The concept is cool... For a book. For a game... It'll probably be frustrating and/or annoying to players. I'm not saying it can't work, but I don't know any players that would be excited about consistently losing cool their powers and abilities. A better idea might be giving them MT10, then take it all away at once and have then gradually recover their powers and ultimately surpass their previous selves.
I don't see any reason to penalize the players for doing something different for flavor/lore... So I 'd just make it simple: The "mount" decides where to go, and the "rider" is automatically carried. The "rider" occupies the square immediately above the "mount'. That's it. There would be no other effects other than the occasional -2 penalty to certain skill checks (e.g.: trying to tumble or swim with a gnome on your shoulders).... Maybe add a few bonuses to skill checks here and there as well to reward the players for having a unique idea.
Melkiador wrote: As that conversation began, we will almost all move on eventually. As fun and varied as playing an Oracle is, given enough games you will eventually have done everything with it you ever wanted to do. And the same goes for every other combination that you actually want to try/play. Most of us just don’t play at such a pace as to hit that point yet. While it's probably true that we'll all move on eventually... Move on to what is a different story. The players I know that got tired of PF1 (or just want to take a break) generally move to 5e. My own groups, specifically, play FFd6 or Savage Worlds on occasion. Besides, between 3pp and homebrew, it's really easy to extend the life of any game. There's a lot of PF1 material I have never used (or at least, certainly not enough to get tired of it) and my group has some really skilled and prolific homebrewers. :)
It's worth saying that most players (including every single one I know) don't give a damn if they are "validating Paizo's decision". No one is trying to sabotage Paizo. We simply don't like PF2e. At least not as much as we like PF1e. And certainly not enough to spend hundreds/thousands of dollars on it. Paizo is free to sell whatever product they want. If I like it, I will buy it. If I don't, I won't. If Paizo can make do without the money from those that didn't join PF2e, good for them! If they can't... Tough luck. I don't care either way. I just want to play and support a game I love, and PF2e isn't it.
Of the 7 gaming groups (2 of which I'm part of) I know that play consistently... Only 3 guys showed any real interest in PF2. Among all those players, even the most positive opinions of the new edition are limited to "It's OK". Apathy seems to be the most common sentiment, though. So... You can add about 30 players to the "sticking with 1e" count.
I enjoy 1st level adventures... But onlynif they don't last.more.thN 1 or 2 sessions. There just isn't much to learn and do at that level... And the thrill of having every encounter against a squirrel be a mortal danger gets old really fast. I like the idea of going from Zero to Hero to Demigod-ero... But the first 2 or 3 levels should be over quickly. Specially if it's a campaign I don't play every week.
Sorry, guys... I'm going on a work trip today, so I don't know how often I'll be able to post this week. I can't use Roll20 or post here from the company's notebook, but I'll try to stay a few days in my father's house, since it's in the same city where I'm going. If that happens, I'll try to post from his PC. My sincere apologies.
Indeed. If you don't declare your action, I do not assume you acted. Since you guys are talking to each other, I don't know if you actually agreed or if the other player just hasn't replied yet. I also don't know how you do it... Do you just charge at the ants? Attack them from afar with ranged weapons? Try to sneak by with Stealth and backstab them? Throw rocks at them to goad them into coming to you? I have no idea. It's one thing when it's during combat, but in situations like this, where you can afford to wait and approach whenever/however you want, I prefer not to assume.
Storm Dragon wrote: ...As we said, we are engaging the sentries in honorable fisticuffs, each of us taking one of them. You didn't say that... Your characters spoke about doing something like that, but neither of you ever declared your actions. So unless I start controlling your characters, I can only assume you're Cyrus and Tai Leng are still discussing their next course of action.
ryric wrote: There's the idea that a spell component pouch contains infinite supplies of every single possible inexpensive spell component listed for every spell for any class. Quite a few nifty things in that little bag. One could argue that the component pouch "coincisentally" "only" has the material components needed for the spells the caster has prepared, BUT... 1- That's still a lot of stuff.
I currently have 3 gaming groups. I've been playing with two of them almost since the release of PF. We now play mostly through Discord and Roll20. It really helps. My advice is finding people interested in the hobby and use online tools to play. That's how I manage to play 2~3 games every week. I even have invited some people to join us... But we use a lot of house-rules, 3pp and homebrew material, so most long-time players hesitate because they are used to different gameplay style and/or have a different view on game design/balance. I understand their PoV, but at the same time I can't help but think "Why don't you try it? You're not playing anything! What do you have to lose?". Paizo not releasing new books doesn't bother me. There's still a lot of material out there, specially with 3pp and homebrew included. In fact, one of our GM creates homebrew all the time as a hobby and the groups help him playtest and balance it. It's a lot of fun! Besides... Honestly... Paizo hasn't exactly impressed me with their non-AP releases for a while now. - - - And if I (or my groups) get tired of PF1, I'll just play 5e instead.
⭐DM Darn⭐ wrote: That's another thing actually, Having a spell limited to a level is fine, but it should be limited to a level you can actually get it out. Even if you push it back to nine, sure it won't technically change anything, But it would seem less silly. The order you get your Evocations/Incantations is dependent on you. Also, at 8th level you get a bonus feat. Nothing stops you from spending it on Expanded Magecraft to get Create Wall or whatever other spell you want.
It's not an even split. You get 5 bonus spells that you can freely choose. That's 10~15 spells you get of your favorite type before accounting for Expanded Magecraft (which adds up to 6 more). That's 60% to 70% of your Magecraft spells. On average, it's literally more than 1 per level (1.05, to be precise), and that's before considering other possibilities to come. So you can still be a dedicated Incanter or Evoker, if you want, specially if you're willing to spend feats on it... You just can't completely neglect the other side. Besides, splitting spells into two different categories allows me to give more of them to the player... I've been playing one version or another of 3.X for almost 20 years now. I know for a fact that quite often, players choose the "boring but effective" option instead of the "fun but situational/impractical" one because they get limited resources and want to make sure their characters are still effective. Just check the hundreds of interesting, but useless feats that are never ever picked. And simply doubling the quantity of times players get to choose something just ensures players will feel pressured to take twice as many "boring but effective" choices. It also makes the class more newbie-friendly. That's a concern for me, because in all 3 of my gaming groups, we still get new-comers on occasion. One of my groups literally has a guy that started playing RPG with us 3 months ago (he now prefers PF over 5e, BTW). Call it a hand-holding mechanic, if you will... It's not completely inaccurate, but it is an oversimplification.
Scavion wrote: Yknow what the Mage class needs Lemmy? A Priest archetype that is Divine. I thought about that... But I didn't want want to have to create yet another Magecraft (Priestcraft?) spell list... And just using Cleric spell list for the traditional spell-casting felt a bit too good... Like an arcane caster that had a Domain while still having access to some of the best tricks of full arcane casters. ⭐DM Darn⭐ wrote: Why is there Evocation/Incantation split Lemmy? Because then the player can grab both utility spells without feeling like he's gimping himself in the combat area... Or vice-versa. In this game, too often players feel pressured to choose "effective" over "fun", like skipping interesting feats in order to grab another "stab-them-better" option. Splitting spells into two kinda-of-separate resources minimizes that problem. And frankly, if you can't find at this point you can't finder than elemental blast and heal/harm, frankly, that's on you. At this point, evocations include things like create wall (solid and energy, force and liquid coming at some point in the future), command, counterspell, force strike, glitterdust, grease, obscuring cloud, singularity, summon creature and summon swarm. Finally, between the bonus spells and the expanded magecraft feat, you can have up to 21 incantations by 20th level. It's almost as if you gained a new one every level, then an evocation every other level as a free bonus.
Hello. So... I turned the "Hide Inactive Campaigns" option on, but one of those games was revived. Which is great! The problem is.. I have no idea how to "un-hide" my inactive campaigns. I tried finding their threads in their respective subforums, then hiding/unhiding them, but it had no effect. Can anyone help me?
|