LordVanya's page

302 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 302 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

(ninja'd)

I have to agree BloodandDust.

Seems to me bows need some adjustments, but given those possible adjustments it may recontextualize the situation with xbows to some degree. Either way I don't think it would be possible to do this without adding some degree of complexity back into the game.

Also, I think there is a problem with using propulsive with xbows.
It would have the side effect of muddying the perception of what that trait represents which complicates it unnecessarily.
In other words, when I see propulsive, I think "a ranged weapon that uses some muscle power for extra damage". But that has to be redefined if used with xbows.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dig this.
My initial thought was to make a Magus class archetype, but that loses some of the flavor in the trope.

What S. J. Digritz proposes seems pretty good.
Only other thing I think it should get is the boosted weapon and armor proficiencies mentioned in the OP and definitely a reaction ability, but not necessarily AoO.


I'm thinking of expanding the ancestry part of character creation by giving my players access to what I'm calling talents.

Basically, everyone gets to pick a lineage in my game and lineages come with a single skill talent instead of training like backgrounds do.

What's a talent?

Talents do two things.

First, they allow the character to gain a talent bonus if the selected skill is untrained. Talent bonus equals 1 + half your level round down. This allows your untrained talent to be at least somewhat more functional as you level up. Never as good as actual training, but better than nothing.

Second, they give diminishing returns if you increase your selected skill to trained or better. Normal TEML is 2/4/6/8 + level, but talented TEML would be something like 5/6/7/8 or 4/6/7/9 or maybe just 3/5/7/9 + level.
Basically, the more well trained you are the less your talent counts.

5/6/7/8 is heavily skewed to being overpowered low proficiency, but counts for nothing at the top. My concern is that having a skill count as better than expert at level 1 might break the game some. And not getting anything for it at legendary is flavorful but ultimately unsatisfying.

3/5/7/9 ditched the diminishing returns idea and instead just turns your talent into an untyped +1 bonus that just makes you minimally better at every proficiency. My concern here is that it's boring and I wonder how impactful that extra plus 1 could be at high levels where every bonus is important?

4/6/7/9 is the middle ground, I think. Your talent is as good as the next training rank above it at first, then it's only minimally better at the higher ranks. This one has the flavor I'm after, but kind of has all the worries that the other two have. Is it too strong at low ranks and is the extra +1 too much of an advantage at legendary?

Thoughts?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dig this.
Bookmarked for future reference.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I could throw in a skill training or maybe a weapon training for a single weapon? Just a little boost. Would that work?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It has always nagged me that with all the diverse heritages available in P2e, that there isn't an option to just be a plain, unobtrusive member of your ancestry.

To that end, I made this available to all my players in case anyone can't decide on any of the existing heritages or just wants their character to be common.

Typical (Versatile Heritage)
Common

You are a typical member of your ancestry. Instead of being part of any particular heritage, you are just you. Select one 1st level ancestry feat to which you have access. This feat is considered to be part of your heritage and can’t be changed later.

Thoughts?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Castilliano wrote:

How does Bender get drunk?

On a complete side note, Bender is not a great example.

Robots in his setting use alcohol for fuel and they don't exhibit any of the symptoms of drunkenness unless they fail to intake the proper levels of alcohol. Some of those effects seem to be side effects of the actual process they use to burn the alcohol while some seem like they must have been programmed in on purpose.

Either way, Futurama robots have logical narrative reasons why they act the way they do based on their, albeit fictional, technology.

Actually, if anything, Bender is a good example for my argument.


@Grankless: Thanks! I didn't realize that was a thing.

@HumbleGamer: Interesting approach!

Thanks to you both!


WWHsmackdown wrote:
LordVanya wrote:

Good thing everyone in my group will agree that "it's magic" isn't a good enough reason.

Thanks for the input everyone!

seems like you had already come to your decision before posting. Were you just looking for support?

No, just wanted to see if there was an established lore reason or if anyone came up with something better.

Paradozen wrote:
I know less about automatons, perhaps something similar in the specifics of how the magic works could be arranged for them.

Pretty much as vague as the poppet, with something about planar quintessence that doesn't really mean anything more "because it's magic".

Paradozen wrote:
It's also possible that these ancestries aren't a good fit for your group if they break verisimilitude for y'all. One reason some things are rare is to signal that they may not be appropriate for all groups, campaigns, or themes.

As is, no. We can't justify all the seeming contradictions.

That is why I will be rewriting them in a way that will make sense to us.


Is it just me, or does it seem like this warrior androids are sub optimal for being actual warriors?

I mean pretty much every martial class already has training in simple and martial weapons, so a warrior android fighter basically gets no benefit from it's heritage. Or am I missing something?

If I'm not, than I think it might warrant a small rewrite.

Warrior Android

Your body was originally created to function as a security officer or soldier. You're a gifted warrior preprogrammed for combat.
You gain the Weapon Proficiency general feat as a bonus feat. Weapon proficiency granted by this bonus feat increases along with those granted by your class.

This way you always have some sort of benefit for starting out ahead instead of it evaporating under certain circumstances.

So your warrior android fighter starts out expert in one advanced weapon instead of negating the benefit of being a warrior android entirely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for the input!

My games are mostly homebrew. About 90% so.
Everyone gets to play with "missing" things from PF1e.
And I always up the challenge as needed.

I hadn't thought of the undead PCs as a possible resource, thanks for mentioning it, Castilliano!

I'm actually going through all the traits right this minute, coincidentally, HumbleGamer.

----------

There is a question that's been nagging me, tho.
By RAW it seems to me that the way Poppets were written they keep several of their immunities from the Construct trait.

Constructed calls out a +1 circumstance bonus to: death, disease, poisons, drained, paralyzed, and sickened.

Does that mean they keep immunity to: bleed damage, necromancy, nonlethal attacks, doomed, fatigued, and unconscious?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Good thing everyone in my group will agree that "it's magic" isn't a good enough reason.

Thanks for the input everyone!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I need some opinions on how to give some ancestries back immunities that they used to have. In particular, I'm working with androids.

I want to add a heritage that gives them back darkvision and equivalent immunities to those they used to have. This is what I have so far:

Early Model Android

You were constructed to be sturdier, but with less well developed emotional processors.
You gain darkvision and are immune to disease, emotion, fear, and sleep effects as well as the fatigued condition.
Additionally, the penalty from Emotionally Unaware increases to -2.

Should it carry a higher mitigating penalty? More mitigating penalties?

Other changes to take into account that I'm planning that will apply to all androids:

~ Add the Construct trait.
~ Revise the Android trait to include a +1 circumstance bonus to Perception checks (excluding Sense Motive), negation of most of the mechanics included in the Construct trait, and correcting the redundant description (if a thing is synthetic it is by definition created through artificial means).
~ Expand the Constructed attribute to include mental effects, and drained, fatigue, paralyzed, sickened, and unconscious conditions.

Does this seem too powerful?
Any ideas on how to mitigate things further?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

OK, I get it; game balance.
But really, how exactly does the lore support a being with no lungs or brain only getting a bonus to saves against ailments that specifically affect those body parts?

That's the poppet which by RAW doesn't seem to loose SOME of it's construct immunities.
(And the remaining ones don't make much sense in context with the resistances.)

The Automatons are even worse because they do lose their immunities and don't even get any resistances.

I'm just saying that there has to be a better way to balance this out than "it's magic" because a lot of sources for diseases and poisons aren't magic. As such, verisimilitude is really taking a beating here.

I even give Androids a pass because they're really synthoids, and not having the immunities and getting resistances is believable.
(Although, I still made a home brew heritage to give them back what they used to have in 1e, "Early Model Android" for the win.)

So help me out here, guys?
Rationalize this for me, please.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You're better off than me.
There are no stores participating in South Florida that I could find at all.


The cost of using Arcane Rearrangement seems too steep to me.
Lowering your max focus pool seems like too much.

I think it would be enough to spend the initial focus points to prepare the spell(s). And then maybe also having to spend a focus point to cast the spell from the prepared slot. In that way the spell is both treated as an arcane spell and a focus spell simultaneously.


TwilightKnight wrote:
Its the aspect of singling out female and suggesting that they are weaker than males in a fantasy world that initially drew the ire of my SigO.

Frankly, that sounds like a knee-jerk reaction.

No such thing is suggested by C2 as it was written.
It literally says that FEMALES are just as strong as males by default and CAN CHOOSE to be more agile where as MALES CANNOT.
If anything, that option does the opposite and is sexist against males.

I still don't see a problem with it in a private home game.
If it was being used in a public venue then I would agree it's not worth the trouble.

Plus, when I think about it more, the base rules let you do something pretty close to that already.
It might be more useful to modify the voluntary flaw option instead.


I don't see any significant pitfalls in it.

I use the same rule, but what I do is I limit the total number of dedication feats you can get over all.

Using the base rules you couldn't have more than 4 dedication feats total. So that is the only limit I place since the system seems pretty self-balancing to me.

Heck I don't even see a big deal in letting players gain their dedication feats all at once at level 2 and simply reducing the number of archetype feats they can get after.

Actually, I kinda like that idea.
I think I'll try developing it further.


C2 seems perfectly fine to me being as it is optional.

------------------------------------------------------

These house rules are quite interesting!
I especially like the inclusion of reincarnation effects, soul essence, and body & personality types.

Although, the large number of extra feats and bonuses seems like they give quite a power boost.

Personally, I use the free archetype variant rule from the GMG.
Also, I have have my own modified ancestry and background homebrew.

Alternative Ancestries:
Basically, I was never satisfied with the ancestry traits from PF1e being converted into and spread out as heritages and feats.
(Not to mention I detest the misuse of the word heritage.)

Anyway, my ancestries are fully restricted to biological features.
You have 4 slots to fill with selected attributes.
An attribute roughly corresponds to a racial trait PF1e.
(Usually with any bonuses halved to a minimum of 1.)
You can also choose to select one or two heredities.
A heredity is roughly equivalent to a heritage and each one takes up 2 of your slots.

I did this to allow for characters that are just plain members of their respective ancestries as well as to accommodate for characters of mixed heredity and mixed ancestry more freely.

Ancestry feats are strictly cultural in nature and became part of your background instead.

Bountiful Backgrounds:
Similarly to my ancestry changes, you now have 4 slots for what I call traditions. These are also based on the racial traits in PF1e, but these are strictly cultural and they are not necessarily bound to your ancestry.

Traditions are like attributes.
You can also choose heritages which are like heredities.
When selecting these you are not restricted by your actual ancestry.

Basically, you can choose to have been raised in your ancestral culture, a mix of your ancestral cultures, a mix of ancestral and adopted cultures, a mix of only adopted cultures, or in a single adopted culture.

Regardless, you gain 1 or 2 free Lore skills pertaining to your predominant cultural influences.

You still select backgrounds, but I've been playing around with using the Deep Backgrounds variant rules (and other similar systems) as a basis for a more flashed out background selection.

I'm thinking of giving out backgrounds in 3 categories from which you select the various options; Environment, Education, and Profession.

You then get to select 1 specific ability boost from among the chosen backgrounds and 1 free boost. You get training in all 3 skills, and all 3 Lore skills. Lastly, you gain 1 of the 3 available skill feats.

If it's ok, I think I might adapt some of the concepts in your house rules to augment what I already have.

Hope this helps out!


How about 1/2 level + 1?


I think it would be a good idea to compare the changes in this homebrew to the Feats and Features Variant Rules in the Gamemastery Guide. They pretty much tell you how the game balance is affected by their official rules, so it should help gauge what it means for multiple versatile heritages [sic].

Plus, the official rules state that the half-heritages are only exclusive to humans in the Lost Omens campaign setting. Your own home game can have half-heritages of any kind and in any combination. So there is some precedent in the game of a somewhat similar fashion.

----------

Personally, in my homebrew system I have what is basically a versatile ancestry that lets you choose a wide variety of options. Basically my ancestries have heritages similar PF2e and racial traits similar to PF1e.
You can select 1 of 3 options depending on how you want to express your character's mixed heredity:

1) Select a total of 4 racial traits chosen from up to four different ancestries, but no less than two.

2) Select 1 heritage from any ancestry (this is your dominant ancestry), and then select a total of 2 racial traits chosen from one or two other ancestries.

OR

3) Select 2 heritages from two different ancestries.

You thus gain the traits from all of your chosen ancestries.

It can a bit much for new players, but my system is not geared towards new players anyway. And I think I should point out that I don't have any half-ancestry specific abilities. You just get some stuff from each of your ancestries.


Thanks for the info.

I was thinking of doing something kinda like that, yeah.
I figure a fully "fleshed" out Robot ancestry should (ironically) include heritages for robots without synthetic flesh.

I'll move Pass for Human into it's own heritage which would correspond to the 1e Mannequin Robot and base the rest of the heritages on some of the other ones like the Gearsman Robots.


Phillip Gastone wrote:
Could always go for the Nier:Automata versions.

Don't know the first thing about those! :D

How are they different?


First, thank you for the feedback. :)

I forgot to add the traits.
I was intending to use Rare, Construct, and Robot.

The 12 HP thing is a nod to PF1e granting extra HP to constructs based on their size.
I didn't think +2 HP more than a Dwarf or Orc would amount to much in the long run.

I figured that Construct was safe to use given that we're getting the Automaton ancestry later on this year and the Construct Companion in the playtest uses it too.

That and I specifically wanted the applicable construct immunities to be included without repeating them in the Robot trait.

I didn't think Humanoid would apply. Although, I have to admit, an AI in a Mannequin Robot does fit the description for Humanoid.

Looking through your guide (really digging it BTW) it seems like I would need to spend 5 points to cover everything I have here. 2 points for the HP, 1 for the low-light vision, and 1 each for Breakdown and Pass for Human.

I dunno, I feel like Breakdown is balanced enough by the fact you can't heal normally due to being immune to necromancy effects. Pass for Human does seem to tip the scale by maybe, say, half a heritage? Just seems like it would really only matter in Numeria.

Further thoughts?

Anyway, I'll take your feedback and guide into consideration. Thanks!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hi all, this is my first attempt at a homebrew ancestry.
My primary intent is to make a proper robot ancestry for my PC, Nth.
He's based on Megaman, so Android doesn't REALLY fit, and Automaton is long off.

This ancestry is partly based on A.I.s and the Mannequin Robot monster from 1e, and the clockwork construct companion from the Guns & Gears playtest.

Hit Points
12

Size
Medium

Speed
25 feet

Ability Boosts
Intelligence
Wisdom
Free

Ability Flaw(s)
Charisma

Languages
Same as Android

Low-light Vision

Breakdown
Unlike other constructs, you are only broken at 0 Hit Points instead of being destroyed and can be Repaired. If you take damage again while broken, or if you become broken in this way more than twice within 10 minutes, you're destroyed. You cannot be resurrected nor reincarnated.

Pass For Human
Your synthetic flesh and hair make it easy for you to pass for a human. In most cases, creatures have a chance to detect your true nature only if they use the Seek action to attempt a DC 15 flat check. However, your non-human nature is automatically revealed upon close inspection.

Robot Trait:
A robot is a type of construct. Restoring Hit Points to them requires using the Repair action or other means that can restore Hit Points to objects and nonliving creatures. They are also vulnerable to critical strikes. Whenever they take damage from a critical strike, they must make a DC 15 flat check. Failure: stunned 3. Success: slowed 2 for 1 round. Many robots also have a weakness to electricity or some other damage type.

I don't have as much experience playing PF2e as I'd like, so if anyone could point out any glaring issues, please let me know.

Next I want to work on heritages and then the ancestry feats.
But I'd like some feedback on the base ancestry first.

~PS: Yes. I will definitely be making a "Super Fighting Robot" heritage.


This is a also a bit of a symptom of PF2e not naming things well.
These spells they call Bless and Bane are not that at all.
Should have been called Aura f Blessing and Aura of Bane.

Regardless, if you want to stick with Bless and Bane, then I think beowulf99's idea is the best one so far.


That seems like meta-gaming to me.

Flurry of blows only states that you combine the damage if you hit the same target. These are described as rapid blows, so at what point are they going to be aware of the target dying when they are not supposed to even be aware of what Hit Points are or know exactly how close to dying an enemy is?

I think that the implication here is clearly that you have to choose your target or targets before making the attack rolls. You don't get to see if the target dies before making the second strike.


I dig that! Tho, I still think I'd want to add some more to start with.


@AnimatedPaper: I don't think the new trait proposed adds a significant amount of complexity. Plus there is room to reduce complexity in other areas.

Even if versatile was added to bullets, it makes no more sense than on the guns themselves. They are just fundamentally different. That's why I think just adding a new damage type is warranted and would be a more fitting solution.

@YuriP: I don't think modular makes any more sense than versatile does on ammo. The problem is that modular and versatile ARE unnecessary strangeness.

I do agree that the misfire rules are needlessly complicated. I'd drop all the maintenance hubbub. A flat check with a DC of 1 or 2 after a critical failure or when called by a specific ability seems more than good enough.

I say this primarily because I've spoken to a lot of groups that do black powder demonstrations. From what I've been told and witnessed for myself there is always a chance that a flintlock weapon will misfire regardless of maintenance. Or rather, maintaining your weapon before use is absolutely necessary and even then they may fail catastrophically anyway.


Quite late to this party, but I have a couple of pennies to add.

I can see two clean solutions here; a new trait or a new damage type.

The Percussive trait mentioned earlier in the thread seems like a perfectly good solution. I don't think the "cognitive load" is too much of a trade off. If you want to use a special type of weapon, then you should expect a special set of rules to apply IMO.

Either way, I'd rename it "Concussive" since by definition it conveys an impact of considerable force and doesn't have a musical connotation.

Another possibility is to add a new physical damage type:

"Concussive damage is dealt by blunt projectiles fired at piercingly high speeds."

PROS: All the complexity of having to figure out exactly when it should be piercing or bludgeoning is entirely bypassed.

CONS: Nothing in the current published materials has immunity, resistance, or weakness to this damage type.

I think despite the possible need to reprint the bestiary and some of the APs (which is almost an inevitability this early in the life of 2e) it would be worth it to give firearms their own space to live in as a unique form of weaponry.


I can't help myself but to keep hyping over the possibilities here.
I know we have very little to go on, but does anyone care to give it a shot?

If I recall correctly there was mention somewhere that they would have some sort of interchangeable integrated weapons, right?

Aside from that, I guess the only other things we can look at are whatever the construct trait says and perhaps some bits from the new Android Ancestry?

Is there any other source we could draw from even if from 1e?


LordVanya wrote:

For posterity I'm going to post a revision to my idea.

This is what I did to my copy of the hero's handbook:

1) I redacted all mention of alternate ability boosts in the backgrounds section. They each grant whatever the first listed ability boost was.

2) In each class's description I altered the text to read as follows:

"Add +2 to your [Wisdom/Strength/Dexterity/Intelligence]. Then pick four ability modifiers and add +1 to each of those (D). You can't pick the same ability modifier more than once, and no modifier may exceed +4."

This is even cleaner than my previous idea and I'm pretty sure it is functionally the same as the normal rules, but without any need for alternate ability boosts to be called out for specific combinations of ancestry and class. And basically all I did was treat the now 4 free boosts granted by your class as a separate step as in the CRB.


For posterity I'm going to post a revision to my idea.
This is what I did to my copy of the hero's handbook:

1) I redacted all mention of alternate ability boosts in the backgrounds section. They each grant whatever the first listed ability boost was.

2) In each class's description I altered the text to read as follows:

"Add +2 to your [Wisdom/Strength/Dexterity/Intelligence]. Then pick four ability modifiers and add +1 to each of those (D). You can't pick the same ability modifier more than once, and no modifier may exceed +4."

This is even cleaner than my previous idea and I'm pretty sure it is functionally the same as the normal rules, but without any need for alternate ability boosts to be called out for specific combinations of ancestry and class. And basically all I did was treat the now 4 free boosts granted by your class as a separate step as in the CRB.


Then this solution is for those that don't care about society play.
Either way I like mine better because it's cleaner and more in line with the CRB version.


Welp then my solution is for the people that don't care about society play. And I think mine is cleaner and closer to the CRB anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Indeed I did consider that the Automaton ancestry might not be done yet since the book is so far off and there are plenty of other things in the works that are due out before it as well.

But my hype is real and I just wanted to bring some interest to the fore here. Selfish as it is, I needed to say something since no one has said much about it yet.

As for Wyrwoods I guess it depends on whether Paizo wants them to have their own Heritages or not, no?


Posted this in the other thread too, but...

In case anyone is interested, I have a simple solution for the +5 boost issue.

Classes should all grant 2 Ability Boosts to their primary Ability instead of +3, and 4 free Ability Boosts instead of 3.

Then you can just ignore all the alternate Ability Boost text in the Background descriptions.

Saves a few lines of text and it makes it a bit closer to how things work in the CRB.


In case anyone is interested, I have a simple solution for the +5 boost issue.

Classes should all grant 2 Ability Boosts to their primary Ability instead of +3, and 4 free Ability Boosts instead of 3.

Then you can just ignore all the alternate Ability Boost text in the Background descriptions.

Saves a few lines of text and it makes it a bit closer to how things work in the CRB.


I'm frankly dissatisfied with the BG system in PF2e insofar as I feel it's too simple to properly flesh out a character's life before they became an adventurer.

As a bit of juxtaposition, I very much like how backgrounds are implemented in Microlite2020. That system doesn't have traditional skills at all. Instead, you get backgrounds that are arbitrated by the GM not unlike how Lore skills work.

In Microlite2020 backgrounds work sort of like the skills in PF1e.
Most ancestries grant you a background that starts off at 3 points.
The bonus you get from your backgrounds equals the number of points you spent on them.
You then get 8 background points to spend on additional backgrounds or to increase the ones you have.
No background can have more than 5 points at level 1.
Backgrounds can be anything you want.
And lastly, you are granted one background point at every level up that can be used to increase one of your backgrounds without limit or gain a new one.

Since Lore skills are similar enough, I suggest a somewhat similar approach might be satisfying.

At level 1 you give out 4 Lore points.
These can be spent to gain training in extra Lore skills or to increase those you have up to the usual limits.
Then every other level up (or maybe every third) you grant another Lore point to be used in the same manner.

That's my two cents.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

PS- The desperation is real!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't be the only one dying to get a taste of this new ancestry.
Also, I imagine that I'm not alone in having a sense of "eternity" going by between now and the release of Guns & Gears.

So how about a blog post with some tidbits at least?

Please?

Do I have to make puppy dog eyes at you?

Ahem...

Anyway, do any of my fellow forum goers care to wildly speculate about how it might work?

Between this and the Inventor Class I feel like I have the perfect set up for a lot of my Megaman flavored builds.

For instance, Human Inventor with the Construct Innovation might feel like a good Dr. Light & Megaman set up.

And of course, an Automaton Inventor with the Construct Innovation can be flavored nicely into Megaman & Rush.

Also, I had the idea today that if you have the Automaton Inventor and his Construct Innovation look identical, then you could flavor them as Geminiman

Thoughts?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The fact that you have to do two rolls seems to me (not running any numbers just gut) like it alone makes it very difficult to really accomplish the Magi's main purpose even when considering the result upgrades. Sounds like to me you get more bang for your hits, but at the cost of hitting far less likely. That sounds more like a Gambler class than a Magus to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Angel Hunter D wrote:
If it can't play similarly to its origins it needs a different name or a change to mechanics. It's not delivering the gameplay to fulfil thtle promise that we hear when they say "Magus"

Totally agree. I was promised my characters could fall asleep in 1e and wake up in 2e and I'm holding them to it. Just saying that the rules are an abstraction of what the characters were always doing is not good enough when they often have literally different abilities. So yeah, preserving as much of the play style as possible is paramount.


Just figured out what I was missing.
Moderate IS your maximum curse until you reach level 11.

Thanks for the responses!


Not sure I'm understanding the curse rules as a whole.

You start with 2 FP.
Using your first revelation spell, the minor curse effect triggers immediately after the spell is cast.

If you spend a second FP, the curse intensifies adding the moderate effect.

If you take a feat that increases your focus pool, it increases to a maximum of 3 FP and from then on you can never increase it again by any means.

If you spend another FP while the curse is at maximum (currently the maximum on all curses is the major effect) you become overwhelmed and lose access to your revelation spells until after you rest for 8 hours.

You can still refocus to reduce the curse effect and regain FP while overwhelmed.

There is mention of extreme curse effects, but none of the available mysteries have an extreme effect.

So if I'm understanding everything correctly, while you have 2 FP you cannot ever get overwhelmed because you never have enough FP to be able to cast a revelation spell while you're at the major effect.

And by the same logic, if there were any mysteries with an extreme effect, it would never be possible to get overwhelmed because you never have more than 3 FP under any circumstances.

Am I missing anything?


Then to put it more succinctly, Ghoul paralysis not working on elves is a Ghoul drawback, not an elf trait.

In the description for Elven Verve it states "... elves are immune to the paralyzing touch of ghouls,".

That clearly contradicts the way we are supposed to be looking at it.

I suggest it needs to be edited for the sake of consistency and clarity.


No offense, but no, it doesn't make sense.

It's no different than listing low-light vision or a clan dagger.
The Elf entry is exactly the place to mention these relatively minor ancestry rules.

It looks like an oversight to me.
I think it should be corrected in the second print of the CRB and mentioned in the next errata as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dig the new Oracle.
In my experience, most players who I've seen play an Oracle always pick the mildest possible curse.
The moment I read the new Oracle, it struck me how absurd it is for the player to choose their curse at all.
That's not much of a curse.

I do agree that the curses in the play test seem way too harsh for the benefits they grant.
Either make the benefits better or tone down the curse effects.

Beside that, I think they really do need to add some sort of a fortune telling ability to fit the expected lore better.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Or just call it Unwieldy.
And I like the idea of it just being an inverse agile trait.
It's simpler and more straightforward.


Loreguard wrote:

Based on what I read, they don't seem to be really wanting it to be more powerful. They are trying to use the same number of boosts, same number of non-lore skills. It was inflating the number of lore skills, but I think those are 'generally' considered weaker skills, although not necessarily always the case. In any case, I think they weren't trying to make it more powerful, just more varied.

They wanted their process and character sheet to reflect they were born into a farming family, who dreamed of becoming a pathfinder (hopeful), that ran away to travel with a circus that was headed to the Absalom.

Technically, a character with this story, with rules as is picks one of the three aspects of their background story as being the 'most important' aspect of their background, and the others mechanically vanish, although may still be part of the story.

The proposal was to make these choices have mechanical meaning without substantially bloating the attributes, normal skills or feats. [the proposal would add 2 lore skills, if I understood correctly, however]

I think I remember someone else recommending splitting the backgrounds in two, picking one of the choice attribute boosts from each backgroud, choosing the feat from one of the backgrounds, and choose a lore skill from two. (I think it was brought up during the playtest, so I don't think they had the training choice in them there, but presumably, it would be a choose one from the two backgrounds) It gave the same number of items, but pulled parts out of two backgrounds, to give someone the feeling that they were pulling from more than one aspect of their past.

Traits used to be a way to provide multiple ways to pull in their past, but I supposed for some it appeared to just be used for mechanical benefit rather than roleplaying purposes. Backgrounds are actually mechanically more significant, but provide only a single 'item/background', rather than being able to potentially tie in two different aspects in a weaker manner.

The loss of...

Yes! You got my intent perfectly.

1 to 50 of 302 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>