Priest of Pharasma

Maliloki's page

Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber. 17 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Looking forward to potentially using this for the first time this weekend!!


Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I've been making the combatant flat-footed if they crit fail because there needed to be some risk about taking a second and third attack. Falls in line with the alternate attacks (grapple, trip and such). Will experiment by trying out this deck for Nat 1's and see how it goes.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Maliloki wrote:
What GM worth anything doesn't already do this.

Given how much of a focus Paizo has made on empowering GMs, if they were going to go the approach of making some races uncommon it would have been great to have had such expectations set in the Core Rulebook.

Perhaps they considered it but decided it wasn't as "no brainer" as the decision to include goblins in the first place?

Page 486 of the core rulebook:

"CHARACTER CREATION
At the outset of a new campaign, the players will create new player characters. Part of that process involves you introducing what the campaign will be about and what types of characters are most appropriate. Work with the players to determine which rule options are available. The safest options are the common choices from the Pathfinder Core Rulebook. If players want to use common options from other books or uncommon or rare options, through play, review those options to see if any of them conflict with the style of campaign you have in mind or might present strange surprises down the road. It’s usually best to allow new options, but there’s no obligation to do so. Be as open as you’re comfortable with."

Yes, it says the 'safest options' are the ones in the core rulebook, but it doesn't mean they're mandatory.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Midnight Anarch wrote:
Quote:
Uncommon is what we use to indicate that a particular ancestry is not necessarily found (or appropriate as PCs) in all areas of the Inner Sea region.
Shame this approach wasn't used for goblins as they meet the same criteria for inclusion/exclusion to campaigns as hobgoblins or other typically hostile or deviant races. At least it would've put control back into GMs' hands which otherwise seems to be the rule Paizo aimed at in these new 2E scenarios. Fantastic idea though, uncommon ancestries, even if a missed opportunity to smooth dissent and table-issues about goblins.

What GM worth anything doesn't already do this. I originally said no goblins for my campaign, but, based on what happened during the early bits of it, my wife was able to make her replacement character a goblin tied into the campaign. She and I worked together until her character idea fit the world better. I did the same thing with almost half my players because they wanted to make their snowflake "just to be different/weird" characters. "Just to be different/weird" is a terrible reason to let players bully the GM into something that doesn't fit their world or would be a little too out there for the region for the GM to be comfortable with. Meeting somewhere in the middle has always worked well for me.

Players that have a problem with that don't last at my table, but my table is always full with other people asking to play. Players are easy to find, decent Gms are uncommon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Quandary wrote:
Maliloki wrote:

"In practical terms, you're really unlikely to run out of Resonance Points unless you're using an absurd number of items, and you're at the greatest risk at low levels. You still have a chance even if your pool is empty, though."

Then what the hell is the point of having a Resonance Pool!?

Let's see, if you can choose between two mechanics:

"You can use magic items in combat, and they work 100% of the time"
"You can use magic items in combat, but they work only 50% of the time (getting worse by 5% each attempt), wasting your action if they fail"
(and if you Critically Fail that item is shut of from usage attempts for 24h)

Which would you choose?
That is the difference between using RP to use an item, and rolling to see if you can use it without RP.

This does get into my question if one can choose to roll to use an item without RP before actually exhausting your RP pool, in order to keep "reliable" reserve for when you really need items in combat etc.

Duh. That was obvious.

What you seemed to completely miss is the fact that they stated in the article introducing an new mechanic involving a "limited" resource was that the "limited" resouce (for clarity, I'm talking about the 100% activation chance) would practically never run out unless you were using a large amount of items, and even then it was only restrictive at low levels. Meaning, to be as clear as I can be since you seemed to miss this part, by their math and how they expect the game to be run, you would almost never have to get to to 50% or lower chance of activation failure because they're not expecting you to run out of Resonance Points in reasonable use.

And based on their wording, it'd be hard to "over spend" Resonance Points before you've actually spent your Resonance.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

"In practical terms, you're really unlikely to run out of Resonance Points unless you're using an absurd number of items, and you're at the greatest risk at low levels. You still have a chance even if your pool is empty, though."

Then what the hell is the point of having a Resonance Pool!?

I'm not saying it needs to be a super scarce resource or anything, but if it doesnt need to be spent intelligently, its a useless mechanic and a waste to keep track of.

That said, I like the Resonance Points idea, the numbers just need to be recalibrated to actually be a meaningful mechanic.


Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Secret Wizard wrote:
Maliloki wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Maliloki wrote:

Ugghhh...Legendary level abilities are a COMPLETE turnoff for my interest in this edition. Not stoked about what it seems like the Mastery levels are going to be like either.

...PF 2e looks like its gonna require as much work to make something reasonable out of it as D&D 5e has.

Same thing but replace every instance of PF 2e with D&D 5E and viceversa.

Oh, I wasn't saying 5e was a superior system. I think PF2 is going to be a better written and better thought out game than 5e is. But if I wanted to play superheroes, I'd play a different system.

I was more mentioning that its looking more and more like switching to PF2 and making minor mods to suit my needs is less and less likely because of the ridiculousness of some of the things they want the PCs to be able to do. 5e does have SOME of that same issue, but nowhere near the same degree as what they're making PF2 lean into.

That, and I've already houseruled 5e into a game that is functional and does a reasonable job at reflecting reality while still giving players ways to improve, stand out, and be badasses. I was hoping that PF2 was going to be a better base system for me to use, but I think its just going to be something to mine for ideas.

ah yeah too bad PF2E can't be houseruled to function.

also you play with 9th level spells. let the 15th level Rogue have a handy bag of costumes that they can quickly pull from.

Of course PF2 can be houseruled. My point wasn't that it can't, but that, based on the scaling of these abilities I'm betting the class abilities have a similar scaling problem (for me) that either doesn't exist in the system I use from the beginning, or I've already made the necessary changes.

I've massively overhauled the spell lists already for better balance and how magic works in my world, haven't looked at the stuff above 5th level yet to see what's available. Beyond that, I don't like non-magical abilities that allow characters to break the laws of physics or common sense. No one is stealing a suit of armor off someone and NOT having that be noticed.

PF is looking like its superpowering its way out of my gaming collection because of its base design philosophy. If you like fantasy superheroes, good for you, but I've spent a significant amount of time and energy getting a streamlined system to make life an actual challenge for my players while still giving them options to improve and be badass.

What I've been seeing in much of PF2 so far has been about making things less of a challenge because players don't like being bad at things and then amping everything up on steroids for combat because that's the only area for challenge.

So, as I said (basically), good luck to Paizo and the fans, but this edition (despite me hoping it's make a better base system for me) is more of a thing to mine for ideas vice switching and spending money on FOR ME (I don't actually care if you like it or think the mid to high level effects are the best thing and really going to bring your game to the next level. I like the world making sense).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Secret Wizard wrote:
Maliloki wrote:

Ugghhh...Legendary level abilities are a COMPLETE turnoff for my interest in this edition. Not stoked about what it seems like the Mastery levels are going to be like either.

...PF 2e looks like its gonna require as much work to make something reasonable out of it as D&D 5e has.

Same thing but replace every instance of PF 2e with D&D 5E and viceversa.

Oh, I wasn't saying 5e was a superior system. I think PF2 is going to be a better written and better thought out game than 5e is. But if I wanted to play superheroes, I'd play a different system.

I was more mentioning that its looking more and more like switching to PF2 and making minor mods to suit my needs is less and less likely because of the ridiculousness of some of the things they want the PCs to be able to do. 5e does have SOME of that same issue, but nowhere near the same degree as what they're making PF2 lean into.

That, and I've already houseruled 5e into a game that is functional and does a reasonable job at reflecting reality while still giving players ways to improve, stand out, and be badasses. I was hoping that PF2 was going to be a better base system for me to use, but I think its just going to be something to mine for ideas.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Ugghhh...Legendary level abilities are a COMPLETE turnoff for my interest in this edition. Not stoked about what it seems like the Mastery levels are going to be like either.

...PF 2e looks like its gonna require as much work to make something reasonable out of it as D&D 5e has.


Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
MusicAddict wrote:
Maliloki wrote:
whew wrote:
Jonathan Cormier wrote:
That low stealth character IS NOT SKILLED IN STEALTH. It doesn't matter their level. They haven't devoted the time to that particular skill nor deemed it important. Heaven forbid players have to make choices about what's important to their playstyle or that they might not be good at everything.
Heaven forbid that a character should learn from their quite common experiences of seeing allies and enemies use stealth?

Heaven forbid the players treat the idea that their base attributes mean something and the fact that they can be increased as their characters level represents the characters learning things.

Or heaven forbid that the character spends one of their skill proficiencies on stealth BECAUSE they've spent time watching, paying attention, and learning from seeing their allies and enemies use stealth.

Alright then, let's remove the level modifier, go the 5e route with more granularity in a sense, -2 to +3 . No level component involved, so our 20th level god like wizard can struggle to climb ropes and ladders without spending a spell slot.

The goal of PF2'S skill system is to have a sense of constant progression, with BOTH skill granularity in the form of life skill rank specialization and skill feats, and tighter math so that challenges for any given character aren't meaningless or impossible for another, merely very easy or very hard.
The first goal is simple, by allowing the bonus to increase every or nearly every other level, whether that's through automatic level based bonus or allowing them to increase their skill every level through choices.

Granularity requires more options than just on/off, there needs to be differences between a person who's good and a person who's near otherworldly. So you want people to be able to invest in varying amounts in a given skill. Not just ability scores and items, you need degrees of proficiency, but the addition of skill feats reduces the weight on needing high...

That's actually what I'm pushing for, more granularity of choice that actually matter. The difference is that I don't see, based on how it's currently written, the need for actual choices of "degrees" of proficiencies in this case as any bonus beyond skill feats chosen are overshadowed by it being completely reliant on level to determine how good you are at the skill (and the skill feats are locked/unlocked based on your level anyways since you can't get to a certain level of proficiency until you reach a certain level barring class bonuses)

What I'm seeing:

- Attribute Modifiers (-5 to +X, but realistically -1 or 0 to +X) = base apptitude in all things. These numbers will get better as your character levels up and experiences the world and picks up little tricks here and their from exposure.

- Skill Proficiencies (Your Level modified by either -2 or +0 to +3) = represents concerted effort in picking up skills. Actual training through learning and repetition. Oh, and it ALSO represents picking things up just by experiencing the world just because we need to double up on that idea because player's don't like to be bad at things.

- Tools (+0 to +3 - or +1 to +3...I can't remember) = represents the bonus you gain to completing a task based on the quality of the tools.

- Skill Feats = Specialized uses of the skill that are locked off based on level of proficiency.

As it's written in the post, there's honestly zero reason to train in much of anything beyond gaining access to the higher level skill feats since your level is added to your skill roll regardless and the proficiency gives a nominal bonus to the roll. If that's the case, just remove the multiple skill proficiency levels/bonuses all together, and have skills either be Trained (d20 + Mod + Tool + Level) or Untrained (d20 + Mod + Tool + 1/2 level or level-5 or level-2 or whatever) and lock off the higher level skill feats based on character level and being trained in the skill since that's the primary way to specialize in a skill in this system. What skill feats to choose becomes the only choice in how to show skill training at that point, which it kind of is as its currently written, it's just hidden a little bit behind "kind of" choices being completely overshadowed by adding your level to the roll.

What I'm saying is that by removing the level bonus to the skill roll, AND maybe increasing the skill proficiency bonus by a little bit, you now make the choice of what you train in actually important whilst not leaving anyone in the dust too much. All while leaving the choice of actually being good at something in the hands of the player. And still having the choice of further specialization through skill feats for even more uniqueness in characters.

(I'm fine with the idea of skill feats being a way of showing further specializing in a skill, btw. My main gripe is the silly need of a +15 or +35 to something if the base DCs are supposed to be flatter. There's no point in rolling after a certain level in that case)

Regardless, I get it. Nobody else thinks the same way about this as I do. I'm done.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
whew wrote:
Jonathan Cormier wrote:
That low stealth character IS NOT SKILLED IN STEALTH. It doesn't matter their level. They haven't devoted the time to that particular skill nor deemed it important. Heaven forbid players have to make choices about what's important to their playstyle or that they might not be good at everything.
Heaven forbid that a character should learn from their quite common experiences of seeing allies and enemies use stealth?

Heaven forbid the players treat the idea that their base attributes mean something and the fact that they can be increased as their characters level represents the characters learning things.

Or heaven forbid that the character spends one of their skill proficiencies on stealth BECAUSE they've spent time watching, paying attention, and learning from seeing their allies and enemies use stealth.


Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
ENHenry wrote:

In my opinion, the whole "unskilled 20th level guy has a +18" thing works fine - to me, it's actually more believable than believing that a person who has adventured enough to make it to higher level has absolutely no training or experience gained in a particular skill by virtue of all their travels and has a +0 at it.

For one thing, thanks to downtime (and depending on the group, the story narrative), we do not zoom in on every moment of the lives of a PC. They travel, they study, they carouse with the local populace of places they visit or live, and quite frankly much goes on for an active adventurer that we do not narrate in game. (Don't believe me? I'm willing to bet darned few of us narrate our PC's bathroom breaks, sex, pillow talk, every single meal taken, every shopping purchase...)

There are pieces of info, observational lessons, chance encounters, that we engage in every waking moment. I am not a accountant, but I am better at money management at age 40 than I was at age 18. I am not a professional driver, but I am a DARNED better driver at 35 than I was at 15. I never trained professionally in music, but I can carry a tune pretty well and know about use of the diaphragm. I know a little bit of French and German by virtue of friends who speak it. If I watched an EMT perform their job daily for two years, I would pick up on a lot of very basic medical techniques. We learn subconsciously every day about multiple subjects. It models (maybe not perfectly, but better than PF1) what happens in real life, in that just because we don't formally train doesn't mean we know nothing. How much more so does this apply to a high-level adventurer who has been through crisis after crisis to come out on top?

The system already covers these ideas by virtue of the core attributes and the fact that they can be increased as you level up. Being able to kind of carry a tune is your base Charisma. Managing money ...Intelligence or Wisdom. Driving, Dexterity.

Watching an EMT perform their job daily for two years...if you were actually paying attention and attempting to retain the information, that'd be enough for me to call that Training. Otherwise, it's covered by Wisdom (I'm assuming Medicine is still attached to Wisdom).


Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Picking little things up based on exposure/life but is of little interest to the character is covered by the inherent attribute modifiers (which increase as the character levels) and the fact that you can make rolls on anything the DM will let you attempt.

Showing that your fighter can bandage people up because of a career of adventuring watching the party medic do it is covered by the fact that you can gain additional skill proficiencies at higher levels. Otherwise, you're junk at it because you never paid attention to what he was doing whilst healing people.

Narrative reasoning supporting player choice. Weird how that works.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Jonathan Cormier wrote:
So...why are skill ranks based on level? It means there's basically no difference between a person who is trained and a person who is a master other than their skill feats chosen if their the same level.

There's a +2 difference. Which actually matters quite a lot in a system like this.

For exampple, assuming DC 20 and a +15 bonus for the Master, he has the following percentages:

5% Critical Fail, 15% Fail, 50% Success, 30% Critical Success

The person with a +13 (due to identical stats but not being a Master...this is actually unlikely, since it involves having invested in an item):

5% Critical Fail, 25% Fail, 50% Success, 20% Critical Success

So that's 10% of the time that they just fail instead of critically succeed. It gets worse without the item.

Jonathan Cormier wrote:
If its based on stupidly high skill checks for the higher level skill feats...why not lower the DCs since they're already blocked off if you don't have the requisite level of proficiency.

Uh...we have no idea what skill checks are required for high level skill feats.

Jonathan Cormier wrote:

Could do -2, +0, +2, +4, +6 or -2, +2, +4, +6, +8 or -2, +0, +2, +5, +10 or something and get your level of the equation.

Regardless, ill probably end up houseruling it to something along those lines anyways.

Removing level reinstitutes the problem this was intended to get rid of. The issue being that, as proved in many games, unless the whole party has Stealth you can't sneak anywhere, because the low guy still has a +0 despite being 12th level.

It's an issue and one they removed for a very specific reason. This version is also much simpler because it makes all Proficiencies work the same, which is very nice from a 'teaching this to new players' perspective.

1) I get that, which is why I didn't really change much as far as what the proficiency bonus was and was intending to kind of split the difference between "level+X and just a small bonus, but have it actually be based on player choice vice default automatic gains.

2) you're correct. We don't. I was basing it off the idea that the only reason you set up a system to give a +15 bonus at level 7 is because the DC's are going to counter it. Using smaller numbers means you can normalize the DCs so a 15 is always the "default" difficulty of average/hard or whatever.

3) Holy balls this idea is part of the problem people have with D&D having become too soft/characters becoming too much like fantasy superheroes.

That low stealth character IS NOT SKILLED IN STEALTH. It doesn't matter their level. They haven't devoted the time to that particular skill nor deemed it important. Heaven forbid players have to make choices about what's important to their playstyle or that they might not be good at everything. If a character is actually skilled in something, they get to take point in that action.

I don't get why being a higher level character automatically makes them inherently better at EVERYTHING vice the things they've chosen to actually work on through Proficiencies/feats/class choices.


Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
There is a treadmill in this edition, but that is intentional, and with the 4-tiers of success system, it seems a great way to leverage that.

There's a bit of a treadmill, but you get distinctly better at things you focus on as you level.

A 1st level Expert (assuming there's a way to do that...I suspect there is) has +6 at most (Level +5), while a 7th level Master has a +15 at most (Level +8). So he's actually gotten better, for his level, than the 1st level version. This continues until you can max at +35 at 20th level (Level +15). Some of that is items, but it's still very solid.

Also, they've specified many things have set DCs, which makes the bonus for leveling much cooler.

Where are you getting a 1st level expert having a +6. They've said expert is Level+1. A 7th level master would have a +9 vice +15 as Master level is stated as Level+2. Same with the 20th level legendary being +35. I'm only seeing a +23 (Level+3 for Legendary proficiency)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

So...why are skill ranks based on level? It means there's basically no difference between a person who is trained and a person who is a master other than their skill feats chosen if their the same level.

If its based on stupidly high skill checks for the higher level skill feats...why not lower the DCs since they're already blocked off if you don't have the requisite level of proficiency.

Could do -2, +0, +2, +4, +6 or -2, +2, +4, +6, +8 or -2, +0, +2, +5, +10 or something and get your level of the equation.

Regardless, ill probably end up houseruling it to something along those lines anyways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Boy do I not like heavier armor improving your TAC.