Lady Melo's page

199 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 199 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Does Wall of Thorns Take 1 minute to appear after casting and is then permanent or does it appear instantly and disappear after 1 minute and the first line of text in the description is incorrect?

Those are the two possible interpretations and that make the spell Wildly different, I feel like it is kind of important to know how this spell works. I would think there must be an official answer as this is not a Grey area kind of thing (It's only a 3rd level spell and there are officially run event games).

any other stuff falls in GM discretion easily, but If the spell takes 1 minute to start, or only lasts 1 minute has very different uses (though both are cool for different reasons).

Quick Question about Wall of Thorns (Link).

Namely this part

Pathfinder Core Rulebook pg.382 wrote:

Duration: 1 minute

Over the course of a minute, you cause a thick wall of thorny brambles to grow from the ground. You create a 5-foot-thick wall of brambles and thorns in a straight line...

As I read it the spell it's self lasts 1 minute and that minute is the wall of thorns growing. After that the wall is a permanent feature until destroyed. However it isn't completely clear and could have been intended to work as the other walls spells (except stone which doesn't have a duration).

Assuming it is how I read it, how would you rule it being partially there. Mechanically I think it has 0 effect until 10 rounds have passed, but it isn't implied that it's 9 rounds of harmless grass slowly growing which on the 10th it explodes in to a thorn wall.

On a re read of aid, It's actually pretty clear it goes off of performance. The exact line is...

If you’re a master with the check you attempted, the bonus is +3, and if you’re legendary, it’s +4.

Quick question. When you provide aid with inspire competence, you use perform for the aid check itself, but for the critical success effect do you gain the bonus based on perform rank or your proficiency in the skill your aiding?

Quick question. When you provide aid with inspire competence, you use perform for the aid xheck itself, but for the critical success effect do you gain the bonus based on perform rank or your proficiency in the skill your aiding?

11 people marked this as a favorite.

I would ask why not make errata?

I would prefer a game that works smoother and closer to the intent over the minor trouble of errata.

At a home game you can ignore it, change anything you want anyway, or make up your own fixes. If 1 player spots some errata while your ignoring them and mentioned it the GM either goes "We are not using that because (Reason here)" or "Oh sounds like a good fix, let's use that"

At convention/society play you already often need to reference a shifting set of additional rules and there strict adherence can make errata fairly important.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wonder if Warpriest could have worked going to master in simple weapons only. (Although I suppose you lose the whole Martial>Simple once you bump the die size on a simple weapon (such as deity one), and most ancestries give a really easy ways to make certain martial weapons in to simple weapons for proficiency, so in the end there are too many easy work arounds).

Perhaps a +1 bonus they lose if they become Master/Legendary (a sort of half step between Expert and Master).

Frogliacci wrote:
If Paizo does half-dragons for 2e, I sincerely hope they move away from the dragonborn/humanoid dragon appearance of WotC properties.

There is already one, as mentioned above, and it has the hybrid appearance.

Age of Ashes AP Spoiler:
There is a half Dragon Half Boggard as the boss in Cult of Cinders (the second book). "Belmazog"

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:

I would say magic has an actual high skill ceiling now and a high skill floor. For three editions that was the goal, but mostly amounted to people finding the most binary op spells and spamming them until something better came online.

Now tactics matter for magic. At least that’s how I’ve experienced it thus far. On paper, it looks like a nerf, but in reality it’s still strong.

Yeah after hearing how Wizards were trash tier now and fighters rock, I was plenty surprised how not true this was in play (Fighters still rock, but I don't think a party is better with another Fighter>Wizard as was argued). Maybe they need to actually think in combat now, and make use of knowledge skills (depending how much the GM let's them know), but a lot of creatures tend to still have a really bad save. Out of combat I still find them full of world altering utility. Given the GM Guide reveal on how they will be stating up NPCs (A Master Baker/Lawyer/Etc can still have a combat level of 1 but a Challenge Rating of 7+ for a Bake-off/Court challenge, as opposed to Lv. 7 Expert from 1e) Critical Failure and low level manipulation spells become still very valid (Charm/Illusions) as well.

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Not gonna lie I was reading this whole thing waiting for the "But..."

read the title as "Count me as unlikely to convert", set the whole tone different then expected.

There is always a certain feel you get from looking at the rules, that doesn't always capture when you dive in. I recall when D&D 4e came out I actually had the opinion a lot of people did summarized roughly by (incoherent screeching noises followed by exclamations of it not being D&D and having no depth or world feel). I now consider it one of my favorites of all time (However it is a different type of game, for different types of play).

Best advice is to not try to judge by the rules, understand them, understand why, and give them a shot with as little bias as humanly possible. They may have defined a new paradigm a new flow your not used to, try to go with that flow not against it just because it's different. After that if you don't like it well then it's not for you, but you can't define something new based on what it is not, only what it is.

I also had my doubts from the playtest, my Group hated the game from what the playtest showed and almost wasn't willing to play the final release, but we gave the final release a real shot and love it.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I have nothing to add or help out, but I just want to say I am in complete awe of the length and continuity displayed here. Despite This being my favorite hobby for over a decade all the way back to high school. I have sadly never played in or ran a game over ~15 sessions long, something no matter how random, always comes up.

Just chiming in, I find your play reports interesting. As also an anime inspired D&D 4e fan myself. (4e is my favorite game/edition though I do run many different styles/games (D&D 2e to 5e, PF1, Exalted, and a few others) and it isn't the best for all of them, I do dip in to the grittier side occasionally. I am currently looking in to making PF2e my new home with a couple of house rules. Honestly I struggle with finding the perfect system cause I have a love for both simulation-ism and anime-heroic fantasy, which are often at odds).

We only did the first session of the adventure so far but my party is also taking extreme passivism and friendship route. I have...

•Basically Teen idol Enigma Bard (knowledge and diplomacy focused) who is the daughter of the counsel president (father is an obvious open plot hook of a mysterious adventurer responsible for her MC:sorcerer bloodline)
•Her BFF Gnome Redeemer Champion, non-flickmace variety (MC alchemist and party crafter) with a large family which by pure luck is involved with half the relevant NPCs to this plot, her brother works with Calmont at the book store, sister works at the pickled ear and so on.
•There school friend a "spanish" elven fencer (open handed dex fighter)/ flamboyant performer / token ladies man in a all female party.
•and an ex-bandit (Human Universal Wizard) who turned in her family (the bandit group was run by them) when they were starting down a darker path and had just accepted a job to kill farmers for some merchant guilds to get there land for mysterious reasons (was okay with robbery, but not murder) who is hiding out in Breachill, also connections with Pickled ear and just barely dodge connections with Voz (was looking for a wizard mentor and it was a toss up between Voz and the half-orc library who I deemed more helpful but less skilled, she chose the one who seemed more easily "duped" if need be)

Fire Hazard
I struggled with the level of transparency for the Fire Hazard, I wasn't sure where it was supposed to fall so I gave mechanics to questions asked only, it was kinda hard to swallow how 40 people would fail to escape in an orderly town, so I at least comically played it up with the counsel being both heroically helpful (but still 1 person per turn) and equally embarrass suggesting many more fire drills are in order. The idea of structured non-combat is always cool, but the major reason combat works it's everyone knows the rules of combat before it starts.

Hellknight Hill
not many encounters here yet (we had lots of roleplaying time).
They peeked in the first room saw sleeping ratty dogs and decided not to bother them, they were correctly identified as Goblin dogs and since some of them know Warbal personally assumed they belong to the goblins they new lived here, and wanted to avoid hurting them, so they went through the locked door (which was oddly easy to open form the outside DC:15 thievery despite being tied shut and boarded up.

To my absolute surprise they managed to "befriend" Yoletcha (the bugbear) who I intended to run as written, purely murderous. However the manner in which they approached her gave them a chance to diplomacy her out of immediately hostile, so she tried to lure one away to just kill/torture/enjoy that one. I did my best to play as a creepy dangerous individual (she had dolls made of dead animals, constantly wanted the PCs things, was "shy" and wouldn't let all of them in the room to talk, rambled on about sharp cutting tools, tried to separate them, was constantly touching there hair with her greasy filthy furry fingers, she would snap and need another diplomacy to ease down if anything changed too suddenly) despite this they played it safe and had her show them to the goblins, she then got spooked by the dragon-gator and went back to her hut.

The Grualadon was slow and distracted, so the Elven fighter (with gladiatorial lore, acrobatics, athletics, performance, and double it's speed) decided to Bull Fight the thing to distract it so the party could sneak to the rope and climb up. At first he was disappointed it wouldn't work since round by round would fail to capture it so I ran it as a cinematic Action by Action event, they eventually made it to the top without fighting it (although they eventually decided it was too dangerous and spammed daze till it was knocked out).

Calmont ended briefly with a critical failure against a charm spell and a critical successful diplomacy, he is now happily following them back to town believed entirely they will plead his behalf to the counsel and then work with him to get to Alseta's ring (which isn't there real plan but he will happily walk back to town with them). (I need to work on my critical failure knowledge as well, as the party is operating under the assumption he was confused and under duress due to a Purple Broccoli allergy, know to be a rare side effect for halfings, which explains his rash and silly behavior).

The Power of Friendship!
Your party is a bit more extreme then mine but if you continue to run hell knight hill (despite being very non-standard) I am interested to see what kinds of routes a super friendly party will take. I know there isn't the slightest chance they will do anything to those Kobolds (especialy once they see the art, the "party leader" is an extreme fan of things that are derpy/ugly cute) and your "expansion" on Voz's notes honestly gave me some good ideas (Yes I do mean fantasizing about how super cool there "Norgorbite Assassin school for the Necromatically Gifted" will be, I think despite her dower outside demeanor she will be quite the whimsical and peppy in her dairy/journal, the party was already shocked after I had given her some RP time and then she made a pun about Calmont being "Fired" they might die when they see her notes).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Igor Horvat wrote:
orphias wrote:

Something I just noticed -

1 full waterskin is 1 bulk

1 weeks of rations if L (bulk) - my understanding is 10 x L (bulk) = 1 B
so... 1 bulk of rations = 70 days of rations ?

Bulk system just fails here LOL

Go back to imperial, at least that made sense !

If you count calories you burn about 3600 a day as and adventurer. At least.

That is 400 grams of fat. Pure fat. little less than 1 lb.

If you go with 1/3 fat, 1/3 carbs, 1/3 protein and add little Extra for some remaining water/fibers and packaging you get to around 1kg of food per day. Or little more than 2 lb food per day.

So it's 1kg(2 lb) of food per day when on adventuring and 0,5kg(1 lb) of food per day when full resting and doing nothing in town. Or secure camp.

I would say that 3 days of adventuring food is Worth 1 Bulk.

Considering survival rations would be less complete then proper modern rations with a good delivery system I would say you can cut those in half and have the person expected to burn body fat as part of there daily calories, with the intent to binge/feast when they return to civilization or when they find something large and edible (A common eating habit before modern ease). This is kind of supported by them being around 1 lb each for PF1e.

However I'm certain it's a mistake and is supposed to be 1 Bulk each week. Since Starfinder uses the exact same bulk system and there rations are sci-fantasy dense nutrient bars and are 1 B/week.

Mostly I'm interested it..

NPC creation guidelines

Kingdom/Stronghold downtime rules

Expanded Downtime rules/options

Adjusting the +Level part of the formula (no level, 1/2 level, 1/4 level) and if there is information on how it effects rules/balance/encounter design and any effects it might have on world building in general.

Maybe a brief overview of what kinds of optional rules / variant rules will be included (even if not in detail).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:

There are some things I would like to handle in a by-the-book fashion. The wilderness exploration hexcrawl is one of them; I would like to keep accurate track of the passage of days during this hexcrawl, and precisely how long it takes for them to move, particularly when the adventure stipulates that there are four separate patrols each trying to track down the PCs.

The adventure stipulates one thing, and refers the GM to the core rulebook for more detail. However, the adventure's listed travel speeds contradict what the core rulebook would actually allow. Given that, again, the book is referring the GM to the core rulebook's exploration mode rules, I do not know what the adventure book's actual intent for travel speed is.

Again it's fairly obvious the adventure's expectations revolve around the day count directly reference within it's self, and not the rules it got wrong referenced in the core rulebook (for w/e reason) either half all distances, or say it's not thick enough for difficult terrain and be done with it.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The adventure describes the way it was intended most likely in terms of days, with either an error in simple math or minor design mistake or confusion (I herd mention parts of the book was being written while the rulebook wa). So if need be I would just drop the hexes down to 5 mile hexes.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

4) We do have a fair bit of 4e. An easy example are 10 min spells which are encounter powers, EXCEPT they come with tactical choices. Cast before a fight and get it for 1 fight (assuming you find one in a reasonable amount of time), cast mid fight and you can get it to last 2 fights if your willing to go into the second fight at less than max HP. These sort of strategic choices were missing from 4e.

Well the 4e part isn't exactly true, it was very explicit any power that lasted till end of encounter lasted 5 minutes or until short rest, same with sustainable powers (pg.278 4e PHB, pg. 41 4e DMG if curious) which I had on many occasions occur with powerful dailies, effects, or items (I have yet to see if the same will happen with PF2e as we are still just starting). A dynamic I'm very happy with however.(I feel like high level heroism spells may eventually cause this if nothing else).

I have also yet to see how much PF2e will expect a 10 minute rest, or an hour (Treat wounds delay timer) rest to heal up (or more how the players will handle it, but they are familiar with 4e and 5e). Though I am curious if PF2e GMG will have encounter guidelines for difficulty adjust w/o short rests between as 4e/5e does, since the weight of the need for a short rest seems like it can vary much heavier depending on your group in PF2e then for example 4e were everyone was using encounter powers.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:

That right there is the issue. It's a poor design philosophy that sucks the fun out of gameplay. Manipulating your chance of success to 90+% for specialties is the most enjoyable way to play. Failing constantly is no fun at all.

Your point kinda fails right there once you tell other people that there way of fun is wrong, it's pretty much the iconic faulty argument of Roleplaying game discussions, See "Bad Wrong Fun". What you might mean to say is that is what is fun for you, which I do as well personally enjoy being able to make a character with notable superiority in an area of expertise at a cost, how much is up for debate.

I feel a good balance on this matter is for someone exceptionally skilled and focused to be rolling the die mostly for chance at critical or basic success to comparable world tasks

However a lot of people seem to be discounting the world as a world. The DCs should not always match your level. When the DC by level chart is used, it means your opposing an obstacle of comparable level, ability, and skill so naturally you should have a challenging time making that check whoever made that obstacle is of comparable skill, if they are not you should be using a lower DC. (In cases when it's a naturally existing obstacle the DC should be what is considering appropriate for the challenge, regardless of what level the PCs or monsters nearby they are stabbing happen to be.)

Mary Yamato wrote:

...It's very heavily slanted to a highly cinematic, world-as-stage-set style in which I have no interest. The lack of coherent rules for what NPCs can do makes the kinds of games I like to run impossible.

am a GM who writes adventures; not for publication, but I've been writing adventures since the Blue Book (first release of D&D) sometime in the 1970's. It's just not a universal truth that all of us have been yearning to run a gameworld where the NPCs are basically props and their abilities change at whim to support storytelling.

Davido1000 wrote:

I'd say that's a little over dramatic a reaction to an answer im not fond of myself, a lictor or reasonably leveled signifer should very much be able to do anything a level 2-3 pc can do and more. I can understand for the sake of combat that pcs and npcs could pull some tricks the other cant but having a high level npc not able to make an arcana check that a level 2-3 PC can as a plot point seems very wonky.

I just wrote it up as they had a look at it, saw that it was completely inert and wasnt willing to spend the resources into figuring out ancient elven magics.

While I do sympathize with the loss of tight simulation detail on NPCs, monsters/villains not being built by what appears to be logical rules. However They always were just manipulated for the numbers of the game, custom feats, spells, innate abilities, and magic items can be slapped on to make them work how you want. Now those things can be less defined without all the hoops of making those adjustment features that help a encounter/scene/plot point without constant worry of how it effects the entire balance of the game to introduce it as PC options.

Despite all the solid reasons to the change in focus I do still kinda feel it's lose. (and really only D&D 3rd followed those rules, gaming since the 70s means they should have started in a time when just making stuff up was standard).

However I find it just simply becomes more up to the GM to decide they want to tell a game/story with the same level of worldly consistence as you desire. (And really it always has).

However with all that said, it's over 10,000 year old portal, that survived an apocalyptic, terrain altering event who knows where the keys are? if the keys are still around, or if the portals were even still viable (end points could all be buried death traps). I don't see a reason why the hellknights wouldn't find it useless even if they discovered it's true purpose. (Also I think it was super dead/inactive/no lingering magic until it was reactivated and used by the Cultists)

Donovan Du Bois wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
Not in the same way, no. There's a bunch of granularity missing when you can prepare one spell that's good in all sorts of situations, and fall back onto using it all the time if your other prepared spells don't come up.

Which is somehow worse than being useless because you didn't metagame and prepare only the spells you would need for the scenario you are running. I just don't see how that is better for players or the GM.

Your missing the part were failing is fun for some people. It's not always about just being awesome and winning (which is cool too depending on the story you are telling.) It's about having a magic system that is intentionally more punishing and complex then good quick fun game design, because in setting "Magic is hard". Some people enjoy stories of difficulty or sand box styles about the life of an adventurer, as opposed to other styles (neither of which is better it's just a preference, which can even change with mood).

Does this make it the right pick? Depends on there target audience. Obviously more complexity is pretty much PF2e's selling point over D&D 5e's keep it simple, quick, light, and fun design so odds are you won't win over sales by playing in to 5e's strengths.

Ultimately I play many versions of games (D&D 4e/5e, PF2e, Exalted, and some others occasionally). If I want detailed prepared focused game-play (heavy equipment tracking, preparation, survival, attrition) I will play PF2e, if it wasn't heavy on that I'm not sure I would play it over the other options (hard to say for sure, since it would still be very different game in a whole new direction).

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I will make dying harder than the basic rules, and resurrection basically impossible.

This, is how I have house ruled every game I have ran in the past 15ish years from D&D 3rd/4th/5th PF 1e/2e (already included it), and every non-d20 game that allows Resurrection (very rare outside of D&D). I expand the dying rules to be difficult enough that it is very unlikely and create "roleplaying" defeats instead (hostage, random, kidnapped, interrogated, failed to save/stop X, the bad guy got X instead of you, the monster dragged you back to it's lair, the stuff you see in fiction novels, movies, games, anime). However I always leave death as a possibility (not a fan of the house rules that straight up allow players to decide they must survive any scene) collapsed burning build, falling out of a flying castle, taken down by a horde of hungry ghouls/zombies, or bad guys who have 100% reason to kill you on the spot still exist.

Often at the point the game would normally give death to the player, is when i would provide them with a lasting injury that requires downtime/plot to heal, often resulting in having to push through or suffering defeat at the current plot point.

Resurrection is always mythical maybe true thing maybe just empty hopes, whose experimentation often leads to undead/failure/abominations or torturous existence with a semblance of life as a result of partial success. Or a major plot point of the game rarely for the PCs themselves (but it has happened).

Except once, in which i fully embraced it's extreme availability as a setting defining feature in which the rich make use of it all the time with the main plot revolving around it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I plan to look in to Calculating Will saves using charisma, as a source of personal strength, identity, and ego to shrug off some effects, and change some existing will saves to perception saves which seems to now cover insight/sense motive type actions (Currently it's looking like just Illusions will become perception saves, though a few others may as well).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Frogliacci wrote:
Mellored wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I've always found the whole concept of "I prepare two castings of cure light wounds and one of sanctuary" a weird thing anyhow, so yes. It's pretty deeply ingrained though.

I agree that "I memories the same spells twice, and forget it after I cast" has always seem really odd to me.

But, "I prepare 2 scrolls/potions/wands/runes of healing" works just fine for me. And it keeps the things I like about Vancian. Mainly you need forethought, and you don't spam the same ability repeatedly.

Mana systems tend to end up with 1 or 2 spells being cast repeatedly. Unless you add some kind of cool down or something like that, which can be a lot to keep track of.

That's how I rule Vancian as well. Wizards write temporary scrolls, witches make one-use fetishes, druids asks spirits to imbue power into berries and branches and bits of fur. It's not about casting and forgetting, it's about expending the power held by objects that takes a 10-minute ritual each to charge.

It has never been about memorizing as in the idea of learning and forgetting, that is the lingo (often in setting) that is used wizards to mean casting a spell and storing it's pattern in your mind, and magic in your very essence, to be released later.

Spells are long and complex, they take more then 6 seconds to perform, so you cast these minute long endeavor at the start of the day and store that magic inside of you "Memorizing" all the different spells you have prepared. You don't forget the spell, you expend it. (Which been the in world setting explanation for over 3 years of D&D) I think the original source "Vance" novels literally had the spells ripped form you mind and forgotten making magic a terrible experience, but that is a whole different setting (and they certainly didn't case dozens of spells a day).

There is also the fact that a lot of Pathfinder fans come from D&D roots leaving after 3rd and actually have Vancian casting a thing in there world and settings. The mythology that magic is far more complex then a handful of seconds of gestures and words and each individual spell take a long time to cast and store for later. Usually from players that started in first or second edition were each prepared spell takes 15/10 minutes (1st/2nd) per spell level to prepare and store (memorize, which was never the best word for what was happening).

I have played a few 3rd edition games (and pathfinder 1e) were it took old school times to prepare a spell as the preferred method. (or even 1 hour per spell level, with spells being 100 pages long per level, really doubling down on wizard towers/libraries).

From a world building view it changes a lot, makes spell slots closer to an adventure long resources as opposed to a daily one, reinforced why few wizards would adventure, few clerics leave there temple, why magic is rare and has not overrun society.

Don't get me wrong, it's not the best system for everyone. I love many different systems (D&D 4e as well as that retro style above, and even non-d20 things), I also enjoy settings from Eberron to Conan-esque in there magical approach.

The point being 5e already has the ease of use and simplicity as well as mass appeal (Simply by being D&D). So ultimately I don't think they should have gone the route of copying them and instead think the style of casting we got fits the setting style they were aiming for. Casting spells is inherently more complex and suffers many disadvantages from ease of play point of view that gives it just the right feel IMO.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It wouldn't work exactly that simply, for example here is the level and DC list for Locks in the CRB, and what happens when you take Level out.

Name: `Poor` `Simple` `Average` `Good` `Superior`
Level: `0` `1` `3` `9` `17`
Base DC: `15` `20` `25` `30` `40`
Flat DC: `15` `19` `22` `21` `23`

I mean... 4th edition came from the designers of third edition seeing what they though was unnecessary/clunky or could be streamlined about 3rd edition, Pathfinder is based on 3rd edition, pathfinder 2e is based on what they designers thought was unnecessary/clunky or could be streamlined about Pathfinder 1e. They both grew from D&D 3e so... similarities are expected. There is still more massive differences but you can see some similar design considerations that took place in some areas.

As a big 4th edition fan, I can say it's honestly not that similar.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Neo2151 wrote:
Strill wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:

This is actually starting to point out why class (im)balance made a ton of sense, and "fixing" it doesn't make much sense at all.

Anyone (literally anyone) can become a "Fighter." PC, NPC, doesn't matter. It's an open book for anyone who can pick up a weapon.
But look at how much defense is being given to Mages needing to be extra before they can even start?
Yet, in outcomes, they should be similar?

Not everyone can be a "fighter". A "fighter" is not just any old joe who picks up a sword. A "fighter" is a hero on the path to matching the likes of Achilles, Cu Chulainn, Jason, or Bellerophon. An NPC can train for combat, but that doesn't mean they're going to match a player character, no matter how hard they try.

Eeh, hard disagree.

The Fighter will never match up to those legendary folks because a) the mechanics don't support the kind of feats they are capable of, and/or b) because they became what they were through being much much more than just a Fighter (divine blood, magic, etc.)

Just look what a 10th level or higher fighter (and all PCs) can actually do by the rules (and of course with skill feats, as skills are part of class progression, NPC Warriors even at Lv.10 won't have titan wrestler or cat's fall). A 10th level fighter is literally capable of out wrestling multi-ton dinosaurs, falling 50 feet without a scratch, survive 100 days without food, and slap magic laser beams back at people with there shield.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:

Ya, man, channel those bandages through your glaive. What nonsense.

Right or no, any table where that crap happens isnt worth playing at. Frankly, Im curious what kinda DM would bend to such rules abuse.

Of course, I see it now, we must treat Battle Medicine as this carefully choreographed, mystical healing technique or some special thing we can somehow throw at folks without our hands. Clearly that is what "You can patch up yourself or an adjacent ally, even in combat" means.

You have read the rules right? this game is a game where every character can do things beyond human skill/speed/physics of our world even "non-magical" ones, as the natural and supernatural are all in one as an extension of skill beyond comprehension. Just cause you can't imagine a situation your willing to accept, or lack the creativity to fill in the gaps that align with the rules and the setting doesn't mean you should push your weird agenda on people legitimately asking how something works. How you want to run it your game is fine, it's your game, but coming here and attempting to mock people who can accept how the game works is pretty low.

Vlorax wrote:
I ran it from the book with no changes and it's been going well so far. Only thing my PC's did that I had to accommodate was they wanted to go to the bookstore to get more info on Calmont after the fire.

Oh in no way did I mean to say anything had to change, the book as written is indeed good, I don't foresee any flaws that wouldn't naturally come up with a written adventure VS actual play (PCs always have a chance to change things in unexpected ways, that is whats cool about this kinds of games). However there are some things that would pad out the feel for how my group likes to play that amount to nothing more then just some extra flavor and interactions.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
olliebird wrote:

I've done a few re-writes myself to get past some of the plot holes discussed earlier here.

{Long list of good ideas}...

People have posted so many variant tweaks to the opening of this game. Mine begins next weekend and I'm feeling inspire by a few of them, I also felt the opening needed just a few tweaks to grease the gears (and as a small side effect of the connections some PCs have made in town based on the PC guide)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

While it's true it's unlikely to come up in most games, it could have been squeezed in the "Starvation and Thirst" section on page 500 for completions sake.

In fact i think you could cover it by adding 7 words. Adjust the title to "Starvation, Thirst, and Deprivation" and then in the last sentence after the words "without food" add in "or sleep". Then at the very end "or sleeps as needed".

You could most likely write it better as well, but those couple of words might not even adjust the formatting lol.

Also yes at 200 HP you can go 200 days without food (which still might not kill you as you as written, just leave you in a coma needing to be stabilized forever, but close enough).

Both the activities in the title typically require multiple successes to complete.

My question is what resets these successes.

Do they need to be consecutive? Does a critical failure and a tool swap reset them?

If the key is used to open/close the lock that surely does, but is it more of the device (trap?) needing to be repaired?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashanderai wrote:
A conversion book for Starfinder or Starfinder 2E - I love the new game engine and want to see it adapted to fit Starfinder or have Starfinder fit it. Either way, I want to see Starfinder get rid of its version of archetypes, leveled weapons and use a 2E version of those as well as 2E's style of core game mechanics (critical success, success, failure, critical failure), ancestry, and class structure . I would rather see plasma, laser, ion and other weapon descriptors become weapons traits than have leveled weapons. Power and damage levels could rise with character level instead of weapon level.

I would fully get behind this, I could be wrong on how the designers feel (maybe they think Starfinders current style fits the setting best.) However I find Starfinder in a really wierd spot right now and would love it to move to 2e.

Does that level 20 feat give a 10th level spell ad a focus spell? I know its level 20 but thats insanly over powered. Wizard can do similar with a restricted 4th level spell. A sorcerer does it much faster 1/min with 5th level spells.

10th level spells include Wish/Miracle which can cast any 9th level or under spell

1 person marked this as a favorite.

More utility alchemy items.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:

Adding rival adventuring groups can be a fun way to invoke a sense of competition into the game. We've done this plot a few times before—most recently in Mummy's Mask—but it's a plot that works best when that competition is a significant point of the adventure (or Adventure Path) as a whole.

For Hellknight Hill, which is going to be a LOT of people's first Paizo Adventure Path, we didn't want to overcomplicate the story with forcing the GM to run a bunch of complex recurring adventurer competitors to the plotline, and a competing adventuring group isn't really something that fits in well with the story.

Having the PCs all come together as several different adventures is certainly a great way to have your cake and eat it too—in this case, the multiple adventurers who attend don't end up competing, but end up comprising the latest group to come out of Breachill.

That is a good point I had not considered. Actually the number of people checking out PF2e that I know that never played PF1 or D&D3e is pretty surprising. Lots of people who started on D&D5e who are looking for something with a little more complexity and depth. Our group has been playing since High School 10+ years between D&D3/4/5 and PF1. It didn't even occur to me this is the first book of a new edition, as opposed to just the next adventure path that happens to use a new rule set.

I was mostly going to add a few extras not in competition, but simply because the adventurer element of the town is played up so strongly it felt a little light without a few others showing up. I was considering spending another more experienced group to Guardian's Way about sightings of a spider monster or something along those lines (a team that happens to include a gnome, Which Balka has snacked on).

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mechalibur wrote:

Are there any other "heroes" at the town meeting? Do they all just run off when the building catches on fire? If the whole town is built around hiring adventurers, there should be some other groups that show up, I imagine.

It could be kind of fun to present a red herring adventure that the players might think is intended for them, but have the council decide on hiring a more experienced group instead. The other adventurers go off to the tavern to celebrate, Warble then presents her case, and the fire happens.

Yeah the adventure just says the PCs are the only ones that show up, but that does seem unlikely/silly. I was going to have others who showed but were less heroic then the main PCs and didn't step up when the fire broke out. (This makes the bold assumption my PCs will brave the fire) I do like the idea of sending other heroes off.

Is there any limit to the number of Bandoleirs you can make use of. I realize there is a Claus about limitations based on what the GM feels is reasonable (for all items). However I'm curious if your intended to only be able to make use of one of this nice quick access spots (since it mentions putting on your chest, not sure if it's the same as a Worn item slot, or if those are exclusive to magic items.) Or if you can go full on Adventurer and have a dozen, belts pockets, and straps of quickly accessible goodies.

Cellion wrote:
  • Calmont wants to go to the Citadel to locate Alseta's Ring and sell info to whoever will buy it. He doesn't want anyone to beat him to this discovery, especially not any pesky PCs. But somehow he reasons that he should first set fire to the town hall, which paints a target on his head and ENSURES that people will go to Hellknight Hill to bring him to justice.

  • Calmont wants to know from the goblins how to get downstairs, but in Helba's own words "We would have told him how to get downstairs, but he grabbed me too fast and started screaming, and waving that knife, and we couldn't get a word in edgewise". Calmont is presented as so crazy that he can't even let his prisoners submit to his demands.
  • I'm curious what your general ideas are to make him a bit more interesting. While it's not like it isn't realistic to meet people who are absolutely incompetent and from the outside appear like there ideas are almost intentional self sabotage (I have met a few irl). I am going to be starting this adventure in a week or two and am curious how you might spice up the opening a bit.

    So it seems like the rules actually cover many other actions pretty well, but do to an oddity in the formatting for Bespell Weapon it's not actually blocked by the rules. I personally don't mind it being used in a way that can grant +1d6 for a whole round as it's still fairly hard to make use of, though personally I'd prefer (or it feels better) if it had a little bit of scaling and only applied to the next attack. There is a bit of jankiness to optimizing it to last for the whole next round as written.

    Edge93 wrote:
    As a general rule a "last action you took" thing has to be on the same turn. Otherwise you could Cheese Metamagic in a similar way too.

    That would be the bit i was missing. Would you happen to have a page for that.

    At first read I got the impression you cast a spell, spend the free action, gain the bonus damage for an attack. However after one of players read it they were thinking of using it as if they ended there last turn with a fireball, next turn they could use it and fire 3 times dealing +1d6 damage each shot.

    At first I figured this didn't work but after re-reading it I'm not sure how it was intended to function.

    1. The limitations of free actions being used as reactions is that they have a trigger. Bespell weapon only has a Requirement not a trigger.

    2. They do meet the requirement as the last action they took was the fireball that ended there turn. Even if that was last turn (there is no call outs to the last action taken this turn).

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    sherlock1701 wrote:
    There is no basis for it in reality

    It is unrealistic it takes an action to grab my weapon before I leap 30 feet in the air and slash a magical 1 ton spell casting, shape shifting, lightning breathing, talking pseudo lizard.

    Joking aside, I think it also does not take 2 seconds no more then a sword swing takes a whole 2 seconds, Actions are not units of time, but units of opportunity in a dynamic landscape of actions. After all even though turns are being taken, they all happening "at the same time" and it's even implied you might be performing other non impactful movements during this time as well.

    Frogliacci wrote:
    Lady Melo wrote:
    From everything said the issue with spontaneous has nothing to do with power and everything to do with having so many options slowing down the game, in testing it was at higher levels deemed to simply be too many options. (I don't agree as every player is going to have completely different thresholds on that, but it is what it is.)

    I have a hard time believing that, since I've played/GM'd a lot of D&D5e where all casters can spontaneously heighten and undercast. Even at level 15+ the option to cast at any level was never an issue, because you're not mathing out the effect of each slot at the table. The spell just tells you what to roll for what level slot, rather than adding/subtracting/multiplying a whole bunch of modifiers like how some PF1e extra options work. Kineticist suffered from that kind of game slowdown due to the way its options work. A slot based caster shouldn't.

    So if players are having a hard time figuring out how to cast from a different slot level, the problem sounds like a formatting issue rather than an undercasting issue.

    Well for one you read and responded to something different then what I actually said. No one said it was too hard or to complicated to figure out at all. It's that players were taking too long deciding what spell to cast given so many options. Nothing to do with figuring anything out or formatting, obviously not an issue seeing as signature spells still exist.

    I have played plenty of 5e and have no personal trouble at all. However there is nothing to have a hard time believing, that is exactly what the Dev's said and why they made the choice they did, based on there testing. If you don't have an issue with it, congratulations like many highly invested fans your more skilled/focused then the average player, but the game and it's choices are still based around your average player (and PFS games), since as a home game you could effortlessly tweak it.

    Also you still didn't explain which version of under-casting you mean. If you learn 5th level fireball you can cast the 4th and 3rd versions? Or if you know 3rd Level fireball you can spend a 4th or higher slot to cast them as if a 3rd level.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    From everything said the issue with spontaneous has nothing to do with power and everything to do with having so many options slowing down the game, in testing it was at higher levels deemed to simply be too many options. (I don't agree as every player is going to have completely different thresholds on that, but it is what it is.)

    Unless you are referring to using a 4th level spell slot to cast a second level spell at no benefit? (It's been argued that might be possible, as the ruling is vague).

    However I read under cast as I know Fireball 5th level, I can cast it as Fireball 4th and Fireball 3rd with the correct slot. So you would need to be more clear.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    thorin001 wrote:
    Kyrone wrote:

    Imperial Sorcerer laughing because they have at least expert in ALL the skills.

    Remember that DC's depends of the task, climbing a tree with low branches will always be DC10, doesn't matter if you are lvl 1 or lvl 20 for that per example.

    Not how it will turn out in practice. They said that in the playtest, but all DCs automatically scaled. If you are climbing a tree a 20th level it will be a 20th level tree.

    IF it was a 20th level tree (which Would likely be some kind of long thin beyond rubber bending spaghetti limbed splintering sharper then metal razor barked, gushing with super lubricating sap covered hellish monstrosity most humans would consider by all physical laws of nature impossible to climb) as described in both the core rulebook and the playtest. On the other hand if it's a nice normal thick well shaped tree it might be Lv. 1 or 2, regardless of your character level.

    While I am a big fan of PC-NPC symmetry cause I like my game with a touch of simulation fantasy. Ultimately the NPCs in PF1 already have w/e stats they needed it was just hidden, you can give them feats (or custom feats), manipulate ability scores/HD, grant "racial bonus" or unique traits/passives/exceptional or supernatural ability and so on to make the numbers work out. Not only was this fairly noticeable eventually but the designers explicitly said this is how they designed them anyway. Now much less effort is needed to BS/fanangle the right numbers you just pick them. (Though it was still fun from a world point of view for me to see "why" the monster had it's numbers) I agree it's not that important.

    By Core from what I can tell Sorcerer Dedication only gives 1 spell with 1 slot, which I found to be a bit too limiting compared to prepared casters multi-class. You would not even have the advantage of heightening the sorcerer spells so until you can take breadth feat you are at a strict disadvantage and only a mild advantage much later with the breadth feat.

    I have house ruled sorcerer dedication to give the bloodline spell + a spell of your choice (still only a single cast though). At least then at all times you an chose between the 2, and a bit more of the bloodline flavor comes through.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Quandary wrote:

    I was also confused/not immediately understanding that pool is not infinitely refreshable up to full, but I actually very much like that dynamic... As Xenocrat says, baseline is really 1/encounter BUT extra points allow surging when needed, just not automatic spam everytime. And additional refresh methods allow refreshing to allow further surges. Of course, at higher levels you can refresh more so 2 or 3 focus points/encounter can become norm. It's really a nice system.

    Why cap the pool at 3? Because if it was 10, then you could do the same surge 5 encounters/ day.
    I mean, Focus spells are often 1 action, yet are often quite good, so you could be casting 3 top tier spells/round.
    I can understand why the confusion, when people expect point pool to work like vanilla ammo magazine, but it's deeper dynamic than that.

    If the cap was 10, good luck getting there anyway. However if you did your entire investment is a focus pool character. I would honestly like to see actual gameplay comparing if it would even be an issue considering what you lost to get that high.

    1 to 50 of 199 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>