Loreguard's page

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber. Organized Play Member. 413 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 413 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I believe the typical stacking rules would mean that if you get a +2d8 precision damage, and they get +1d8 precision damage, they would simply get the greater of any precision bonuses available to them.

However, if you targeted creature A and they were targeting creature B, and you both were using Shared Prey, you would get their precision bonus for attacking their prey.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Under prepared casters, you still have the part of the line in the text saying your chosen spells are prepared until you cast them or you prepare your spells again the next day.

Personally, upcasting and one free casting of signature spells hardly is balanced against fully reconfigurable spontaneous spell casting in the old style every day being given to wizards.

I’m actually inclined to say wizards should have to roll a chance to learn an new heightened version of a spell they knew at a lower level. That would help make up for the equivalent expectation being placed on the spontaneous caster.

As to the other comment, Wizards shouldn’t need more slots than they have, as the can completely reconfigure them easily daily, and by default spontaneous cases have limited configurability, only each time they level up.

I’m inclined to say sorcerers need/could use an extra spell in their repertoire per spell level to make up for inflexibility on the daily level.

For example, sorcerer multiclass has but one option per spell level. Wizards have the same number of castings but have complete freedom to pick spells daily.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Ok, most recent example I remember seeing was oblivion oath #21 at around 54:30.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

In the Knights of Everflame Jason has told the players the damage and they had the option to shield block after that. I think that is the intended order.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Should be a yes, you can do Jaw/Jaw.

However, Jaw is finesse, claw is agile, finesse. That means if you choose to do Jaw, Jaw your additional attacks with the Jaw would be using the non-agile track for determining the MAP penalty. From that perspective, you could also choose to have the cat preform a Claw/Claw, with both claw attacks taking the agile track for determining MAP penalties, in case you for instance were riding the companion and had already attacked yourself. Since MAP, if I recall correctly applies to you and a ridden animal together as a single unit.

Pg 215 in the core book is where it shows your options as a cat would be where you look for the Cat. Pg446 is where it discusses the difference between an agile and non-agile attack with respect to MAP.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Temperans wrote:

Btw I think the Starfinder solution to edition change is great. They acknowledge that something happen to Golarion, and that it's been a long time since the event happened (potentially millions of years for some areas).

So they can/could change mechanics freely and not be bound by "This is how things work on Golarion"; while still being able to use the setting and lore freely.

I agree, it was a perfectly simple way of using established lore and be able to spin off a new game. And being science fiction, it is completely understandable that even if some GM creates an adventure which the players managed to destroy some great evil that was going to be responsible for the GAP, it wouldn't have to impact that GM's Starfinder setting, because, it might of course just been a parallel universe. I think it was an elegant solution, even though it is Drastic, it gives a great Science Fantasy flavor to the universe that is fitting and a decent backdrop to build on.

gwynfrid wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
gwynfrid wrote:
The example of the Goodberry spell is clear: A low level druid used to be able to feed a large family in times of famine, this is no longer possible.

Uh...yes it is. A 3rd level Druid can get 16 meals in a day with Goodberry by spending about 9 hours. They can probably get up to an easy 27 if that's all they do all day.

The mechanism and how much time/resources it takes certainly differ, but feeding people via goodberry (the important bit in-universe) remains very doable.

OK, but then the druid has to be level 3 for this. More importantly, they can't travel at the same pace as other characters. Bit of a problem if the idea is for the group to cross a desert. OK, maybe they wouldn't find fresh berries in the desert anyway, so this is possibly a moot point. Still, the story definitely changes.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
gwynfrid wrote:
Another example is Wild Shape: The druid used to be able to change into an eagle for hours, and so explore a large expanse of land from the air with ease. This is now out of the question. It doesn't take lab notes to notice these things, they're obvious.

Actually, this is still completely doable. It does require being a much higher level Druid at the moment (11th level, to be specific), but it remains an option for Druids in-universe. Specifically, Form Control allows you to Wild Shape for an hour, and effectively stay in that form pretty much indefinitely (or, at the very least, only need to come out of it for a few seconds every hour), and can use Pest Form to have a Fly Speed while doing so. Soaring Shape also helps with this, improving the fly speed dramatically.

Now, that's certainly much higher level, but how often in the world lore (as opposed to 'how often do PCs do this') have we heard about low level Druids doing this?

I'm not actually thinking of a single example of a low level Druid doing this in any Golarion content.

Well, there's an important NPC ally of my group in...

Well at the end there, you have the right idea, it sounds like you are narrowing down what things impact you down to the things that are changes that really cause a problem with the story that has been told that they have had direct contact with. And rather than just saying you can't change that, it affects 'this'. You are thinking about how you can give them something that makes it no longer an issue.

gwynfrid wrote:
Temperans wrote:

Btw I always found it weird that:

** spoiler omitted **

Not saying it's bad, just kind of weird human behavior.

Well, this is a specific solution to this specific issue with the transition to PF2 in the context of my game. I don't need to see it in a splatbook, nor do I need to make it available to my players in this or another campaign. Not only that, but PF2 even provides a nifty rule that makes it 100% legit: I can label it as rare.

And there you have it... I agree with this absolutely. You make a feat, ritual, or other option, and make it rare. Make it something they may not be able to teach, and you give it to the NPC, allowing them to continue doing something that is iconic for them. Wow, that is longer than most druids seem to be able to do it. The answer is, yeah, but its easier for me for some reason.

Meta-reasoning... yes the feat exists simply to avoid making what seems like a complicated retcon of established character story so far. That can be justification enough for the game. And just because an old NPC got to have the feat/ritual doesn't mean it needs to be available to a new PC. [although if the GM decides to allow it, that is their call]

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Ok, for me they do have some importance. I frequently take the opinion that the rules 'reflect' the metaphysical rules of the physics of the fantasy world in general. People are literally harder to kill as they advance in levels and get more HP. They physical laws of our universe are less important the way things are going to work in that fantasy universe that the closest thing we have to describe much of this is the rule-set being used. We are using the rules to cooperatively build/tell a story. The story is the primary product in this respect from the standpoint of the fantasy universe. The primary, and more important real world product, should be the fun had by the players.

In an edition change, rules will change. And in some cases it may invalidate details in a story, that creates a tension. However, history is written by the victors. Details are not always cannon in any stories, so I personally have a good deal of latitude to consider changes a difference of perspective, taking and considering the past story as just that, a story, makes the importance of specific details less of a problem. However, bigger changes could add up to things that would annoy me.

When a new book comes out in the same edition, things 'change' but you don't normally consider it world shattering. When the Witches class came out, you didn't suddenly have Witches that never had existed. [so in reality it was a minor retcon] because, but until then, witches were normally represented by existing spellcasing classes, probably a wizard or sorcerer, with an added flavor and/or an appropriate feat or two. Gunslingers didn't, not-exist prior to their introduction in the rules. It was just that the statistical cross-section of existing stories had not encountered them, or had not represented them as instances of that class.

For me, the change in wands, I generally like the new wands, as I really liked daily items in first edition. I however, feel like the change is major enough that all the stories that exist that have magic missile wands that were used multiple times in a combat, and mostly empty wands that are handed off to adventurers to help them out, create enough of a disconnect, story wise that I'm inclined to try to explain it. [Rare, technically less economically efficient, variant of wands exists with a max total number of charges, that exists but won't be found much. Stories with them, are a statistical anomaly, potentially remembered in part because of how uncommon such a wand is. Alternately, to deal with the stories of adventurers finding wands that could only be used a few times, I came up with fragile wands, as a byproduct of someone failing at creating a 'normal' wand, or an alternate state from a wand getting burnt out from overcharging the wand. Not so much because I dislike the new wand rules, but to help make transition stories make more sense, and enable a more than one charge consumable tier of magic item treasure a GM can hand out.

Temperans wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Order of the Stick is great. I liked how candid they were with the edition change, but it was 3 to 3.5 so it wasn't much difference.

Well technically, the clerics may not have lost their abilities, they may have stayed clerics.

The impact of a deity no longer allowing clerics of a certain alignment can be fixed in several ways for specific individuals. Perhaps the simplest could be that the alignment of the priest can change. The former CG cleric (by P1 standards) of Gorum may be (by P2 standards) categorized as CN instead of CG. They may (using what I believe was an AD&D term, had 'tendencies' towards good for specific aspects of their personality, but they would fall into the CN bucket now in P2 instead of CG. Alternately, someone else mentioned, they may not have been a cleric, and instead were a divine sorcerer. And perhaps there is a 'feat' they could have had that allows a divine sorcerer to utilize spells specifying the deity they 'worship' apply to the deity with which they are tied, rather than worshiped, as long as they don't have an opposing alignment.

As for Rarity items for existing cannon characters, almost obviously would presumably have met their rarity requirements, for some reason for iconic abilities they had acquired. Rarity will only block a pre-existing character's options, if the GM doesn't want the option to exist for the character. If they don't want it to exist, they have a reason.

Honestly, although it was jarring, I didn't have a big issue with DnD when they had their first earth-shattering way of the way things worked, changing. Although jarring, it also worked for the setting in the end. Having it happen again, that felt a bit problematic for me, but I can't say for sure exactly how much was that or potentially other aspects I might have potentially spilled over to my judgment of it?

I think the reality of it is that some people may use continuity as a reason to not like a change to rules they have some reason to not like. Those people may say continuity is a problem, even if they are starting a fresh game with no backstory. They are set in their ways, so the change will be a problem for them.

Others may be starting a new game from scratch with new characters, even maybe in a new stetting, but continuity doesn't really matter since it is a fresh story, that won't interact with the prior stories any way, so it wouldn't matter.

Some are going to have a new story, but which is a direct sequel to an established story. It may be starting fresh with new characters, but they may be expecting to interact with aspects of the past, and if something feels like it _can't_ exist in the new rules, but was pivotal in the old story, this could create a speed bump in telling the story that could be problematic.

Alternately, you could have people who are in the middle of a story, and whomever makes the call, decides to jump versions. In these cases, past stories may be even more first-person accounts of the past, which can make the loss of an ability that 'felt' iconic or central to a character, being removed because it doesn't exist in the new version, or cut in power due to the changes of the edition, or having been lost due to it becoming something you had to pick, rather than something you got by default. All of these changes can make a story changing in mid telling very problematic. Since the past story that was cooperatively made, feels like a first-person story to them. Changes to details seem much harder to reconcile if they have a personal attachment.

Honestly, I think acknowledging that, especially when doing one of the last two situations, that a change in the story is a change in the story, would do wonders for people who 'DO' feel a tremor from the continuity change. Saying that wands NEVER had 50 charges, when in the last adventure, your character had one that they got brand new, and were down to 20 charges, and had typically used 3-5 charges per encounter when they had used it is simply disrespectful. On the other hand, stamping your feet saying, I wanted wands to have 50 charges, and not being willing to compromise is a little disrespectful of the developers, who worked on trying to come up with a workable new system. I think the key is compromise. Being able to say, yes, wands with multiple charges can and do exist, but are uncommon. It was a statistical anomaly that the two you bought and used multiple times in encounters were available. Or if you had crafted them yourself in the past, you were lucky enough to have had access to a rare material component necessary for their manufacture. It doesn't seem available at the moment. [or simply, yes, you may make a wand of 50 castings of magic missile. It whoever costs, and behaves in all mechanical ways as a scroll of magic missile now.]

Keep an open mind, and remember that EVEN first person stories are remembered in ways that 'make sense' to the person remembering it, so details aren't always and don't always have to be completely accurate. How many simple things can you do to make anything that seems important enough to cause someone a problem, that it can be fixed by a simple acknowledgement. That acknowledgement might even give you a nice additional flavor to your game and story. Think of it as a contribution, not a problem. The solution isn't always undo a change in the rules, sometimes it is recognizing something else needs to change a small bit.

Anyway, most people I know have some home-brew rules that they handle a little different anyway, so I would think most people, if they have had the opportunity to play with multiple sets of people, would already have the experience of how group-storytelling involves some give and take to make stories integrate. [I do recognize some players may only have played PFS like games, or only with a limited single group so far, so those might not have had to deal with this as specifically yet]

K1 wrote:

I see no problem in converting a homebrew world.

If we consider a party of 4 players in a world of xx milions of people, the fact that one of the main characters could have or not a shield doesn't change your world at all.

Same goes for wands.
If you use first aid instead of low cost wands with 50 charges, all will remain the same.

All of this stuff doesn't really change a thing. If you had talked about adding space robots, then you would have had issues.

Hmmm... they didn't add space robots, since the space robots were already there before second edition.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

There are bonuses that you can get by diplomatically resolving encounters in adventures, and there are even rewards specifically for doing this.

Beginner box spoiler


In Black Fang's Dungeon, if you work with the goblin leader, and return the toy, they tell you where the dragon is and the secret of where Black Fang's armor is weakest giving you a bonus against his natural armor.

I seem to recall on of the early repeatable adventures for pathfinder society had specific options for resolving another situation with negotiation. It seemed like it gave the party information and potentially an item from what the group had. I can't however remember either the scenario name or specifics any longer.

Kingmaker had options for diplomacy. Many of those left you with the potential of having less treasure at the beginning, but made it really easy for the GM to have the excuse to give us allies as we were building up in the kingdom building phases of the game.

Back to the original discussion of uses of Divine Lance as a detection.

My suggestion, have a creature whose touch imparts the evil trait for 24 hours, and have someone investigating reports of a potential evil impostor around. When one of the characters is accused of being evil, and they volunteer to be divine-lanced as proof they aren't a bad guy. They end up taking damage due to their tainted aura from the creature bite. Then they have to explain why they shouldn't be hauled off to jail, or they kill a fellow good, and would have to later explain that.

Lesson being, being tainted with evil, is not justification for imprisonment or execution.

Now, if the innkeeper was foolish enough to 'ask for a divine lance' as a form of lie detector test, then well, that alleviates much of the issue in question, performing such a spell at the target's request, is a little hard to call evil. It might not be wise, and might have bad repercussions, but is believable. Now if the innkeeper said, cast a detection spell to detect if I'm evil, and they used a combat spell... I'd say people would have an argument that consenting to a detection spell is not consenting to taking damage if detected.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Re: the conversation about Cosmic Evil being a thing in Golarion/Pathfinder.

Correct, the just born half-devil baby that has done nothing in its life, but begun to exist, will be cosmically, evil from an aura standpoint as part of it. Said baby may be struck via Divine Lance 'good' and kill the baby.

If you assume that using Good energy can do nothing but good, perhaps that action can be categorized as Good. However, it isn't unreasonable for someone to suggest that the baby didn't have to embrace its evil as it grew, and thus had potential good that was lost. So it isn't hard to believe that cosmicly, that action might fall outside of Cosmic good. It might even fall into Cosmic evil.

Take for instance.
An evil mother, bears a child. The child is not evil, maybe even, the child is good. The child slips, falling, but the mother catches the hand of the child, leaning over the edge getting ready to pull the child back up.

An inquisitor sees this happen, and has been wanting to catch this evil creature, and noting she was flatfooted and unable to defend herself, uses a divine lance, killing the mother. [potentially the mother in the long term, deserved a death sentence] However, the inquisitor knew the situation, with the child, and so was in a very distinct way, responsible for the resulting death of the child who fell.

Is it not unreasonable with the mantle of choosing the action that caused the child's death, when they could have chosen to wait for the child to be pulled back up. [but potentially thus putting the inquisitor at a greater risk] Might that action have been tainted with a certain... selfishness and evil... when the well being of the innocent is taken as a lower priority than the well-being of the servant of good? Note, I'm not saying this is instant FALL of a divine agent, but pointing out. Evil aura does not mean acceptable to be destroyed, even from a cosmic sense, from my perspective.

If allowing the one innocent to die had to be done, because failing to act would likely cause more innocents to die, I can imagine the action can be justified. But even justified, it may not be cosmically good. Being cosmically good doesn't necessarily mean destroying all things that have cosmic evil.

That said I think most laws of most place would not be written such that it would be legal to use alignment damage to sort out those who should live, from those who should die.

Equating, failing to give bandits who waylay your caravan, attacking, and potentially killing others in the caravan, their chance to be redeemed. There are situations where dealing with an immediate threat, the striking down a foe, would take precedence over bringing about a chance for redemption. However, walking up to a stranger, that you know nothing about and testing to see if they are good or evil at the moment, and bringing about their death if they were evil, isn't one of those moments.

Anyway, I'm sure there would be table variation on how alignment will be handled, but I imagine it will be rare where destruction of something tainted by evil by any means is considered definitively good by inherent definition. After all evil divine beings can change to become neutral. There has to be room for some mortals to overcome their own thoughts.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Prince Setehrael wrote:
Rycke wrote:
What are yours?

Currant Theory

Witch will function similar to the Bard.


Still guessing on the Familiars.

I expect most likely an Occult Prepared spellcaster.

Patron adds flavor and choices to their spell list. This may be somewhat like a cleric's domains. Potentially opening up Patron specific Focus spells, although some might be generic ones open to all witches.

I think some former Hexes will be cantrips. Some might impact an individual only once a day/hour, but otherwise can be spammed by spending the actions.

I think other things that were Hexes may become focus spells available to the witches.

There might be a Cackle cantrip that allows the effect of certain focus spells to be extended for the duration that the cantrip continues to be case.

Witches will have familiars, which will normally be animals and somehow is the focus of their bond to their Patron, and gives them their spells. However, I think it might be possible that some witches might have a physical 'familiar' that would be an Item instead.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I haven't quite gotten a complete handle/feel for all the ramifications for bulk at different sizes. However, I think that there are rules in place that likely make much of a large mount holding a medium rider into a reasonable facsimile of workable. But this is just a first glance.

Where I think we run into issues was when they decided to simplify and say small and medium sizes while different size tiers, have no differences between them. This creates interactions between small riders and medium mounts really weird.

Honestly, I wish we could just treat them as different sizes and have items made for each of those two sizes cost the same.

Have small creatures calculate bulk according to small bulk, (but carrying a medium object would be higher bulk) Medium creatures would calculate bulk as medium, and items made for a smaller size would get treated smaller.

It would seem to correct most of the issues, even if you didn't change the damage for small weapons as smaller, just for simplification. That would seem to be a simpler way of handling it than saying there is no applicable difference in size or weight between a 6foot sword and a 3foot sword held by a halfling. [ok, technically, the halfling is simply easily spinning the six foot sword, but it still just seems off]

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I absolutely think that albeit potentially a rarer find, I'm all for the idea that you could come across a Staff in a wand form factor. I could even imagine the reverse of a wand made in the form of a staff. Explicitly for instance a Wand of Shillelagh.

I could imagine a feat or school of magic would allow a wizard or sorcerer to cast the spell by burning their own spell slot instead if they invested the particular wand. This even actually could even be used to explain some past/prior cannon examples of someone using a wand multiple times in a day without breaking it.

Honestly, I'd even be ok with wands being able to take some other small form factors, including knifes/daggers which are not completely unknown as form factors in various fantasy fictions.

I wouldn't necessarily open it up to any weapons, but I might imagine one making arguments for many or all or the simple melee ones as potentials.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

All that would have to exist, would be ways of fooling the process, most likely via false positives, which could make someone take damage even if they were not inherently evil. That would make people trusting this as a method of detection, something that would seem inappropriate under most circumstances.

Some things like. What if a tiefling or half fiend had the evil trait, even if it might have a good alignment. Origin for one trait, by ancestry, while the other as an active belief. There also could be [may even be, I haven't hunted down specifically] spells that impart evil or good traits to someone temporarily for purposes of deception, or other manipulation.

I believe that there is fool magic device, which can trick a magic device at least that you meet a criteria that you don't. Can that be used to avoid damage in a case like this? Especially, if you know it is coming?

What if by eating Vile-berries, you get a +1 bonus against Necromantic effects, but you also are temporarily tainted by the Evil trait? [potentially impacting spell casting, for instance] What if Vile-berries are a common fruit in a village, and part of many of their staple foods?

One thing that wasn't always completely clear in 1st edition was when someone qualified for the Evil trait. Technically, for instance you only got your Alignment descriptor aura if you were rather high level, unless you were a cleric or divine spellcaster. Then there were some things like undead and/or outsiders from the lower planes that were naturally evil that had it.

It seemed like some rules were written assuming that you had to have that level of alignment to be affected by such things, and then other rules seemed to imply that the evil peasant would be impacted. [my guess being some developers actually probably operated with one assumption, and others the other, but it might have been a 3.5 vs. pf1 thing, and I didn't know how to differentiate it]

I myself think that casting a damaging spell to determine if someone is an alignment is definitely offensive. And as someone else mentioned, people who don't know exactly how the spell works, may not trust the caster to say... see he hurt, so he is evil.

After all, WHO is to say the caster isn't Evil and actually casting Divine Lance and doing Evil damage, claiming that the fact they took damage, that the poor good peasant is evil, leaving the insinuation that the peasant committed the crime the false paladin actually committed. Are the villagers going to trust the armored stranger that has blood on her sword, or their neighbor of 20 years, when the stranger accuses them because the stranger just suddenly was able to blast their friend hurting them, that they deserve to be punished further?

I do remember on the other hand being generally willing to cast disrupt undead spells even when people were in melee with other unread, since if you accidentally hit your companion, it wouldn't hurt them. [unless perhaps one of them was secretly a Dhampir] ehehe

I'd want to make it something that wasn't as easy as just Divine Lancing people, for instance, because otherwise why wouldn't the Chellish just Divine Lance everyone with Lawful damage to insure they root out all the rebels. [not that doing that wouldn't prompt some neutrals to potentially thing they have gone too far]

At a minimum, someone like the former Vigilante type character can probably maintain an alternate alignment. You might even be able to make a mechanically multiple-personality individual who may have different mechanical alignments while they are in various personalities. Were creatures might, especially when first stricken only have their evil alignment when in their cursed form, until they accept their new nature.

These could all make the spell less reliable in certain circumstances, which could make it not considered a valid, authoritative test for honorable justice.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Ok, as I see it, they wanted to transition wands from what they had kind of become, a potentially mass produced, most economic bulk consumable, spell slot that easily enabled prepped encounter nova's.

They wanted to change this, but wanted wands to continue to exist. As part of that, they didn't want to 'suddenly' have it seem like they had changed completely overnight.

I think the key thing they wanted to do was take away their Nova ability, so they wanted to limit how many times it could be used in an encounter or day. I suspect they considered both 1/encounter and 1/day options, but decided that 1/day was simpler, as if they did one per encounter, defining how you separated encounters could be difficult. Do you have to rest between encounters, what if you didn't rest, but someone else who hadn't used the wand used it in the second situation. What if two different people tried to use the wand in a single encounter.

I think they decided 1/day was the simplest, safest, most balanced way of handling it. However, they had the 'cannon' of wands being something that can get used up. I think this led to the rule for overcharging. Basically, allowing a wand to be able to be burned up by overuse.

Personally, I agree that the rules have so high a chance of destroying the wand, I have trouble understanding people being willing to exercise the option.

The biggest issue I have with the new wands, isn't really that however. It is that it used to be a specific niche type of treasure. A multi-use consumable. This niche/category of treasure is gone now, with no real replacement. A scroll with four copies of a spell would probably be near the price of a wand.

In PF1 you could hand out a wand, and know it was a temporary thing. You could hand out a wand with a handful of charges of a powerful spell. It would be helpful, but would either get used up, or they wouldn't use it because of saving it and will thus have minimal impact one way or another.

Now giving a wand with a powerful spell is a big impact, something they can then count on from then on, once a day.

That's actually the bigger impact, in my opinion, of the change in wands.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

The Craft rules and Earn Income rules in the CRB are for adventurers. NPCs with dedicated crafting/mercantile careers have their own, more efficient economics. That's why PCs have to sell loot at half value but merchants get to sell it at full value.

I don't think you can get anywhere useful making assumptions about NPC economics based on the CRB. Once we have the GMG, maybe.

True enough NPCs can and do operate via different rules, or non-existent rules that need not necessarily always be known.

However, the whole PCs sell at half price and NPCs always sell at full price is a misstatement in my opinion. NPC shop owners have a selection, and people come to them to buy things that the buyers want. The buyers come in and decide what product, and when they will buy it. The merchant gets to sell at 100% because of this.

PCs come in and say, I have this, I don't want it anymore, I want you to buy this, and I want you to buy this now. They don't magically, because of arbitrary rule that they are a PC, get paid less for it. They get paid less because it makes sense they get paid less, because they are defining the item and the time they convert it to money.

I'm pretty sure it explicitly says, that a PC who gets a commission to create a specific item (the NPC dictates a specific item they want and when they want it) the PC gets paid 100% value for that item. They also get 100% for trade goods, of which raw materials are an example of such a thing. So these items there is a constant market for, so defining the time and item isn't a big deal, and doesn't impact the amount you get for a sale.

Basically, the design for second edition is such that other than sometimes specific types of crafting allowing you to make certain limited consumables for free, crafting doesn't impact the cost of getting something. What it does is effect availability. If you learn to do something, you can do it even if that particular 'item/skill/option' isn't being created by your current economy.

So if someone of high enough skill (NPC) is available in the market and at least indifferent to you, they would do it for the cost specified in transferring it. If no-one is available in your current community, you can do it, if you know how to do it and have the appropriate crafting ability.

One of the Age of Ashes modules makes it clear that when you pay an NPC to do a job they are qualified, they don't roll to complete it, it is just presumed successful at the end. If you and a player do it, that is when you roll. When the NPC does a job for you that you are playing them for, it it never results in a fail, or crit fail, but it also never ends up being a critical success. [I'm sure in some future module, there might be some exception to this where you have to get resources for an NPC to help make sure that they make some roll that might impact the storyline, but that will be the exception, rather than the rule.]

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
TarrentheShaded wrote:

This is a good question. As of now there doesn't seem to be anything official for riding an animal companion to use its fly speed. I'm going to be GMing a one-shot tonight and one of my players wants to play a druid goblin with a bird animal companion. We'll be playing at level 7, so his bird will be at least one size larger than his goblin, however because of that "Riding Animal Companions" rule he technically can't ride it to use its fly speed.

However, from a mechanical standpoint, a mature bird has a strength modifier of 3, which would make it able to carry 8 Bulk before becoming Encumbered. A typical small sized creature (like a goblin) is considered to be 3 Bulk before you account for its equipment. Tack for a companion is 1 Bulk. So if the bird is wearing tack and a small PC doesn't go over 4 Bulk with their equipment, they'd be within the mature bird companion's Bulk limit before making it Encumbered.

As a GM, I personally don't see anything wrong with allowing my player to ride his bird, so long as they stay within the companion's bulk limit. Most enemies will still be able to retaliate without issue during encounters, unless they have zero ranged capability. By level 7 certain classes will already have access to spells or equipment that allows them to gain a fly speed anyway, so I don't see anything broken about riding a flying companion. They'll only be able to do so effectively outdoors or in larger/taller spaces. In addition, that player will have to keep spending actions to Command an Animal in order to keep benefiting from their companion's fly speed, not to mention Nature checks if they don't have the Ride general feat.

The entry for the Roc in the Bestiary hints at the possibility of capturing and training a Roc as a "flying mount," so I don't really see the harm in allowing a player to ride their flying companion.

Another thing to note is that while flying, that bird companion will more than likely be prioritized over the player for ranged attacks. And the bird is somewhat...

Note that an animal companion is a minion, and you naturally have the ability to spend an action to control your minion, getting two actions. Others pointed that out and said, that would likely mean you are not supposed to need to roll to control your animal companion, since you don't for other minions.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
pad300 wrote:
HammerJack wrote:

From Command an Animal, on page 249:

"Most animals know the Leap, Seek, Stand, Stride, and Strike basic actions. If an animal knows an activity, such as a horse’s Gallop, you can Command the Animal to perform the activity, but you must spend as many actions on Command an Animal as the activity’s number of actions. You can also spend multiple actions to Command the Animal to perform that number of basic actions on its next turn; for instance, you could spend 3 actions to Command an Animal to Stride three times or to Stride twice and then Strike."

So I would say that answer is unambiguously yes, you can spend two actions to have the horse gallop.

Actually that passage illustrates my biggest problem with the minion/animal companion rules. An animal companion has the minion trait - it can ONLY take 2 actions/turn. Thus a non-animal companion mount is actually much faster: It can take 3 actions. Compare, for example, 2 horses: the AC can take 2 action to gallop for a 100' move; the non-AC mount can be commanded to Gallop for 2 actions and then further commanded to stride for a total move of 140'...

I strongly dislike that Animal Companions aren't allowed their natural reactions either. I don't know that it would be horrible, although potentially house rule area, to allow after commanding a minion, to follow up with a second player's action to do a command an animal to give the animal companion access to its third action to do something more, or access a three action activity. [minions then by default have two actions when they act, but a third action can be enabled by spending and extra action directing it]

I think I'd prefer a interpretation that an animal companion or other minion is always basically, passively spending an action 'awaiting orders and preparing support effect. That way, if you use a second action to access that third action for the companion, they perhaps wouldn't get to provide their support action that round? Seams reasonable enough interpretation that doesn't seem unreasonable. Alternately, view Animal Companions' support activity might be considered their reaction. And if you want them to be trained to use their support ability, they can't use their natural reactions. However, if you forego the support action training, they might be trained to utilize their natural reaction if they have one.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Given all of the following are first edition, so you would need to convert monsters, DC, and treasure to run them as second edition.

Back with first edition, I ran two of my children through the Skeleton King’s Crypt and Black Fang's Dungeon which cam in the Beginner Box. The first is in the Hero's handbook (a solo adventure) and the second is the Game Master's Guide.

After those I started having them do some of the free adventures from the Beginner Bash Demos. There are four short adventures titled, Relics, Ruins, Terrors, and Tomes. I had them do the Relic's adventure, and was beginning the Terrors adventure but we got interrupted, and didn't get back to it yet. [ended up doing some starfinder]

I have some preliminary work on converting Black Fang's dungeon for second edition, but got a little hung up on redoing the treasure. If you want what I have, let me know.

I might try tackling converting something like the Relics adventure if that would help someone. [give a free simple adventure someone could download, and then get the suggested conversion info] and be able to play it with a group.

The beginner Box GM kit also had a quick adventure called the Deadly Mine. But it also would have to be converted.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Somewhere, I'm pretty sure they indicated that Gunslingers won't be a published part of the APG. I believe they said, to do Gunslingers, they need a wide variety of guns available in the rules system for them to choose from, and that due to space constraints that wouldn't be something they would be able to include just yet.

Having said that, I was really surprised to see the number of pistols in artwork. I'm wondering if they are going to include a firearm as a proof of concept of how they think they are going to handle firearms, but simply not expand upon it just yet, leaving them time to improve on their idea, or get feedback on it. We will have to see.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
HammerJack wrote:

So we definitely disagree about our readings of the Ride feat.

I think at least there's no argument about the base action economy of a purchased mount, without the ride feat (1 rider action spent for 1 action taken by the mount) or the action economy of riding an AC (always a minion, gets 2 actions when the rider spends 1). Or am I incorrect about that point of consensus, and there is a disagreement there?

It sounds like I agree with you on cash purchased animal and Animal Companions mechanics then. Somehow I got the impression you were indicating that Animal Companions when ridden were one for one when mounted, I apologize if I got that part wrong.

We can certainly agree to disagree on the ride feats intended mechanics.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Any animal you'r acts on your turn, like a minion. (behaves like a minion). I.e. it would seem to imply you can easily interpret that once you mount them, they act like your minion. [Note: that this is with the Ride feat, not simply ride skill] At a minimum, the 'act as a minion' would seem to imply at a minimum that its 'act'ions behave like a minion. Which minions trade 2 for one. With that rule, you might be able to argue that that sentence doesn't guarantee they don't require a roll, but since the ride feat takes care of that in its other sentence, that alleviates that potential concern.

Note the Mounted Combat paragraph describes what happens by default when you ride a creature. It says, your mount acts on your initiative. It does not mention like a Minion, because being mounted does not grant you the benefits of the creature being treated as your minion. This seems to add to the intention.

Note: looking at the example mentioned, it is clear that mounted combat can cause the need for a 1 player action traded for 1 mount action. However, it isn't saying that is the case for with ride. It seems clear you can have a character riding a creature into combat without having the Ride feat itself. In which case the animal, while mounted, is not acting like a minion, but instead is only acting on your initiative, and you command it to make movements in sync with your own movements.

Animal companions however start as minions, so they have the behavior that you pay one action, without a skill roll to cause the animal to spend two actions. So for an animal companion, you don't need the ride skill, to get the two for one action economy, nor the lack of a skill roll to successfully command your minion.

If I am right, only the Horse animal companion currently offers the Mount special ability. This means only Horses, Ponies or other similar equine are allowed to be treated as 'Mounts', meaning when mounted, they are the only ones allowed to used special movement capabilities, or allowed to used their 'support benefit' while currently being mounted. I agree with what some others said, about this being a real damper on fantasy creature mounts, especially when creatures like goblins are supposed to commonly ride other animals as mounts. I hope they revisit this and provide the trait, or variant alternative to the trait to other viable animals in the not too distant future?

Actually, this brings up an interesting question. If an animal companion is carrying a rider (or carrying a creature on its back), and the animal companion is not controlled by the rider, but instead their companion (non-rider), can the animal companion act on its own turn, and use its support action to assist their companion, and use its natural movements?

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Well, it could easy to imagine the teen prince to get distracted by someone that he finds himself fancying.

Worse, that person may not mind, but perhaps someone big and less amiable considers him to be a rival for their affection, and thus conflict ensues.

Other options can include someone offering to take the prince off the adventurer's hands, but of course, they while claiming to be loyal to the prince, are either servants of the regent, or a third party, perhaps hoping to turn the prince into an undead, to serve as a puppet leader on the throne, subservient to undead interests further south.

Worse, have the boy find a worthless old pottery that is partially broken, that has art on the side. The boy insists that this pottery has a hidden map in it that only he can see. Maybe only in the moonlight. The irony being, he honestly can see it, and it is actually a map for the royals to find a former family heirloom that was hidden in a past situation like this where a regent was running foul of his ancestors. [or worse, find out that he is actually the descendant of a regent's family who took the throne from an evil family whom was the original sovereign family. The current regent might either knowingly, or unknowingly be a descendant of the original ruling family. That might throw a loop for any super-lawfuls, making them wonder, who is the 'rightful' ruler?

The boy might accidentally steal something, and get arrested, and the characters can't reveal his identity or he will be turned over to the regent, but they boy may be sentenced to be fed to a local beast in a gladiatorial pit fight. The players' options might be limited to offering to have a player fight the beast in proxy for him, as he is a child.

Perhaps another controversy could be that the prince may have a look-alike child who has been missing for a time. They get accused of having kidnapped and enscorcled the child. The prince might be taken from them, and they under threat of death, they investigate the disappearance of the real child who has become trapped in an old temple. The adventurers of course have to free the real child to release the prince. However, having a look-alike child, and appreciative parents might be helpful to the adventurers long term plan to help the prince in the future.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

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 traits has bothered me. I'm exited about most of the new rules in general, but the backloading of racial differences and pushing what used to be two traits into a single choice does seem to have lost some customization. That and skills now at first level are either trained or untrained, while before there was a much wider variety, ranging from untrained, to trained, to trained with class bonus, with or without some trait or racial bonuses. So I appreciate the intent. I'm not certain I find it simple enough that people would not likely come out with misunderstandings on what they are supposed to do. Perhaps rewording and examples could help with that, but I'm not completely positive.

I wonder if you allowed the two extra lore skills, but with a caveat that they got less focus and thus take a -2 circumstance penalty for any checks with them as they were neglected some in their studies/work. It complicates things a bit, but might alleviate some people's concerns about giving too many lore skills.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
K1 wrote:

However the only problem would be interacting with a society of those creatures.

If a player unlock flying at lvl xx, then every single creature of the same race available to fly will do the same.

This could cause issues in terms of lore and epicness, for example by see ing a whole city of winged creatures unable to fly.

Setting different level requirements for npc and players would be pure nonsense.

Setting different levels for PCs and Monsters/NPCs is an intended/architected part of second edition. So NPC monsters can have things as 0-level creatures that a PC might not be able to have at 1st level.

You can have a 1st level PC who's stats are phenominal for a little goblin or kobold from an average species standpoint, but will be instead balanced from a baseline for PC play, not for average of some specific species.

So, your first level birdman may be more limited in flight than some flighted monsters in the bestiary, or even including an NPC example of their own species created as a combat or other type of challenge for an encounter.

That doesn't mean they HAVE to be different for PCs and NPCs, and would personally look towards types of limitations that could make sense to be able to be applied to early level flighted creatures as well in many cases.

So even if your 'average' flighted PC had to land at the end of every round or suffer falling, it doesn't mean that an NPC specified as a Birdman Warrior couldn't have 8 HP and have a general unrestricted flight speed, and carry javelins to throw from above.

Technically, being flighted is a higher level ability, so it would probably drive the Creature level up higher, so although most stats may be more similar to a Creature of level 1, having flight might drive it up to Creature 2. And in its case its 'exceptional' ability would fall into the movement type category.

Someone, even potentially myself could complain, how come I can't fly that effectively now. But I'd remind myself, that the PC probably has twice as many HP and likely has other handy abilities that the NPC will not have. Also, I guess if you get a hold of a fly spell, then you can fly that way for a while. :)

I definitely think it would make sense to make some simple normal limitations, and potential exceptions/remediations/archetypes of flight abilities at early levels, and where applicable, apply them to NPCs/Monsters in that tier too. But there will always, and should be able to be exceptions.

Requiring a flying creature to land at the end of every turn like Starfinder requires at lower levels isn't a bad game mechanic, although it may seem a bit odd from a story/narrative perspective.

Perhaps if you don't land at the end of your turn, your last action has to be a 'maintain flight' action to prevent you from falling. You don't get any movement out of this action but it allows you to stay aloft. It could however also apply a flat-footed condition on you as you are focusing on maintaining your flight, rather than protecting yourself.

Some of these limitation could either be lifted automatically as you reach certain levels, as if getting them were part of a scaling feat, or they might be something that you buy away by getting feats to improve aspects of your flying.

Limiting how high something can fly was something I mentioned earlier, someone else mentioned it since. I think I suggested potentially making any attempts to fly past that always considered difficult terrain. You could potentially require making an acrobatics check when more than one round(or actions) distance from something you could perch on, or risk falling.

It would reduce the mobility and combat impact of flying at lower levels, as they might be trading an advantage for a disadvantage. Although, presumably all flying ancestries available at low levels would be tagged as uncommon or more rare to insure that GMs only would allow them if they wanted to allow flying at such a low level.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I've been a little inclined to create a new tier, between Untrained and Trained, called 'Familiar'.

I've considered for instance granting a free 'Familiar' Lore in one's settlement they grew up in and racial/culture they were raised in/by, and potentially, their chosen faith if they have one. IT wouldn't be giving out a full trained skill but would help someone know things you would think they would likely know.

Granted, part of it might simply be solved by saying... If you are from this town, you automatically know, 'such-n-such'. But it would allow one to write something down on your character sheet about knowing about some extra things.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Starting with Gliding ability is certainly viable option to consider.
When they get to flying, don't start out their flying speed at 30. Start it off at 20 or 25 at the most.
At least starting out, repercussions of being encumbered or wearing an armor with any movement penalty by default should mean, unable to fly, not speed reduced by half. [They moved away from the speed reduced by fraction mechanism, so I would avoid it if you are trying to remain in the feel for the game]

Have feats further on that enable them to wear medium or potentially heavy armor that has been made to accommodate wings and flying as an option. Encumbrance could be another factor that could slow/stop flying and alleviated with a feat of some sort.

Flying up is supposed to always be considered difficult terrain, if I recall the rules correctly.

Perhaps one way of limiting flight would be to make any movement flying higher than one movement's distance considered difficult terrain unless you drop at least 5' altitude in that movement. You could even limit a max altitude increase per move action to 5' if higher than your movement speed. So to move up 15' up would require at least 3 move actions, even with a 20' speed.

Now, perhaps you want flyers to be more mobile at lower levels, however it seems like that is contrary to some of the general direction they went with flying in second edition due to its ability to resolve certain challenges quickly.

If you don't want them to have to pay feats to remove these limitations, you could have the limitations get removed as they reach certain levels, kind of like a scaling feat can improve automatically by level or skill rank.

There could be a feat to reduce the difficulty/restrictions of flying high, another feat could open up flying slowly while encumbered.

Additionally, flying by default could leave your inexperienced flyer flat-footed to attacks as I believe climbing does.

On a separate note, most flying creatures that fly by way of wings, should probably be considered a size larger than their normal size for purpose of taking up space and being able to be attacked when they are flying. Obviously flying by way of levitation, or magical walking though air, wingless dragons, and such wouldn't be that way. But doesn't it make sense for a pegasus to need more space to fly, than a horse needs to walk, for instance?

Some of these flying skills improvements could be an archetype for flying combatants, so they could spend class feats to improve their flying combat.

In any case, based on what I recall, I think the Aarakocra had light hollow bones, so I think having significantly fewer racial HP seems perfectly valid. I'm tempted to try to stay away from an extra flaw to 'pay' for the racial abilities, but it might be something we would have to consider at some point if we can't find a better way to balance it that makes sense.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Other way to look at it is that every heightened spell is a different spell. So if you write your spell list by spell level, you should include all heightened versions of the spells in the lists for higher level spells. This was specifically mentioned as a part of the reason sorcerers, by default must learn the spell at specific level slots. Wizards simply automatically learn all heightened versions of all spells they know via preparation processes.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Something you could consider. Make all HD above 10 become 1HP per level. Have a die ceiling for damage dice. Any # of dice over something three or four, you cap it and turn the extra die into a single point. Alternately, you let them roll that many dice, and they take the highest dice from the group. (either dropping the extra dice, or converting them to 1pt for each extra die) That way larger dice pools do tend to do extra damage, but not extremely so.

I found the idea of just dropping the bonuses after 10 strange, thinking if you want less difference between the top and bottom, my first impression was, why not just cut the progression into 1/2 level instead? But as I understand it, you like the feeling of progression during the early levels, and were mostly worried about the upper levels getting out of hand.

On a different topic, for a small child's HP, you could probably give them 1/2 the typical racial HP and add their Con (although you might keep in mind it might be lowered due to age/size adjustments)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Keep in mind a level 2 commoner should be an equivalent combatant to a 2nd level fighter. So if you build a class of commoners, and have levels, based on new design, they should be equivalent to equal level adventurers in a combat encounter. In second edition level is supposed to be something that defines how much of a challenge you are.

Instead, I think what you want, is what is supposed to come out in the GMG.

A list of basic NPC stats, with an expected HP, combat modifier, etc. to represent a range of -1, 0, or 1st level NPC opponents. Ones that you can simply specify the 'work-place lore' skill being + 5 (expert) or something similar and otherwise have a template to quickly build a NPC. You could choose the level 0 one instead of level -1 one for the blacksmith apprentice, because you want her to have more HP than the local scribe, and might actually give her a little bonus with attack rolls to hit and damage with her hammer.

So I'd avoid saying build an npc class 1-3rd level that would give you weak options. Instead, I'd say, if you want to try to go that route, you'd need to define a class with levels -1, 0, and 1. With the various options they have at those points. [basically just NPC templates though for that tier of opponent]

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Zman0 wrote:
There was another long thread on this and my best answer to it is that they expect you to craft the special shields out of different materials. The rules seem to support it RAW and RAI, though it isn't laid out terribly intuitively.
I'm gonna requote this because it is important and seems to be overlooked. A sturdy shield might be better than an adamantine shield or a Forge Warden, but it is not especially better than an adamantine Forge Warden.

Technically, it isn't a clear cut and dry case that the special shields are intended to be able to made from special materials. I think, in general they should be able to be, but by RAW, given the values of the shields as pointed out don't match the base Steel shield it claims to be made from . it would require judgment on how to modify them. Do you subtract the values from a steel shield and then add the values from the material's shield entry.

A steel shield is Level 0; 2gp; Bul1; H 5, HP 20, BT 10
A standard Adamantine shield, Level 8; 440gp; Bulk 1; H 10, HP 40, BT 20
A Lion's Shield, Level 6; 245gp; B 1; H6, HP 36, BT 18

So is a Adamantine Lion's shield=
Lion - steel shield + adamantine shield?
Level 8; 683gp; Bulk 1; H 11, HP 56, BT 28

The above opens up some opportunities where the Hardness and the HP are quite different, which seems contrary to normal design, so I'm inclined to think it isn't intended.

So maybe you should use the material to determine the Hardness and have the type of shield determine the multiplier between Hardness and HP/BT
So is a Adamantine Lion's shield=
Lion - steel shield + adamantine shield for hardness? Then use the lion shield's multipliers for HP and BT based on calculated hardness.
Level 8; 683gp; Bulk 1; H 11, HP 66, BT 33

In any case, it isn't necessarily clear cut exactly what you do if you were to find a adamantine arrow catching shield, presuming one is intended to be allowed. I'm surprised that the arrow catching shield doesn't have a heightened hardness vs. HP ratio though, since its very purpose is to pull attacks to you to make a shield block. If the arrow catching shield were meant to be disposable, then why not make it a talisman you attach to your shield that 'attracts' a missile weapon to your shield. (which actually does sound like a reasonable magic item)

One thing that might resolve some of the concern with destroyed shields would be if by default, a shield will only take a maximum of its BT of damage from any single strike from a shield block. This actually makes some sense as the purpose of a strike, is to damage the target, so after you cut through the shield or push around the shield and finally slide into the target, not all the damage needs be applied to the shield once it gets past it. This sort of limitation would not apply if the shield itself is somehow the specific target of a spell (not targeting the wielder). That way a single block shouldn't ever destroy a shield, just break it. The GM would have to allow specific targeting of the shield after it is broken to allow it to be destroyed. (or if the GM allowed a broken shield to be raised for no AC bonus, but allowing it to provide a shield block action, which would open it up to being destroyed in that hit. [but obviously this would be a non-ideal, but intentional choice of a wielder, not just a chance]

Regarding the clip of video where Jason gives the amount of damage after the player indicated they were going to shield block, that was low level, and early in the series. I think there have been Also, I believe in future episodes in Oblivion oath and in the Knights of Everflame, where damage was specified, and they chose to block afterwards. I don't have time to track down a specific instance, but if I do I may try to provide it later.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

How about log entries describing missions to get various special components for their necromancy. Basically providing descriptions of victims killed, items the victims had.

Some of these items might be something that might be in the necrmancer's possession, living quarters, or laboratory. They players might be able to let the next of kin know what happened to their lost loved one.

In one game, as the GM, I had a journal kept by a ghoul. The ghoul had been taken over by the fever recently, having recently been alive. He was present around some other ghouls, and was going in and out of the fever controlling him. The ghoul rather than killing a boy he found, instead covered the entrance to the basement so the other ghouls would hopefully not smell and go down there to kill the boy. But he unfortunately lost 'control' of himself before being able to go back and release the boy.

The ghoul in a later moment of clarity, wrote about his recent memory in his journal in common, concerned about the fate of the boy. He then tried to leap off a cliff to destroy himself, but only managed to do cripple one of his legs.

The PC defeated the crawling ghoul and took his journal. Noticed the beginning of it was in dwarven, but never investigated any of the latter pagers to realize some of it was written in common at the end.

Perhaps the necromancer might have a log entry about a crop of victims who needed to have died due to starvation, and so the adventurers might have time to find the location where they were being kept, so they could be saved.

Might also be interesting if there might be a page, for some reason that has obviously been quickly torn out of the journal for some reason. Might even be more interesting if the log entries after the torn pages talk of having woken up and things being different in the morning from when he had gone to bed, a couple days later log wise, realizing that he somehow is missing two or three days of memories.

Might even be fun to throw in a random philosophical contemplation of moral concern that what he was doing might have been wrong, before he works through the quite reasonable personal explanation of how that obviously isn't the case.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

A few things, since they separated Shields, Shield Bosses, and Shield Spikes, there should/could be options for having magic shield bosses that are attached to normal, or sturdy shields.

Based on the fundamental changes to magic, with the introduction of Runes, I have trouble understanding why they didn't make Sturdy into a rune applied to a shield or shield boss, or even offer a shield frame or straps. Allowing a shield to be destroyed without inherently destroying the runes.

I like the idea of special magic shields, just like I like the idea of the occasional specialized magic weapon that isn't made of modules of weapon + fundamental rune + property rune or two. But why did shields get written in such a way they all seem arbitrary.

I understand that some might read the rules and feel like they could take a special shield and replace the material, and replace the hardness HP, and BT of the shield based on that, but it is certainly making the assumption (which is fine for any GM to make in a home game).

But what if Sturdy were made a rune with qualities:
As per below for all but bucklers (bucklers get 1/2 the bonus to hardness, but same max)
minor, L4 (+2 hardness, max 8)
lesser, L7 (+4 hardness, max 10)
moderate, L10 (+7 hardness, max 13)
greater, L13 (+9 hardness, max 15)
major, L16 (+11 hardness, max 17)
supreme, L19 (+14 hardness, max 20)
All levels: Broken Threshold gets reset to 4x hardness, Hit Points gets reset to 8x hardness.

Then you can say a Lions' shield for instance has a property which sets its BT = 3x hardness and HP = 6x hardness. If you have both aspects, they don't stack, you just get the better of the two. Actually for instance, the Lions's shield should be a magic shield boss, not a magic shield, although it apparently impacts the shield it is attached to.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I'd say you could easily create an athletics skill feat that adds the Shove trait to Shields and Shield Boss attacks. That would give them the option of making a shove attempt with them. I could see a shield with shield spikes potentially making it inconvenient in shove attempts as the target might 'stick' to the shield, spoiling such attempts.

I wouldn't necessarily have a problem just adding that trait to those two, even without a skill feat.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

My idea for scatter shots was basically had the shooter have a choice. Direct aiming at a specific target, or trying to hit items in a particular area.

If aiming at a target. You made an attack roll, could get a critical hit, everyone else in the line would take splash damage.

The other option I imagined, was each target making a reflex saving throw. The closest target to the attacker who fails the reflex roll takes a given amount of damage, anyone past that individual would take either half damage or splash damage.

I was trying to decide if a single 5' line would too narrow for field of effect. Was contemplating having it splash out past 10' for the squares on either side, but only producing splash damage.

For me, I really want firearms to be able to scale upward, without magic, meaning the blackpowder needs to have tiers at higher levels, and that needs to translate to impacting gun damage. Which my original suggestion in this thread doesn't readily allow for.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I acknowledge Draco18s statement, but will admit I didn't find that a necessarily ideal past state, with the degree of nova it enabled.

However, it is strange for wands to go from a consumable/disposable item, to a primarily permanent item. The overcharge mechanic seems to be an excuse to explain why some wands might have 'expired' but it is so drastic it seems to generally defy that anyone would try to use the extra charge, save to keep the enemy from being able to use the wand after taking it from you.

I suggested rather than instant destruction, that wands would become fragile, which would be destined to get more and more likely to expire, even at one use per day. That even opened up the option of finding fragile wands that wouldn't be permanent like a 'full' wand. It wasn't uncommon in first edition to find near empty wands as treasure. Wands as they are are otherwise all full use/permanent items, and we've lost a scale-able magic item.

I kind of like the idea of the risk of overcharge being more often the loss of actions, not full out loss of the wand as typical cost of failure. that way you can use the wand again, if you dare, but risk losing actions, and a small chance of damaging the wand. [perhaps rather than destroying on critical failure, it becomes fragile, losing the free no-risk casting of the spell once per day.]

Again, I don't think we need to be able to blow through 50 charges in a day, but taking a 45% chance of permanently destroying your wand to get a second casting seems unfun, dynamic that would stifle choices. Specifically, you could compare it to the choice for handling Attacks of Opportunity. They decided that AoO made movement in combat too much of a non-choice, so they made them less ubiquitous. I think making wands frying the ubiquitous reaction to overcasting, makes it a mostly unusable rule. [a rule that just closes off an action in a way that makes it become a false choice]

Oh... what if there was an option?

You have a wand you have used already today. You can:
1. Forced Overcasting: You cast using the wand, insuring your successful casting of the spell. Roll Flat Roll to determine the result:
Success: Spell is cast, Wand is Broken
Critical Success: Spell is cast, wand remains fine, Flat check overcharging DCs increases for today by 2 for the wand
Failure: Spell is cast, Wand is either destroyed or potentially instead utilizing a rule to make it Broken and Fragile
Critical Failure: Spell is cast, wand is destroyed completely
2. Coaxed Overcasting: Casting with the wand with a degree of hope.
Success: Spell is cast, Wand is Broken
Critical Success: Spell is cast, wand remains fine, Flat check overcharging DCs increases for today by 2 for the wand
Failure: Spell is lost, actions consumed, wand is spent until next day's preparation.
Critical Failure: Spell is lost, actions consumed, wand is Broken (potentially made fragile)

Fragile wands have to make a Flat DC check to cast even the first spell of a day, but the target check is normally in the range of 1-10. Each time a fragile wand is used successfully, the permanent DC of the check increases by 1 unless the check was a critical success. Any attempts to get a second casting of a spell from a fragile wand, the flat check's DC is 10 higher than its normal current permanent DC. Any critical failures on rolls for a fragile wand, the wand is destroyed.

This could leave someone managing to coax out a string of a few extra castings of spells by managing to roll a 20 a few times in a row, with an equal chance of turning your permanent magic item into a consumable. It also introduces a new kind of consumable wand that is the result of someone pushing their luck a little too far. That is a magic item as a GM I'd love to be able to drop into a trove somewhere, to give them a touch of a few spells, but without a scroll that can let them learn in and have infinite access.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

There is a Creature 1, on p50 of Hellnight Hill, that represents a humanoid mercenary. That could easily be a humanoid bandit.

As for other ones, for level 0 ones in the bestiary: (or archives I'm sure)
Orc Brute (B. p256)or Duergar Sharpshooters (B. p138)

If you want level 1 opponents in the bestiary:
Goblin Commando, Pryro, or Warchanters; all (B. p180-181)
Hobgoblin Soldier (B. p206)
Orc (B. p257) or Xulgath(B. p336) Warriors
Boggard (B. p44), Kobold (p213), or Deep Gnome (B. p74) Scouts
Lizardfold Defender or Scout (B. p230-p231)

Is that enough information for what you want?

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ediwir wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Frogliacci wrote:
D&D 5e doesn't remotely scale to level
So I don't know anything about 5e, and I don't care. But I have played the D&D Basic Set, AD&D, 2e, 3e, 3.5, and 4e and all but the last scaled to level (THAC0 is basically BAB backwards) and 4e scaled to half level. So if you ask me, that's a bizarre change for 5e.
5e has a "1/4lv+1" rounded up binary proficiency. You either are proficient, or not. It's a lil weird when you first see it.

Rogues have an option for expertise which doubles that. So it isn't an absolute binary, you have untrained, trained, and expert. It is just expert is kind of a class feature for a class. I don't recall any other classes being able to get that option.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
QuidEst wrote:


4) Cantrip are already useful and scale well. Doubling the number of times you can use them in a round, or adding them as freebies on other spells is a serious wrench in balance. Hmm, so maybe remove some of the buffs? Once you’re an expert caster, you can cast a cantrip as one action once per round, but you cast it as an unheightened cantrip.

I have to confess, if you are wanting an option for cutting 2-action cantrips down to 1-action that sounds like a pretty decent option for expert casters. Giving them the ability to cast the spell, but as a 1st level spell. It leaves them with the option to cast quicker, but a reason to do the full version.

I probably wouldn't do that house rule of my own inclination, but if someone felt they needed some extra one action casting options, this might be something I could get behind.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Garretmander wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Gunslinger if made properly could also work for Crossbow and Siege weapons. Everything depends on what they decide is most important, and whether they can think of enough material for such a class. I very much see it as a choice at level 1 of what type of non thrown/non standard bow ranged weapon they will use; The class name could be changed to Marksman, while the gun path is called Gunslinger (the Champion Treatment).

I'm not sure there's enough for a base class there. Most of that slots perfectly into a precision edge ranger. Crossbows, siege engines, and firearms all benefit greatly from ranger feats.

Bruno Grande wrote:

Personally, I'd prefer to just keep firearms simple & big dice and not even introduce new properties.

Ranged simple weapons (uncommon)

The picture of the captain with the pistol has renewed my interest in firearms in Second Edition.

Honestly I feel like guns need a way to scale outside of magic runes and this doesn't do that. I also feel that Misfires are iconic for the early weapons, and are a potential simple reason for someone to have a factor to still potentially decide to stick with a crossbow even when their plan is to fire and drop the weapon. Although, I agree one of the advantages of firearms was they are roughly simple to point and shoot, similar to a crossbow, I had issues with making reload times seem balanced, until I got the idea of making the martial weapon, but with a trait allowing them to use a crossbow skill with a penalty.

Ranged Martial Weapons (Uncommon)

Flintlock Derringer
Damage: 1d4 piercing and bludgeoning
Range: 10 ft (was contemplating 15' but seems they are normally always in 10' increments)
Reload: 2
Bulk: L
Hands: 1
Group: Slug
Traits: Simplefire(hand crossbow), Misfire, Fatal d8

Flintlock Pistol
Damage: 1d6 piercing and bludgeoning
Range: 20 ft
Reload: 2
Bulk: L
Hands: 1
Group: Slug
Traits: Simplefire(hand crossbow), Misfire, Fatal d10

Damage: 1d8 piercing and bludgeoning
Range: 30 ft
Reload: 3
Bulk: 1
Hands: 2
Group: Slug
Traits: Simplefire(crossbow), Misfire, Fatal d10

Flintlock Musket
Damage: 1d10 piercing and bludgeoning
Range: 40 ft
Reload: 3
Bulk: 2
Hands: 2
Group: Slug
Traits: Simplefire(heavy crossbow), Misfire, Fatal d12

Flintlock Rifle
Damage: 1d8 piercing and bludgeoning
Range: 60 ft
Reload: 3
Bulk: 3
Hands: 2
Group: Slug
Traits: Simplefire(heavy crossbow), Misfire, Fatal d12

Simplefire: Allows a firearm to be fired using the substitute an alternate weapon skill, but takes a 1 range increment penalty at the start. Using this option has several impacts to the weapon use. The misfire chance when doing this increases to include a roll of a natural 2; The Fatal property of the weapon is reduced by one die size; Loading a weapons becomes a 2 full round activity (six consecutive action) that requires a DC15 craft check to successfully load the weapon. On a critical success the impact of this trait to the misfire and fatal reduction are eliminated for the next shot. If you fail, the weapon is not loaded and requires another round of 3 actions, and another craft check to load it. On a critical failure, you believe it is loaded, but the shot will automatically misfire.

Misfire: These weapons can jam. By default this only happens on a roll of a natural 1. When this occurs the weapon take 1 point of damage, and becomes Jammed, meaning it is no longer loaded. It gives you a new 1 action activity Emergency Clear. Roll a Craft check DC12. On a success the weapon takes 1hp damage and becomes unjammed, but unloaded. On a critical success it becomes unjammed, no damage taken, and the activity can count as 1 action towards reloading. On a failure, the weapons is still jammed, but takes 1hp damage. On a critical failure, the weapon remains jammed, and takes 2hp damage.

Firearms as the general rule use 1 dose of black powder based on the number of hands used to fire it. (pistols take 1 dose, longarms/rifles take 2 doses) Misfires use up their powder. For simplicity misfires won't blow up, although you could allow them to blow up if the misfire's damage breaks the weapon, if you are interested in that dynamic.

The Slug weapon group is equivalent to the dagger/dart groups for critical specialization effects. I chose Piercing and Bludgeoning so that it would trigger weaknesses and resistances for both types of damage. They deliver large amounts of damage to a point, but do it with a lot of force impact.

This doesn't include the non-slug options that the blunderbus and dragon pistol used to have, which I had been working on ideas for, but this attempt, trying to focus primarily on just the minimum of Simplefire and Misfire traits along with fatal. Dealing with splash/area damage, scatter shot and effects aren't quite gelling with this option, in part due to feeling the need for a way to have the powder scale. But I thought I might throw this out to see if any of this resonates with anyone.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Well if you think about it, if your end goal is to change the bounding of proficiency, and you change the scale of how level effects proficiency, it makes perfect sense that it would impact how much you want rank to influence proficiency.

It seems to me that it makes perfect sense, that if level affects proficiency by up to 20, that you will want rank to be able to influence things by more than three or four. It doesn't surprise me that they upped those values from the playtest, since they kept the +1 per level.

If you are wanting to cut how much level influences the scaling on proficiency, I would imagine you are going to be wanting the bonuses imparted by Rank to be reduced, so rank is a giant boost like six levels of advancement.

Granted, if you remove level altogether, then you only have proficiency scaling by rank. In those cases I'm guessing you will want to keep the +2 steps, if not potentially have them potentially grow more at higher ranks.

So sure, if you cut advancement of proficiency by 1/2 or 1/3, I imagine you will want to cut the advancement by rank from +2 per level to +1 to make it feel more natural advancement.

Then with your up to +6 bonus based on level and extra +3 or +4 based on rank investment, you have the difference between almost superhuman and an amateur generally described as the one level of success difference, unlike in the RAW version where that difference is admittedly more like two and a half levels of success. In either case you are still talking about over 10 time difference in HP, so in that respect people are still super-human unless you adjust that advancement.

I think that the strong-point of this system is that it actually does leave a couple easily adjusted knobs to help people get the flavor they want. The hard part, will obviously be how to understand and accommodate for the changes in difficulty of opponents when you have changed one of those 'knobs'.

I'm curious what the GMG will say about such encounter difficulty calculations.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Offhand I'd say you could get rid of most (all?) of those problems by restricting multi-multiclassing, either directly or by increasing the number of feats you need to take from a dedication before you can take another dedication.

It is definitely valid that if you double the number of class feats available, it is reasonable to consider increasing the number of feats you need to take from a dedication to pick up another dedication.

Honestly, I might be tempted to leave most of the flavor dedications alone, but bump the number of feats required to fulfill only the multiclass dedications by 2 additional feats. Another option would to boost the number of feats needed to fulfill a second dedication taken(not in a chain like Armiger/Signifier for instance). Although I'd want them to be able to take those two extra feats in either the first dedication or the second, not specifically having to have more feats in the multi-class they took last.

I also though, sort of like the idea of of the extra/bonus feats potentially being limited to half level, allowing them to pick up options they passed up, but not necessarily opening multiple top tier abilities.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I've seem suggestions making the price shown, being for a batch of consumables, to make the price seem more worthwhile. Comparisons were made that one should never make a consumable, when a wand or similar permanent item with no caster requirement of similar level is almost invariably the same cost, or less. There is a Nova flexibility that the consumables have, but still the general concern has some distinct merit, if not entirely accurate.

I will also admit that I might have a bit of inclination to boost the time of some items a little. When I first read about the Potency Crystal, I was inclined to let it take effect until the end of their next turn.

Another thought I had was making Talismans potentially not always be destroyed after one use. A flat check DC10 not too unlike over-charged uses of wands. But you would roll on the first/only use each day. With a chance it gets destroyed, and a chance it remains for an extra use.

As for the item automatically activating a talisman because the weapon/armor was used, I would be against that. I like the idea of the ability being their for reserved use. I don't want to have to spend 10 minutes before an encounter to enable use of the talisman we have.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Artofregicide wrote:
rainzax wrote:

It would help if you'd have numbered them...

1) I think Monk needs one more something, but not this. Because, Barbarian.

2) No. Not even as a feat. Because Critical hit math. But, perhaps as a homebrew Fighter Stance?

3) Leaning towards no. I like the new "balanced" magic, and feel it is tenuous one. Largely because skills.

4) No. This would increase the damage output of spellcasters too much without resource expenditure.

5) Sure. Like, you can already do that. Can't you?

6) I am curious why you are proposing this, actually. Like, what is the reasoning?

7) Yes, but not for free: example


Another one: a penalty for reach weapons attacking 5ft away? Or disallow it entirely?

To answer yours:

So barbarian is defined by +2 hp level? I never thought that made sense.

Critical hits just double your STR, right? And the majority of damage comes from damage dice anyway?

3 & 4) We just disagree on casters, and that's fair. I think they're pretty weak, to they point that they're better off being primarily martials with a few spells as backup, and it's clear you're on the other side. Agree to disagree? There's 10 billion angry posts on this as is.

5) I guess? I was mostly asking if it's a good idea, not whether it's possible. You could make longswords uncommon if you wanted, but hopefully not without reason.

6) to match move speeds in 1e? Or why did everyone in Golarion get 15ft~ faster one day?

7) I'd be fine with that as a feat. Your homebrew is cool but too involved for the question posed.

#1 I agree with others, more HP isn't the monk thing, it is not being hit despite wearing no armor. If you want a 'tanking' ability for a monk. Perhaps have a type of Stance that allows them to take a reaction and 'take' a hit and do something like cut the damage in half, or absorb a certain amount of damage by rolling with the strike. [perhaps something similar to shield mechanic, that after the reaction they become flat-footed or something like that] That could allow them to do some limited tanking against a single foe.

#2 As mentioned by someone it is buffing two handed attackers, is sort of a cut against all the other styles. The 1.5x is also kind of contrary to their general trend of getting rid of fractions. (though they still sometimes have 1/2 level for some things such as resistance) So if you did implement something like this, you probably need to do something like the baseline MAP penalty for two handed weapons +6 instead of +5 (which arguably would make more sense). You also are stuck potentially having to consider if you need to remove the bonus damage done by the weapons that change damage when used two handed, since you just moved the justification to it to the persons STR.

#3 & #4 Why did you ask the question, if the very first thing you seemed to throw out on them when someone didn't think they were good ideas was, we'll have to agree to disagree. I am in general far more supportive of the no votes. Wholesale increasing duration seems like a bad idea. There is a degree to which I considered the idea of potentially allowing higher ranks in their traditions' skill potentially have a minor boost/scaling of some timings. Not by a factor of ten, but perhaps something like 1min -> 2min at expert, 3 at master, 4 at legendary. It gets more complicated when considering certain spell levels the 'baseline' skill is higher, so the base adjusted, making it more complicated to define well. Those were reasoning I stopped contemplating it. Perhaps as a weaker version of Extend Spell metamagic, enabled by skill rank and an extra action, instead of feat and extra action? As to making cantrips typically only one action, since they scale faster than natural weapon damage (more akin to expected magical weapon damage), it seems like a really bad idea. Or at least is my initial opinion.

#5 doesn't break anything. The GM can always do that, if you want to approve any such goblin ideas to make sure they fit into the campaign, it makes perfect sense. Basically, I think the rules structure explicitly supports this concept as a GM choice.

#6 It is a minor enough change. Seems like it might have a negative impact as it makes penalties more impactful. It makes running speeds now slower, and will reduce movement in combat. I'm not inclined to want to implement it myself, but I don't know one could tell if it creates a breaking situation unless you try it. Note it makes the elf's additional +5 feet even more powerful, since the average just got lower.

#7 With the way Monks work, this sounds like something that could be a key part of a new Monk Stance. An awareness based combat stance. It would allow Wis to be used as the bonus to AC. Would potentially limit any attacks to someone who made a melee strike at you in the last round, and might allow a 'reaction' that allows you to strike someone else in response to their making a melee attack against you.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I suspect part of the problem is that you are that much deeper into your campaign now 10 years later, and with that growth you got used to, and dependent on the many years of content, and your own personal development. This probably is making the idea of converting much harder, especially with less pre-converted material.

Additionally, with the scaling back of magic some, and the scaling back of some abilities that were all bundled before, and may now simply be 'options' to choose between. [things like, choose and animal companion, or wild shaping, or something special otherwise, when they would have all been defaulted parts of a druid package before]

One, I suggest you can consider starting a new campaign, using the new rules, in the same world as your original, but with new characters starting from scratch, potentially having your old adventurers being your patrons or role models. This might allow you to maintain the feel of consistency you want without having to force all the mechanics down completely all at once.

Another option to consider, if you really feel like you need to move forward with your existing characters, and are having trouble feeling satisfied with attempting to convert them to second edition. Due to the mechanics being tighter, feats are now supposed to be less of a power boost each time, but an additional flexibility. With that in mine, to convert your 'existing' heroes, you might increase the number of feats that you grant to them at a given level. Simply granting an extra Class feat at first and even levels, and potentially an extra ancestry feat at first level, might be enough to give you more of the flexibility that you are used to for your original characters to feel more authentic in the second edition.

After playing in second edition with those players, maybe you will eventually get to the point where the idea of playing a sequel may sound fun. Perhaps, after playing for a while, you might be able to start new characters with a more baseline character generation. [although, certainly an option would be to play with the expanded feats progression, if that is what feels right for your group]

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Welcome to the start of the GAP. This bug will slowly flow out and encompass all of Golarion. It is interesting to learn that jquest716, Azlanti, and Aroden were all responsible for the eventual result of all of Golarion vanishing in Golarion's far future.

As back to the OP and to how it pertains to ancestries, in 1st edition ancestries had different power because things were tied to HD not to power/danger level. So your 1HD creature might still be really powerful, while another 1HD creature might be nearly insignificant.

Now in second edition. Level ends up having a more direct tie to actual general power/impact on the game. Ancestries are more specifically for PCs, and as a result are intended to be more equitable. (as NPCs don't need to follow the same rules, NPCs have arbitrary levels and abilities, their abilities are determined by the GM based on encounter need)

So a Azlanti ancestry for second edition, I would assume would be far more balanced than the first edition equivalent would have been. What would be different, I think is second edition would be that your average Azlanti would probably be of higher Level, than your average 'Taldan' or 'Chelaxian'. High enough levels, they will higher stats than their lower level comparative society members, so it might not actually be unbelievable comparison.

If your average mature Azlanti were 5th level, they would incidentally have better attributes than your average mature Taldans who were 1st or 2nd level, due to level based ability boosts. But it wouldn't be due to their ancestry bonuses, but the 'defined/expected level' of their abilities, rather than their choice of ancestry. I think this is how P2 would handle the difference, rather than the P1 method of having a 50 racial point race that would create super powerful 1st level

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I've contemplated it. If what you want is the flavor of being able to recover quickly (even more so than with treat wounds as is) between battles when only partially injured, and you don't want to wait for the official rules.

Split your standard HP in half, 1/2 stamina and 1/2 HP. Allow any 10 minute treat wounds attempt (or just make it a 10 minute rest) will restore all Stamina points lost. Restoring HP would take magic, healing, or specific treatment.

Gives a bit of flavor that once past a certain threshold, damage is a bit more significant than the first bit of damage you take. It doesn't surprise me that they listed it as something that would be in the GMG since I imagine a number of Starfinder players may be interested in having something similar in P2.

I'm hoping that they don't bother with the rules that HP healing can't affect stamina... I'd just have all HP healing affect HP first, and any spill-over would impact stamina. But obviously, healing stamina damage would be less resource effective, than healing HP damage on someone else normally, unless you are really time constrained on a particular person for some reason.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yes, it is a special project that Paizo is working on with Legendary Games.

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Dragon Class, with a progression that defines what it is at different levels. You could potentially allow it to then spend a few Class feats to Multi-class into another class to get some of their flavor.

Alternately, for balance reasons, you have the Dragon Class, and offer Gestalt rules, so that the human (or other monster ancestry/class) can choose and merge two classes together and benefit from both, and be roughly similar in power between them all.

But it is worth noting, even a baby dragon might be more than a 1st level being. Just because it is the start of it's life and adventuring career, doesn't mean that they are 1st level.

More than likely a fire-giant kid, as a PC, starting out, might not be starting as a 1st level character. If you want to start them out with all the minimum stats/abilities of a young giant monster and gestalt them up (allowing a chosen class to begin at 1 and advance abilities up until they start passing their natural starting abilities) that could be an option. But in such a case, as they adventure as 1st level adventurers, they will need to face opponents that are set at a level appropriate for their native/natural starting level, and would likely continue fighting such opponents until their class level surpassed their monster base level.

Once we see options for Gestalt play, this seems more viable. And I imagine such options will vary from free multi-class dedication and/or extra feats every 2 levels to gestalt combination of best of two different classes/sources.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

When I ran some adventures for two of my kids, (this was 1st edition) I had them take along the pre-generated character Kyra along with them as an NPC, that I mostly let the two of them choose her actions collectively. (naturally the older one took the most initiative specifying her actions, but the other did provide ideas and feedback over time)

If you don't mind helping them with the NPC, and as mentioned, having a PC that isn't inclined to make the choices for the players, they can just help, and provide an opportunity to drop hints about information to them.

I imagine having a healer like the Pregen Kyra would be helpful, if neither of the players is playing a healer. Having an alchemist with medicine would also be an interesting idea for a helper character. More geared as a helper and adviser, but not a leader.

They can then simply stay focused on their characters, but can ask their helper for whatever help they feel they need.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Garydee wrote:
How much of the book is dedicated to GM advice and how much is dedicated to optional rules.

That is a really good, but simple question I really hope they cover.

I'm also interested in the Monster Creation rules/guidelines, which I believe were scheduled to come out in it. Are there any really simple things you can spoiler on them quickly that might help some of us right away.

Are there rules to help better deal with character concepts that are more potentially minion-centric, be it summoners, characters with trained animals, or the classic lieutenant who has some soldiers they are responsible for ordering around [since that actually is a very classic integral story trope for instance]. The current rules doesn't officially really allow for minions to have their own mind or instincts.

Are you including any optional rules potentially like Starfinder's Stamina system, to make it so that when characters get badly injured it takes more time and resources to get them back up to full, compared to just partially injured.

I really have very little interest in all the talk of completely removing level from things, but originally I would have at least been interested in contemplating dropping down to 1/2 level for things, so I hope whatever optional rules talk about adjusting that mechanic aren't just all or nothing discussions. Can you verify these will be included, and they won't just be talk of completely reducing, but potentially discussion lowing the ratio of advancement per level.

Will there be listed any of the more strict goalposts for classes/items/feats/ancestries. Things like don't grant expert in normal skills before 2nd level. Don't grant more than 1/2 level in resistance as a constant ability. I don't know, things like that that the developers planned in because they felt it was an important guidepost other's shouldn't pass without intentional thought.

I'm hoping it has guidelines for building sensible Domains for clerics and Bloodlines for Sorcerer's and such. Are there recommendations for building custom ancestries/heritages?

Are there going to be any rules in it that would be considered core rules that would be relevant for PFS and such? Or will it all be material for the GM, and options to customize your game to your local interests and preferences of your participants?

1 to 50 of 413 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>