Lightning Raven's page

Outlier: The Rogue's ability to have enhanced saving throws on all of its saves as a feature of the class. This makes the class unique and already even stronger than it already was, not to mention that other more defensive-oriented classes like Guardians, Champions and Monks DO NOT have any such benefits, despite being their niche.

P.S.: No doubt there will be people jumping to defend the situation. Honestly, the discussion is moot. It's obviously bonkers that Rogues have this. It's no wonder most people thought this was a mistake for ages.

The time for complaining about patrons was probably during the Witch playtest.

Which we did. A lot. It was largely useless as well.

Thankfully, Patrons got a once over in the Remaster and they're in a much, much, much better state now (even if they're still not exactly where I think they should, and could, be).

I think it's genuinely kind of an accomplishment to manage to turn even a thread arguing about the benefits of adventuring with your coochie out into a back and forth rules minutia debate.

The PF2e player stereotype didn't spawn from nowhere, LMAO.

I always try to buy character-appropriated clothes for my characters. Mostly it means the main outfit and something for winter, but I fancy outfits for noble characters either at the start or later on.

moosher12 wrote:

After the daredevil was jokingly described as having skates, it makes me want to make a punk skateboarder Starfinder side.

Sounds like a new candidate for BMX Bandit, too.

Can't believe you sold me the class I was skeptical on first hearing about it without even trying.

Tridus wrote:

Slam Down is good

It's not though?

Say you have a 60% chance to hit on a Strike and 60% chance to succeed on a trip.

So if you Slam Down you have a 60% chance to hit, and of the 60% of the time you hit you have a 60% chance to trip. So overall 0.6 hits and 0.36 trips per use.

Now say you Strike and then Trip. That's 60% chance to hit and then a 35% chance to trip. So overall 0.6 hits and 0.35 trips per use...practically identical.

How about 80% for each? 0.8 hits and 0.64 trips per use for Slam Down, 0.8 hits and 0.55 trips otherwise, so slightly better.

How about 40% for each? 0.4 hits and 0.16 trips per use for Slam Down, 0.4 hits and 0.15 trips otherwise.

So it's only marginally better vs enemies you have a very high success rate against already. Having to commit both actions even if the Strike misses hurts a lot. This is simplifying the math slightly but it gets at the main point.

I'm happy to run the numbers in other scenarios, but like ScooterScoots said it's not substantially better if you have a trip weapon, the main purpose is allowing trips with a non-trip weapon.

Crashing Slam is when you were supposed to get a major upgrade (especially with Kip Up becoming a lot more common at that level) and your class feats overall are a lot more powerful.

That's the problem with White Room math.

Slam Down is useful if you're in a position where you have bigger bonuses on a single strike, fortune effects, if a teammate used Aid, Guidance, you used Feint, etc. Not to mention that your +X runes will apply to Slam Down, while it might not if the weapon you're using doesn't have the trip trait.

As a 4th level feat, it's a nice benefit. But the "hidden" advantage is grabbing any 2h weapon and being able to use Trip without a hassle.

Different contexts between classes. It's simple as that.

Fighters are shock full of offensive capabilities, have a stacked chassis and a myriad of weapon options to build. Crashing Slam might be used with any weapon (that fills its requirements), including reaching options.
Wolf Drag not only is a chain feat, but it's also a Monk Feat. It's a different design context compared to Fighters with their +2 to hit and the level difference between feats also matters, also because the Monk's core gameplay surrounds itself Flurry of Blows, which means that Monks needs REALLY good attack options to compete with FoB otherwise you're spending more actions for less than FOB.

Page 446: The first paragraph of Gaining and Losing actions has been updated to make stunned with a value play better. Previously, it could be much stronger to stun a creature on its turn than on your own.

”Quickened, slowed, and stunned are the primary ways you can gain or lose actions. The rules for how this works appear on page 415. All these conditions alter how many actions you regain at the start of your turn. Gaining quickened or slowed on your turn doesn’t adjust your actions that turn. If you get stunned on your turn, first complete any action or activity you’re in the middle of. If the stunned condition has a value, lose remaining actions to reduce your stunned value rather than waiting until your next turn.”

I feel vindicated. I also like this change. The punishment is instant, rather than "non-existent" like some people ruled before.

Since I know people will start the new discussion of "Stunned 3", I think we all can be sensible and assume the penalty just carries over to your next turn.

The Mist Spell (and several similar spells) do not have any effect if you and the target are on opposite sides of the area.

"All creatures within the mist become concealed, and all creatures outside the mist become concealed to creatures within it."

That seems counter-intuitive. A area of mist should affect attacks going through as well.

Isn't that implied? Because it's pretty obvious from the get go. The text in the spell just states what happens when you're inside it attacking targets within and without the area.

This is a situation where you must remember you're a human person not a computer reading code.

I know it's an unpopular opinion and that probably very few people will agree with me:

The fact is that PF2e spellcasters only have problems because they are playing with old hardware. By that I mean they are using vancian casting on a new system.

We can pretty much trace back most of caster issues to the same source. The Vancian System.

Number of spellslots being a problem? Vancian. Spells not feeling impactful because they have to compete with others in the same tier? Vancian. Bad early game because late game they get to be strong? You guessed it, Vancian.

I still like a ton of Spellcasters in this game and is not like the Vancian system is bad. I particularly know how to use it quite well. But I can acknowledge that it brings more problems to Casters than it solves. And I mean on a foundational design level.

Anyone can guess which casters are highly regarded while others are not? Animists. Bards. Druids. Sorcerers. Kineticists (yeah, I'm calling a spade a spade). All of them to some extent to another.

What do they all have in common? They have a ton of flavorful and interesting CLASS options baked into them. From feats to subclasses. Which are completely tangential to the Vancian Spellcasting System.

We will remain trapped in this cycle as long as the root of the issue isn't dealt with. To me, the Vancian system SHOULD remain in the future of PF2e. But as a class-specific thing. Why not the Wizard? Make them THE vancian caster and redesign the whole thing around that, Wizards as the root and the old schools of magic become subclasses (with different names and concepts to avoid meddling from WOTC).

Sorry for the wall of text, but I guess we get lost in the weeds dealing with the tall grass, but I would like to remind everyone to look at the roots, even if you don't agree with me at all.

Seeing yet again something like the new Psychic and Thaumaturge happening again, it just makes me feel a sense of déjà vu. Strong classes getting buffed, weaker classes getting nerfed or changed for the worse.

I'm honestly thinking that there is a MAJOR disconnect between how players evaluate classes, and power in general when it comes to PF2e, and how the designers perceive it.

On one side we have Rogues having "Evasion" on all three saves, Fighters getting improvements, Barbarians gaining Free Action Rage but still having a feat tax for Intimidation on one side, and in another side we have Wizards getting changed and nerfed in the process, classes that needed actual improvements were either only slightly improved (Swashbucklers, Investigators, spellcasters) or largely ignored (Monks, Inventors, Rangers and Druids).

Something isn't adding up, because it is starting to feel like these changes have been a sequence of missed opportunities, questionable buffs and very, very, debatable nerfs. It's getting frustrating because it doesn't feel consistent, nor particularly well thought out.

That's undeniable that you're playing in unfavorable conditions. There isn't much around that unless the GM changes the encounter style.

However, things that makes casters strong are their versatility. Another thing that makes them powerful, but underrated at the same time, is battlefield control through spells that do not engage with enemy statistics.

Creating difficult terrain, blocking vision, creating walls, altering terrain (by creating high ground or holes, etc) and summoning creatures are ways you can engage with combat without relying on anything but your cleverness. Buffs are also an easy bread and butter.

You can save your DC-based or Spell Attacks for opportune moments with Sure Strike, enemies with strong debuffs applied (Off-Guard + Status penalties for AC, Bon Mot or Demoralize for other spells).

The thing I've noticed that many of these hazards are placed with the old design paradigm in mind.

In PF1e and earlier editions of DND, traps and hazards in doors served as small challenges that penalized the party for carelessness with resource expenditure. Now, there's no need to spend resources to recover HP because Treat Wounds exists and there are no built-in time-gated mechanics that leverage these traps the vast majority of the time. There are no "if the PCs trigger the trap, X happens".

Most of the time, I did it myself. But, honestly, not every DM will think of that and the effort in adventure writing would be minimal if, for example, it's said that if the trap is triggered another encounter changes or joins the battle.

Also... These hazards have way too powerful numbered bonuses. I rather them be more complex to run, but have fairer bonuses than behaving like PL+4 creatures (which are notoriously the most problematic kinds of encounters in PF2e).

Lightning Raven wrote:

To me, their dynamic of "Tandem Actions" is in a very good spot, so I think this aspect of the class should largely remain the same.

IMO, what I think the class needs more is Eidolons with more interesting abilities. They are an integral part of the character, yet very few them have actual interesting abilities. Also, the feats need to add more of those and less Strike modifiers.

Oh, and I think the class should receive a Class Archetype that enables them to realize the concept that Meld Eidolon was supposed to do, but clearly doesn't. The archetype could enable two playstyles that the base class can't, which is Melding into the Eidolon and fighting alongside it in melee. I would sacrifice spells as a whole (assuming the class gains more feats granting spell abilities like Kineticists do and more interesting Eidolons) in favor of a better martial chassis.

Thematically and mechanically we definitely need more eidolons. There's so many obvious candidates that just aren't covered y the options we have (Glares at occult).

Yes, there has been a very unequal rate of new content for classes, some have been virtually ignored, while we have Rogues getting outright broken class features.

To me, their dynamic of "Tandem Actions" is in a very good spot, so I think this aspect of the class should largely remain the same.

IMO, what I think the class needs more is Eidolons with more interesting abilities. They are an integral part of the character, yet very few them have actual interesting abilities. Also, the feats need to add more of those and less Strike modifiers.

Oh, and I think the class should receive a Class Archetype that enables them to realize the concept that Meld Eidolon was supposed to do, but clearly doesn't. The archetype could enable two playstyles that the base class can't, which is Melding into the Eidolon and fighting alongside it in melee. I would sacrifice spells as a whole (assuming the class gains more feats granting spell abilities like Kineticists do and more interesting Eidolons) in favor of a better martial chassis.

Honestly, my preferred outcome would be maintaining the flavorful and complex Mysteries from before, but reworked, along with the new feats.

I like that older Mysteries had a lot of moving parts and a ton of flavor baked into them. However, most of them were, by far, a huge wastes of opportunity with passives that could've offered more interesting things.

The fact that each tier just increased debuff numbers or added extra penalties was a missed opportunity. In a perfect world, each Curse tier would bring the penalties, but also offer an ability that made sense with its theme.

Personally, I think Oracles should be entirely redesigned whenever we get PF3e. Along with Wizards, Alchemists (they're in a good spot, but far from fully realized potential), Psychics and Inventors.

Yes. Restriction breeds creativity.

However, the more disruptive the restriction the more optional it must be.

As long as you know what you're getting into, I think any player won't have a reason to complain about having them.

I think the design intent is to make sure you eventually move on to new items as the old ones fade. That way, you'll actually care about new treasure, instead of going "yeah but all my investment slots are already taken".

Telling people to like it doesn't mean they end up liking it though.

I would really like a solid formula for "how much gold do I need to pay to upgrade this item's DC to the DC appropriate for my current level?"

I fully understand the design intent, but in practice, you do want those upgraded items anyways, because they do get much better. The issue is the in-between levels and when the item "line" stops at earlier levels.

In my opinion, DC of higher level items is important, BUT, the effects of higher level items already justify themselves without the DC increase. Lots of items go from 1/day to 1/hour or offer improved versions of their effects, which makes them still competitive, even if the increased DC is not relevant.

In short:

Rogues got many buffs it didn't need, got a broken ability that contradicts the entire class system design. Barbarians got some major improvements when the class was already great at was designed to do.
Wizards got shafted directly and Monks were shafted indirectly (they remained static while everyone else improved).

I think Paizo did a great job improving the class. Lots of good changes and addressing one of the most problematic issues present in the playtest: lack of proactive actions.

Unfortunately, even with the positive changes, this class still isn't for me, even though I like playing tanks. It severely needed subclasses, IMO, to improve variety. As it currently is, the Guardian is comfortably sitting below Alchemists in the character-making tier I have for PF2e. It's probably going to be a one and done just to complete having at least one character for every class.

Good thing is that those already on board with The Guardian can be happy, since the changes were genuinely good, given the context.

Absolutely. The uncertainty about the Blessed Armament was mainly because the language shift was apparently intentional and removed the text language from the previous feature that also appeared in the Battle Harbinger's feat. It seemed much more intentional than the Rogue's 3 "Evasion" Saving Throws.

Most combats are like 2-4 rounds and you can repair your shield to full after combat so 2-3 uses doesn't even really seem that bad tbh.

And in practice, you won't even use Shield Block every round.

With my champion, I only broke my shield when I was fighting a boss that ended up landing many critical hits during the fight.

Hey all,

A player of mine wants to take the Cloud step feat and describes wanting to go straight up into the air.

The feats reads as "walk for brief stretches across insubstantial surfaces." and "move across water, air, and solid surfaces that can hold only limited weight as if they were normal ground." both of which seem to imply horizontal movement or perhaps at some angle.

I have read arguments that other classes/feats get fly speed at a similar level to Cloud step, therefore Cloud Step should allow movement in all directions as well but that's really not how the feat is written.

Does Cloud Step really allow complete vertical movement without difficult terrain as Fly does("Moving upward (straight up or diagonally) uses the rules for moving through difficult terrain.)?

I don't think you should rule it as "Fly". You should rule it as "Air Walk" (https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=6). Which is pretty much the Spell version of Cloud step.

So, no, allowing the Rogue to walk straight up isn't a good way to handle this.

The previous one was strong and good, but also kinda pigeon-holed you towards Sturdy Shields or a select few specific shields with good base numbers.

They new version gives versatility and adaptability (finding new shields mid-adventuring and no time to visit a settlement). Not only that, but besides being "cheaper", it's also "faster". You can guarantee you have the best shield available every level while also prioritizing the mandatory runes.

Also, above all, it mitigates the loss of not using a Sturdy Shield, in favor of something more interesting and potentially fun.

Lightning Raven wrote:

Well, I guess if there was ever any doubt it was a mistake, this errata cements it as truth and intentional.

Rogues now are truly the only class in the game with "Evasion" effects on all of its Saving Throws AND it's the only class in the game to get Evasion when it becomes Expert.

Well, kinda.

But by the same logic that would mean that Minions are supposed to not have a defined length of time that they follow directions for when not in combat. And I refuse to believe that. It causes too much variation in how useful (or how much of a liability) Animal Companions and Familiars are during exploration mode.

The difference is that the minion thing is a grey area that only rule sticklers will create problems. Table variance will always, always be a thing. I do get where you're coming from, though.

The Rogue thing is outright egregious. So much so that everyone's first thought is "this must be wrong", because it breaks all the rules of character design PF2e so far, it goes against the overall design niche of the Rogue and it outright makes it even more of a favorite child than it was before the remaster.

To me, whether it's a mistake or intentional, Rogues simply shouldn't have this kind of buff. Some people might disagree, that's fine. However, this change will NEVER fly on my table.

Well, I guess if there was ever any doubt it was a mistake, this errata cements it as truth and intentional.
Rogues now are truly the only class in the game with "Evasion" effects on all of its Saving Throws AND it's the only class in the game to get Evasion when it becomes Expert.

I've played a champion from level 1 to 8 recently and never felt an issue with the class whatsoever. We got into some really nasty fights and in a few of those I had absolute certainty we would win, because I could mitigate so much damage and dish out quite a lot in return.

Unfortunately, I ended up losing my character after my group faced a PL+1 enemy with the elite template (making it have the raw stats of a 11th level dragon) and our group was rolling badly, while our GM was rolling high (25 critical successes during the session, among strikes, saving throws and skill checks). But, even then, my character was the only one killed and mainly because it landed a critical hit when I was wounded 2.

I admit mine feels very "wish list", but it's kinda hard to deny the anti-synergy between Flying Blade and Twirling Throw, specially considering why TT was introduced in the remaster in the first place (Thrown Build support).

Something that is grinding my gears and only further cements my opinion that Thrown Weapon builds aren't treated equally:

Despite being introduced as "Thrown Weapon Build" support, the new feat introduced in the Swashbuckler remaster, Twirling Throw does not synergize with the feat that is the backbone of the playstyle, Flying Blade.

Flying blade restricts the Precision Damage to its first range increment, while Twirling Throw is a Finisher with the main benefit being increasing the range of the weapon (by ignoring the penalties for its second and third increments).

This is, no doubt, by design. But I think introducing a Finisher Move that won't deal Finisher damage on the situations where you WANT to use it is not synergistic at all, specially since most thrown weapons (with agile and/or finesse) have range of only 20ft at best (and most of them are 10ft).

Flying Blade is already a feat tax, I really don't think Thrown Builds should have so many hoops to jump.

Gortle wrote:

Well you have time now to state the problem as you see it.

Well, it's simple: Is the Frightened condition applied by Dirge of Doom an ongoing effect or not?

Lots of players consider that the Frightened Condition is always an ongoing effect, without anything that state it in the rules and some spells that would be weird if it was the case (like Fear, which is rather basic for a spell that applies the Frightened condition). It's clearly a big change in behaviour as the end of the spell duration can either remove the Frightened condition on all affected enemy or not.

On the area thing, there's a definite ruling and no reason to play it otherwise (and as such you can't "tag" people with Dirge of Doom, no question on that). But on the ongoing effect issue, there's a rather general feeling and RAW that seems to disagree. But the sentence about ongoing effects is unclear as hell and doesn't help to make an undisputed ruling.

It's simple:

My DoD can straight up "tag" people. You cast it from the back line and the front line? Everyone the aura passes through gets frightened 1. Those how remain in the Bard's emanation at the end of their turns don't reduce it.
It's pretty nice. But the Bard is also taking a huge risk if they move to get more targets (and they're not casting another spell either).

It's strong? Yes. Does it make it too broken? I don't think so. Fear effects have many mitigation and immunity interactions, in some circumstances DoD is flat out useless.

To me, it's quite simple, my and Deriven's reading makes running Dirge of Doom and other Compositions really easy to run, to the point of me (and probably him as well) not even realizing that it was supposed to be contentious.

Everyone else's "static" emanation readings are causing a shit ton of problems with rules interactions and making complicated to run and rule it.

Guess what I'm choosing?

I don't care about the Aura trait or if the Emanation trait specifies that it moves with the target clearly or not (even though the implication is there). My Dirge of Doom moves with my Bards and Frightened 1 is always applied and only ticks down once enemies end their turns outside of the the emanation AOE (as it's usual for Frightened). Easy. Effortless. It just works.

Have fun with meaningless minutia, folks, peace!

There's nothing in the Emanation that says such a thing.

As far as we know, Compositions are Emanations that have a duration and "An emanation issues forth from each side of your space, extending out to a specified number of feet in all directions.", which means that for 1 round, the AOE emanation will move with the Bard. Which makes sense both mechanically (from the Emanation Rules) and narratively (the Bard singing/playing a tune).

The thing with areas of effect that stay in one place have a name. They're called Bursts.

You all are overcomplicating things and making the features worse for no reason whatsoever.

Since these composition spells do not have the aura trait, I consider them to work as a pulse that affects the entire area of ​​emanation that occurs at the moment the action of the spell is executed. This makes it easy to understand and execute.

So the Bard can move to a position, execute this pulse and affect all targets from that point on, then move again, but the targets have already been affected.

Personally, my reading makes it stronger, but, more importantly, makes it simpler to run. Which is why I wasn't even aware of the "troubles" with running Dirge of Doom.

I think it's important to not be lost in the weeds attempting to run down a set of rule functions like a computer and bugging out when it doesn't fit perfectly with the RAW. The good thing about TTRPGS is that RAW can be supported by RAI, unlike a computer game, and in this case Dirge of Doom is meant to be a frightening tune emanating from the Bard, not a "Fireball" effect, don't you all agree?

Not to mention how weird it would be to run Lingering Composition+Dirge of Doom. The Bard casts DoD+LC and then walks on his next two turns, and the sound/visual effect stays behind? Explain that to me, because it's me not wrapping my head around things this time! Haha.

Regardless, I will keep running DoD like I've been doing. No headaches, awesome results.

As it is now, it's very obviously (to me, anyways):

-When you use the action, it slaps down a static 30-foot emanation. This emanation lasts one round. It's not an Aura, so doesn't follow the Bard.

The funny thing about this reading is that this makes the Bard faster than the speed of sound, if you think about it. They're supposed to be playing/singing/dancing something so dreadful that is enough to send shivers down the enemy's spine.

Lightning Raven wrote:

Seems fairly straightforward to me. As long you're inside the aura, you maintain the condition and it doesn't drop normally. Once you get out, the condition works normally. Is that the issue?

First, it's not an Aura. So the area doesn't move. As there's no clause for entering the area, only enemies inside at the time of casting get Frightened. Then, you have the never ending debate on Frightened being an ongoing effect or not and as such ending when the spell ends or not.

I bet the following answers in this topic will show nothing's straightforward in Dirge of Doom.

It's an emanation around the Bard, that's why I mentioned "Aura". I'm just imagining the intended effect of a Bard sustaining their song for several rounds and the Composition effects emanating from them. That's the image we're supposed to get, even if round by round there's one action being spent.

Here's how I run Dirge:

There's a set 30ft AOE in the middle of the battlefield during a given round (from the moment the Bard cast until the end of their turn). Enemies who pass it, gain Frightened 1. If they end up the their round inside DoD, Frightened 1 doesn't tick down. If they ended without the AOE, the condition works normally, ticking down at the end of their turn.

I think since it's a "mild" effect, it's meant to be "sticky". Rather than an instant binary on/off situation (that creates the issues making it hard for you to wrap your head around).

Aside from a few generalities and basic assumptions, I don't think the game should focus on publishing elements that greatly guide players towards a specific playstyle.

Maybe presenting some direction towards successfully creating the campaign with the flavor a table might want, for example.
Such as:
1. Casual fun game night, featuring low encounters as bread and butter, moderate as mini-bosses and severe as major bosses, with higher focus on puzzles and social encounters as challenges.
2. Ragtag party (usually the type you see in DnD5e), with encounters mostly remaining on the moderate side, with battles designed to allow for mistakes and selfish play without a lot of consequences. Focusing on the usual dungeon crawls with heavy combat and avoiding higher-level enemies even in higher difficulties. Little to no focus on social encounters.
3. The intended experience, featuring the whole range of encounters, including higher level enemies that demand more teamwork and dish out more concentrated damage. Basically what you get on the average AP, but closer to Age of Ashes in terms of difficulty.
4. Hardcore, the old school meat-grinder with encounters mostly being severe and even Extreme+ in certain circumstances. High chance of encounters blending together and amplifying the difficulty. Time is always used as a constraint. And other tactics that requires the party to be on their A game in play AND build their characters with party optimization in mind.

I think the above, more than anything, is the best way to create a good first impression of PF2e and retain more players.

What mostly happens is people, even the ones who bother reading the books, coming to PF2e with other games' assumptions in mind and having a different experience than they expected. Specially DnD5e's newcomers, where encounters are mostly easy and just a slow, but certain, progress towards victory no matter what players do, what they built or how little teamwork they used. Then they come to PF2e, where a Moderate encounter is described exactly the same as a "Deadly" encounter in DND5e and they think the game must be played at that level, is too hard or too punishing.

Guiding new GMs into creating campaigns with the overall energy they're looking for is bound to be more effective than merely teaching players how to play, which something a couple minutes on google can give you an answer.

I wouldn't take Dirge of Doom because it's a rule nightmare. I'm not sure there's any table able to play it properly considering how it doesn't make any sense.

Seems fairly straightforward to me. As long you're inside the aura, you maintain the condition and it doesn't drop normally. Once you get out, the condition works normally. Is that the issue?

It made sense in legacy. But in the remaster it got a bit confusing because concentration is not exactly the same as verbal and theoretically not being able to hear yourself doesn't mean you can't speak.

Few tables know and accept deafened as a condition that makes it harder to cast spells, and it is also very likely to start a debate at the table, something that many GMs don't want to have to deal with.

Which is why I think it should call out specifically spells like it did, while enabling subtle spell (and similar effects) to work. It also improves Psychic spellcasting as a byproduct along with the player options that engage with Deafened both to inflict and prevent.

It also doesn't step on Stupefied toes because it can increase the flat check difficulty from baseline and affects other elements well.

I'd like a clear statement whether or not the Deafenend condition is supposed to have a chance to make you lose your spell when you cast it (assuming it's not a subtle one).

This came up multiple times on reddit in the past months with the main arguemnt being that spellcasting requires speech and all speech being auditory by RAW.

I honestly think it should, even if currently isn't. Don't know why they didn't make it crystal clear. The game seems to treat Deafened as a strong condition, since you can have it as a rider effect at 10th level competing with Slam Down, Grab and similar abilities.

Deafened used to affect spellcasting in PF1e as well and it was specifically called out as a 20% chance of failure (Flat Check DC5 in PF2e's terms).

_shredder_ wrote:

I still have hope that we will eventually get class archetypes for necromancers of other traditions. Occult will always be the least fitting and least interesting tradition for necromancy for me, but the class looks already great otherwise.

While I don't agree with you, I would like to point out that they said in the briefing that they'll be making it so Necromancers have access to the Necromancy themed spells that AREN'T on the Occult list, so that should satisfy most of your itch.

You do realize that this access will probably come in the form of a feat tax, right? At least, that's how these things have been mechanically-evaluated so far. They're not given as class features at level 1, as far as I know, which is what anyone would consider as having access to necromancy spells on a Necromancer class.

It also does sound like those rooting for Runesmith subclasses are in for disappointment.

Which is, as always, a huge mistake on every single class without strong chassis like Fighters and Monks.

I hope we're wrong and we end up having Runesmith subclasses.

Lightning Raven wrote:

You simply don't have Lore skills that you are not trained in. And if you are trained in them, then they're already better than Untrained Improvisation.

Either you are trained in them or they don't exist for your character. Which is one of the several elements that make them different from "normal" skills which Untrained Improvisation is designed to affect.

Player Core directly says you can make untrained RK checks with Lore skills, so this is incorrect.

There's also already an existing thread to discuss this topic where people are considering these very issues, there's no sense trying to re-litigate it in a thread that's not meant for discussion in the first place.

Well, Nethys isn't updated then, check it out:

https://2e.aonprd.com/Skills.aspx?ID=41&Redirected=1

The clause "Even if you're untrained in Lore, you can use it to Recall Knowledge." is only present on the Legacy version. Unless this bit of info changed to another rule, I don't think you can roll lore when you're untrained in it.

Source: Player Core

Feat: Untrained Improvisation

Could you please have a look and clarify how this feat interacts with Lore skills?

The current way the feat is written gives a character with this feat a variation on a Class Feat (Bardic Lore) in addition to boosting all the other Untrained skills a character may have. This feels inappropriately strong for any character to have for the price of a level 3 General Feat, let alone for high Intelligence characters.

You simply don't have Lore skills that you are not trained in. And if you are trained in them, then they're already better than Untrained Improvisation.

Either you are trained in them or they don't exist for your character. Which is one of the several elements that make them different from "normal" skills which Untrained Improvisation is designed to affect.

calnivo wrote:

I'd like a clarification / errata where necessary, regarding how certain Class Archetype Dedication feats interact with the clause "you can’t select a different dedication feat until you complete your dedication by taking two other feats from your current archetype" that was outsourced from specific (actually almost all) legacy dedication feats to the general paragraph in remaster, i.e. Player Core 1, p. 215, section "Dedication Details".

Is this really intended for Class Archetype Dedications (and all of them) as well?

Specific (not necessarily exhaustive) examples why I am asking:
- Secrets of Magic, p. 209, Flexible Spellcaster (Class Archetype) Dedication originally did not require you to "complete" the dedication originally. Now, above clause from PC1 technically demands it -- although it's entirely unclear how to do it. It might even be impossible to fulfil the clause unless one declares certain feats to be appropriate "Flexible Spellcaster Archetype" feats.

- I have similar reservations regarding War of Immortals's Class Archetypes, e.g. the Avenger (WoI, p. 58), the Bloodrager (WoI, p.60), the Vindicator (WoI, p. 64), etc.
While these do have a couple of explicit archetype feats one could take, I'm still in doubt: Is it really necessary to pick two of these -- which IMHO strongly narrows class development down to a certain nieche -- first before you can take a (non-class) archetype dedication (like Cleric Dedication)?

+1

Short version: Are class archetypes intended to “take up” the “dedication slot”?

Yes. When you choose a Class Archetype you also have to pick the dedication at 2nd level.

It just means Paizo is not a monolith.

Goddamn it, this phrase reminded me of Key and Peele's Black Republicans' sketch.

Lightning Raven wrote:

Errenor wrote:

Tridus wrote:

Blessed Armament ... Then yeah, the conclusion has to be that it's deliberate until proven otherwise.

Except in this case we also have the question WHAT would be deliberate. I stand by the simplest possible reading that what's written works. It's easy, it's the base of the game rules. Is it written you get that rune for this character? Then you get it. Not even talking about that this counting potency runes also completely breaks when there are no potency runes. And if THAT is which is deliberate, no errata is needed and it's literally the situation of 'yes, the text in the book is correct'.

The deliberate part is the change from getting the effects of a rune on the weapon (that doesn't count against the maximum limit) to getting the rune itself (which counts towards the max).

First, again, getting runes from effects and not etching does NOT automatically make them counted towards the maximum. At a maximum it's debatable. And then, no, even changing wording doesn't mean much. It could've been a slip or an accident, or because they agree that you don't need to count runes from effects they don't think giving 'runes' makes a difference, but it's a simpler and more straightforward wording - any of those could be true. Or something else. In itself it doesn't prove anything.

Different wordings of different abilities either. We know they don't control rule wordings for perfect identity. And tend to repeat general rules. Sometimes, but not always.

As far as I know, feats and features in PF2e just say what they do. Not what they don't. This means if you're getting a rune (instead of its effects) you're engaging with the Rune system. If you find it weird the game isn't specifically pointing out weapons with potency, I do too, however, this is something the game just assumes you will have.

Regardless, the Battle Harbinger feat is, IMO, pretty damning evidence that Blessed Armaments count towards the maximum cap of runes.

Tridus wrote:

Blessed Armament ... Then yeah, the conclusion has to be that it's deliberate until proven otherwise.

Except in this case we also have the question WHAT would be deliberate. I stand by the simplest possible reading that what's written works. It's easy, it's the base of the game rules. Is it written you get that rune for this character? Then you get it. Not even talking about that this counting potency runes also completely breaks when there are no potency runes. And if THAT is which is deliberate, no errata is needed and it's literally the situation of 'yes, the text in the book is correct'.

The deliberate part is the change from getting the effects of a rune on the weapon (that doesn't count against the maximum limit) to getting the rune itself (which counts towards the max).

The change in text implies the latter. Specially when you consider the Battle Harbinger feat that has other language that is much more clear:

Your deity grants you extra power that you have learned to channel into your weapons. Select one weapon or handwraps of mighty blows when you make your daily preparations. While in your hands it gains the effect of one property rune. Choose either fearsome, ghost touch, returning, shifting, or vitalizing. This rune does not count toward your maximum rune count, and this choice lasts 24 hours or until you make your next daily preparations, whichever comes first.

If you can see, it's basically the Champion's class feature rewritten as a feat.

Tridus wrote:

Moth Mariner wrote:

- Rogue Resilience (Player Core) is the only save proficiency upgrade in the system that gives the "roll a success get a crit success" effect when upgrading to Expert, rather than Master. Is this right? Why do Rogues have this? They're already very powerful!

This has been confirmed by Paizo as intentional. I don't really understand why, but it's not an error.

Doesn't at least one other class (one of the newer unreleased ones I think) also follow this trend?

No. No other class have these on all saves. Not even The Guardian (the pure defense class), even for them the benefit is only given when they become Master.

Lightning Raven wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

Inventor Multiclass Archetype requires +3 Int which is out of line of all the other MC Archetypes only needing a +2.

That's most likely by design.

They significantly improved the Armor Innovation, which is something accessible by the Dedication feat itself. They probably thought the +3 Int as a way to require character investment (or delay others) to have access to such powerful AC increase.

A multiclassed exemplar can have the same bonus, but for the whole team.

Not to mention it doesn't make sense to break the design logic of something for an edge case. More so when its not even an edge case.

You mean the Mirrored Aegis that is a STATUS bonus that also requires a Shield and an action to activate? Surely is the same as a straight up AC passive improvement that stacks with other things.

It's not weird to increase the dipping cost considering the strength the armor and weapon innovations are giving right now. In fact, it might even be an option to balance the Exemplar dedication. Things can remain powerful as they are, but demand more investment. Seems reasonable to me.

Mirrored Aegis's immanence effect is +1 status bonus to AC for you and all allies within 15 feet. The only thing that requires an action there is the trascendence, which doesn't increase the bonuses to AC but gives a bonus to saves too. In no way the inventor's armor innovation is better than this, more so to need to be the only class in the system that has a special attribute requirement when much better classes don't.

I'm not saying Mirrored Aegis isn't great. It's just that it has a bunch of caveats that the Armor Innovation just doesn't. The fact that Mirrored Aegis and other Ikons are so good is a bigger argument to make the Exemplar Archetype harder to qualify for, like the new Inventor, than others.

Personally, I don't mind strong Dedication Feats, but I think a good compromise is making them harder to qualify for.

If you are looking for more of a personality type than historical parrallel, someone like Booth from Bones has a personality type and value system that could work. Captain America always struck me as someone who was paladinish as well.

Whenever there is dead air and no one is making a decision (or are taking way toooo long to make a decision), something that always works is....Ninjas. Nothing gets people's attention like a random Ninja attack.

For bonus points after the attack is, hopefully, defeated and people search for loot; roll 1d3 (varies depending on adventure options) whatever number comes up is the adventure option that is responsible for the ninjas.

PCs care a lot more about an adventure option when it is sending Ninjas at them.

Or you could talk to the group if this is a constant issue as something is not clicking right and it is good to find out what.

23. You should be having fun

24. Your fun should be increasing everyone's fun

25. If someone's actions are impacting your ability to enjoy the game, you should have an upfront, honest communication about it.

26. When you GM, you are responsible for stating what kind of game you like to play. When you play, you should find GMs whose game play taste mesh with yours.

27. If game play issues arise, please talk to the other person.

28. It is ok to walk away from the table if game play preferences do not mesh. We can still be friends.

I hear this argument about people dieing and just, hey get a cleric and bring them back to life, but I think it ignores the reality of Golarion or the world Pathfinder is created in. It is taken for a fact that these souls go somewhere else and when you die you go to a place that is in harmony with your soul. To be removed from that would be painful and traumatic event (Buffy the Vampire Slayer really played this out well), I would say most people would not chose to come back to a world of pain and uncertainty. The PCs do, because, well, the PCs are special.

Me, when I GM, death is more of a problem for the "playing" aspect. When someone dies they are no longer playing and participating, I find that to be a huge barrier for engagement. When people are of low levels not as much of an issue, because character creation is typically quicker. When they are higher not as much, so having someone sit out and make a new character becomes a very unattractive proposition.

Huh, when I GMed Pathfinder I never stated what my creatures did on the initiative turn unless I was resolving a die roll or some such. Never really thought of it as I couldn't see how the characters would see a difference between Total Defense, Readying an Action, Delaying any of that. I played the NPCs not know either.

I wonder what it would be like to have people write their actions down on a piece of paper and only reveal it if it gets triggered. That could be interesting.

Mulet, you are a very confused person.

The head scratcher I have is drinking is a just as much as vice as gambling, and yet you want to punish for engaging in one (gambling) and not the other (encouraging someone to drink, a reward without work).

You are being Harsh and Inconsistent. You are probably better just going live and let live or have the Player roll another character.

Guy Kilmore wrote:

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

Sissyl wrote:

Precisely. Aaron does indeed sound too good to be true. I have a hard time seeing anyone tolerating a barf bucket.

well he is useful as trap fodder, send his characters through a minefield, and literally, every mine in the entire minefield will trigger while they cross in their proximity.

he is also useful for repelling unwanted elitist rules lawyers because a lot of them are obsessive about hygeine, but, at the same time, he is bad to deal with.

What!? This guy is making people barf and costing them financially, not to mention inflicting some kind of trauma on others. How does an elitist rules lawyer in any shape equal that? There are easier way of getting away from those types then hanging around with a money sucking, barf inducing, sexually harassing, stink cloud that this guy is. This doesn't make any sense.

i forgot about that. sorry. i have dealt with him so long, that he seems so difficult to remove, and any change in Venue is going to either cost more to rent a room, or cost more for Gas, and we would have the same problems if he stalked us, which i am sure he will.

If this is true and, really my last reply on the subject, as a mental health professional if he is harassing people to the point of throwing up, call the police. If he is sitting there telling you his sexual fantasies and will not stop when you request it, call the police This behavior should not be supported and it is not safe for anyone, and if you are in the United States is a criminal offense. If the owner refuses to remove him, call the city health inspector because I am sure having a barf bucket violates all sorts of health codes.

If you are unwilling to do these things then you are choosing to be in this toxic environment and the only person to hold responsible, at that point, is yourself.

Sissyl wrote:

Precisely. Aaron does indeed sound too good to be true. I have a hard time seeing anyone tolerating a barf bucket.

well he is useful as trap fodder, send his characters through a minefield, and literally, every mine in the entire minefield will trigger while they cross in their proximity.

he is also useful for repelling unwanted elitist rules lawyers because a lot of them are obsessive about hygeine, but, at the same time, he is bad to deal with.

What!? This guy is making people barf and costing them financially, not to mention inflicting some kind of trauma on others. How does an elitist rules lawyer in any shape equal that? There are easier way of getting away from those types then hanging around with a money sucking, barf inducing, sexually harassing, stink cloud that this guy is. This doesn't make any sense.

Don't pay for his chairs anymore. He breaks he deals with the store owner. If the store owner says the table is responsible, point out that it his no exclusion rule that keeps this guy coming which results in his broken chairs.

Seriously, if he continues to sexually harass you, tell him to stop. If he continues, call the police and file charges.

If you really, REALLY, truly hate what he did to you... There is but one recourse. One act so base, so shockingly vile that it will live in infamy in the annals (huhh huh huhh huhh huhh) of gaming. Before you do, be sure you are ready to be a person to do this. You must... I find it hard to write this... DRINK HIS MILK without asking. And then the sun will no longer shine, birds will stop singing, and the stars will go out.

Don't worry internet, I flagged this. There are lines you just don't cross.

Why does it matter if the group is wrong? If your goal is to harmonize to the group to achieve a certain outcome, that stances matters very little. If your goal is harmonizing then it is better to examine your behaviors and change what is appropriate. The only behavior one can really exert control over is one's own. Trying to change another person is incredibly difficult, trying to change four in this kind of group setting is probably impossible.

These conversations should really be directed towards helping the person understand how to work better with a group and if they feel it is worth their time to do so. If it is not, encouraging to find a group with characteristics they enjoy.

I've pondered the OP too. I'm a morning person; I'm up and awake before 5am, despite my actual alarm being set for 5:15am. On the weekends, I sleep in until 7am, maybe 8am if it was a late night before. I've wanted, for years, to have a late morning/early afternoon RPG session on the weekends, instead of the latest possible time in the evenings, and I've found amongst my fellow gamers, I am alone in this.

When we game, for some odd reason, we game as late as we possibly can. We also start as late as we possibly can that will still allow enough time to play a session. If we're "supposed" to start at 7pm, it's going to be 7:30-ish, or even later(despite us all actually showing up at 6-ish), depending on what the DM has prepared. As a time-obsessed early bird, this annoys me to no end.

Thing is, nobody is busy during the weekend afternoons. There's literally no reason we could not meet up around noon on a Sunday and game until the early evening, breaking off for dinner and such. No reason at all, except our habit of doing every single doable thing in the course of the day, and putting gaming dead-last, causing sessions to run late every single time.

I take that back a little bit; we did an early game once. We were supposed to meet up around 10am, people actually showed up between 11am-noon, and we gamed into the early evening. It was awesome! We got way more play time in(almost a full 7 hour session), than the usual 2.5 hour rushed late evening game, and everyone agreed it was great. But, for whatever reason, we've just never done it since. My friends just flat out refuse to be productive before the afternoon, even if it's supposed to be fun.

I had the same issue with Friday nights. It hurt staying up to 1 or 2am. I reformed a new group and we meet every other Sunday at 10am and go until 3 or so. It is pretty great! I feel awake, we get some focused gaming in, make a little snack thingy for people to eat. Its a really good time. I find then I can get some errands or projects in the afternoon done as well.

This is why I always like dropping in the name of the person who will pick up my torch should my character die in the backstory. Good times. (I have no fear of death for my characters, just gives me a chance to try another concept. If it was a concept I didn't fully flesh out that died, I can always recycle it.)

I know from a mechanical standpoint, as a GM, I find myself wondering if I want to deal with a dead character. In Pathfinder, death can feel like a punishment because the way the game is designed. Someone not playing is someone not as engaged as they were. I sometimes do flinch if a character would have died right out of the gate with a couple of hours roleplaying afterwards.

At the same time, I do like character death as it prevents a certain sense of absurdity that can come about. I wish their were some mechanical benefits to a death that would make it feel like less of a punishment. (For instance in FATE, if you concede, you get FATE points which lets you be more awesome in the next encounter, despite losing in the previous.)

Again why is it assumed that a player wanting to play a special snowflake automatically means that it's going to ruin a story. Most of us in this thread come to a consensus that it's give and take on both sides. Yet imo it's always the player that seems to be screwed.

Or to use ciretose example.

DM: Sure you can have sushi just not this time around I'm cooking italian.

Player: (more realistic response instead of the worst case scenarios I'm seeing used here all the time).

Sure okay sushi next time.

I wonder how some would handle vegans or those who can't eat wheat products at their dinners/ Just not invite them while accusing them of being bad people for having such different eating habits or a food intolerence. All because the cook has to break a sweat.

Why are the players always assumed as being the ones who want to play their special snowflakes no matter what. If I was new to this hobby I would have to ask why posters who are DMs keep playing and recruiitng such terrible people as players. We never see ressonable players in these threads. Always the sterotype of the player out to screw the DM. With the DM of course always being shown as the poor martyr having to put up with such players.

The Not coming because you don't like something isn't a bad thing. I was gaming with a group of people who, for whatever reason, thought it was ok scrubbing and canceling out at the last second. It led to many of cancelled sessions. I got tired of it, spoke with the group, they felt this was the norm; so I left the group. Made my own group, much better attendance.

In your Vegan or Vegetarian example there are plenty of options for Italian dishes that work with that, so I don't see a problem.

Now if you were inviting people over to partake in your Meat Worship, Pig Roast, and Carnivorous Orgy; I would truly wonder why the Vegan/Vegetarian would want to come to that. I would also say that it would be up to the Vegan or Vegetarian to make himself fit into that situation if he decides to come.

I would say the same to my Pig Roasting, Meat Worshiping, Carnivorous Loving Friend if he was invited to the Vegan's Non-Face Eating, Bountiful Vegetable Bonanza.

My Short hand Alignment Breakdown.

Good = Altruistic, concerned for others, values life
Evil = Self-Centered, Values Self, does not value life
Neutral (Most People) = Concerned for others, but not necessarily willing to risk self unless their is extreme value. Self is the main drive, but not at the extreme risk of harm to someone else.

Lawful = The Means is just as important as the End. They like to codify how to get it done.
Chaotic = The Means Justifies the End. How it gets done does not matter, what matters is it is the desired result.
Neutral = Usually likes some kind of pattern, rules, or some kind of paradigm for day to day living, but the End is pretty important and they will color outside of the lines if they cannot achieve it the standard way.

The End in the above is usually determined from the Good/Evil/Neutral axis.

In the end I see the Lawful/Chaos axis is about How someone goes about doing something; whereas the Good/Evil axis is about What they are trying to achieve. Both are also motive based.

Well, before reading this thread I was kind of proud how I had my Drow race being brewed up for a campaign world that I have been working for a bit.

In essence Drow are Elves affected by a demonic curse which alters their biology and mindset (I.E. always chaotic evil, part of that insanity). Any elf, or those with elvish blood, can be affected by this curse, gradually becoming a Drow elf. Removing the curse causing them to change back to their elvish heritage.

I would be hard pressed to see a "Good" Drow in this setting.

I don't let my players play any alignment they desire. It is not from a lack of imagination, I can imagine an evil game. I know how to run a working evil game. I just have zero interest in DMing one, or evil PCs for that matter. I like seeing good triumphing over evil. I deal with icky crud every day of the week, being a social worker, and I don't need to experience it in my fantasy roleplaying.

I am pretty up front about this, I have a friend who is only about evil roleplaying games and we learned our gaming doesn't mesh; so we don't play table top roleplaying games together.

We instead BS about table top gaming and go play pool instead.

Life cycle of an internet messageboard thread.

1. OP has a question or observation that is provided to the general community in a genuine attempt to provide a public service.
2. Responder attempts to provide an honest and useful reply.
3. OP indicates appreciation of response, but clarifies a misunderstanding.
4. Hyper-sensitive person jumps on some trivial semantic, ideological or rules issue in knee-jerk attempt to advance a personal agenda.
5. OP and/or first responder attempts to mollify hypersensitive person with further clarification.
6. A dozen lurkers "like" the hyper-sensitive person's off-topic rant.
7. Reasonable person attempts to intervene explaining how the hyper-sensitive person over-reacted to an innocent mistake.
8. Hyper-sensitive person and three like-minded allies gang-tackle reasonable person, calling into question their intelligence, moral clarity and upbringing.
9. Someone makes a comment about popcorn.
10. OP and/or other interested parties try one more time to restore the thread to the original purpose.
11. Ranters on both sides unload on OP and/or other interested parties to point out how completely unaware they are of the critical importance of whatever agenda item they are promoting.
12. Lurkers begin commenting about the thread going off the rails.
13. Ranters on both sides begin making personal attacks.
14. Moderators warn everyone to "play nice"
15. Innocent bystanders express indignation about being lumped in with the ranters.
16. Ranters are now lined up on both sides firing semantic nuclear bombs at each other.
17. Someone makes a statement that gives the other side their chance to claim racism, sexism, bigotry or some other "scarlet letter" level of moral turpitude.
18. Mods finally lock the thread.

So it is just a bunch of bots posting back and fourth......

Oh, and for Science!

I find it a strength and it hooks people in. Something about that Character from literature or what have you is a draw to that person. I help them with the system to find the way to express that character and thing about that character that draws them. I mean, they interact with the table, so those interactions are going to be unique and individual.

My wife wanted to try out Spirit of the Century and made a Lara Croft clone. If I told her to go away and make a true character, she would never have found out that she kind of liked Roleplaying.

Guy Kilmore wrote:

Orthos wrote:

Quote:

(I also think our society, US that is, has an unhealthy obsession with Extraversion and activities seen as more Shy or Introverted get conflated and devalued.)

I can't say much about the rest of your post, but I can't agree with this one enough.

You might enjoy the book Quiet which is about the strength of being an introvert in an extroverted valuing culture. I am finding it to be a very interesting read.

Author?

Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking

I don't usually go for this kind of book, but I am finding it to be a good read. (It was recommended by two other introverts in my life, independently of each other, so I'd figure I would give it a shot.)

Quote:

(I also think our society, US that is, has an unhealthy obsession with Extraversion and activities seen as more Shy or Introverted get conflated and devalued.)

I can't say much about the rest of your post, but I can't agree with this one enough.

You might enjoy the book Quiet which is about the strength of being an introvert in an extroverted valuing culture. I am finding it to be a very interesting read.

This topic kind of reared its head in my life, which resulted in me looking for a new gaming group, but one of the things that I found surprising was how many of my group felt that inappropriate social behaviors were considered the norm for engaging in this hobby. (For instance, canceling at the last minute with little to no reason.) This kind of boggled my mind a little bit as in the other group activities I have participated, behaviors such as the mentioned, would not have been acceptable. (This was one of the group norms that people wanted and I did not, so I decided to move on.)

I also think that this particular activity draws towards those who are inclined to more solitary pursuits, but can find it as an easy jumping off point to engage in social activities.

I used to think it was just a run of various introverts, but, as in with my last gaming group; I learned that there is something more to it. I have been reading some literature on extroversion and introversion and that while they exist on the spectrum there is another measure to consider. Anxious vs. Calmness. A person who ranks high on the Anxiety scale is most likely the person who is Shy. (My words are heavy handed here as there is a ton more nuance to Anxiety, but the short hand makes it easier to move forward. I am open to a different word.) Basically I think gaming groups are made up of Calm Introverts and Shy Extroverts. (You have calm Extroverts and Shy Introverts as well, but just smaller numbers.) Calm Introverts and Shy Extroverts can look the same, but what is going on under the hood is really different.

For instance. I know I am an introvert, I do like talking to people, just in small groups and in small doses. I know that after awhile it tires me out and I do gain stress from that interactions. The Shy Extrovert also wants to talk with people and gets energy from it. However a ton of anxiety gets in the way, so certain maladaptive behaviors can emerge making that interaction more difficult. For both groups of people having a code for how the interaction is supposed to exist can be calming.

My clash with my former gaming group came from that fundamental difference between Extraversion and Introversion. Introverts desire quality and depth in their relationships (Not saying that Extraverts don't, just that it is a fundamental need for an Introvert.) When my group was entering into certain social taboos that ran counter to my need, this began to cause anguish. When I confronted this issue, I ran afoul of the extraverts. Extraverts were no where near as interested in I in exploring the reason of the issue and were upset with me for threatening the cohesion of the group. Even more so in this case, because over half of the people in the group are those I would now consider Shy Extraverts. This activity was where they felt comfortable getting their Extraversion on and they were comfortable permitting a level of social taboos to achieve that end, that I was not.

Sorry for the long way round, I really think that the social awkwardness perceived in gaming is really around a mistake understanding about what Introversion and Extroversion is, a non inclusion of an Anxiety/Calmness scale when examining Introversion and Extroversion, and then a miscommunication between these groups. (I also think our society, US that is, has an unhealthy obsession with Extraversion and activities seen as more Shy or Introverted get conflated and devalued.)

Can't we all just agree that however you're playing, you're doing it wrong?

At his next session, he should rip up his character sheet, throw it into the air and fall to his knees weeping. He should beg the other players, the GM, passersby, the Paizo Development team, the Ghost of Gygax and the Universe for forgiveness while flailing himself with a dice bag full of broken glass.

beej67 wrote:

Your character is probably dead weight, but who cares. Anyone who disdains you for playing a dead weight character needs to lighten up. I'd find a new gaming group.

One of the parties I'm playing in has two bards, a venerable aged hair witch, and a paladin who's specialized in improvised weapons. All we can do in combat is debuff the bad guys, buff the hell out of the paladin, and watch her beat them up with a table leg.

It's hilarious, and sub-optimal, and fun.

I'm pretty sure the inevitable TPK will be very fun for you guys, then.

Unless the DM is feeling sorry for the group and avoids killing it at all costs.

Or the DM likes, you know, scaling challengs to fit the level of the group he DMs.

I have a more general question for the thread, that I feel pertains to the topic:

How large is everyone's average gaming group?

I've found, that in smaller groups(1 DM, 2 or 3 players), it's much easier to get much more descriptive with encounters, which in some small part includes getting more visceral and gritty with attack descriptions.

I've played in larger groups(1 DM, 7+ players) and it's a lot harder to sit and get overly descriptive, when you have a large group of people all awaiting their turn. OOC scenes are still deep and involved, but things centered around die rolls and action sequence, tend to be a lot more streamlined and faster paced, less descriptive. At least in my experience.

I saw you post this and I thought it was a pretty good question/observation that I didn't want to let it slide by. I think you have the right of it. I am DMing for a larger group and I noticed that I do let the details slide on a hit, by hit basis. My happy medium in these instances is to let a round of combat happen, then before the start of the next, put the descriptive narrative of what happen in. I noticed people payed more attention to that. When the group is around 4 or 5 players, I can do a more blow-by-blow detail. Even then though I might resort to the more cinematic round summary.

As to the rest of this thread it makes me think of the Hemmingway and the legendary bet he won, to craft a short story in less than ten words.

"Classified: For Sale, baby shoes, never worn."

I know, we're horrible.

==Aelryinth

But I still love you all.

I just learned today that dim light does not exist objectively, just subjectively.

Take Ciretose's advice with a grain of salt.

He's the president of the 'Players have all rights, and GMs have none' movement.

*head explodes*

No, the reasonable and probably less offensive question would have been, "Why does the table not get rid of her?"

One could also have asked, "Hey, is there some kind social commitment beyond gaming?" or something along those lines. When you go the girlfriend route you do make a certain presumption and that presumption aligns with certain negative stereotypes that get perpetuated. That isn't good for our hobby.

Good people can be executed for doing bad things by a legitimate and goodly law. Good people can have moral failings. While sad, it is not neccessarily evil.

The Paladin could use all those social skills and try to move the King towards Clemency. The Paladin can pray for the soul of the man who is to be done in by this "good and legitimate law". The Paladin can work with this system in attempts to change this law, to maybe head off this act or so it does not happen in the future. The Paladin can fail to change the course of this even, failing does not mean a fall as well. It is the attempt that matters.

I don't see where one is forced to help an evil King in the code, if one is a Paladin.

The problem with these conversations regarding the limitations of the code or what have you are that they do not take in account to how the code is set-up between a GM and Player. The only two real core obligations is that it exists and that at its heart it is LG. (There are other small nuances, but they have been posted about as well.) I don't see this as too much of a challenge.

I'm thinking about this very subject right now!

Sukie just died. She is, or was, my PC in Kingmaker. She died heroically so that her friend didn't. RIP Sukie. : (

So I rolled some stats in front of the DM then went home to build a paladin. I had some really excellent rolls(!)...and I also rolled a 5...! According to helpful information in another thread, an Int of 5 is the equivalent of an IQ of 69.

Still, you take the rough with the smooth. I don't want to characterise him as the village idiot, drooling on the baddies; I want something more nuanced.

Luckily, it's been established that he comes from a mixed human/half-elf family. I'm also taking the Fey Foundling feat, so to match it I'll take the Silver-Tongued human alternate racial trait from the ARG and the Charming social trait from the APG. I'll build in a nymph/dryad/fey ancestry, and characterise his lack of intellect as being 'refreshingly uncomplicated'. His seeming lack of common knowledge (and lack of attention span) is because his attention seems half in the First World rather than Golarion. His fey ancestry is trying to influence him toward Chaos, and his constant battle to remain Lawful takes up his focus. He takes +1 damage from cold iron weapons, and although this doesn't stop him from using such weapons I'll have him wear a pair of cold iron spiked gauntlets so that the constant distraction keeps him from losing himself into Chaos.

What do you guys think? Plausible?

Also, can anyone provide a link to that thing I've heard about which details the different codes that paladins of different Golarion gods follow? He's a paladin of Shelyn, and any Shelyn-specific code would help me a lot. : )

It makes sense to me. I am reminded of Charlemagne who was a capable ruler and whatnot, he was insightful and charasmatic; but he could not learn to read no matter how hard he tried. I suspect he had some learning disabilities that made it difficult for him to attain a certain level of education, but he was insightful enough to make the connections he needed to make.

Hard Core History (Free Podcast on Itunes) has like a two hour lecture on this guy that you might find interesting. The title of the episode was Thor's Angels. (It was about more than just him, but you might dig it.)

As to Shelyn's code (Faiths of Purity as the major Golarian God's codes of conduct in it. Faiths of Balance has Abdars). Here is what was posted on Paizo's blog about Shelyn's code:

•I am peaceful. I come first with a rose. I act to prevent conflict before it blossoms.
•I never strike first, unless it is the only way to protect the innocent.
•I accept surrender if my opponent can be redeemed—and I never assume that they cannot be. All things that live love beauty, and I will show beauty's answer to them.
•I will never destroy a work of art, nor allow one to come to harm unless greater art arises from its loss. I will only sacrifice art if doing so allows me to save a life, for untold beauty can arise from an awakened soul.
•I see beauty in others. As a rough stone hides a diamond, a drab face may hide the heart of a saint.
•I lead by example, not with my blade. Where my blade passes, a life is cut short, and the world's potential for beauty is lessened.
•I live my life as art. I will choose an art and perfect it. When I have mastered it, I will choose another. The works I leave behind make life richer for those who follow.

The big disconnect is there are two definitions: "fair = everyone treated equally" and "fair = everyone being treated as they deserve to be treated based on past conduct". I don't think there is really a wrong definition here, except to say the former is an ideal, and the latter tends to be the reality of things. This is in large part due to human nature and our tendency to, sometimes subconsciously, inject personal bias into things.

Generally a good post and one I agree with, except one part in this section. Yes, I am going to quibble, but it is an important one.

Fair = everyone treated equally should only be the ideal setting when one meets a stranger, once one engages in a social interaction with a stranger this stance becomes detrimental. By subscribing to those stance "Fair = Everyone treated equally" you are saying that actions don't matter. That all actions should have the same response. The guy who punches you in the face should be treated the same as the guy who shakes your hand. This does not work.

I get what Ciretose is saying about fair and I think people are really oversymplifying it. I know Ciretose is a probation officer, I am a social worker and dealing with the concept of "fair" is part of boundary setting that is required by ethical standards of our professions. I have to maintain a certain level of training on these issues and topics.

If you treat everyone equally, disregarding behaviors of the person, the past history of the person in relating with you, and the needs of the person then you are being unfair.

For instance. I treat my wife, an adult woman one way, I treat adult women, who are my friends, another way. If I treated my adult female friends and my wife the same way, I am willing to be that my wife would find that very unfair. (It would also be creepy).

What makes an interaction fair is if your reaction and behaviors are consistent across people based upon the behaviors they display and the relationship you have (relationships are based on the historic trends of behaviors that this person has had towards you). If someone is being abuisve towards you and someone is being friend towards you, I hope you are reacting different between these two individuals. Not only is it fair, but it is also healthy.

(I know that oversimplyfied some of this, but my brain is partially melted from reading commitment documentation. Legal Jargon, Medical Jargon, and Psychiatric Jargon all balled up into 36 page documents. Good times!)

Voice tone, body language, and context make up a large portion of our communication. The written word on the internet neglects that. People then tend to read into it with their own baggage and then the misunderstandings ensue. The act of a human sharing information with another human is amazing complex.

Your only recourse is to sleep with his wife.

If all was good and fine, then why not make that clear from the first post?

I am unsure why he had to. He wasn't complaining about what his DM did, but was asking for creative solutions to a Roleplaying problem. I think it is easy for us to bring our own baggage to a problem, when it happens it is usually best to go, "Oh my bad," and move on with the conversation.

It might be worthwhile to take a break from RPGs all together, play a couple of board games, cards, whatever. Have a few beers, if you are of age. It might be nice to get the sillies out and reconnect as friends a little bit. Absence makes the heart grow fonder and all that jazz, so give it some time and see what happens.

Here's how I would work the first 8 levels:

STR minimum 13 (for power attack)
DEX minimum 18 (primary offensive and defensive stat)
INT minimum 13 (for combat expertise)

Level Progression, Feat selection and attribute allocation
1st (Fighter 1): EWP (Aldori Dueling Sword), Power Attack, Weapon Finesse
2nd (Fighter 2): Weapon Focus (Aldori Dueling Sword)
3rd (Fighter 3): Improved Unarmed Strike
4th (Fighter 4): Crane Style, +1 DEX
5th (Fighter 5): Dazzling Display
6th (Aldori Swordlord PrC 1)
7th (Fighter 6): Combat Expertise, Weapon Spec. (Aldori Dueling Sword)
8th (Fighter 7): +1 DEX

At 8th level, when wearing no armor, fighting defensively with a non-magical ADS and power attacking two-handed, this character has +11 to hit (no penalty to hit, due to Crane Style and Steel Net ability, but -3 from power attack), does 1d8+16 damage and has an AC of 22 (24 if using full-attack action).

That is not too bad. What do you think about switching out levels 4 and 5 of fighter and going with two levels of Monk (Master of Many Styles). You will get better saves, unarmed attack, you can also pick up Crane Style and Crane Wing (Free hand blocks a melee attack per round). You can mix in Sacred Mountain to get toughness for free or mix in Sohei to get the ability to act in surprise rounds (This allows you to fight defensively faster.) If you are going with no armor fighting, you can also add a little Wisdom bonus in.

This costs you a BAB and 2 Hitpoints, but I think you can afford it.

But, what would we squabble over then?

Russia. It gets seven extra men a turn.

I am glad I read this thread, the two handed fighter I DM who wrecks my flying foes with his magical compound long bow and no feat investment is doing it wrong. I can now tell him that he killed those things in error and must return his experience points.

A lot of fun builds. And yes, I have yoinked some for my campaign.

At a glance, the Mysterious Stranger makes a good dip for someone who has a class the relies more on Charisma, like a paladin, bard, oracle, or sorcerer.

So PC Shooty MCBoom. I have heard of your "exploits," the ruin and destruction that you have rained down upon my men with your infernal device. I knew you were an oddity, a rarity, but not one without merit. I found another in this land who desires to challenge your supremacy, meet NPC Trigger McBoomStick. Now you will die by the very device you "mastered!"

M'wha hahahahahahah *cough* *hack* *cough* hahahahahaha

As an observer, why would you not include Ultimate Combat, archetypes or races? That doesn't really help with anything in comparisons.

An aside: After the teleport invisibility thing, great conversation, it really focused how I should rule it in my home game. Perception is a reaction check. Teleport is a standard action. If that action ends within 30ft of someone and you are invisible, and not wanting to be noticed, those that you are hiding from would get a DC 20 check to notice you. (The perception check for seeing an active person that is invisible.) It makes sense to me, most normal people would not make a DC 20 check. Those that don't train their perception would not either. Those super humans that do, would notice the 1000s of little things that would change when something suddenly enters in an area.

As someone who lurks these conversations, it is golden when someone posts a build to back-up their point. Abstract conversation is all well and good, but until it is applied its usefulness is questionable and well, remains abstract.

The Sylph Archetypes are cool.

For whatever reason, the Human Sorc Archetype I find to be really awesome, especially the 9th level ability. Take your best shot. Any spell or spell like ability that misses you or does no harm to you (because of a save or resistance) you get to make an immediate demoralize check against the caster of said spell.

It just seems like a fun flavor ability.

Aranna wrote:

I am lucky to have more than one or sometimes two persons at the table good at both role play and optimization.

...

Overwhelmingly, the people I have at the table who are good role-players are also good at practical optimization. The people who are lousy at optimization are also the exact same people who don't get into the role-playing aspects, either. Maybe I've just been really lucky, but I've seen this as a pretty consistent trend over 30 years of gaming. There have been exceptions -- Houstonderek's original Pathfinder group had a guy who loved the role-playing part and really hammed it up, but had zero grasp of the rules -- but that's been relatively rare (that same group had me and Derek on the good-at-both end, and also a guy who made the least effective characters I've ever seen, and also seemingly never had a hint of a personality or backstory for them).

That has been my experience. Every once and awhile I have someone who has a character concept and after a couple of levels it just isn't working. We look at it and see if it can be tweaked, sometimes talk to the table. I usually give everyone an "oh shit" to rebuild their character within reason per campaign. I would rather have people shoot for a concept and fail, than not try to be creative at all.

Guy Kilmore wrote:

I agree. (As the lurker and the guy just reading this stuff. I am finding the thought experiment interesting. I am learning stuff that will make me a better GM and I have enough information to make decisions based upon the playstyle of my group.)

I hope you and others are seeing interesting ways to build and use fighters. Rangers and paladins are relatively easy to build because their abilities are mostly preset and the class design guides the user through the process. Fighters don't have that so it takes a bit more understanding of how the feats interact with each other and you really do have to know where you want to go with the build.

I treat my characters a lot like authors treat their characters: I let the character talk to me and tell me what he wants to do next. Just because a particular feat is mechanically better than another does not mean I'm going to take it. I look at how the feats fit the concept. I won't take a useless feat just to prove that I can get by with fewer feats, that would be silly (even if I can do it, I don't think it will show of value).

I tend to build my PCs and NPCs the same way. I tend to make my recommendations to the PCs I GM for in a similar way. It is nice to see traits and feats people use to flesh certain concepts, because there are alot of feats and combinations. It is nice to see people who are more adept at accessing those rules and combinations, put stuff together. It increases my breadth of experience.

I say this for builds that many people have posted and I find value in what is going up. It is also nice to see builds for both Ashiel and Ciretose, as I have played and GMed both styles of campaigns.

While I find the discussion of different playstyles in reference to build somewhat illuminating. (It explains why a build is going in a certain direction and how the playstyle effects the expression of the concept.) I think some of it has gone on longer than it needs to.

As someone who has been lurking and reading this discussion. I am finding it informative and I am being given enough information to draw my own informed conclusions. Thanks for the effort in the builds.