Lia Wynn's page

This is a question that can often be seen on Reddit threads or asked by new players. Commonly, they'll be told to use Recall Knowledge, and that's an excellent answer.

However, there is a better answer.

It's Will. Target the Will save and you will be correct the vast majority of the time.

I was curious about something, and have gone through all the Remastered potential adversaries thought Titanbane that are currently in PF2. I did not include NPC Core, as most of the things in that are not meant for combat, and I felt would devalue my primary research project. The books I did use are in the spoiler below.

What did I find?

There are currently 897 monsters in PF2E.

Of those:

437 (or 48.7 percent) have a high Fortitude save;
344 (or 38.3 percent) have a high Reflex save; and
162 (or 18 percent) have a high Will save.

Astute readers may note that those numbers add up to more than 897. That's because there are a decent number of monsters that have a tie for their high save.

As you can see, if you target Will blindly, you have an 82 percent chance of it not being the high save! That alone would be great information, but most of the ones that do have a high Will save are also monsters that focus on spellcasting. So, if the monster does not cast spells, you have close to a 100 percent chance that its Will save is not the high save.

So, the answer to the question is easy:

Target Will.

Setting up the Gameplay Thread.

Setting up the discussion thread.

Hello everyone. This is the actual recruitment thread for the interest post that I put up last week.

I'm going to repeat some of what I said there here to explain the base idea of the game:

This is intended to be a more free-form PF2 game that is not an AP or a published adventure. The basic idea is that the group's goals would determine the types of adventures that they would have.

Players would help drive the story and world-building, and I would throw challenges and adversaries at them.

I would like to try a game where the players have a larger element of narrative control; however, this would also require players who were willing to communicate and engage both ICly and OOCly.

I want to say before I say anything else that there is a decent possibility that this will fail, given the nature of PbP games. Games that are more on-rails fail often, often due to player attrition or posting declines, and this one will ask more of players.

I hope that it does not, but I think that it is important to recognize that element before people put tons of time into it.

I'm not looking for character submissions yet. That will come. Instead, I'm stealing something Dr. Evil did for his Iron Gods game and doing a little interview process for players first. This will last until next week, players will be chosen, then we will get into character creation.

Even if you don't make the first cut, please feel free to follow the game thread. There will very likely be player attrition, and I'll be using the people who applied as the first option for replacement characters.

My first priority as both a GM and player is communication. If you have a question, ask it. If you have a concern, voice it. If you think I made a mistake in a mechanic or ruling, bring it up. I may not change it, but at the very least, I will listen.

Now, into the questions for you:

1) What draws you to this game, with all of its potential pitfalls, in particular?

2) Do you feel that you will have the time and energy to come up with hooks for the group?

3) Do you feel that you will be able to eagerly engage with others' hooks if yours is not the one that the group chooses to change at any given time?

4) What are the characteristics you think make a good PBP partner, whether DM/GM or PC? What do you do to encourage these characteristics in others?

5) What one question would you ask me, or other players, to determine if they were a good fit with you?

Hi everyone.

This is not a recruitment thread. Instead, I want to see if people are interested in a more free-form PF2 game that is not an AP or a published adventure. The basic idea, and this is going to be rough, is that the group's goals would determine the types of adventures that they would have.

Players would help drive the story and world-building, and I would throw challenges and adversaries at them.

I would like to try a game where the players have a larger element of narrative control; however, this would also require players who were willing to communicate and engage both ICly and OOCly.

If this is something that would potentially interest you, reply here, and if there is interest, then I'll pop open a recruitment thread and we'll go from there. If you have questions, please ask.

In any case, thanks for reading.

My playgroup has been theorizing a multiple Necromancer playtest group.

As a result of this, I have gone over the abilities that need a thrall to be consumed to trigger.

Some of those abilities say your thrall and some of them say a thrall. This can lead to confusion, and I hope that in the final version of Necromancer that it has all of the abilities using the same language. I'd prefer the a thrall since that would give more combo abilities to groups with multiple necromancers and not harm groups with just one in any way.

Yesterday I finished a Level 1 to 3 playtest with my small TT group. The party is a Commander, a Guardian, and a fire/metal kineticist. The adventure was a converted 4E adventure from Goodman Games, and had the group on some tropical islands, limiting the Guardian to medium armor as there was no place on the islands to upgrade to heavy at levels 2 and 3.

The party faced hostile human tribesmen, humanoid pirates, some jungle animals, a fairly unique undead as well as various hazards.

On the Commander side, the goal was to test a number of tactics. We didn't test them all, but here is what we thought of the ones that we did.

Defensive Retreat: This was rarely used. Mostly because of the group size, and not because of any lack in the tactic itself. They just rarely wanted to back away from foes given that there were only three party members. This was swapped out for Strike Hard for the final part of the adventure.

Form Up: This was only used 2 or 3 times, but every time it was used it was a massive mobility benefit. Letting everyone take a Stride in the Commanders turn (while giving the free reaction for that to the Guardian) helped the party close the distance when encounters started at range. It was not an every-fight move, but when it was used it had an oversized impact on the encounter.

End It: This was very hard to use given the size of the group. However, every single time it was used, it had a significant impact on the fight. In a large group (like my 6-person PbP team), this could be used early in many fights to disrupt enemy activity. If I was playing a commander in a normal-sized group, this would be the first tactic that I took. I was very impressed with it, even given the trigger and small group size.

Pincer Movement: This was the MVP power. It was used often and benefited the Kinetcist most of all. Allowing 2 action Elemental Blasts at melee range, especially, to land more often and shine. I think this is group-dependent, and it may fall off at higher levels as some people have said, but at low level, with a melee-heavy group, it is a very solid power.

Strike Hard: This was used in the last part of the adventure. It is a solid power, but the two action cost (which is balanced and should not be changed) limits what else that a Commander can do. I don't mean this in just a 'rotation; way, but in what might feel fun for a player. It also was not as impactful for us as it would be in other groups with a stronger melee striker.

I am concerned that a Commander player might be pressured into taking the power and spend most of a game session being a Strike dispenser for other players. I would not mind a rider on this power along the lines of: After this tactic has been used on a person, they are temp immune for 1d4 (or maybe even 1d6) rounds.

Overall, I think Commander is in a very good place. I'd like to see them start with three prepared tactics, and then get an additional one each time they currently do.

Guardian.

The Guardian felt, at least at low-level, like a capable martial character. The player focused on testing Taunt as that is an ability that the player wanted in the system already and is very appealing to the player. However, the Intercept package was also tested.

Also, as stated above, the Guardian was not able to upgrade to heavy armor, so AC was two lower than might be expected at these levels. It did not seem to hinder survivability. The only time the Guardian went down was when my dice got crazy hot and we almost had a TPK.

On the GM side, I still feel that Taunt needs work. I love the idea of a Taunt power, but I think the current implementation is somewhat lacking. My first concern is that, like RK, it is going to be very GM dependent. Unlike RK, except on Thamuaturge, it is a core element of a class. If the GM does not allow it to shine (ie it's not optimal to attack the Guardian), it will lead to a very negative play experience for the Guardian.

I do not think it should be a hard Taunt at level 1, but I do think there should be feats that both reduce or eliminate the penalty against the Guardian and make it more of a hard Taunt. I do know what some players would be against a hard Taunt, but is a 'you must attack the Guardian' at mid to high level any worse than the myriad of CC effects that force monster actions, especially given that Taunt, like CC effects, has a save.

My biggest thought on Guardian is that it lacks an identity. What is its core function? I would like to see it lean into mitigation via damage resistance. It has some of that, but it needs to be more emphasized, IMO. When you have a sidebar that says 'Hey, this class feature does not stack with this other level one class feature', that should be a warning sign that something is off.

I'm still pondering what I'd like to see in that regard, but I think it needs to be ramped up. I do think Guardian has a lot of potential, but it doesn't seem as polished, at this point, as Commander does.

Welcome to the Discussion thread.

Welcome to the gameplay thread for the game.

Hello everyone.

I am recruiting a group of 4 to 6 players for the Sky King's Tomb AP which goes from levels 1 to 10. Character applications start today, and the weekend of September 8th I'll make the final decisions for who I accept.

This will be my first time GMing a PbP game, so I'm sure there will be some hiccups as I figure out the nuances of the format.

Posting expectations: Daily as much as possible.

Character Generation.

Ancestries: Any. Play what you would find fun.

Classes: Any, with a caveat. Depending on what gets presented this Thursday about the two new playtest classes, they may or may not be allowed, and at the end of the week, I'll post on this thread to say if they will be or not.

Backgrounds: While the backgrounds from the Players Guide are encouraged, they are not mandatory. Any non-uncommon or rare background is fine, and any uncommon or rare would need GM approval. However, if a BG not in the Players Guide is used, there has to be a connection to Clan Tolorr to explain why your PC is involved.

Groups: Your character may be tied to any of the five major groups in Golarion: The Firebrands, The Hell Knights, The Knight of Lastwall, The Magaambya, or the PFS. However, depending on how feats from the groups are learned, you may not have access to feats from any groups except the PFS or Knights of Lastwall.

Variant Rules: We will be using Ancestry Paragon. This means you get two level 1 ancestry feats, and will gain an additional one every odd character level.

We will be using Milestone leveling, and adding elements of the Remaster as they are announced. We will not be using alignment. We will be using personal edicts and anathema which are only mandatory for Clerics and Champions, but are allowed for any class.

Finally, Sky King's Tomb has combat but is not a combat-focused AP. As a result, if your favorite type of play is combat optimization, this might not be the right AP for you. That said, any and all types of characters are welcome.

If you have questions, please ask either here or by PM, and good luck to everyone.

What options do PbP GMs like to use for maps, as well as for posting them for players? I'm thinking about trying to GM one, and maps are something that I think would be important to have a plan for.

Thank you in advance for any answers.