There is a turn based mod? I guess I am being really dense but how big a change does that actually make? Are there other games that are turn based as a comparative point?
I am glad I was not the only one thinking this. Especially the feat section . That entire section is pretty much PF1 complaints
Honestly it is a mark of this community that so many people are indulging the OP
The way I can see it is the OP has come in and complained and denigrated about almost every underlying aspect of the d20 system that people on here love
On top of that has demonstrated an utter unwillingness to learn anything about the game (I have 1.5 job and family comment + the combat section demonstrating that they didn’t bother to learn the feats that their fighter could do). Almost no one plays this game full time. And very early on most GMs modify as written content
All whilst claiming the whole group have PHDs as if that means something? Is the suggestion “this game isn’t good enough for well educated people because it is too boring and limiting” or something like that. Maybe it is because I am messaging at a bad time but I find the whole thing quite insulting
And that is not mentioning the well trodden point from above about the OP wanting two different things from the same game without awareness that they clash and a compromise is needed . 100% Delivery of one of the aims would lead to non delivery of the other
And on top of all this the post doesn’t seem to have a reason on top of berating the game whilst trying to sound clever at the same time. It is quite frustrating and I am not sure why it is even necessary
My stance comes from GMing a game where I allowed (in theory) everything except 3PP and gunslingers .
My PCs are far too powerful for the AP and there have been numerous instance where racial or deity specific spells have been picked because d20pfsrd was the source and not AoN and I have then had to have a long winded discussion as to why the options aren’t allowed
Add on arguments over non core rules (not options) like underwater variant rules and retraining which have been thrown at me with “well it is a published PF rule...”
It is a road to madness and I am glad to see a system that seeks to get it under some degree of control
Coming from a forever GM there is no confidence in the player for a very good reason
Players are presented as whiners because, unfortunately, in the majority of cases they are . The complaints about restrictions are nearly always about “their” fun
An example is a player who dug out Blood Money the other day. I said no because it seems quite obscure. He was also already talking about “it’s great there is no downside because I don’t need strength and can easily heal it back anyway”
He, predictably, said “I found it online on the spell list”
I had to tell him it was a spell only known (in published material) by the BBEG of an entire AP before I could get any concession
An extreme example? Maybe. But picture that over and over again with region specific options, racial spells , deity specific spells etc.
A quick read of the boards and reddit and anywhere (plus my own personal experience) is that the vast majority of players have a supreme sense of entitlement and the person running the game and the story often has to allow this especially if the other players join in
The GM is considered to be trusted with this decision because they have been trusted with running the game . As has already been mentioned if you don’t trust your GM in this way then that is a different conversation - but not one directly related to this particular issue
How have you come up with the numbers for the NPCs? Have you used the new guide? Because their stats are all amazing especially Ameiko
They put the PCs to shame quite significantly
I think key ally NPCs should use player rules but the enemy combatant ones should use the recent guide / align with bestiary to match the challenge requirement
I don’t think Ven should be built to a CR2 threat since he never really was in the original. His AC, saves and attack was all very poor for a CR2 in 1E. I can only assume his original CR2 was assuming a one on one fight , potentially with an unarmored PC (although unlikely) with enough HP that he might have got a lucky crit in and dropped a low level PC
Your build would be a fairly tricky challenge for a level 1 party altogether which I don’t think is the point of the encounter
That damage output seems out of proportion for a shop keeper even under the new standards . But that is just me
Oh wow thank you
It is something that immediately jumped to mind when I was reading the document. And was something I knew was possible in excel but beyond my abilities
Weirdly I might have tried to teach myself how to do it this weekend if something hadn't materialised! But it has and I am delighted
It looks very good from what I have seen so far. Super useful
I hope someone can make an excel monster creation sheet whee you can add the the level and then pick from drop down boxes for all the other areas to give the guidance (and then boxes to allow for tailoring final output)
I don’t think my excel skills are up to it !
The concerns of high level characters being much stronger than lower level enemies seems like it will be addressed by the variant system of removing level to proficiency that will be in the GMG
So my understanding is that a level 20 character will not get +20 AC making standard soldier able to hit them.
As to “E10” - wasn’t the conceit of Epic 6 that you stopped progressing in everything
This system seems rather complex in allowing abilities to carry on increasing even past 10 and somewhat missing the point of what the “E” system was always trying to achieve
A true E10 (or 6 or 8) system would just be like it used to be where you can carry on gaining feats but nothing else . This seems like it would work well in 2E as feats are the cornerstone of the system and within about a year there will be loads of them
And you already have people saying they don’t get enough and wanting to pick all the options (most notably if you wish to recreate all the abilities of something like a 1E Druid)
This system is treading a middle ground that doesn’t seem necessary to tread down (in my view)
The 1E troop rules had a similar problem where a crit on a single enchanted sword could sometimes deal more than half of the HP of the troop . So you can be in a position of saying 2 or 3 sword swings had scattered 20+ guys
No they haven’t not formally
The high level advise is find a similar monster of a similar level and use their defensive and offensive bonuses and the reskin - adding unique abilities as required - perhaps by using other stat blocks as ideas
For example a yeth hound would be a hell hound with the fire breath weapon replaced by bay (using the owlear ability as a base point). You can remove some HP and add some resistances and also give it fly in exchange for probably reducing something else
It is also worth checking what sort of abilities playtest versions that didn’t make it had and then bumping them up to align with similar level monsters
The same idea applies to NPCs it seems. If you look at say a third level “unique” humanoid enemy they will have very similar attack, HP, ac and saves to the average of the level (I am going off the first named unique villain of Fall of Plaguestone)
DM Livgin wrote:
Ah I missed the “than expected” part. Now you mention it I have been caught out by that a few times thinking that things aren’t going to be much of a block. And then a couple of bad rolls and they are still hanging around! Advanced host devils in the temple raid were the most recent example of that !
I was wondering if anyone had any alternate volume titles for this AP?
The reason is that my group are playing through a different AP right now where they have had several dust ups with the skinsaw cult
There was even a brilliant exchange where one said “I think we are finally done with these guys” and another said “I don’t think so, we will probably be playing a different campaign in 4 years time and they will show up again”
I had to control my face as it is already pretty decided that we are playing Runelords next
I have the anniversary edition so the titles aren’t on the front cover . What could I call volume 2 instead by way of hiding the reveal ?
And as a general thought exercise are there any other alternate titles for the other volumes? Book 1 could be “The Mark of Lamashtu” or something?
Roonfizzle Garnackle wrote:
Haha thanks for that. I did mention the goblin squash stables in my frustration - both the name and the ear thing!
Still some way off yet - haven’t started book 5 of current AP
DM Livgin wrote:
Lantern of invisibility is such an awesomely powerful item that was included as treasure. And I am sure other writers forgot or didn’t know they have this - notably at this stage
I would say I would bend the rules to make greater invisibility beat it but that seems harsh. Perhaps in my game it would downgrade it to normal when I do it
I am jealous that a sack of HP and 28AC is a road block to your group. I have a Kineticist that will laugh at that. I need ACs of that or higher now in Book 4
But aside from the lore skills you can achieve “multiple backgrounds” by simply explaining all your boosts in a similar way
So you only have one official background (say scholar) but if you have a boost in con or strength from either the floating ancestry boost or the free boost phase you can say that you got that from being a farmer or labourer as a child making you unusually resilient compared to the base line...
It doesn’t all need to be codified into strict choices
So you average character gets two sets of two boosts right at the end that can easily be reflective of two backgrounds in addition to the one you already have
Then you can houserule 2 extra lore skills if you want as those aren’t gamebreaking
This is all good advise
As an early adventure most of the monsters are likely to be in the Bestiary or the second one
You can then find similar reskins as suggested e.g an Otyugh for the Tentamort
There is an AP conversion guide that is being written on the 2E boards and treasure looks most fiddly
Depending on when you might start waiting for GMG and the new Auto Bonus Progression might help this as it will remove a chunk of magic items (I assume)
I might make a separate post about this another time but it is very much the plan for my group to play this AP in 2E after our current AP is finished because they want to play it, I want to run it and I want to switch to 2E
I have already floated that despite being "Core" in 2E that Goblins would not be playable from the start
This was met with a mix of dismay/grumpiness/hostility from the one player I floated this to. This annoyed me to no end
I tried to explain without spoilers why it didn't make sense and was met with "people will be annoyed if you ban something that is a major core option" and "if one of the core options from 2E is allowed then perhaps we shouldn't play using the 2E rules"
This also ignores that Goblins would not be allowed as a playable race if we played in 1E either
I don't want to have to resort to refusing to run it (only I realistically can run it as I have played up the end of Book 4)
If you change “APG” in your post to “GMG” then that may be reasonable
But they are not missing the Gencon release of the APG regardless of the errata situation . They are far more likely to compromise on errata quality (despite Mark’s comments) than the APG timetable
The APG is the flagship product for GenCon 2020.
They were on the road to Almas where there is only a short trip to Absalom
From there run the Absalom initiation into the pathfinder society
Then send them on missions perhaps using the other 2E ones written. That can place them in other countries where if they have good modules connected then you can play them
On PFS scenarios you would need to watch for lore changes
If you wanted an AP you should make sure your group is all in
Ruins of Azlant starts with a boat leaving Azlant . And the “successful completion” of the AP doesn’t have completely obvious impacts on the rest of the inner sea that I know of that cannot be easily removed
As noted arriving at a port city opens up options but most are probably going to Absalom first
This is why I figure one of the first class archetypes we see will be a cleric one which trades away divine font, for all those Dwarf Warpriests out there.
Is it pretty much confirmed that there will be class archetypes that only trade out class abilities (or also trade them out)?
That would be an intriguing way of adding multiple layers to a character. Especially if they do skill feat only archetypes as well...
For what little it may be worth John’s comment resonated with me.
Since I have started using the boards far more to aid GMing especially when my players are using a few complex / unclear choices or in some cases clearly looking for loopholes I have noticed the “second” phenomenon quite a lot
It is also always players posting with a very extreme interpretation that is almost alway not reasonable or correct that they are hoping to have validated to force down a GMs throat. Now clearly I have noticed this through the eyes of a “forever GM” and have some bias
But there you go
Of course this further adds to the derail in some people’s view so they can ignore it as mentioned :-)
Richard Crawford wrote:
Where do you get the “seems to be getting worse” from?When was the first errata for the first printing or the 1E core rulebook released?
Was it within 2 months of release?
I have tried to find online and the best I can see is end of May 2010 - so almost 10 months after the release . If (and that is a big if) that is true then we have 8 months before we know if it is getting worse
Of course I wasn’t following errata back then and maybe they did come out earlier
It seems the problem is some errata have already been acknowledged which has given people arguably unrealistic expectations
Of the points that were mentioned I believe most were things that seem like they could have been design choices until confirmed as errata (wizard feat, sorcerer saves and unarmed proficiency). There were questions and doubt but no certainty
They are primarily working on the GMG and then getting classes ready for the APG playtest right now
Yes balancing for widely divergent power level within a party can be an absolute nightmare in 1E.
Out of interest what were some of the odd PF1 and 3.5 takes ?
In my game the player most likely to pick this is also least likely to have a detailed backstory. So even if it is arrived at in the route I would prefer least (picking mechanics and then justifying with story) we would get something.
And I can’t resume my teasing about being the largest man in the gnome village - he one picked a “small” 2 handed spear to give him one handed reach at a -2. No idea if that was the correct rules Interpretation but every pc and NPC did some light teasing
Captain Morgan wrote:
Honestly, on a mob, you're probably better off with 50 silver because it will break between lots of people easier. I might be inclined to just scatter the money among the crowd with a throw and try to get away while they scramble for the coins.
I think the OP meant “the” mob not “a” mob
So mafia / gangsters etc
I am interested to hear how the fight goes as it seems to me like it could either be really lacklustre (notably if he has no allies) or really brutal (if he gets chance for death attacks and the saves are failed as breath of life from the song will not bring people back)
I am already thinking ahead to a hypothetical scenario of killing the PC with teleport (not deliberately but if it happens). Then the group don’t seem like they can easily get out (but I might be misremembering) and might be picked off...
Eh, if I saw it as a problem I'd just houserule it down to a d6 and call it a day. I'm kind of expecting that change as errata honestly.
I do hope there is some kind of errata so that I don’t have to implement house rules
I have already seen more posts than I would like that mention they have a flickmace user in the party of a game they are playing. And said character is never a gnome ...
It’s been a while? The game hasn’t even been out for 2 months!?It took 3 years for Catfolk to be playable in 1E
What does “Pathfinder 2nd is not selling dreams” even mean?
Then you have missed all the early “optimisation” guides that basically say you should bend over backwards to get this weapon. Any means necessary.
It may be an initial kneejerk but anything that elicits that kind of response , especially as a single weapon, points to some kind of design issue
Rightly or wrongly I would strongly consider making it gnome only in my home games. Basically disallowing unconventional weaponry for race specific weaponry and disallowing adopted ancestry to be taken on race specific weapons. I understand that paizo seem to be trying to open up as many options as possible and I applaud things like the stat system meaning dwarf boards and sorcerers aren’t useless / a waste of time
But some things probably should be walled off
Doesn’t really help the OP premise on balancing
CCG and redactors seem a little light on the attacking side. But as they are groups this might not be a big issue
The scrivenite is shade weak especially for a solo encounter
Interestingly parts of the new AP are set in Ravounel so there are now 2E rules for Bone Devils and Shadow Giants. A long way off for this of course
It might be that I was reading it on my phone in a work break
It might have been where you filled out the remaining treasure based on the original with no reference to the original (I think that is what happened anyway)
I have made an excel sheet of all the original treasure for my attempt at converting (currently paused as it was like for like and prior to the paizo conversion guide so really going nowhere!)
If I look at yours side by side with that I might be able to see where I got confused
In revision to what I said - when your examples deviate from the theoretical guidelines per level they all seem to be on the weaker end
This is a better position to be in as you can more easily increase power
I tend to find when something does big damage and you try to adjust downwards mid fight then it is potentially easier to spot (not that players are necessarily looking)
This system seems to be a bit easier to adjust things on the fly with a few pluses or minuses to key numbers. And if you have left AC too low then you add more HP as that seems to be the guideline (zombie is an example )
I understand the idea of building NPCs the same way as PCs . But as yet we don’t know how that translates
What seems to be the case from that table is that a level 3 fighter would not be a “level 3 creature” for a party when compared to other level 3 creatures
So build them that way but cross reference and see where you are and then add levels accordingly. The problem may be that adding levels to get them the “right” attack might end up giving them “too much” HP or AC
But enemies being deficient with attack and AC will make a huge deal in this edition due to insufficient damage likelihood and being crit too regularly (respectively)
I will add that many NPCs are built like PCs can be built in the published version of Hells Rebels and are absolutely terrible for their CR. And I have posted about that before. I am looking at Wex, Lucian Thrune, Tiarise amongst others
Cross referring to the numbers is a way of trying to avoid that
Thanks for this. It is useful as I am also going to be looking at a Runelords conversion
I need to reread as I was utterly bamboozled by your treasure section despite you suggesting it was one of the easiest parts. I am hoping it was because I was reading on my phone with no Runelords book nearby !
Quick question on that though - are you saying that a weapon with two runes is supposed to count as two items ?
The thing the link means is that you don’t need to build them like normal characters
Give them the right bonuses and then give them a unique ability be that something inquisitor like or some ability or abilities themed around “redaction” - i can’t immediately think what that would be
Indeed my cursory glances of pre written humanoid enemies in PF2 has revealed that you definitely should not try and build them using PC rules and then set the level as the character level. They will be underpowered in attack rolls and probably most other things as well
And for solo enemies look for unique abilities that target multiple people. So perhaps give the scrivenite a multiple lash ability
HBS is quite good at avoiding solo encounters if I remember correctly
I think it is the scrivenite , the alligator and the Corby and that is it
Be careful with tooth fairies . They were too strong in the original game for their CR and have scope to be appealing in this. Start with sprites and reflavour abilities. Probably remove the sleep spell
From an initial read I really like the special abilities chosen. They fit well
I think you could have another look at some of the stats compared to similar levelled creatures. Some are on the low side, notably attack for citizen group and redactors. Look to the Orc Thug as a baseline for the CCG with a swap out of ferocity. Perhaps downgrade strength and attack by one to offset for the gang up ability?
How come the reactors have become "inquisitors" rather than monks? Or are you like me in not really understanding why they were monks in the first place?
The Scrivenite needs higher AC and Saves especially as a solo creature. AC 16 at level 3 will probably see it Crit into the group quite ruthlessly
Basing my comments on the rough "benchmarks" from this:
The idea seems to be to make minor tweaks to these numbers and use equipment, spells and unique abilities to add variety
Forced your game?
Because if it is the latter then you kind of have to go with what the GM wants to run unless someone else steps up
As to "take on anything and walk out of it" - that is not how the game work in either edition. You are supposed to work as a party to get through challenges
What level are you playing at?
If you want survival ability then a Dwarf Barbarian at level 9 with the dwarf ancestry feat for bonus HP with Toughness and Die Hard will probably have the most HP, die only at dying 5 and have an easier time stabilizing
I think they will have 136 HP before CON per level is factored in and any bonus temp HP from Rage. So minimum will be 145 + 10 temp and that is with just 12 Con
They will also have damage resistance whilst raging
Living Monolith could make this crazier but will mean not taking Barbarian class feats an might not be allowed (uncommon and rare options)