Sleepless Detective

MerlinCross's page

Organized Play Member. 1,569 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,569 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Ryze Kuja wrote:
Mykull wrote:


( 62 ) A character with precision-based damage that wins Perception vs. Stealth three times in a row (Vicinity, Approach, Poised) may make a coup de grâce. This house rule allows rogues to "take out the guards."

Love this... I'm stealing it if that's alright with you :)

I don't allow for coup de grace but I do allow bonuses for attack, knock outs, grapple, etc etc.

Maybe should try it with coup de grace.


Malk_Content wrote:
I'm not sure what your issue is here? It comes up every time in almost every topic. Yes in any game with maths involved people with find the mathematically optimal things within that system. That is literally impossible to avoid. Even in low maths high narrative systems like WoD people still work out the "strongest" character paths.

The problem isn't the math. I'm fine with the math.

But I've also said this again and again, I'm bothered by the community following the math to the point I'm surprised there's no outright Math God on Golarion.

I'm tried of people going on about options, about balance, about how great the different builds are. And then following the guides to the point of quoting them, obeying the tier list, and having the same Fighter show up to 10 different tables. From 15 different players.

I'm fine with math. I find it annoying, bothersome, and setting breaking when the community seems to continue to treat Pathfinder like it's some sort of Moba or MMO. You HAVE to do it this way or you are playing wrong.

Richard Crawford wrote:


What is inherently wrong about low level items remaining relevant as levels increase?

In Pathfinder, Antitoxin is useful at basically all levels.

In the real world, a bottle of water is equally useful as income and wealth increases.

Something people complained about in PF1 was just stockpiling a bunch of weaker items rather than buy something more expensive and possibly stronger. CLW Wands are the mainstay of the complaint but having a trunk of Quick Runner's Shirt wasn't unheard of.

In the real world, a pair of shoes could go for a good amount of money. Or you can buy 2 for maybe half the cost and actually have them last a bit longer than the expensive one.

Now they have tried to show you need to upgrade with some of the items that come in different levels. Cloak of Elvenkind is a decent example, but at the same time I don't like being told to upgrade immediately.

It's a toss up between how far you can push yourself with lower tiered items but not to the point you invalidate the higher ones. In reverse, you need to make the higher tier items better than the lower ones but not make the lower items so weak it's not worth picking up and just saving for the better one.

But to give an in game example; I don't think stockpiling AntiToxin is a problem. A character or two using Bracers of Deflection and swapping out the used one after each fight, that might be more annoying and what people disliked from PF1.


Loreguard wrote:
As an example. Last step in creating a spellbook should be a ritual that many wizards would learn, even as an apprentice. Which would take the physical book and impart it with the ability to properly hold not just the writings, but aspects of the magical patterns needed for the spell.

Basically, make Wizards do the same thing with spell books most classes do for Familiars or Animal Companions.

If only because the processes of replacing a spellbook is tedious. But there's debate about targeting the spellbook anyway so maybe not get into that right now.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Like every wizard is going to have high Int and eventual mastery of Arcana, but very few Barbarians or Rangers will. So this is essentially a free resource for spellcasters, as they will have the stat and skill for other reasons and it does not expend spell slots.

What it does, however, is guarantee that you never need a specific class on hand to raise the dead or bind a demon. A cleric is always going to be your #1 choice if you need a resurrection, but if you need to resurrect the Cleric then anybody else who has mastered religion and has a good wisdom score (the druid or the monk perhaps?) has a chance.

Has a chance.

If they built right. I don't expect average people to put the resources into that doesn't make their numbers more numbery. Nor do I see Guides suggesting what Rituals to pick up or shoot for.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
pressure the party into making character building choices they might not want

"Hey does anyone actually want to pick up Arcane up to X level? We're really gonna need it later. Oh and a couple people with decent Arcane or Occultism. Oh you all put your focus on Athletics, Survival or something else? Yeah I guess that makes sense for your builds and or characters but now we're stuck here so someone has to change."

Still pressuring players to hit the goal that is Ritual and also the secondary casters to make sure they won't mess it up either. So that's probably 3 players putting points/feats into something they don't want. But it's good for them so they should shut up and do it anyway, otherwise they go to the dark corner that is "no narrative impact".


Ediwir wrote:

Merlin, I already have the best item per tier depending on class.

It’s how I did my average party wealth tables.
It’s not that hard, really. There’s only a handful of items per level.

They're all Tier X, they should have comparable power.

And they.... don't it seems?

Heck I'm waiting to see how the guides deal with some of the items. Yeah they might be a higher rank, but if the math shows you can get away with just spamming a bunch of low tier items(Oh hello reworked Resonance), then Power Comparison can go right out the window. Never mind class and players; an X tier item could go a lot further depending on the class and player than an X+1 tier item in an average player's hands.

This is a problem that will get worse as time goes on when the math is solved and more items get added.

How long till half a tier is ignored because it's not that good leaving said tier functionally X+0.5 or in layman's terms, punching higher than it probably should be.


In b4 the guides show you the best item per tier and that blows the idea of balance based of rank out of the water anyway.


Cyouni wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
Edge93 wrote:


Because somehow neither myself nor any of my 4 players have run into any of these alleged problems, and yet we're playing the same system and coming from years of playing PF1, so there's no lack of comparison.

And there were a lot of percieved problems with PF that I never ran into. different tables, different games.

And if your fine with your shiney new game, more power to you, I hope you enjoy it.

Fair enough.

And likewise hopefully you can find at least something from PF2 that can be used to enrich your own games.

I'm not Hythlodues, but I'm looking into porting back the poisons and trinkets.

But Rituals? Well I kinda use them NOW, just mostly as NPC help or as a way to explain stuff.

Like allowing a better explaination to events of book 2, Mummy's Mask.

Having something I've done/played around with Codified..., feels off. And I don't think will fix the issue of Martials not having any effect on the story. If someone has a better skill than the martial, the martial is going to sit out of the Ritual.

So what about full martial parties? Or ones that don't have a cleric/wizard/bard? And that's not even getting into the fact that a given caster isn't likely to have all the skills needed for every ritual.

I believe half the fun of doing full martial parties would be finding solutions to the problem at hand without outright magic or magic on demand. Ritual just gives the Martial the same answer as the Caster.

And let's not forget you can cross class for magic quite easily to get more answers anyway.

Now you're right about a Caster not having the right skills for the Ritual. I don't see why Mr Fighter is leading the Ritual though, Ms Monk or Mr Rogue has the higher skill. It doesn't matter the actually class set up of the group, if the Martial that suggests the Ritual has the lowest skill, they aren't helping in the ritual, don't want to criticality fail.


It's not just Fires of Creation but a couple of the APs show off preloaded items in the local stores with their Gazette.

Which I feel is a good way of doing it. Listing higher grade goods along with possible common items. The player Guide for Mummy's Mask lists a bunch of items that are key for desert adventures so I made sure all the stores had that.

Granted that gets into the issue of how to price it under "realistic" economy rules. Like everyone is selling anti heat stroke but all the adventuring parties need it, but again too much and they'll walk to another store.


Edge93 wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
Edge93 wrote:


Because somehow neither myself nor any of my 4 players have run into any of these alleged problems, and yet we're playing the same system and coming from years of playing PF1, so there's no lack of comparison.

And there were a lot of percieved problems with PF that I never ran into. different tables, different games.

And if your fine with your shiney new game, more power to you, I hope you enjoy it.

Fair enough.

And likewise hopefully you can find at least something from PF2 that can be used to enrich your own games.

I'm not Hythlodues, but I'm looking into porting back the poisons and trinkets.

But Rituals? Well I kinda use them NOW, just mostly as NPC help or as a way to explain stuff.

Like allowing a better explaination to events of book 2, Mummy's Mask.

Having something I've done/played around with Codified..., feels off. And I don't think will fix the issue of Martials not having any effect on the story. If someone has a better skill than the martial, the martial is going to sit out of the Ritual.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:

I personally find it absurd that martials should aspire to any level of narrative control; they should know their place and leave it to people that actually can make an impact. It isn't realistic that they should be able to do anything besides swing weapons at enemies 3-4x their size.

/s

I personally find it absurd that people fully believe martials have no impact at all in the narrative; they should know their place as discount summons and stand in the corner until called.

/s

I'm assuming the slash S means sarcasm. I generally question how people play the game if, as Martials, everyone picks to do nothing outside of combat because "Well I'm not a spell caster". Even dropping spells, it seems extremely common for the group to just default to "Let the best person do it". And Rituals are going to fix that how?

Why yes, Your Fighter CAN do a Ritual. But last I checked it's still going to need a Skill level and a roll. And if your Wizard is better than you at doing it, why would the group let your Fighter do the Ritual?

I see what they would LIKE for it to do but given how I've seen the forum act, I don't know if they are going to work that way. And we really didn't have enough time to really test them out. The playtest material we were given was pretty "Gotta go fast" along with the deadline for testing anyway.


38) Classes gain normal weapon proficiencies + Weapon group of their choice. Refer to Fighter Weapon Training.

It's something I'm playing around with if only to open up some options while still narrowing things down.

39) Style Feats unlock the next feat in the chain once the requirements are met.

This might be a little strong but it helps to shore up Style feats in general and for classes that want a Style but can't afford 2-3+ Feats.

40) Added Positive and Negative damage bonus to weapon effects(So like Corrosive or Frost just with channel damage types). Characters that can Channel may do so using their weapon as a focus, adding the bonus damage to their Channel effect.

Opens up another damage type or two along with boosting channel(And with the earlier weapon proficiency change helps out channel builds).

These are still in testing, but the first 2 are pretty well received in the groups I play in.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

Question: Does this happen under the current rules?

AMAZO: Welcome to Amazo's Potion Shop. If you can't spot anything on the shelves, just ask me. I am a well-renowned Alchemist, a master of my craft, although not perfect at it, and can create a great many different items. What do you wish to purchase?
BOB: We want to buy four True Healing Potions.
AMAZO: Ah, the True potion. An elusive brew. Fortunately, I recently levelled up, so I can make those now. A very profitable item; they cost 1,200 each. (I forget if that's silver or gold.)
BOB: We have 4,800 on us.
AMAZO: Wait a moment! You people are clearly too low level to buy these potions! Get out, and don't come back until you've killed some more things!

No, it does not.

If your players are buying at level 16 and aren't level 16, then you probably messed up the loot table. Or they sold off stuff you weren't expecting for any number of reasons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And explaining that she got the power from whatever devil/God doesn't?

I'm just wondering why PF2 is shaping up to be Magus the game.

No I kinda understand what you're going with Tectorman but that just seems like a hard and fast excuse. "Oh she can Ritual now". Just straight up magic.

No empowered chosen powers, no back room deals with demons/other worldly powers, no strange artifacts, no obtuse ritual that's probably a bad idea for PCs to actually try their own hand it.

Sosfane just used magic ritual X on page Y of the player's handbook. Please don't use players, it's rarity is beyond what you should be able to get.

I find the inclusion of Rituals as "Immersion" answers to problems weakens possible solutions I could come up with. Because why design something, when "Ritual" is the answer.

I'm sorry, I see Villains as inverse PCs. PCs don't work within the same boundaries as NPCs and the world at times. Why should Villains, who have a habit of risky gambles, infernal deals, and outright cheating at times; be expected to function just like any other NPC?


Captain Morgan wrote:
having well defined worlds (down to shops in a town) are why people buy APs.

I would assume having the work partially done for them is why people buy APs. Or they like the region. Or they like the set up. Or they like the shops.

Which is odd, I've looked through APs but never really see shops defined. The settlement yeah but rarely do shops get a detailed look(Unless you're raiding/fighting/visiting it).

Captain Morgan wrote:
Plus, there are tons of people who despise the "Buy anything at the magic mart" approach

Then why is it the default? Why does every corner store have the big 6 and 30 CLW wands at full charge? And 15 scrolls of your choice, and Ioun stones and flaming swords in the barrel at half off by 2 get lightning spear for free?

The settlement rules might have been in Core or shortly after but given that I've seen basically no group actually USE the rules, why does it matter if it is RAW?

Which is why I don't think Resonance is actually going to fix it. Given that they are playtesting rules, WHILE still playtesting other rules, I think the system is going to be annoying to the point it's ripped out. Thus breaking the expected economy of the game more.

Captain Morgan wrote:
But to nerdy GMs like Mathmuse and I this level of worldbuilding is pretty imporant.

I know. It's great you guys like that, and it's a way to sell books for Paizo.

It's just such a shame you're going to just ignore or drop it while still saying it's so good for world building. Because you're just going to go full on min max, magic walmart where everything is free because it would slow down your build or whatever anyway.

Oh you're not going to do that? Well the community will so buckle up or get out the car. Some people are used to this for quite possibly 10 years, if not more. I see nothing in PF2 that's going to change that, at all.

Rarity is annoying, just wave that away. Having to buy the Formula and then make it is annoying, just buy it. Having to go on a side quest and drag the rest of the party along for the ride, away from the actual plot of the game because you REALLY want Insert thing here? WHY just BUY IT.

What you want is against what I have seen how the community plays. They want it now, they want it as soon as possible and they want it because they need it for a build. You might like having a detailed world; the community cares how easy they can get their numbers up.

Oh and if you want realistic, how does walking into town and dropping a couple thousand gold just not break the new silver based economy? Are you going to expect your players to keep some silver to pay with so they don't just overstaturate the local market? Because you know, that's fun. "You buy your supplies to kill the dragon king but now the cost of bread in the town is tripled and starvation is starting up".

You want an economy that makes sense. I want one that makes enough sense to just buy stuff without breaking immersion. Community wants it now.

I see nothing in PF2 that is going to change that last bit. So I fully expect to see complaints about how it doesn't make any sense, when at least the forum goers are ignoring half the issue anyway.

So yeah, theory craft your own world's economy. But don't be surprised when you see the community and possibly even Pazio's works, balanced around a different economy than what you came up with.

Mathmuse wrote:
I have gone to the extreme of letting my players catalog shop. They point out an item in Ultimate Equipment, and I decide that it is available and say, "You spend half the day wandering through the city shops and you find it. You may buy it for the listed price."

I suppose the biggest issue here(And with what I was saying earlier in the post) is "how much does your group care about shopping"? Having a good economy set up, detailed shops, and the like is all well and good but then you give it to the players and it can be run quite differently. The magic walmart is just the fastest, easiest way to buy things but that runs into it's own problems.

Myself, I go with what you said Mathmuse. But maybe a step further. Every so often I ask for a list of what people would like for their character and or build. And I keep that list with me to either give out as rewards or place in shops. Not every store will have it, but you're kinda grantee to get it sooner or later. Past that, it's kinda random unless players are willing to put in the work(Search around, talk with allies, craft it themselves or with help, etc).

Now does this make a whole lot of sense in a working economic system? Heck if I know, but my players haven't complained about it going either way so I guess it works enough. I have monsters, npcs, spells and traps to ready, battle maps to set up, puzzles to get ready and made sure they make sense; worrying about how money and shops SHOULD work is down at the bottom of my priories outside of preventing the magic walmart.

I should however say this for anyone reading/other posters; if you LIKE to math out how systems work in that detail, great go for it. I'm one faceless git on the net, don't let me get in the way of your fun. I just find it weird and think doing such a thing will result in a lot of players just walking right past it without noticing or being effected by it.

But if you and your players/group actually play that way and enjoy it, well I still find it weird but hey you have fun your way.


By the book

"Nebta-Khufe used the Pyramid of Arithmetic Bliss as a base to search for the Mask of the Forgotten Pharaoh when he first arrived in Wati. Once he
fund the mask, he moved to the Sepulcher of the Servant"

So Nebta used it as a book during the first book, when the undead wave hadn't risen basically everything in the Necropolis. After getting the mask, he moved out of his hiding spot over to a better location. Uses the mask, Undeads rise and thus the mummies do.

Now the Cultists only arrive at the site near the end of the PC's exploring it. So they're unaware that the undead are up and their dead companion.

In my case, Ekram Iffek is leading a group to the site himself so will probably be weakened by the undead before the PCs get to him.


GM Rednal wrote:
That feels more like a problem with the player than the system. You can cast Darkness as a Vancian caster, too - heck, a simple wand of it would go a long ways. Almost any build can be abused if players don't use it in a party-friendly fashion.

Darkness yes. Darkness with a bunch of different rider effects on top and cast that basically all day? Don't think you can do that as a Vancian.

It might be a player thing but everyone cried about how Vancian is broken. And I see someone break the game with Spheres( a few times actually).

Ergo I stay away from Spheres. Heck I stay away from Path of War due to similar events. I haven't gotten to the point people break the game with Vancian casting but have seen Sphere casters basically rule sessions due to their build. It seems more min max friendly


1) Most foods/meals will not heal. There's a couple outliers but most tend to be magical in nature anyway. Spells like Goodberry and Heroes Feast spring to mind. But if you really dig into the item list I'm sure you might find something else and you can probably homebrew potions to work as foods.

2) Time is dependent on GM. Some will clock/track it, others won't. Some might have a decent idea of how events beyond the PC's area are advancing, others just handwave it. It really depends on just the GM along with some other factors. Like if a player is a Werewolf, tracking Moon phases is suddenly actually somewhat important.

3) Do you have any dungeon based board game? Some of those might come with like little cabinet pieces or other such models to show areas of interest and objectives. Putting a few of those down can help to liven up the battle map a bit. Even if you don't have say Decent or gods forbid, Heroquest, look through your boardgames and see what pieces you might be able to reuse. I've taken to using Monopoly houses/inn pieces to represent towns for use on traveling maps.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Quote:

PF2 economy should be like PF1.

It works enough to make a level of sense but not to the point it becomes a hassle to actually go out and buy something. With tables coming up with just how nuanced, immersive, realistic, and (How is this?) fun the system is.

There's a line between sensible and some hand waving, and the magic walmart everyone seemed to use. And I don't see anything in PF2 that is going to stop the Walmart given PF2's economy.

I'm not sure what exactly you are suggesting here. The PF1 system indeed has some thing that can make it a hassle to buy things. By RAW there's some pretty big limitations.

But when you say the "magic walmart everyone seemed to use," I'm not sure if you mean the system by RAW or people ignoring the system and assuming you could just buy anything anywhere. I feel like a lot of people probably did the latter, and think the only thing changing that scenario in PF2 is probably rarity. But that doesn't really intersect with settlement rules, IMO.

Didn't the Settlement rules come later in PF1's life first off? Like it wasn't at launch and maybe to this day, hard baked into the system. So many people just didn't use the settlement rules and probably just skip over them.

So it might be limited by "RAW" but no one actually used RAW and came up with their own systems. And the most common one was "Magic Walmart". People didn't want to roll for items or didn't want to set up their own shops(Or use the settlement rules later). Or put any kind of hard limit on shops. So you have events where people walk in and walk out with 50 CLW wands, dozens of potions, and some magic gear. All from a little dime store on the corner.

I don't see PF2 actually fixing that part of the game. I've ranted on Rarity as being a problem but I've also complained that "How many people will use it". I don't expect as many as Paizo seems to think. Yeah it might make sense that Item A isn't sold in town. But I doubt the party and the GM will agree to let 1 character that really wants to buy item A, drag the entire session off to another town just to get the item.

I'm not saying PF1 made sense. But as someone that came from a video game background(why the heck is a baseball bat worth $500?) the actual logic of the economy doesn't bother me too much. Because it's a side thing for the most part, something that can be handwaved away. Yeah if you look harder at it, the system breaks but again, to me it's not the main focus OF the game so it doesn't need a detailed break down. It needs to work enough without being a hassle to buy stuff. Hassle can be many things here; from how many shops you have to check, to how long you have to wait, to how much of what money you have to pay, to really any number of issues. I might not run with the walmart style but I'm not going to make the party wait for maybe a week or a month just for a new suit of armor they wanted crafted. Or have to run some side sessions where they contact the thieves guild to buy some banned/rare items not found in town(Though this is dependent on campaign and group). I don't mind putting in some effort to buy stuff but just like in real life; if I don't find it by maybe middling effort(Like by 3rd or 4th NPC), I'm just going to give up.

Rarity is the biggest issue in buying stuff, followed by item level and formulas. I get the idea of formulas but I can't help but feel most players aren't going to be really pumped to buy instructions rather than the actual thing. And the Rarity/Item Level runs into the problem of "It's not here, drag your party elsewhere".

So yeah, I don't actually expect the PF2 economy/shopping to be really all that different from PF1. Not in any world building way, and minor changes that are ignorable depending on the table.


GM Rednal wrote:
Because there's probably something unusual in your games if Spherecasters are dominating them? They have generally linear power growth - they're probably better than classes like Sorcerer and Wizard at the earliest levels (I mean, let's be honest, even full casters aren't very strong at the start of the game - low HP, only a handful of spells, and little in the way of meaningful class abilities), but full Vancian casters catch up about mid-way through and then overtake Spherecasters in terms of power and versatility.

If I recall, the character in question was some sort of Darkness or Illusion based caster and just auto ended battles by making the enemy unable to fight. While at the same time making it impossible for the rest of the team to do anything because we weren't geared for it. Thinking about it, yeah I think it was some sort of darkness build as the rest of us didn't have darkvision we had to sit twiddling our thumbs.

And this was a jerk that would min max anyway so giving him full control over just how to build his caster was a bad idea.

@Interesting Character

I just prefer Vancian. Do I cast a spell or save it for later? Which spell do I use? What spells should I prepare? I like making decisions like that as opposed to flinging out spells all day long.

And then there's the fact it's not a small additional rule change it's the fact the wiki looks so bloody dense I can't even tell where to start. If I wanted free form magic, I'd play a different system. Not Learn Pathfinder, and then learn to bolt another game on top of it.


PF2 economy should be like PF1.

It works enough to make a level of sense but not to the point it becomes a hassle to actually go out and buy something. With tables coming up with just how nuanced, immersive, realistic, and (How is this?) fun the system is.

There's a line between sensible and some hand waving, and the magic walmart everyone seemed to use. And I don't see anything in PF2 that is going to stop the Walmart given PF2's economy.


Dire Ursus wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Creatures with the summoned trait can't summon other things.

This is 100% true. And that's the problem here.

Both Summon Monster and Summon Nature Ally say "The Creature gains the Summon Trait."

Abyssal Pact however, makes no mention of this.

And even if it did, how would this work? A Duke is able to get a demon summoned to him(For extended time somehow). The duke now has, 2 actions now till the demon is killed?

And if a demon summons up "3 demons lower level than itself", hows it going to command them all or does the Demon have to sit there, giving it's actions to it's minions?

I feel adding the Summon tag to the ritual would cause more of a head ache but at the same time, it doesn't seem to have the fail safes that normal summoning does.

But I suppose you're summoning Devils and later Demons/Deamons so that's a risky idea to run with.

It's probably an oversight but the Summoned trait description itself is where the rule comes from. It says that any creature called with a conjuration effect gains the summoned trait. That bit of text should probably be moved to the Conjuration section in the magic section. As for why the failure effect of the abyssal pact specifically calls out the summoned trait. Idk. Probably a bit of confusion between the person who decided that every conjuration effect gives the summoned trait and the person who made that ritual.

That still runs into the problem of whatever Devil/Demon the evil duke made an alliance with has to basically sit there while giving it's actions to the 2-3 smaller demons it called forth.

That said, looking it over some more; Planar Ally and Primal Call also lack the Summon Trait. And those are Summon Rituals most likely used by the PCs.

Which I actually don't mind. Summon is just a quick and dirty, "Get over here" call. Ritual is a longer and more delicate process and even then can still fail, but the creature you end up with is stronger and has more options.


Shinigami02 wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Creatures with the summoned trait can't summon other things.

This is 100% true. And that's the problem here.

Both Summon Monster and Summon Nature Ally say "The Creature gains the Summon Trait."

Abyssal Pact however, makes no mention of this.

Interestingly, Abyssal Pact actually does make mention of the summoned Demon(s) gaining the Summoned trait... but only in the Critical Failure effect. Which makes things all the weirder, given how the Summoned Trait works with Action Economy, since Summoned trait creatures are only supposed to act when the caster (the person they are currently hostile to and presumably actively attacking) Concentrates on the spell, and otherwise are supposed to take no actions.

Meanwhile the Infernal Pact (the Devil counterpart) has no such clause at all, and in fact its Crit Fail effect is as simple as the ritual failing and the Devil you tried summoning "[sending] word of its displeasure to your master."

It is notable though that you physically can't move up to summoning Demons/Daemons from Devils by Ritual, given that both Infernal and Abyssal Pacts require being a Devil or Demon respectively to even use the Ritual... probably just so that there's no realistic way for PCs to make use of them.

Given the fact it's in the Bestiary and thus I would fully assume it's a GM tool, why should we worry if the PCs can use it or not?

Unless we're worried about players just finding it online and going "Oh I want this" which I thought the "Rare" tag was supposed to disallow.

But yeah, having the Critical Failure be "It has the summoned tag now" isn't a bad way to do it but otherwise the Rituals have their own issues besides having that tag.


Oh thought of another thing.

So my Badger is still the poor luck gambler that wants coin. But why?

Answer - Chickcharney. This little beast can curse a target up to 4 times giving a -1 for each curse to... well most things. Badger's been cursed up to 2 times at least and is looking for a way to earn coin to remove the curse. Mind you due to the heavy debuff, most crews don't keep her around and gambling is also pretty hard. However, her knowledge and experience has helped her stay on the Wormwood, for now.

PCs that can figure out this from her and help to give her gold or even break the curse will find a good sailor and another expert pirate to help give advice and hints.


Dire Ursus wrote:
Creatures with the summoned trait can't summon other things.

This is 100% true. And that's the problem here.

Both Summon Monster and Summon Nature Ally say "The Creature gains the Summon Trait."

Abyssal Pact however, makes no mention of this.

And even if it did, how would this work? A Duke is able to get a demon summoned to him(For extended time somehow). The duke now has, 2 actions now till the demon is killed?

And if a demon summons up "3 demons lower level than itself", hows it going to command them all or does the Demon have to sit there, giving it's actions to it's minions?

I feel adding the Summon tag to the ritual would cause more of a head ache but at the same time, it doesn't seem to have the fail safes that normal summoning does.

But I suppose you're summoning Devils and later Demons/Deamons so that's a risky idea to run with.


I can't wrap my head around Spheres rules and I like what I have rules wise. Don't want to slap another system on top of it.

And every SoP caster I've had the "Pleasure" of seeing in action completely dominated the game so why let that in?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean yeah, none of my groups have used Rituals yet either because of the time. If that gets shaved down, I'm a bit worried how they will interact with skills and items but as I said before, they aren't in a bad spot. I don't mind the selection of spells being moved over to Ritual.

But yeah if they are locked to 8 hours, I question how used these are going to be by the player. Sure the GM can use them but GM is GM, they can bend or explain things away on their end.

Data from PFS is gonna be interesting.


I haven't played at the later levels. The Brain Collector was about the farthest boss I got to.

And it was fast but it was also a TPK. He had an easier time hitting crits, got a couple lucky ones and the team couldn't recover.

I don't like long fights myself, PF1 I can get maybe 1 fight done in a 3 hour session with one group. But at the same time, my own playtesting left me with the feeling it's just fishing for Crits to end fights as soon as possible from level 1 to 20.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Cthulhudrew wrote:

To add to the topic-

I still find myself shaking my head over the demon/devil summoning rituals from the Bestiary. As written, they can't be used by PCs which really makes the failure/success element of the rituals pointless, not to mention just the oddity of making them a part of their combat statistics anyway (since it isn't something the demon/devil is going to cast in combat; it should just be mentioned as encounter building to set the level of difficulty of an encounter appropriately).

I think you're confused as to the point of that ritual. It's a replacement for those creatures ability to summon other creatures of their type in 1e. In 1e it was a flat percentage if the summon would work. It's to give them a way to still have the ability to call other creatures of their type to their side while in different planes. Otherwise the plot of a lot of 1st edition adventures would not be able to be converted over easily.

Save that it takes longer, so maybe not as many demons when you go to storm the castle/base/ruins/what have you.

Although hmm, how does this work? I mean really work. Most Demons could summon forth more demons but those demons usually couldn't summon more otherwise you'd get a snowball.

But um depending on how this goes, couldn't you summon a couple demons, have them do the ritual, and then have those new demons start up another Ritual the moment they get in? The Ritual in question doesn't say they have the Summoned Trait. Granted they're supposed to last 1d4 days, but it's a Devil using it(And thus the GM). I can see a lot of things being bent here.

Also the ability to summon on creature lists seemed to be more a "Battle" power than a story one. Something PF2 monsters don't seem to have. No if this is a good thing or not depends on your own views on the matter. I see it as a loss of power but at the same time don't want fights vs tons of monsters cause the demon or two in the back spammed summon. So toss up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm a big fan of "exploration mode relevant rituals". Like Ultimate Wilderness had a ritual where you basically secure your campsite. It's not doable at low levels, but at mid-levels this saves you on alarm spells and having to set a watch.

More things like this, where magic exists as a convenience for people in the world, would be nice. Magic that keeps bears out of your food pack is the sort of thing all sorts of people would gladly share with anyone, less so anything usable offensively.

Or you know, take Nature/Survival checks to prepare the camp site against bears. Or good role play. Or any number of ways that could guard against bears.

Alchemical item that might cause bears to not like coming close like some sort of repellent? NAH, break out the Ritual, we live in high magic that everyone likes but everyone complains about breaking the game, why do we need that?

EDIT; I would like to say however, this is worry for the future. Not know. To try and build off it a bit;

You have enough skill and characters to pull off this "Protection" Ritual out in the wild. Why bother with anything else? Why roll Survival which might fail and the GM doesn't need to tell you if it did or not? Why bother describing plans about how you set up camp and going through the actions as the characters? Why bother bringing items that might push you into Overencumbered.

Throw the Ritual down, problem solved, take your Rest.

I'm not opposed to the Rituals as of right now(I see them as not really adding much either but eh). But going forward, the issue is that Rituals will have to be weighed against Skills, Class Feats, other Spells, and even Items.

And I would hate to see Rituals win out basically all the time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

The big thing rituals add doesn't benefit wizards. It benefits non-casting classes who can now utilize important magical affects. This opens up a lot of new avenues for stories, where the arch-villain who binds a demon to his will could be a fighter, for example.

Whether control weather should be a ritual (or should be nerfed as hard as it was) is a completely separate issue from rituals as a concept.

And the demon couldn't be a fighter? Or Barbarian before? It HAD to be a spell caster?

It's the fact you're summoning a DEMON not the class attached to it that should allow for a gain in power. High class demons should be able to get away with such effect because they are High Class Demons, and even lower level ones could try to either fake the effect, use magic items to compensate, or call in a favor if they think the gains are worth it.

Granted this sounds more like Devil talk not Demons. And we don't have Demons yet.

Rituals just seem like a way to let the All Martial Party happen that everyone seems to want to do.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Plus some effects like "raising the dead" or "opening a planar gate" or "teleporting long distances" should be more involved than "I use a spell slot."

And what's involved with a Ritual besides time now? Heck it's just time now as people waved away Components for years and PF2 seemes to want to take them out so unless you keep players on a strict time table to the point they can't use Rituals, they are going to use and possibly spam them if they can.


My group is still on the Wormwood but here's the party;

Polly - Tengu Rogue of unknown gender.
Kimiko - Teiffling Samurai with a weak arm but enough STR to still kick butt.
Cassandra - Shifter Sorceress. I mean technically she might be Skinwalker - Wolf or we dug into another setting for the rules. I liked her in another game and let the player use the same stat roll up.
Delilah - Human Swashbuckler and leader of the team.

I kinda like them as they've bounced off the crew pretty well and even rigged up a curse hoax/story and got a crew member killed off with it.


Playing around with a few ideas. Mostly more skills for some classes so Fighter isn't pigeoned holed into taking a trait or feat to keep up. That varies from table to table but bringing fighter up to 4 skills seems to work(Really any class that has 2 skills should be brought up).

But the latest thing I'm messing around with besides the Stamina rules is "Evolving Stance Feats". It's an idea a friend passed me.

You only take the Basic Stance and get the other 2 for free once you meet the requirements. No having to take like 2-4 feats plus 1-2 more. I like the stance system a lot actually but whooo boy does it need a bit of work.


breithauptclan wrote:
Ediwir wrote:

On one hand, talking as GM, I didn’t mind the extra length of combat as it allows me to show off more variety in monster abilities.

Similarly, players have more abilities at higher levels that they would like to pull off. Having longer battles gives more opportunities for that.

Considering one of my groups only has about 3-4 hours to play, some of us don't want longer battles. I'd take interesting over longer. Along with not getting yelled at by forums/the book for not using the special abilities of the monsters every chance I can/should.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I didn't get around to this sooner. Sorry Rysky.

Rysky wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Do you PLAY something besides stock fantasy Europe?
Yes.

Cool. Just what need to be restricted and more to the point, do you HAVE to tell your players what is restricted? Or will they get the idea of the setting and probably what's expected. If you're doing homebrew, I'm not expecting a player's guide, but I would like to think I get an idea of what would be allowed or not based on just description of the setting/world.

Quote:
or they're browsing online. And the Online Sources should have near the top that it comes from a Campaign book, in BOLD.
Quote:
They should but they don't. It's just another spell tossed with the others in presentation. Most don't pick up on how disruptive it is until it comes into play.
Quote:
Rarity system or not; spells listed in AP/Campaign books should have a "This is Campaign specific" tag next to it.
Quote:
I wouldn't mind a Regional/Abundance addendum added to the Rarity system.

Which begs the question of how the online resources are going to tag them. But for PF1 as the example, I find that to be a failure of the online resources more than Paizo.

Quote:
I find it like Bulk.
Rarity is actually useful.

To you. Not to me.

Quote:
But parts of it start cracking when you look closer and I don't want to deal with those cracks at every table.
What's cracking?

Well for one if some of these spells are so game breaking, why not just nerf them instead? Everyone and their brother complains about Teleport, just nerf it. Or remove it from Players outright, no shadow ban needed.

No they just kept the problematic spells and tagged it with a "Ask you GM" to solve all the problems. And depending on who you ask, some problematic spells made it through anyway. What spells? Again it's GM to GM. And now they have a Paizo supported way of banning them.

Do you want Uncommon or Rare spell or item? WELL I hope your GM planned a session around that! And I hope your fellow players are more than willing to help you go do your personal quest just for your gain.

And if this gets to PFS, OH WOW can I see some people getting mad. Module ends with 1 copy of "Insert Rare thing here". Who gets it and thus is able to carry that with them on their sheet going forward. Because it's Rare, you can't get it otherwise. That or everyone at PFS is buddy buddy and just game the PFS system to get the spell or item for all the characters, breaking balance entirely so what was the point of Rarity here?

I don't mind the idea, it's an attempt but I don't think it needs to be Codified. I've seen people say "Well at least now we have a baseline to work from so we don't have to relearn at every table". Yeah no, you're still going to have to relearn at every table. Because with how easy it is to instantly flip something to Rare and thus not give it to you, I can't WAIT to see the weird ban lists from table to table.

Seriously, what does Rarity SOLVE? I still see no reason to ever use it at my table, and it functions as a codified ban list which every GM is going to probably have their own personal one anyway.

*Breathes in, breathes out*

Okay. So I'll actually TRY to have some constructive advice here.

If we are going with Rarity, Paizo please, look at what you've done before. Take cues from Firearm access. 5 different yet clearly defined rarity levels and you can also maybe give advice per level as to how much to charge or how much work to do for it. I mean a sword might be common but a Coldsilver sword could be Uncommon to Scarce(No idea what you'd call between uncommon to rare so it works for now).

I believe more work should go into the system or at the very least redo the wording on it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Crayon wrote:
I'm not sure Rarity has any use for players or GMs. The initial description made it sound like the rules were instituted for Paizo's convenience.
It reads like it's from a PFS starter kit really.

I don't play PFS and I adore the concept of the Rarity system.

I've wanted something like this for as long as I've played (back in 3rd), rather than the "well this thing isn't standard to stock fantasy Europe so it's Exotic and requires a Feat and..."

I love it even more for dealing with stuff like blood money which necessitate being lower level to function in their purposes but still shouldn't be falling into every Wizard's hands on level up.

Do you PLAY something besides stock fantasy Europe? I actually am curious as to how many people play Non Fantasy Europe. I also wonder how hard it is for players to understand that "This isn't fantasy Europe, some things will be different.". Example, I'm running Mummy's Mask, so it's Osirion. Not one knight or old man wizard among the group.

And again with the BLOOD MONEY insanity. No, listen, whoever comes to you with Blood Money needs a talking to. They either OWN the book and should know it's a Campaign spell, or they're browsing online. And the Online Sources should have near the top that it comes from a Campaign book, in BOLD.

Rarity system or not; spells listed in AP/Campaign books should have a "This is Campaign specific" tag next to it.

I'm sorry, I still don't like Rarity. I find it like Bulk. It's okay, it's a tool, and it's board enough to get the job done. But parts of it start cracking when you look closer and I don't want to deal with those cracks at every table.


Maybe ask if you're players are interested in crafting at all before you make the change? I've seen teams where no one crafts before.

Likewise, removing crafting also robs some classes of a free feat. Scribe Scroll and Brew Potion usually. You could take the PFS solution of replacing those with something else maybe.

Another issue is..., downtime? If they can place an order and wait, what else do they do during down time? Depending on who you ask, being able to have a small traveling workshop to craft with can keep the party out in the field longer. And depending on how hand wave you do it, allows for replenishing resources out in the field with Brew Potion or Scribe Scroll.

From a Player Perspective; I'd probably make sure I have everything I possibly need before leaving town. Which may or may not cause weight issues.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:
I'm not sure Rarity has any use for players or GMs. The initial description made it sound like the rules were instituted for Paizo's convenience.

It reads like it's from a PFS starter kit really.


Rob Godfrey wrote:
Meraki wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Personally, if Teleportation was commonplace in my campaign, I'd figure anti-teleportation measures would develop pretty quickly to counteract its use. That wouldn't be because I was intimidated (or lazy or vindictive or whatever), it would just seem a necessity. It is why I actually do prefer a rarity system because if players attain something of that nature, it *will* feel significant and will make their characters unique and more noteworthy because if it.
While I don't disagree, I feel like "common options for PCs to take" and "common for the average person in the setting to have access to" are (or can be, at least) different definitions.
Average person? No, they aren't teleporting of getting major magic healing, Kings, Nobles and the rich? They should be.

In before "That Guy" suggests robbing a rich person/king for their secrets of teleportation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Trinkets, Poisons, Weapon traits and Runes.

Sadly for Paizo, at least when it comes to me as a customer, all seem easily converted to PF1.

Hope they do well so they can keep printing adventures though.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
The problem is there is no such thing as 50/50 agency. If it is only with GM permission it is still 100% GM agency.
But there are feats and class options which give access to uncommon things, so by taking those options the player gains access to them, without needing to ask the GM. Like "Should I spend an ancestry feat on Weapon Familiarity" is 100% player agency.

It says you gain access to the weapon. Not that you Have the weapon. You still have to pay for it with starting coin and this can lead to the GM going, "No, no one sells it or knows how to forge it."

Now that's a bad GM no matter how they excuse it but it's possible. I can pick a feat that tells the GM "I want this for my character" but it's still on the GM to let you.

I suppose we can change it to work a bit like Hierloom weapon which flat out says you have it or one of those Prepared traits that give more gold or supplies


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You know, I know that they were trying to fix the Paladin Code to make it understood better, but at the same time I think there's going to be more Paladin threads about what counts for what going forward.

Like this thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
*Khan* wrote:
Dont specialize in fire based spells as burnt plunder is worthless and they are really hard to cast under water.

Technically, I don't think there's a rule against casting Fire spells underwater.

That said, talk to your GM about it. That's one of those things that might be ruled at table. Though if they rule "No Fire underwater doesn't work" maybe avoid Lightning spells too, as they could end up discharging across a wide area. Like say, over the area your team is in. Anyway;

1) Blaster good idea? Answer; Yes? People might argue how effective blasting is, but you right now don't have much in the way of AoE or elemental damage. You're probably going to want that early on but be ready to maybe pivot a bit.

2) What Class? Answer; Spontaneous. I don't care what class you actually do pick but you have 2 prepared casters already. Throw a Spontaneous in to help fill the gap in spells they could be missing. I'd suggest Sorcerer(Cause they are the blaster), with Aquatic bloodline as a pick. I"m not good at building, but Aquatic gives you some nice abilities to help you around water. Stormborn is another choice if you want to help with sailing(But is lightning themed, talk to GM about Electricity and water)

3) Alternate idea? Answer; Bard works. You have a lot of allies so playing one song boosts all of them. Alchemist is also viable as you can toss out extracts to the front lines and support with bombs. Ranger or Slayer ranged build could also help. With a possible 3 melee, I don't think you need a 4th. So whatever you do, go ranged or at least be a switch hitter.


I just look forward to seeing how they work Dirty Trick into the new system.


I saw this in Mr Plugg's inventory. Short run down;

Quote:

Any creature attempting to intimidate or demoralize a target wearing shackles of compliance gains a +4 bonus on Intimidate checks. In addition, the holder of the manacles’ key can cast command (DC 25) on the wearer of the shackles three times per day.

Shackles of compliance have hardness 10 and 10 hit points, and a DC 30 Disable Device check is required to pick the shackles’ lock. A manacled creature can break free with a DC 28 Strength check or DC 35 Escape Artist check

Anyone actually see this in use? By PCs or against them? I'm not sure I would actually have Mr Plugg use this on a PC(Debates of taking away player agency even more considering Book 1), but any one else have history of this?

Thinking about having Mr Plugg use these on one of the party's friendlier NPCs that's helpful/useful but not relied on like say Sandara. Like say Owlbear after the fight.


About the Teleport; Don't you still need to know where you're going to teleport?

I mean in PF1, I ruled Navah couldn't teleport them because she didn't know the sites in question(And wasn't going to risk getting shunted somewhere).

I don't think PF2 has the same risk. Well I mean it does (1%) but that doesn't seems enough to make players not spam teleport.

Reading a bit more, it does say Incorrect knowledge does cause the spell to fail but also at whim of GM. No table though, but I think withholding the chance of success from PCs(And having a teleport table in the GM book) would be the way to go.


Davor wrote:

I actually kind of hope that archetype features are class-locked. It removes over-the-top complexity in character building, and gives classes something that makes them really unique.

As a hard and fast example or two;

Fighter gets Weapon Master archetype. Gets bonuses and abilities revolved around switching weapons and using different kinds. Sort of the batman of weapons, doesn't matter what it is, they can pick it up and use to great effect.

Monk gets Ki Master archetype. The pinnacle of it's use, they can do all sort of magic like effects that might be bordering on Anime-ish(But if you want Anime, why NOT give it to the Monk first?).

----

I guess what I'm suggesting is more a "Subclass" like? Something that only Base class can reach but focuses them in a direction key for their class. Fighters with Weapons, Monks with Ki, Rangers with Hunting, Alchemist with bombs(Or Mutagens, or Poisons, etc).

I'd like to see normal old school archetypes where we switch stuff out, but I'd also prefer to see a way to just focus in on an aspect of the class.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Uncommon items are, by default, not something you can choose without permission, but unlike Rare items, uncommon items usually have a character choice somewhere that the players can pick that gives them access (such as a feat, class, or ancestry choice).

How do you suggest handling the context in which a player takes a feat that grants them access to an uncommon item when the intervening period between levels did not include plausible examples of how or where a player could have gained access to this item? For example, if the PCs spend an entire level on an ocean voyage stopping at only uninhabited islands, and then a player wants to take an ancestry feat that gives them access to the weapons of their people.

Should the GM be prepared to invent a way they came to acquire one of these? Should they ask a player to explain it? Should they ask the player to take something else and then retrain to the feat they wanted in downtime?

I mean if I take Dwarven weapons, does the earth just cleave open and a Dwarven waraxe slowly rises up with the blessing of my ancestors?

Or do I have to craft it(Cough didn't take crafting). Or do I have to highjack the plot to go all the way back to get my weapon from a dwarven smith and then come back to the Island?

Now PossibleCabbage might have presented an edge case but how many game flow issues can you easily come up with if you need to go out of your way from the plot to get something just for your character?


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there all,

I think something got lost in the chat here.

Uncommon items are, by default, not something you can choose without permission, but unlike Rare items, uncommon items usually have a character choice somewhere that the players can pick that gives them access (such as a feat, class, or ancestry choice).

We could list these as rare. That is true, but there is some value in having there be a marker that says "hey, there is an easy way to get this if you make the right choices", whereas rare says "hey, its totally up to the GM if you can get this and it will usually involve a quest or other in game activity".

If that makes sense...

Access isn't the same as "Getting". You only have access if the GM says "Yes". There is nothing stopping a GM from not giving someone a Dwarf weapon even if they picked up Weapon Familiarity Dwarf.

And more to the point; players here have played with the Magic Walmart for how many years? I'm sorry Jason, I can't expect them to start following the rules now. Oh people might like it now and say it helps world building now.

First Jingasa and that all goes away and PFS has a bunch of people with the same Uncommon to rare gear they shouldn't have access too. So the additional tool gets trampled on and barely used, why have it?

Tag it as "Optional".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Another thing that I like about rarity is that just marking something uncommon does signpost to players "maybe I should not make a point of getting one of these for every character" which is not a thing that really existed in PF1 (where all sorts of people were walking around with jingasas before those got nerfed.)

"Hmm this is uncommon, I wonder if it's effective".

Even without that, people follow guides and pick the blue option. I doubt having "Uncommon" is going to stop the march of the clones.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
*Just waits patiently for Greystone* (although actually I'm against Bulk as is myself.)

Well I'm not Greystone but I tend to be one of the remaining complainers.

And for me..., bulk is weird. Not bad. Not good. Just..., an odd change.

I prefer weight as if we maybe start digging, weight tends to be flat and referred to across everything as such. Bulk tends to be more handwavy and a "Just accept it and move on" type of deal. Which is great for just rolling through the game but if you are that focused on just speeding through the game, why track bulk anyway?

I don't think it solves the issue of people going to track it. It's another thing to count up and recheck every so often, even with the changes; I can't see it being used wide spread outside of PFS.

But I also don't MIND bulk because it does allow some details to shine through. A ladder might not be HEAVY but it is Bulky. I've had to move things in classrooms that didn't weigh much but they were just cumbersome to get a grip on. I think that's what Bulk is also going for; difficulty of carrying it.

If you like Bulk, use it. If you don't, switch back or don't use. I might prefer weight and don't mind having to pick up Muleback cords, but this is a change I'm not actually going to really be against.

Numbers might need some tweaking cause the idea of carrying a downed ally's body might come up. Or throwing enemies.


Cantriped wrote:

I would give Cutlass parry (because of the hilt) and sweep.

Boarding Axes would be Hatchets that trade Thrown for Trip

A Hook Hand would be like a sickle, but deal Piercing damage, and be impossible to disarm.

I thought about Parry. Not sure about Sweep as well.

The axes change sounds good.

And I forgot about Sickle. I just went and yoinked "Meat hook" from the Ogres as a base line(And scaled back damage)

1 to 50 of 1,569 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>