have to pass a reflex save or be sickened. Starting at 2nd level this could be you, during an enemy's turn:

1) Enemy attacks you, you decide to Redirect before they roll for their attack.

2) You trip them before they attack you, they fail their reflex save and are sickened.

3) You take your free attack on them and succeed. They fail their reflex save and are now considered flat-footed until the end of YOUR next turn.

Now that they are damaged, prone, sickened, and flat-footed, they can finish resolving their attack against you at a -6.

You can get into all kinds of fun stuff later with Greater trip as well, gaining two attacks from a trip and allowing your allies to pitch in for one apiece if they threaten the enemy you topple. Trip can also be freely substituted in place of any attack, making it a great situational substitute for your first flurry attack (Trip, Attack of Opportunity, enemy is now prone + flatfooted for your remaining flurry / BAB attacks).


Right from the CRB too, thanks dragon.

Might be mixing in disarms and such later on, so it helps to know which rolls will have higher bonus to hit.


I have been wanting to try a character that utilizes tripping with Vicious Stomp and Greater Trip for a while, and I started playing a Brawler in Pathfinder Society with this build in mind. I hit 2 in a recent session, so I now have access to Brawler's Flurry. My feats so far are:

Bonus: Improved Unarmed Strike
Human: Dirty Fighting
1st: Improved Trip
2nd: Combat Reflexes

I'm set up to use Martial Flexibility to gain Vicious Stomp during combat now, but I'm not sure when the AoO from it would take place when I am flurrying. I want to trip as my first attack while flurrying to make sure I down my target and that they're prone for my later attacks, along with dropping their chance to hit or forcing them to stand and provoke strikes on their turn. This way if I miss the first trip I can also try again using the second flurry attack. If I flurry and get a successful trip to start, do I finish the full attack first and then take the AoO from vicious stomp, or does it happen in between my flurry attacks?

Would it be:

Trip vs CMD (flurry attack 1, -2 penalty to hit) - success
Attack vs AC -4 for prone (flurry attack 2, -2 penalty to hit)
Attack vs AC -4 for prone (AoO, full attack bonus)

Or would the AoO happen between the flurry attacks, forcing any later ones to resolve afterward? The AoO will not suffer the -2 penalty from brawler's flurry, so I want to make sure I add my rolls correctly.


Hoping to get some clarification on how Brawler's Martial Training feature would interact with a single level dip into the Flowing Monk archetype, specifically relating to the Redirection ability.

I can clearly see that I would not gain the features which evolve at certain levels of Flowing Monk (additional rounds sickened and extra triggers for Redirection). My question is, if I have levels in Brawler as well, do I get full uses of the basic Redirection per day with Brawler levels counting toward Monk levels (i.e. Flowing Monk 1/Brawler 5 getting 6 uses/day).

Martial training makes a point to call out Stunning Fist as an example where you get full uses per day as if your Brawler levels = Monk, Redirection replaces Stunning Fist from the base monk class, and includes the same language regarding granting one use a day per Monk level. However martial training RAW only mentions feats/items. I'd love for this to be a near enough case to qualify, but can't find discussion about it anywhere and would love some opinions/feedback from you all.