KuniUjito's page

Pathfinder 1.0 Core rulebook is 575 pages, you don't think they make something of similar size for the new edition?

Access to only one book and not a full book at that for a playtest can make a lot things feel kinda of samey.

The problem comes from the people who skip those sections to just read the one class or the one spell, trust me it happens. shudders...

KuniUjito wrote:

I'm just curious. what if you have three players that didn't roll above a 12 and one character that rolled 18's across the board? Do you just let that player dominate the game because he rolled well at character creation?

If that is what was agreed to ... yes.

The downside to being so much above the rest of the pack is that it has a really nasty habit of drawing unwanted attention from the opposition.

If nothing else, Darwinian survival will eventually result in characters largely at parity to each other.

OR

You assign the "uber ability scores" to the player with the least system mastery - many tables have at least one - whilst the more seasoned players take on the slightly-above-average folk as a challenge to be overcome.

Yes I agree, that's what a good Gm would do to help balance play. Kind of like a good game system will try to balance play among character creation so that everybody starts off on the same footing. To be fair I have only ever used point buy for character creation so I am baised in this.

KuniUjito wrote:

This is only for 1st level but Core Rulebook pg 15, 2nd column, 4th paragraph starting with Purchase. "No score can be reduced below 7 or raised above 18 using this method" might be what is being referred to.

If that is, indeed, what he was referring to, then it doesn't limit the character's beginning attributes ACROSS THE BOARD. It JUST limits what THAT PROCESS will allow. You can still roll your stats as you see fit and assign as you will, exceeding 18 or 20.

I'm just curious. what if you have three players that didn't roll above a 12 and one character that rolled 18's across the board? Do you just let that player dominate the game because he rolled well at character creation?

I honestly think it depends on the way you roll and my gamer's can't roll there way out of a paper bag. An extra two dice to them would be an extra two dice to roll 1's on. LOL

Mechalibur wrote:

In PF1, one could just have easily have claimed that was NO reason to restrict a 1st level character to stats of 20. Why not have +4 bonuses from races, or allow point buy to get you a 20 to start with, then go to 22 from racial bonuses?

There is no limit on ability scores in OG Pathfinder. If there is, would you please cite a page number?

THis is only for 1st level but Core Rulebook pg 15, 2nd column, 4th paragraph starting with Purchase. "No score can be reduced below 7 or raised above 18 using this method" might be what is being referred to.

Lets put this way... Sir Knito challenger Sir Commus to a duel...

Both level 9 paladins...

Duel start... rolls initiative...

Look at character sheet...

Sir Knito weapon is +3

Sir Commus weapon is still +2 cause the upgraded his armor also.

Sir Knitto wins and challenge the next owner of a still "unupgraded +2 weapon".

When we remove extremes and add close characters, the weapon upgrade become even more important. Your feats are equivalent, your stats may vary a little +1 here and there... but your weapon can be a full +dice that will add up to victory in the end after X hits.

Thats too much impact for a mere +1.

Now see that example makes way more sense. But if you have two characters exactly the same shouldn't the one with the superior gear win? And don't forget the math architecture behind this system is much tighter and is designed so that a +1 makes that kind of difference. It is designed to do exactly that. It may mean the your style of play won't mesh well with how the new system works, and that kinda sucks if that turns out to be true. I suspect my gamer's will not like the new system because it requires way more in dice rolling which they are terrible at. I mean TERRIBLE AT. I hope we both get what we want out of the new system.

RafaelBraga wrote:

Well, roll your stats them, of all the crappy rules of the playtest, that one is the easiest to solve and the option is even there on the book itself.

It's not just ability scores (though that is part of it). In any case, that doesn't do a thing- you're still limited to no higher than 18.

Also, I never once mentioned ability scores in my first post. If anything, the fact that it's the first thing everyone thinks of says quite a bit too....

Forget the fact you can't increase above 18 by level 1 normally anyway unless you're rolling. That would be... acceptable. I wouldn't like it, I wouldn't agree with it, but I would accept it.

Saying flat-out "you can never have an ability score above 18 at level 1" just feels like a slap in the face to players like me. There's a reason I don't play 5e, and stated hard caps is a very large part of that reason.

What in the playtest is the mechanic reason you need start with a stat higher than an 18? Just curious....

I was just trying to point out to RafaelBraga that his complaint about game balance has more to do with his gm's play style rather than the rule set we are seeing in the Playtest. I would be fascinated to see how that would actually pan out though considering that a paladin of that level would be a master in heavy armor and shields with the ability to heal herself. would the 4th level fighter be able to hit often enough to even make a difference in the overall fight? Especially considering the paladin would have over 140 HP and the fighter would probably only have 50ish HP.

The problem is not when the 3rd level paladin found an ancient holy avenger in some lost temple...

The problem is when a 14lv paladin is penalized for using a normal sword or even "just a +1 sword" cause some story relation and he perform even worse than a PF1 character in the same situation (wich is already bad).

The magic weapon dependancy grew exponentially in this ruleset... and i am very shocked that people that were complained of a +2 damage diferential on a rogue having or having not dex to damage are simple mute.

I guess people just have trouble with math when it is a variable number.

My question then becomes why hasn't the 14th level paladin purchased a magic weapon to wield? Even with tithing and giving to the poor he could still certainly afford one.

MMCJawa wrote:

There are a few gods here and there I would prefer a bit more lenient alignment changes, but if this stops all the really weird CN worshippers of vile demons, it might be worth it.

Is Golarion really a better setting if you remove Nocticula's CN worshipers? Clerics that focus in on a specific appeal of their deity's portfolio have long been an interesting wrinkle in this setting and I think getting rid of that goes a long way to ruining the setting.

The fact that none of the deities got an expanded list really shows Paizo's hand with this. I've already argued on behalf of Gorum, and sure, maybe James Jacobs' vision of the deity is a nearly evil jerk, but why does Nethys care what your alignment is? Why does Pharasma? Why does Asmodeus only accept Lawful Evil clerics, when it is absolutely within his wheelhouse to present himself as appealing to those who value order and stability over freedom (ergo, Lawful Neutral worshipers)? Never mind the fact that in PFS this kills the Dark Archive since it is now illegal to play in that system and worship any of the deities of Hell.

Roleplaying is such a quirky thing that varies greatly table to table. my friends and often don't even write down alignment because sometimes you just don't know until you start playing that character to get a feel for where you land on the spectrum. And considering how they have gotten rid of so many other alignment restrictions from other classes, well it could seem like an odd change. But I have have seen some very liberal cleric choices that I wouldn't allow in a game i run. Still it does make it easier for a GM to say hey if that's what you want to play even though its not quite what the rules allow, go ahead, rather than saying no you can't do that.

Hey man you must have to most liberal GM in the world to just float that stuff out there. Did they give the 3rd level paladin a holy avenger too? LOL

I was thinking to give it a try until...

Man... read the magic weapon enchament rules... YOU NEED a +1 weapon to even remain competitive... i couldnt believe when i first read... +4 weapons rolling 4 extra damage dice!!!

So, youre Str20 level 12 fighter, champion of your local arena... your damage is 1d10+5 (3d10+5 with power attack)... you come across a level 4 fighter wielding a +4 weapon... it does 5d10 BASE DAMAGE!

Huhauauaha... i cant imagine the reaction when the people that wanted to "abolish the mandatory six" read of it... its 4ed armor... but worse.

If it was +4d10 on a crit, i would be perfectly ok... showing how the weapon can deliever really fatal blows... but on ALL ATTACKS... man, this is beyond bad design to me :/

Why does a lvl 4 fighter have a legendary weapon? in order for it to be +4 to damage it has to be enchanted by a legendary enchanter and also has to be crafted as +4 to hit by a legendary crafter which is 65,000 silver plus 65,000 silver, so how did a 4th level character get such an item? That is bad adventure or treasure design not bad game design.

Thanks James, always nice to hear from the world builders.

Also leaving Tac in the base game allows for further expansion because they still haven't confirmed one way or the other what they are doing with firearms.

It will take me a while to absorb the document, my system mastery is not as high as some people.

I think it's genuinely A LOT easier to explain to new players - a lot of vets don't see that, because they've long since internalised all the complication & weirdness of the 3.5 chassis, to the point it's become invisible to them.
Also, it may be a bit premature, but I think the fighter is genuinely good out of the gate - probably should have 4+ Int skill ranks though.

There has been some rumors around a 4+ change as something they are looking at hard and strongly leaning towards.

RafaelBraga wrote:

I was thinking to give it a try until...

Man... read the magic weapon enchament rules... YOU NEED a +1 weapon to even remain competitive... i couldnt believe when i first read... +4 weapons rolling 4 extra damage dice!!!

So, youre Str20 level 12 fighter, champion of your local arena... your damage is 1d10+5 (3d10+5 with power attack)... you come across a level 4 fighter wielding a +4 weapon... it does 5d10 BASE DAMAGE!

Huhauauaha... i cant imagine the reaction when the people that wanted to "abolish the mandatory six" read of it... its 4ed armor... but worse.

If it was +4d10 on a crit, i would be perfectly ok... showing how the weapon can deliever really fatal blows... but on ALL ATTACKS... man, this is beyond bad design to me :/

Sure, when your example is of Unrealistic Fighter #1 vs. Unrealistic Fighter #2, then it might seem bad. But if you have to come up with such a bad example it might indicate that it's not the system that's problematic, but rather your preconceived notions.

So uh, what in your mind is the Fighters role in a party exactly?

The alignment restrictions for clerics of Gorum seem weird to me. CN or CE only.

Yes, he's the god of War and about smashing things, but there's also bits in his anathema about not being underhand and not killing prisoners out of hand. That comes across as more CG than CE (and there's information in the PF1 Planar Handbook that supports thatlore) but I'd prefer seeing all three alignments as options.

Just occured to me that CG warriors would probably gravitate more towards Caiden Caylien generally.

The alignment choices for all the gods feel more constrained than before. I believe this was a design choice to motivate roleplaying of clerics to be more diety based than before. Just my sense of how things feel. I mean ONLY LE for asmodeus? I know you could be LN or NE before. As I said I think the tightening up of alignment choices are there to help impress upon the roleplaying aspect of your choice of Deity

Spell Divine Decree, choose alignment, deal 7d6 to that alignment. Creatures of that alignment are unaffected. I believe it should be deal 7d6 to opposite that alignment.

Rapier deadly 1d8, but example for deadly trait then states master quality rapier deals 2d6 on crit. I imagine the example should say 2d8.

I'm uncertain as to how Dread Striker would hold up. PF1 Shatter defences allowed for flat-footed on any fear status with not unreasonable investment, but most importantly, the rogue (via the rake and scout archetypes) had a reasonably reliable way of inflicting said status on the first round. Dread Striker currently seems like half of a good option, without the part that actually gets it to work.

Brawler has a free intimidate linked one their strikes maybe rogues will have something similiar.

KuniUjito wrote:

Anybody got a tranquilizer? We might need to put cuttlefist down for nappy time

I’ll nappy when i’m Dead!

Lol

Anybody got a tranquilizer? We might need to put cuttlefist down for nappy time

Take cohorts away from leadership feat. I have six players 3 choose that feat. I suppose that is more than a papercut...

Darius Alazario wrote:

Replace "not in combat" with "in exploration mode" and TADA! you've converted to the PF2 method. It's just a new name for "not in combat"

Also one can now rewrite the magic item creation rules by replacing "If the caster is out adventuring..." with "in exploration mode..."

Don't forget downtime rules as well, wouldn't item creation fall more into that?

What if they strip back all the bonuses you normally got at first and distribute them over the levels?

I don't get why we need the different modes unless there's feats/abilities that clearly say "Active outside of combat" now.

I mean I don't see this as an improvement over what we have now.

Could just be for language precision, could be a setup for something else to be dropped in later.

A concern of mine...well not a concern more of a curiosity, with the AP's that I have played/run there is an ingrained sense of urgency in the adventures usually designed to keep the characters (or players) focused on the main plot. With downtime now being in the core rule set and therefore becoming more a part of the game as a whole I will be interested to see how they handle that change in the coming AP'S

Having run all the AP wouldn't you understand the underlying structure of such things to write your own? Half the GM 's in my group including myself write up our own adventure paths.

One of the DM's in our circle of gamers solved the problem by completely removing the spells from his game. Anything that is magical flight and anything that is magical invisibility do not exist in his Birthright campaign world. The rest of us just strategize fight sequences with dead magic zones or lots of dispel magical targeting flyers.

Meta magic. I give players that take meta magic feats a pool of their casting stat modifier that they can use on the fly perday to cast a spell with that feat. They still need to be able to legally cast that spell with the feat adjustment. So no quickened spells at first level even if they have +4 mod or higher. More people have used meta magics in my games that way, where without it they usually don't bother.