paizo.com Favorited Posts by Malilokipaizo.com Favorited Posts by Maliloki2024-03-13T20:31:21Z2024-03-13T20:31:21ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Why do you need the same amount of xp for every level in 2e?Malilokihttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs43lta&page=2?Why-do-you-need-the-same-amount-of-xp-for#802022-04-27T14:07:03Z2022-04-27T11:40:33Z<p>Not to get on topic, but I still track exp for the group and it literally takes maybe 30 seconds to a minute at the end of the session (and a good chunk of that is remembering where my gm screen is for the exp table).</p>
<p>I do not understand the vitriol towards this practice, especially with how easy it is to do in PF2e.</p>
<p>That said, I don't care that people want/prefer to use milestone leveling. It's perfectly fine and I'll probably be using it in my kind of episodic and definitely not secretly Power Rangers inspired campaign that I hope I can hide til the end that I'll be running after we finish AV. I just don't like when they act like exp is the worst/too hard/a waste when it's just a personal preference.</p>Not to get on topic, but I still track exp for the group and it literally takes maybe 30 seconds to a minute at the end of the session (and a good chunk of that is remembering where my gm screen is for the exp table).
I do not understand the vitriol towards this practice, especially with how easy it is to do in PF2e.
That said, I don't care that people want/prefer to use milestone leveling. It's perfectly fine and I'll probably be using it in my kind of episodic and definitely not secretly...Maliloki2022-04-27T11:40:33ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Paizo Blog: Paizo And Foundry Virtual Tabletop Content PartnershipMalilokihttps://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si0e&page=4?Paizo-And-Foundry-Virtual-Tabletop-Content#1772022-04-27T14:09:29Z2022-04-27T10:55:15Z<p>While I think this is awesome in general, I'm just about done with the second book for AV so this is just shy of a complete waste of money for me which disappoints me immensely because of the amount of time that goes into setting up each floor.</p>
<p>Is there ANY way that the AV Foundry module can get split up so it'll be a little cheaper for the people currently running it?</p>While I think this is awesome in general, I'm just about done with the second book for AV so this is just shy of a complete waste of money for me which disappoints me immensely because of the amount of time that goes into setting up each floor.
Is there ANY way that the AV Foundry module can get split up so it'll be a little cheaper for the people currently running it?Maliloki2022-04-27T10:55:15ZRe: Forums: Rise of the Runelords: Paizo Blog: Worlds Collide: Pathfinder® for Savage WorldsMalilokihttps://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6shiq?Worlds-Collide-Pathfinder-for-Savage-Worlds#52020-12-23T21:08:09Z2020-12-23T02:34:48Z<p>I prefer PF2e to SWADE, but it's close, so this is very cool.</p>I prefer PF2e to SWADE, but it's close, so this is very cool.Maliloki2020-12-23T02:34:48ZRe: Forums: Homebrew and House Rules: Shields and Shield BlockMalilokihttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs438xo&page=2?Shields-and-Shield-Block#692021-04-27T21:24:16Z2020-12-08T15:22:48Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Caralene wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I've seen this mindset consistently grow bigger in the community and I find it very concerning. </p>
<p>Having to take risky and meaningful decisions in an RPG is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. I love the high risk high reward feel of deciding its worth risking destroying a shield to block the damage that could otherwise down me. </blockquote><p>The Dent rule doesn't remove those choices, you're still choosing between blocking a little with an ability vice blocking a lot with little to no ability beyond that. The issue is that pretty much every other combat-related item has multiple levels that allow the item to be improved to keep it at basically the same effectiveness across your entire career if you choose.
<p>As it stands now, rules as written, you can block about once with any given shield around the level that they pop up. A second block will break it. In a few levels, you're now down to blocking once will probably break it, so effectively you don't have a shield block anymore. A few levels more and a single block will quite possibly destroy it if you were to determine it was worth it.</p>
<p>There is no way currently to upgrade any shield except the Sturdy (and Medusa's Scream for some reason) to simply keep the "block once relatively safely." Why are there not additional steps of the Arrow-Catching Shield that keeps it about one step behind the Sturdy since it's only ability is about shield blocking?</p>
<p>There needs to be more shields in the middle-ground, like Arrow-Catching and Reforging Shields (that can block about two before breaking at the level they show up), where they are okay/good at blocking, but also have a neat ability so there are truly options for if you want to block and NOT be relegated to the one shield for your career (and they need improved versions that keep them about one step behind the Sturdy Shield). You'd still block more with the Sturdy Shield, but that's the trade off.</p>
<p>Granted, the numbers in this attempt are off, but the <a href="https://paizo.com/threads/rzs4394w?Shields-and-Shield-Block-Redux" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Dent idea</a> just keeps everything at the effectiveness of when you get it (blocking safely once, twice, or thrice depending on its base ability at the levels you originally get it). Effectively giving your shield the EXACT amount of hp it needs to stay at the same level of relevance (as far as shield blocking goes) without overshadowing the shields that are "meant to block"</p>Caralene wrote:I've seen this mindset consistently grow bigger in the community and I find it very concerning.
Having to take risky and meaningful decisions in an RPG is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. I love the high risk high reward feel of deciding its worth risking destroying a shield to block the damage that could otherwise down me.
The Dent rule doesn't remove those choices, you're still choosing between blocking a little with an ability vice blocking a lot with little to no ability...Maliloki2020-12-08T15:22:48ZRe: Forums: Homebrew and House Rules: Shields and Shield BlockMalilokihttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs438xo?Shields-and-Shield-Block#482021-04-28T14:35:16Z2020-12-04T13:41:47Z<p>I do use the ABP for Striking and Resiliency runes and crafting quality for Potency.</p>
<p>Krispy, the reason I have an issue is that shields DONT scale. Except sturdy. And Medusa's Scream for some reason. When you get them, they can block x attacks. That's core to their function. In a handful of levels they can no longer do that reliably (or at all in many cases), but there are no improved versions of that shield. Not to make it better, or even as good as, the Sturdy Shield, but just to keep part of the function of the shield relevant.</p>
<p>Yes, weapons and armor can/have to be upgraded, but you can literally use the weapon you start the game with from levels 1-20 and keep its designed functionality all the way through, PLUS add some wangy s~~+e to customize it further (property runes). You have no such options with shields.</p>
<p>Using the version of the dent system I proposed is essentially using the ABP system to give shields the perfect amount of hp every level to remain exactly as useful as when you get them. It doesn't even make the higher level versions of sturdy shield obsolete as they get hardness increases. Does it have its own flaws - absolutely. I haven't played with the rule at all, and won't for a while since we're so close to the end of the current campaign using the old rule, so it may fall completely flat when exposed to the table, but right now it's the solution that solves half my problem with the games schizophrenic view of shield blocking (ie, read class entries and get told "get a shield, take these feats, you're gonna be able to block a lot" then get to treasure section and it's "okay, we oversold it. You can block a bit with this one shield and a couple others for a few levels"). The other half (being primarily funneled towards Sturdy if you take shield block feats) is partially addressed by it since the middle tier shields remain middle tier, but is really reliant on Paizo bringing out more options. Which they will since we're only in what? Year 2 of PF2e? Hell, they'll probably release something (or enough something's) that makes my issues moot in a year or two (like they did with the ABP in the APG).</p>I do use the ABP for Striking and Resiliency runes and crafting quality for Potency.
Krispy, the reason I have an issue is that shields DONT scale. Except sturdy. And Medusa's Scream for some reason. When you get them, they can block x attacks. That's core to their function. In a handful of levels they can no longer do that reliably (or at all in many cases), but there are no improved versions of that shield. Not to make it better, or even as good as, the Sturdy Shield, but just to keep part...Maliloki2020-12-04T13:41:47ZRe: Forums: Homebrew and House Rules: Shields and Shield BlockMalilokihttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs438xo?Shields-and-Shield-Block#342021-08-05T04:35:15Z2020-12-03T15:41:22Z<p>Also, I'm not trying to be a dick or purposely obtuse. Despite what it possibly seems like, this whole thing has helped me a lot. In understanding and in what my real issue with shields is.</p>Also, I'm not trying to be a dick or purposely obtuse. Despite what it possibly seems like, this whole thing has helped me a lot. In understanding and in what my real issue with shields is.Maliloki2020-12-03T15:41:22ZRe: Forums: Homebrew and House Rules: Shields and Shield BlockMalilokihttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs438xo?Shields-and-Shield-Block#302022-06-02T16:42:39Z2020-12-03T14:35:28Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">KrispyXIV wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Maliloki wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<p>But you're not choosing between blocking a lot or blocking a little. You're choosing to be able to block at all vs quite possibly losing the ability to use the shield at all if you do once.</p>
<p></blockquote><p>Given that most encounters run around 3 rounds, this is in general <i>exactly</i> the choice you are making in the system as it stands. Block a little - once or maybe twice - and give up your shield for the encounter, OR block without restraint by taking the Sturdy Shield which has that as its function/perk.
<p>Most characters won't have enough reactions in an encounter to make more than 2-3 blocks viable anyway, meaning that if shields other than studies could survive that while still functioning you've essentially removed the Choice between base function and utility that currently exists. </blockquote><p>I guess I can see that, but it's still annoying that sturdy (and Medusa's to a lesser extent) are the only ones that can scale with you.
<p>What if you ignored HP and just said you can shield block once with shields. A second time results in a dc 10 flat check with success being the shield being broken and a failure being broken.</p>
<p>Medusa's, Jawbreaker, Arrow-catching, Reforging, and Adamantine shields gain one extra time to block before the flat check, while Sturdy gain 2 extra times.</p>
<p>Effectively the same(?) But all shields scale with you without modifying shield stats?</p>KrispyXIV wrote:Maliloki wrote:But you're not choosing between blocking a lot or blocking a little. You're choosing to be able to block at all vs quite possibly losing the ability to use the shield at all if you do once.
Given that most encounters run around 3 rounds, this is in general exactly the choice you are making in the system as it stands. Block a little - once or maybe twice - and give up your shield for the encounter, OR block without restraint by taking the Sturdy Shield which has...Maliloki2020-12-03T14:35:28ZRe: Forums: Homebrew and House Rules: Shields and Shield BlockMalilokihttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs438xo?Shields-and-Shield-Block#252021-04-27T21:24:16Z2020-12-03T13:27:17Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">siegfriedliner wrote:</div><blockquote> The annoying thing about Shields in 2e is that they have more Feat options than any other fighting style in the game. But once you start investing any Feats into Shields the loss from choosing a non study option grows on a steep linear curve. With something like shield of reckoning and quick block you could have triple the opportunities to shield block but without a sturdy Shield your probably only get one block in before you shield breaks making those Feats almost useless. </blockquote><p>This. There's no other tactical option that has that limitation.siegfriedliner wrote:The annoying thing about Shields in 2e is that they have more Feat options than any other fighting style in the game. But once you start investing any Feats into Shields the loss from choosing a non study option grows on a steep linear curve. With something like shield of reckoning and quick block you could have triple the opportunities to shield block but without a sturdy Shield your probably only get one block in before you shield breaks making those Feats almost
...Maliloki2020-12-03T13:27:17ZRe: Forums: Homebrew and House Rules: Shields and Shield BlockMalilokihttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs438xo?Shields-and-Shield-Block#242021-04-28T14:32:56Z2020-12-03T13:25:44Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Cyouni wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Maliloki wrote:</div><blockquote><p>Outside of the Sturdy Shield (and about half of those), the vast majority of shields block 10ish points of damage (or less) per block. A champions divine ally absolutely boosts it, but it should be a boost, not the main thing to balance against. A Fighter (and bastion) has a ton of options that encourage shield blocking and is missing the ability to boost the shields hardness and hp.</p>
<p>Even still, my math WAS a bit off.</p>
<p>Additionally, a 13th level fighter with the medusa's scream would have hardness 23 and 156 hp before breaking (they're only master with simple/martial weapons at 13. Legendary with a single group), but your point mostly still stands.</p>
<p>The main point is why is shield block a general thing when it's really only meant for Sturdy Shields? Why not just build it into Sturdy Shields? Why make a bunch of feats and an entire archetype that's built around having access to (effectively) one specific magic item?</blockquote><p>Because that actually makes it a choice. You have to choose between the best blocking in existence or other abilities. Do you want the ability to block more, or do you want the passive bonuses of the Spellguard Shield? The defense of the Sturdy or offense of Lion? You can even go with a weaker shield that has better passive bonuses (like the Force or Spellguard shield), and use a different reaction as the primary such as AoO, swashbuckler's riposte, or the champion reaction.
<p>And on average, a shield has Hardness equal to its level. That's still quite a substantial amount. It just can't block quite as much consistently, since a Sturdy Shield's primary bonuses are +2 hardness and double the HP. </blockquote><p>But you're not choosing between blocking a lot or blocking a little. You're choosing to be able to block at all vs quite possibly losing the ability to use the shield at all if you do once.
<p>Most of the non-sturdy shields in the core rulebook have a hardness of 6-10 (average 7.25) and 24 hp (average 28.75). The average damage is 20-24 for those levels, which is about enough to break most shields around the time you get them (only 22 damage is required to break all the hardness 10/24 hp shields, 18 for the ridiculous number of hardness 6/24 hp shields).</p>
<p>Additionally, that doesn't explain the precious material shields, which have no real ability to speak of, and can maybe block once without breaking for a few levels (big maybe). Or why there are so many feats tied to encouraging you to shield block that practically require you to only use one magical shield for them to be of use at all when no other tactical option has that limitation.</p>
<p>Reading the class entries, it's like the game is telling you "hey, grab a shield, take these feats, and block a bunch! It'll be great!" Then you get to the treasure section and it's all "Whoa, Whoa, Whoa! You wanted to block? No, no, no. Don't look at any of these shiny things. ONLY use THIS one, otherwise those feats you chose are practically garbage. Have fun!"</p>
<p>It's this bait and switch that bothers me the most and why I, and many others, have issues with how shield block works with the existing shields.</p>Cyouni wrote:Maliloki wrote:Outside of the Sturdy Shield (and about half of those), the vast majority of shields block 10ish points of damage (or less) per block. A champions divine ally absolutely boosts it, but it should be a boost, not the main thing to balance against. A Fighter (and bastion) has a ton of options that encourage shield blocking and is missing the ability to boost the shields hardness and hp.
Even still, my math WAS a bit off.
Additionally, a 13th level fighter with the...Maliloki2020-12-03T13:25:44ZRe: Forums: Homebrew and House Rules: Shields and Shield BlockMalilokihttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs438xo?Shields-and-Shield-Block#162021-04-27T21:24:16Z2020-12-03T05:09:23Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">KrispyXIV wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<p>Most of the alternatives to shields like the Parry trait and Shield Cantrip only provide a +1 bonus (which is deceptively inferior to a +2 bonus - weirdly, I'm pretty sure its close to a 10% reduction vs a 25% in many cases) and come with their own restrictions and opportunity costs. Worse, none of them work with Bastion which allows for anyone to get Reactive Shield and get +2 AC for their Reaction which is a huge boon for many classes that don't get access natively to a good Reaction themselves.</p>
<p>I'm on 4 campaigns of experience now, and what I've seen only reinforces that the core design of shields leads to a lot of choices regarding them - which to use, how many resources to dedicate to them, whether a character wants to invest in blocking in addition, if its worth a dedication - and has seen more and more players adding them (or at least a lesser version) as a core part of their kit because of how shockingly good the +2 AC is. </blockquote><p>The way it currently works, I'd favor a free hand fighter over a shielded one (and I love my sword and board characters) because you can get the same +2 bonus to AC and still have the freedom to actually do things. You lose out on some of the few magical shield abilities that are nice, but the dueling feats arent as restrictive and, as before, more freedom. I think two weapon fighting also gets an option to get a +2 bonus to AC. Biggest downside is that the fighter doesn't have a natural, and continuous, damage mitigator outside of shield blocking like a chunk of the other classes do. A barbarians renewed vigor is effectively a shield block every round, for example (yes, I know they lose out on the +2 to AC and are actually at an AC penalty, but still it can be EVERY round without breaking).
<p>Serious query though, how many times in a fight SHOULD a person be able to Shield Block and mitigate 10ish damage before the shield breaks and can't be used for Raise a Shield again until it gets repaired? Let's say for an effect based shield and a sturdy shield of the same level vs enemies of around the shields level.</p>KrispyXIV wrote:Most of the alternatives to shields like the Parry trait and Shield Cantrip only provide a +1 bonus (which is deceptively inferior to a +2 bonus - weirdly, I'm pretty sure its close to a 10% reduction vs a 25% in many cases) and come with their own restrictions and opportunity costs. Worse, none of them work with Bastion which allows for anyone to get Reactive Shield and get +2 AC for their Reaction which is a huge boon for many classes that don't get access natively to a good...Maliloki2020-12-03T05:09:23ZRe: Forums: Homebrew and House Rules: Shields and Shield BlockMalilokihttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs438xo?Shields-and-Shield-Block#152021-04-27T21:24:16Z2020-12-03T04:52:41Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kelseus wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">KrispyXIV wrote:</div><blockquote>As a GM, my experience is that a Champion with a Sturdy shield is, for all practical purposes, <i>unthreatenable</i> in any reasonable and level appropriate encounter that relies on physical damage. Their AC becomes so high that even hitting them becomes unreliable, and anything that then gets through they mitigate by blocking. </blockquote><p>This 100%. A shielded champion or monk is very difficult to hit, even with an above level monster. In my current campaign the only shield user is the Monk, even without shield block he is very hard to take out.
<p>Shield Block is not a means to consistently reduce damage, that's what the AC bonus is there for. Shield Block is there for emergencies to keep you on your feet for one more round, not as a free boost to your hp. </blockquote><p>But it doesnt really do that. It only blocks 10ish points of damage a couple times before breaking and becoming a useless lump on your arm against average damage of around the shield's level (if it doesn't get outright destroyed). That's hardly worth something that costs as much as a permanent magical weapon that is practically being treated like a consumable when a lot of classes can do similar levels of damage mitigation (usually through temp hp) every round for a MUCH lower overall cost.
<p>Shield Block is especially weak compared to the Champion's reaction which can be used an unlimited amount of times, blocks WAY more damage, can be used at range, isn't reliant on a physical attack, doesn't weigh anything, doesn't cost an action on your turn, AND has additional effects beyond mitigation.</p>
<p>It also doesn't explain why there are so many feats (and some magic items) that encourage you to make shield blocking a tactic but is COMPLETELY reliant on you using only one type of shield (which will still become broken fairly quickly).</p>
<p>If shields weren't meant to shield block, I just wish they'd have not made it a general thing and instead made the ability to shield block a special ability of the shields they wanted to allow to shield block (in a similar fashion to the Arrow-Catching Shield) and removed all the shield block based class feats.</p>Kelseus wrote:KrispyXIV wrote:As a GM, my experience is that a Champion with a Sturdy shield is, for all practical purposes, unthreatenable in any reasonable and level appropriate encounter that relies on physical damage. Their AC becomes so high that even hitting them becomes unreliable, and anything that then gets through they mitigate by blocking.
This 100%. A shielded champion or monk is very difficult to hit, even with an above level monster. In my current campaign the only shield user...Maliloki2020-12-03T04:52:41ZRe: Forums: Homebrew and House Rules: Shields and Shield BlockMalilokihttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs438xo?Shields-and-Shield-Block#112021-04-27T21:24:16Z2020-12-02T06:41:29Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">mrspaghetti wrote:</div><blockquote> Perhaps the intent of the Shield Block isn't to have it available all the time, so characters have to make choices about when to use it. The Shield cantrip certainly supports a "once per fight" usage idea. </blockquote><p>Characters still have to make choices about when to use shield block. They're still limited by the shield's hit points and break threshold and, more importantly, the two main classes that make use of it already have other options for their single reaction (until upper levels) in the form of an attack of opportunity or the champion's reaction (probably a more more broken reaction than allowing all shields to block like the Indestructible Shield, tbh).
<p>Shield cantrip costs no money, has no bulk, requires no hands, can be used against magic missiles (minor boon, but about as good as some of the magical shields in the book), and scales it's hardness with you automatically. And once it's broken (if it's not flat out destroyed since 35+ damage isn't that hard to do in the system around the time most of the shields start popping up), it doesn't sit there taking up your arm like a useless lump until you throw it down on the ground. Nor do you have to run back to town to buy a new one when it would take enough damage to destroy a real shield. Not saying that the 10 minute recharge is <i>good</i>, but it's not quite the same.</p>
<p>I do see the point about it blocking once per fight possibly being the design intent though as it does line up with 99% of the shields in the book (with the other 1% maybe being able to block two blows). My problem is, why lock Shield Block behind a feat if that's the case. Why make it a general thing that's available to do at all. It only blocks 6-10 damage (ignoring Sturdy Shields for a moment) once and then is gone. Just make Shield Block the special ability of the Sturdy Shield (and the Arrow-catching Shield) and call it a day.</p>
<p>Additionally, why are there so many feats that expand how you can use shield block and increase the number of times you can use it? The game seems to want to encourage the use of shield block, but the numbers don't allow it (except for the 18th or 19th level, rare Indestructible Shield).</p>
<p>I've been going through all of the shield based stuff in the book again based on the feedback to see what my group is missing and I've found some interesting things that I'm working on a post about.</p>mrspaghetti wrote:Perhaps the intent of the Shield Block isn't to have it available all the time, so characters have to make choices about when to use it. The Shield cantrip certainly supports a "once per fight" usage idea.
Characters still have to make choices about when to use shield block. They're still limited by the shield's hit points and break threshold and, more importantly, the two main classes that make use of it already have other options for their single reaction (until upper...Maliloki2020-12-02T06:41:29ZForums: Homebrew and House Rules: Shields and Shield BlockMalilokihttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs438xo?Shields-and-Shield-Block#12023-04-17T05:00:22Z2020-11-30T16:17:24Z<p>I've made a <a href="https://write-randomness.blogspot.com/2020/11/workshop-shields-and-shield-block.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">post</a> about the issues my table has experienced with shields and shield block and how we fixed it.</p>I've made a post about the issues my table has experienced with shields and shield block and how we fixed it.Maliloki2020-11-30T16:17:24ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Deep Dive into PF2eMalilokihttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs437p0?Deep-Dive-into-PF2e#52020-11-16T18:33:42Z2020-11-16T17:29:39Z<p><a href="https://write-randomness.blogspot.com/2020/11/deep-dive-pathfinder-second-edition_16.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Part five</a> is a thing that exists now.</p>Part five is a thing that exists now.Maliloki2020-11-16T17:29:39ZForums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: Deep Dive into PF2eMalilokihttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs437p0?Deep-Dive-into-PF2e#12020-11-17T01:56:29Z2020-10-19T15:01:46Z<p>So I'm starting a blog (<a href="https://write-randomness.blogspot.com/2020/10/deep-dive-pathfinder-second-edition.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Writing Randomness</a>) where I'm going over RPG's (mostly PF2e), comics, and books (occasionally). This is an excuse to really dig into not just the mechanics, but the layout and text of the books. The first post about the Core Rulebook went up today in case anyone is interested.</p>So I'm starting a blog (Writing Randomness) where I'm going over RPG's (mostly PF2e), comics, and books (occasionally). This is an excuse to really dig into not just the mechanics, but the layout and text of the books. The first post about the Core Rulebook went up today in case anyone is interested.Maliloki2020-10-19T15:01:46ZRe: Forums: Product Discussion: Pathfinder Advanced Player's GuideMalilokihttps://paizo.com/products/btq023ih/discuss&page=3?Pathfinder-Advanced-Players-Guide#1042020-02-12T16:55:52Z2020-01-15T09:31:22Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Bardess wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Ed Reppert wrote:</div><blockquote> Nine alignments => nine subclasses of champion. IMO. How exactly that should work I dunno. We have the three good alignments. I suppose they want to do the three neutral (on the good-evil axis) ones next, and the three evil ones eventually. Or vice-versa. Or not. I dunno. </blockquote>I am hoping for MORE than one subclass for alignment. </blockquote><p>They already do. Kinda. Your choice of deity adds tenants and anathemas to a Champions existing lists of things as well as a bunch of other stuff.Bardess wrote:Ed Reppert wrote: Nine alignments => nine subclasses of champion. IMO. How exactly that should work I dunno. We have the three good alignments. I suppose they want to do the three neutral (on the good-evil axis) ones next, and the three evil ones eventually. Or vice-versa. Or not. I dunno.
I am hoping for MORE than one subclass for alignment. They already do. Kinda. Your choice of deity adds tenants and anathemas to a Champions existing lists of things as well as a bunch of...Maliloki2020-01-15T09:31:22ZRe: Forums: Paizo Products: Paizo Blog: All We Are Saying Is Give Peace a ChanceMalilokihttps://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sgvl&page=4?All-We-Are-Saying-Is-Give-Peace-a-Chance#1702019-08-26T23:30:13Z2019-08-26T18:04:04Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">John Lynch 106 wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Maliloki wrote:</div><blockquote>What GM worth anything doesn't already do this.</blockquote><p>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.
<p>Perhaps they considered it but decided it wasn't as "no brainer" as the decision to include goblins in the first place? </blockquote><p>Page 486 of the core rulebook:
<p>"CHARACTER CREATION
<br />
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."</p>
<p>Yes, it says the 'safest options' are the ones in the core rulebook, but it doesn't mean they're mandatory.</p>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,...Maliloki2019-08-26T18:04:04ZRe: Forums: Paizo Products: Paizo Blog: All We Are Saying Is Give Peace a ChanceMalilokihttps://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sgvl&page=4?All-We-Are-Saying-Is-Give-Peace-a-Chance#1602019-08-28T05:24:20Z2019-08-26T13:41:06Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Midnight Anarch wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>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.</blockquote>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. </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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.</p>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...Maliloki2019-08-26T13:41:06ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Paizo Blog: Trinkets and TreasuresMalilokihttps://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkvl&page=10?Trinkets-and-Treasures#4592018-06-27T18:57:11Z2018-06-26T17:15:44Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quandary wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Maliloki wrote:</div><blockquote><p> "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."</p>
<p>Then what the hell is the point of having a Resonance Pool!?</blockquote><p>Let's see, if you can choose between two mechanics:
</p>
"You can use magic items in combat, and they work 100% of the time"
<br />
"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"
<br />
(and if you Critically Fail that item is shut of from usage attempts for 24h)</p>
<p>Which would you choose?
<br />
That is the difference between using RP to use an item, and rolling to see if you can use it without RP.</p>
<p>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. </blockquote><p>Duh. That was obvious.
<p>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.</p>
<p>And based on their wording, it'd be hard to "over spend" Resonance Points before you've actually spent your Resonance.</p>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...Maliloki2018-06-26T17:15:44ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Paizo Blog: Trinkets and TreasuresMalilokihttps://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkvl&page=5?Trinkets-and-Treasures#2372018-06-26T22:14:55Z2018-06-25T23:50:42Z<p>"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."</p>
<p>Then what the hell is the point of having a Resonance Pool!?</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>That said, I like the Resonance Points idea, the numbers just need to be recalibrated to actually be a meaningful mechanic.</p>"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...Maliloki2018-06-25T23:50:42ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Paizo Blog: Feats of SkillMalilokihttps://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkue&page=5?Feats-of-Skill#2392018-06-10T16:21:52Z2018-06-09T04:04:13Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Secret Wizard wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Maliloki wrote:</div><blockquote><p> 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.</p>
<p>...PF 2e looks like its gonna require as much work to make something reasonable out of it as D&D 5e has. </blockquote>Same thing but replace every instance of PF 2e with D&D 5E and viceversa. </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>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...Maliloki2018-06-09T04:04:13ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Paizo Blog: Feats of SkillMalilokihttps://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkue&page=5?Feats-of-Skill#2052018-06-10T16:17:03Z2018-06-09T01:47:26Z<p>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.</p>
<p>...PF 2e looks like its gonna require as much work to make something reasonable out of it as D&D 5e has.</p>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.Maliloki2018-06-09T01:47:26ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Paizo Blog: Learning Takes a LifetimeMalilokihttps://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkts&page=7?Learning-Takes-a-Lifetime#3052018-06-08T19:18:18Z2018-06-05T16:54:14Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">whew wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Jonathan Cormier wrote:</div><blockquote> 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.</blockquote>Heaven forbid that a character should learn from their quite common experiences of seeing allies and enemies use stealth? </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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.</p>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...Maliloki2018-06-05T16:54:14ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Paizo Blog: Learning Takes a LifetimeMalilokihttps://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkts&page=6?Learning-Takes-a-Lifetime#2762018-06-05T21:59:37Z2018-06-05T14:05:13Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deadmanwalking wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Jonathan Cormier wrote:</div><blockquote> 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.</blockquote><p>There's a +2 difference. Which actually matters quite a lot in a system like this.
<p>For exampple, assuming DC 20 and a +15 bonus for the Master, he has the following percentages:</p>
<p>5% Critical Fail, 15% Fail, 50% Success, 30% Critical Success</p>
<p>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):</p>
<p>5% Critical Fail, 25% Fail, 50% Success, 20% Critical Success</p>
<p>So that's 10% of the time that they just fail instead of critically succeed. It gets worse without the item.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Jonathan Cormier wrote:</div><blockquote>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.</blockquote><p>Uh...we have no idea what skill checks are required for high level skill feats.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Jonathan Cormier wrote:</div><blockquote><p>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.</p>
<p>Regardless, ill probably end up houseruling it to something along those lines anyways. </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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. </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>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...Maliloki2018-06-05T14:05:13ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Paizo Blog: Learning Takes a LifetimeMalilokihttps://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkts&page=6?Learning-Takes-a-Lifetime#2582018-06-05T22:25:16Z2018-06-05T12:44:03Z<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Regardless, ill probably end up houseruling it to something along those lines anyways.</p>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...Maliloki2018-06-05T12:44:03ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion: Paizo Blog: Gearing Up!Malilokihttps://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkro&page=2?Gearing-Up#692018-05-07T07:05:25Z2018-05-04T21:11:59Z<p>Boy do I not like heavier armor improving your TAC.</p>Boy do I not like heavier armor improving your TAC.Maliloki2018-05-04T21:11:59Z