Pirate

Ngodrup's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 117 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 117 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:


In addition, I would like to second the inquiry concerning cleaning time. Does cleaning the citadel take 8 days regardless of how many PCs are contributing to the effort? Can the PCs hire people to perform the cleaning for them, and if so, how much does that cost, and how long does it take?

From the core rulebook chapter on GMing:

pg.500 wrote:

Cooperation

Multiple characters can cooperate on the same downtime task. If it’s a simple task that requires just one check, such as a party Subsisting as they await rescue on a desert island, one character rolls the necessary check while everyone else Aids that character. If it’s a complex task, assume all of them are working on different parts of it at one time, so all their efforts count toward its completion. For example, a party might collaborate to build a theater, with one character drawing up architectural plans, one doing manual labor, and one talking to local politicians and guilds.

I think all the cleaning and repairing downtime tasks count as complex tasks, so it takes 8 days if one person does it, but only 4 days if two people do it.

I find it helps to think of "one downtime day" as a spendable resource. If only one PC is "paying" for the cleaning (i.e. doing it all themself) then they have to spend all 8 days. If four PCs all work on it together it only "costs" them 2 downtime days each.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Just in case anyone searches and find this thread, I thought I'd better put an update. The third episode of Knights of Everflame is entirely set in Kassen (the starting town for the Price of Immortality), references the events of the first module Crypt of the Everflame multiple times, and involves interactions with multiple NPCs from Crypt of the Everflame


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Corrik wrote:

Over the course of a year of playing I have broken down 1,000gp worth of raw materials from numerous sources. How are you going to rule I can spend that raw material? After all, in your games if some of that was from potions I can't use that gp worth of raw materials to make a rune for my shield.

I would handwave that over the course of the year that you'd been playing, you'd traded the raw materials for the items you broke down for the raw materials for items you want to craft. Easy. Unless you spend a year adventuring without ever going to a settlement of any kind?

I don't think we're actually in disagreement here. I'm talking about things like Rek's example of being imprisoned with your crafting kit and potions, and using Craft to make the potions into a sword. Or my example of being in the middle of nowhere and wanting to use Craft to make your shield into a potion.

Corrik wrote:


What is the difference between boiling a potion and other raw materials down to a magic ink for use in making weapon runes

Aren't weapon runes engraved? But either way, I'd probably allow that, because it makes sense. Far more sense than taking a shield apart and making it into a potion


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

Again, if generic "Raw Materials" were a thing, an actual thing you can buy and then be able to craft into literally anything you have the formula for, wouldn't they be in the gear chapter as a thing you can buy?

I'm not going to houserule specific craft requirements for every formula in the rulebook, that's quite a drastic extrapolation. I'm just not intending to let my players take apart a shield and make it into a potion. I'm really quite shocked that that's a contentious position, tbh.

If they are in a settlement then yeah, I'd most likely handwave the 'trade the wood and metal for herbs and other potion ingredient type things', and the whole thing would work out essentially the same. But if they're in the middle of nowhere and want to use the craft skill to turn a shield into a potion, I'm probably gonna say no, because that makes no sense. Although tbf I don't think any of my players would ask to do that, because it makes no sense. *shrugs*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Unicore wrote:

It seems incredibly clear to me that the intention of being able to dissemble magic items for essentially the same cost as selling them is so that a character the dedicates resources to crafting does not have to spend going to the big city for 5 days selling their "raw materials" items and rebuying "raw materials" items but can instead just get started making what they want.

I find this statement truly fascinating and slightly bizarre, just because of how at-odds with my understanding of the intention of being able to disassemble magic items is.

The only place disassembling magic items is mentioned in the whole book (that I know of) is in the section about formulas. It seems incredibly clear to me that the intention of being able to disassemble items is for the purposes of trying to reverse-engineer the formula.

CRB pg 293 wrote:
If you have an item, you can try to reverse-engineer its formula. This uses the Craft activity and takes the same amount of time as creating the item from a formula would. You must first disassemble the item. After the base downtime, you attempt a Crafting check against the same DC it would take to Craft the item. If you succeed, you Craft the formula at its full Price, and you can keep working to reduce the Price as normal. If you fail, you’re left with raw materials and no formula. If you critically fail, you also waste 10% of the raw materials you’d normally be able to salvage.The item’s disassembled parts are worth half its Price in raw materials and can’t be reassembled unless you successfully reverse-engineer the formula or acquire the formula another way. Reassembling the item from the formula works just like Crafting it from scratch; you use the disassembled parts as the necessary raw materials.

If the intention was to disassemble items and use the parts to craft other things, then:

1) I would expect "disassemble item/disassemble magic item" to be described as an activity in the crafting section
2) I would expect making a different item from the parts you'd disassembled during your reverse-engineering process to be mentioned in the reverse-engineering section
2a) The bolded part should say "Reassembling the disassembled raw materials into an item from its formula works just like crafting it from scratch", not "reassembling the item from the formula..."

So yeah, I don't see your reading at all. I 100% see the intention being "disassemble item to work out how to craft it, if you succeed at getting the formula then you can put it back together", with the somewhat edge-case concept that greystone brought up of "what if I didn't put the disassembled shield back together as a shield but instead used it to make a potency crystal/insert-other-item-here". Which I personally find highly versimilitude-breaking and don't think is RAI (although I find the semantics discussion of whether the generalisation of "raw materials" as "monetary value" means that it is RAW quite interesting).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
vagabond_666 wrote:

Specifically what is missing from your example:

Ngodrup wrote:


PF1:
"I want to sell blah"
"ok sure, that's X gp"...

PF2:
"I want to sell blah"
"Ok, that takes 5 of your downtime days and you get X gp"

is figuring out why it takes 5 days to sell all that, and not say 4, or 6, or more reasonably 1, taking something that is already using a spreadsheet at my table and making it require even more minutae.

It's hardly complicated or needless minutae.

CRB pg 502 wrote:
It usually takes 1 day of downtime to sell off a few goods or shop around to buy a couple items. It can take longer to sell off a large number of goods, expensive items, or items that aren’t in high demand.

It takes a day to sell a few goods. A few items is somewhere between 2-5 items. You look at how many things they want to sell and then tell them how many days it takes.

I definitely don't see how it would be more reasonable for it to take just 1 day to sell everything regardless of how many things you have to sell. Not every merchant wants to take every adventurers unwanted stuff off them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
I see no evidence that it works like you say. Raw materials are raw materials: just like you don't have to spell out what exactly is in your spell component pouch, the game doesn't CARE what's in your raw material pile as long as the GP price is paid.

I don't think that follows logically. The pricing structure generalises "cost of raw materials" as half the cost of just buying it pre-made, but nowhere does it include "raw materials" as a specific thing you can buy. There isn't a "raw materials" entry in the equipment table. The generalisation is just to avoid having to write a list for every item like, "one 12 inch length of oak, 3 small rubies, one large ruby...", by saying you need raw materials equal to half the cost of the item and leaving the details up to the PC and their GM, not by saying all the raw materials for every item are homogenous.

In other words, I really don't see any rules support for the idea that you can "disassemble" a bunch of potions and then use the pieces to make a wand

graystone wrote:
If the DM is telling you that you can't sell or buy anything were you're at, it's not commitment but your only option to get rid of items you aren't going to use and get ones you'll actually want to have. IMO it's better to do that at the tiny village instead of taking those days to travel to a larger city to sell and buy instead as the other party members can do downtime actions too.

Fair enough, although I think it's fairly situational and also that since iirc disassembling items takes as much time as crafting them, you'd have to be pretty far from the nearest city for it to be objectively the better option. And as you can see from the above, I don't agree with the concept that you can make any magic item from the constituent parts of any other. *shrugs*


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

Gosh, there's a lot here. I've skimmed the thread and I find the rules detail discussion very interesting, but a lot of it is far more complicated than I ever thought it needed to be.

Mine goes something like:

Assassin tries to ambush party:
=> rolls stealth above all party's perception DCs: remains unnoticed, fires crossbow at a PC, is no longer unnoticed (now hidden). Roll initiative.
=> rolls stealth, lower than someone's perception DC: that PC notices them on the rooftop pointing a crossbow. Roll initiative.

Iff wrote:

The Rogue uses Avoid Notice (p. 479) which calls for a (secret) Stealth check:

=> If he rolls below the guard's Perception DC...

Avoid Notice doesn't have the secret trait, so I don't think it's a secret roll, even though all other uses of stealth are. I accept I may be wrong here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ubertron_X wrote:
Ngodrup wrote:
I agree with most of your breakdown here but this bit stood out to me - I would seriously question any GM getting any NPC or creature to use a Seek action in the direction of an Unnoticed PC. They'd have no reason to do that in basically any situation. They have absolutely no idea the PC is there, so they should not be seeking that area for them specifically - that's for if they're undetected but noticed and they're trying to find them
Always remember: Just because you don't see it doesn't mean they aren't after you! :P

:'D

Only players should be that paranoid! Us GMs must pretend like we don't constantly have our little guys viciously murdered! :P


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
NemoNoName wrote:
How prevalent is nonlethal vulnerabilities?

You choose if you want to do nonlethal for each attack, and it only works if it's a knockout blow.

"Unarmed deals only nonlethal" without a Feat was a P1 rule that got left behind.

You have to take a -2 penalty on the attack roll if you want to go lethal with it though (unless you're a monk)

But like Rysky said, it only actually matters on the last hit before you go down


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ubertron_X wrote:


* Unnoticed using stealth beating perception DC => seek action might bring status to hidden or observed (same as for undeteced), else you stay unnoticed

I agree with most of your breakdown here but this bit stood out to me - I would seriously question any GM getting any NPC or creature to use a Seek action in the direction of an Unnoticed PC. They'd have no reason to do that in basically any situation. They have absolutely no idea the PC is there, so they should not be seeking that area for them specifically - that's for if they're undetected but noticed and they're trying to find them


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
TomParker wrote:
The ShadowShackleton wrote:

"If you’re Avoiding Notice at the start of an encounter, you usually roll a Stealth check instead of a Perception check both to determine your initiative and to see if the enemies notice you (based on their Perception DCs, as normal for Sneak, regardless of their initiative check results)."

Note the words "as normal for Sneak"

I read that as using the Perception DC like you would for Sneak, not that the results are those from Sneak. I.e., you roll against Perception DC like you would while sneaking, and success means they don’t notice you.

Yeah, you roll one Stealth check which is used as your initiative, and also compared to other combatants Perception DCs to see if they've perceived you or not


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ubertron_X wrote:
Ngodrup wrote:

If they haven't noticed you and you roll above their perception DC on your stealth-initiative check, you are unnoticed and undetected.

If you roll below their perception DC on your stealth-initiative check, you're not unnoticed or undetected.

What is confusing about it, specifically?

Though I truely think it works that way please point out the paragraph in the CRB that states it does. It's not in the stealth rules, so much is for sure...

Okay...

Page 467 wrote:

Unnoticed

If you have no idea a creature is even present, that creature is unnoticed by you.

Combined with

Page 497 wrote:

Avoid Notice

EXPLORATION
You attempt a Stealth check to avoid notice while traveling at half speed. If you have the Swift Sneak feat, you can move at full Speed rather than half, but you still can’t use another exploration activity while you do so. If you have the Legendary Sneak feat, you can move at full Speed and use a second exploration activity. If you’re Avoiding Notice at the start of an encounter, you usually roll a Stealth check instead of a Perception check both to determine your initiative and to see if the enemies notice you (based on their Perception DCs, as normal for Sneak, regardless of their initiative check results).

So... If they have no idea you're present, you're Unnoticed. If you successfully Avoid Notice, they don't detect you. Therefore, if they don't know you're there and you successfully Avoid Notice, you're Unnoticed, as well as undetected.

I feel like we largely agree on the implementation, but I don't see why you don't think it's explained in the book. It's right there.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Undetected: they know you're around but not exactly where

Unnoticed: they don't even know you're around

I feel like it's explained pretty well on page 466-467


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ubertron_X wrote:


How do you enter this state? How do you lose this state? How do you handle this state?

1) you're automatically in this state if no one has noticed you

2) if you are seen/heard/otherwise sensed, i.e., you are not avoiding notice OR you are avoiding notice but your stealth check is below their perception DC

3) as undetected, but without the NPCs/creatures/whoever even having the faintest idea you're there

If you haven't been noticed, you're unnoticed and undetected. If you become noticed, and then succeed at a stealth, you can become undetected again, but you can't become unnoticed again.


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

If they haven't noticed you and you roll above their perception DC on your stealth-initiative check, you are unnoticed and undetected.

If you roll below their perception DC on your stealth-initiative check, you're not unnoticed or undetected.

What is confusing about it, specifically?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
shroudb wrote:


One action to get some emergency healing that's more cost efficient, action economy efficient, and will be there with me forever, sounds much better in the long run that spending all those actions and gold in a single combat.

But you do you, a niche occasion that may arise once doesn't justify a whole category of items being relegated to piles of gold.

If you're only ever going to play a character that is able to cast either divine or primal spells and then always make sure to buy a wand of heal, than that's an entirely valid choice and you're welcome to make it.

But that doesn't mean everyone wants to do that. And it does mean that in this scenario, you're the one relegating healing potions to "piles of gold", because you've made decisions that mean you're not going to use them. That's not a problem with the game.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Unicore wrote:
Ngodrup wrote:


Secondly, even if you don't have a table of players who want to RP bartering every transaction, how is the new system going to take longer and lead to more eye-rolling players than the old one?
The magic item system of PF1 is drove my table away from pathfinder, because it became and easy power creep mini-game. I'd rather not see it back in PF2.

That's fine, but I don't really see how it's relevant to my post? I was replying to vagabond saying that it will be like a shopping simulator and that players will get bored, by pointing out that it's not different from 1st edition in that respect. Nothing to do with power creep/the concept of a magic item economy more broadly


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
So you are free to casually disassemble a "massive bag of consumable magic items whenever you want."

I mean, sure, if anyone thinks it's a fun and worthwhile activity to spend multiple days of downtime making craft checks to disassemble all the consumables they get, and then multiple more days of downtime selling the disassembled parts a few at a time, then I'd say go for it. Speaks to some commitment to concept on their part.

Still a long way away from the old "can buy anything you want at cost and sell anything you have at half cost" system.

vagabond_666 wrote:
Except you can just take a few days in a decent sized town to play shopping simulator 2019 while your players roll their eyes and ask if you can just get on with the game.

Firstly, my players love to roleplay interactions with every damn shopkeep to try and get more money for what they're selling or barter for cheaper prices on what they're buying, to the extent that I've summarily banned "shopping roleplay" from my table in PF1 games because I found it incredibly tedious and repetitive. I'm very happy that this system has been rolled into downtime activity for PF2, which backs up my original desire that extended conversations with Mr-Magorium-the-elderly-stall-owner, using diplomacy and/or intimidate checks to shave pennies off the cost of items, are not really intended to be part of the game, as standard (obviously exceptions for particularly important/rare items and story-relevant items and NPCs). So, you're definitely off the mark with the idea of me making my players waste time simulating all the shopping.

Secondly, even if you don't have a table of players who want to RP bartering every transaction, how is the new system going to take longer and lead to more eye-rolling players than the old one?

PF1:
"You're in the city"
"I want to sell a +1 dagger, 4 longswords, 2 hand crossbows, 3 potions, 7 rubies, this weird AP-specific item, and this valuable painting"
"ok sure, that's X gp"

PF2:
"You have some days of downtime to spend. You're in the city."
"I want to sell a +1 dagger, 4 longswords, 2 hand crossbows, 3 potions, 7 rubies, this weird AP-specific item, and this valuable painting"
"Ok, that takes 5 of your downtime days and you get X gp"

The difference isn't how long or boring it is at the table, it's that downtime days are an actual resource you have available to manage in PF2. So you can probably sell the stuff if you're in an appropriate location, but you could spend that time earning an income, or crafting something new, or retraining one of your character choices, or doing an AP-specific special downtime activity, as there is available in Age of Ashes. And also, there might well not be enough days to sell all your stuff before plot rears its head/gets in the way.

Edit: just to be clear, I banned "shopping roleplay", not the ability to buy and sell things when in an appropriate settlement


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

This has been an interesting thread. I honestly feel very sorry for GMs whose players invariably just sell every consumable they get in order to buy specific things they want.

However, I don't really think this is even a viable approach in PF2. I feel like the magic-mart conceit has basically been written out of the game.

Core Rulebook pg 502 wrote:

Buying and Selling

After an adventure yields a windfall, the characters might have a number of items they want to sell. Likewise, when they’re flush with currency, they might want to stock up on gear. It usually takes 1 day of downtime to sell off a few goods or shop around to buy a couple items. It can take longer to sell off a large number of goods, expensive items, or items that aren’t in high demand.This assumes the characters are at a settlement of decent size during their downtime. In some cases, they might spend time traveling for days to reach bigger cities. As always, you have final say over what sort of shops and items are available.

So you can't just casually sell a massive bag of consumable magic items whenever you want.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

For ease of running (and also because I think it's likely to be the intention), I get my players to roll the initial roll at the time of affliction, and subsequent rolls during their turn. I think they've been doing this at the start of their turn in our games, but I will change to having them do it at the end now that I've seen the reference from page 469 (thanks Blave)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Price of Immortality isn't about Karzoug, it's

Price of Immortality trilogy spoiler:
relatively related to Tar-Baphon. The players are currently on the Isle of Terror (chasing after a Herald of Razmir who's gone to loot Tar-Baphon's treasure that he left in Xin-Grafar)

Edit: ok thanks :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm running the Price of Immortality trilogy for my home group (we're on City of Golden Death, the last module in the trilogy). My partner doesn't want to watch Knights of the Everflame incase it contains any spoilers.

If there's anyone who's played/read the Price of Immortality trilogy and also watched Knights of the Everflame, would it be ok to watch it or should we wait until we finish the module?

Thanks :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

My order number is 8082344
Thanks :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

CRB, Equipment chapter: the table on page 288 lists cookware (alphabetically between compass and crowbar), but on page 290 where the items are described, there is no description for cookware between the descriptions for compass and crowbar


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

These are great! Thanks for sharing! :)


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

Core rulebook p. 214: "An animal companion is a loyal comrade who follows your orders without you needing to use Handle an Animal on it"

Unless it's somewhere other than the Nature skill and I just missed it, Handle an Animal is no longer a thing


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

P.s. in terms of the 'bag of marbles' I told my player to buy sling bullets for this purpose. He also plans to use Unseen Servant to go and collect any reusable ones for him after combat is over.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

1) I don't see why not. One of my players had the exact same idea and I'm going to allow it, since I haven't seen anything indicating otherwise

2) It is a Dex mod attack. I hadn't actually considered your point about proficiency scaling and would like to know the developers answer if you get one. I will be ruling it as being with Trained proficiency + Dex, unless I hear otherwise in an FAQ or find something explicit in the book, since even Wizards are trained in at least one ranged weapon (heavy crossbow) and Sorcerers and Bards are trained in all simple weapons


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Just wanted to say I actually appreciate all the TEML boxes everywhere. Especially with the blank boxes next to them in the weapon proficiency bit for when you're trained in some martial weapons but not all, or in a specific weapon.


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

@Zapp - Because that's how the monster levels are balanced in the new edition. A Level 1 creature is a 'standard creature or low-threat boss' to a party of four 1st level PCs. They would be less threatening than that for a bigger party of level 1 PCs.

And as myself and others have already pointed out, there are lots of benefits to the new system. For me, the main one is the simplicity of 1000 XP per level.

Personally, I find the new system a lot simpler than the whole "APL (+ or - 1 depending on party size) (-1 to +3 depending on challenge), two creatures = CR + 2, six creatures = CR + 5, 16 creatures = CR + 8, no racial hit die means CR = CL - 1, decide if you're using exact or abstract XP values, and always have to cross-reference PCs current XP with the levelling table to know when they're likely to level up" thing that we had in PF1.

Obviously some of that is personal preference, but I honestly think that a part of your resistance is that the old way is familiar and this way is new. I really don't think it's objectively more complex at all, it's just unfamiliar (if you didn't build encounters with the playtest rules). I certainly find "mindblowingly incomprehensible mind-gymnastics" a significant overstatement.

If you find the 'divide by 4' step in the PF1 system to be trivial, then I would hope that the 'multiply by 4 and divide by your number of players' approach that I suggested in my second comment upthread as an alternative way to work out XP in the new system would be useful to you. That's the exact reason I bothered to type it out, in the hopes someone would find it helpful.

As you yourself said, hopefully everything will be resolved when you can read the rules yourself (and perhaps more importantly, when you've had a chance to play around with encounter building with the new system and see how it works in practice)


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

You can still increase weapon damage die using runes, but it isn't the potency runes, it's a new type of rune called Striking. Also the total amount of damage die you can increase with runes is reduced (it went up to 5 extra dice in the playtest but I think it's 3 now).

Outside of that, I believe there are more ways to increase your damage via class abilities than there were in the playtest. So it's a bit of both, really.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
And probably won't even arrive faster if you don't live in the US so.

It very much depends - I live in the UK and got my books last Friday


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Alenvire wrote:
I realize now you get the PDF only with a subscription. Still, why get it from here? Why not get the pdf here and get the book cheaper?

If you can find a way that the cost of the PDF from Paizo + the book from elsewhere is cheaper than just subscribing, then go for it. I subscribed because it would be expensive to get the book and pay for the PDF seperately, and also to support Paizo (since I'm paying ridiculous shipping to the UK anyway).

I'm pretty sure, business-decision-wise, that producers (e.g. Paizo) sell at a big discount to resellers (e.g. Amazon) because the resellers buy a massive amount of the product in one go, which is confirmed sales for the producer. They aren't really being undercut by someone who they've already sold their product to, eh? It's not like Amazon are buying them full price and then selling them at a loss. Amazon probably bought thousands of each product in bulk, at discount from Paizo, then sells them on and passes some of the discount to their customers. Paizo gets sales and products out the door, Amazon gets sales, Amazon customers get discounts and free shipping from Amazon, everyone wins. It's just how business works.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Bardic Dave wrote:
It's not like you can choose to turn Stunning Fist off, right?

It looks like you can to me:

MaxAstro wrote:
When you target the same creature with two Strikes from your Flurry of Blows, you can try to stun the creature.

I'd interpret that as it being an optional effect.

Not that that helps much with the incapacitation confusion, though.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Bardic Dave wrote:
I think it's a reasonable that Third Path to Perfection might give you half-damage on all Failed Saves, even if they would have otherwise been critical failures.

This would be my ruling, if it came up. Y becomes X, and all X's do Z - logically, Y does Z.

Just because Y = crit fail, X = fail and Z = half damage, does nothing to change my understanding of the logical process!

Although Max is right, it is a strong ability. But I still think that's how it works RAW.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
masda_gib wrote:

I wonder if a Rumor-Scientist is doable. Take Dubios Knowledge, put no training in any knowledge skill and dump INT and WIS. You basically try to crit-fail any knowledge check and after that try to counter-check the "facts" you've gotten.
Combine that with the 5-Recalls-per-action feat and have the GM murder you after a session. :D

Speaking as a player, I love it

Speaking more realistically as an eternal GM, it's already banned from my table as of right now :P


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Conspicuous wrote:


I imagine there was simply no room to put a "Damage total" field for the Strikes sections? There's a total for attack (assumed: it's not labeled), but not damage. I suppose folks can just add Dice, Strength, Proficiency, Specialization, Other, and Traits individually, but lets be honest: that's an unnecessary PITA during combat.

On the strikes section, where it says "damage". In the box that says "dice". And next to it, in the box that says "strength" (for melee) or "special" (for ranged strikes).

To the right of that is a box for "other" and a box for "traits".

Are you sure you've looked at the sheet? :/

Edit: mixed up my left and right 😅


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:
I wouldn't quite say alchemists don't care about weight. Part of the alchemist concept is a focus on physical gear, and having lots of it.

This is true, I agree. But I think if the required bulk for an alchemist is as high as this, strength should've been noted as a secondary ability score for PF2 Alchemists in the class breakdown page and Alchemist part of the class chapter, and if I remember correctly, it wasn't.

If any of my players want to play an alchemist in one of my home games, I will consider houseruling the book as L bulk, as mentioned by others on the thread.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Ngodrup wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
Formula book is L Bulk now, as has been stated a few times in this thread.
This is not true. Formula book is still 1 bulk, as is spellbook
Arggghh... Was there a need to kick the alchemist while he's already down from excessive bulk? :P

Sorry! I know this is a problem for you, which is why I checked really since I'm lucky enough to have my books already. But I thought it would be best to have accurate info!

I mean, the book also says adventurers packs are 2 bulk and apparently they're already errata'd to be 1 bulk so who knows what the bulk will end up being? *shrugs*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Zapp wrote:
Ngodrup wrote:

This is correct for 1st edition but not how 2nd edition works.

It's not really more complicated, but it is different.

Yes, but why?

Quote:
This is because combats are balanced around the assumption of 4 PCs in a party, and the listed XP is for each PC, not the total XP award.

Yes, but why?

So that it can be 1000 XP per level, rather than increasingly high amounts of XP depending on which level you're at/working towards. This doesn't work if higher level creatures are worth more XP like in PF1.

And the assumption of 4 PCs in a party is hardly new. PF1 assumed 4 or 5 PCs, and otherwise you had to adjust the APL. PF2 assumes 4 PCs, and otherwise you have to adjust the XP budget. It's just slightly different approaches, but both are based around an assumed number of PCs in a party, so I don't understand why it's surprising. It's also the same as how it worked in the playtest. Assumably not too many people had an issue with it, otherwise they would've changed it like they changed other roundly disliked aspects of the playtest.

CyberMephit wrote:
actually I think it puts some limits on the encounter compositions, too. Let's say you are running your 5-man party into a High difficulty encounter, which is 100XP budget (but 80XP award). You decide to add 3 level-1 creatures, which is 90XP. The guidelines are there to suggest that rather than leave it as is and award 72 XP, you are supposed to add a minor hazard or a minion worth 10XP too.

To be fair, it isn't as restrictive as that:

CRB wrote:
Many encounters won't match the XP budget exactly, but they should come close.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Bardic Dave wrote:
Formula book is L Bulk now, as has been stated a few times in this thread.

This is not true. Formula book is still 1 bulk, as is spellbook


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Zapp wrote:

If a goblin is worth 6 xp, say, and you face six of them, that's an encounter of 36 xp, right?

This is the root of your issue, there is no such thing as a "goblin worth 6 XP" in 2nd Edition. There is a Goblin Warrior, which is a Level -1 creature.

You compare the Goblin Warriors level (-1) to the party level (say, a level 1 party). The Goblin Warriors level is 2 lower than the party level, so in this scenario, killing the Goblin Warrior earns each member of the party 20 XP.

There is also a Goblin Commando, a Level 1 creature. This is the same as the party level. Killing this goblin would earn each member of a level 1 party 40 XP.

All of this is balanced around the assumption of a four PC party. All the adjustments and math I've talked about is different ways of dealing with non-standard party sizes.

P.S. I certainly don't think you're wasting my time! I'm just sorry my explanations are unclear. It's definitely not your fault.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Zapp wrote:
Rhyst wrote:

fighting 6 creatures each worth 20xp = 120xp.

split 4 ways = 30xp each.
split 6 ways = 20xp each.

At least that is the way I have always done it.

Yes, the obvious and natural way to do it - this I understand (completely and immediately)!

The other reply and the quoted rulebook text, unfortunately, seems completely detached from common sense :(

Apologies if anyone is offended. I just do not understand. Everything will hopefully be resolved once I get to read the rules for myself!

This is correct for 1st edition but not how 2nd edition works.

It's not really more complicated, but it is different.

Let's say a party of four 1st level PCs fights a level 1 creature. Table 10-8: XP Awards says an encounter with a creature the same level as the party is worth 40 XP. So, every PC gets 40 XP. No dividing the XP among everyone - everyone just gets the listed amount, 40 XP.

If a party of six 1st level PCs fights a level 1 creature, it is easier for them because there are more of them. They don't all get 40 XP. There are a few different ways to make this work out, though. You can adjust the combat so there are more adversaries, or you can add environmental hazards to the fight, to increase the difficulty (rules are given for this in the book), so you can still give them 40 XP. Or, as I go over in my second comment on this thread, if you want to keep the encounter exactly the same and just run it with six PCs instead of four, you could instead multiply the 40 XP by 4 (to find the intended 'total XP given out') and then divide that by 6. This is the most similar to the 1st Edition way of doing it, but with an extra step to convert the given 'XP each' value to an 'XP total' value that you're used to, which you can then divide between the party.

This is because combats are balanced around the assumption of 4 PCs in a party, and the listed XP is for each PC, not the total XP award.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

@Zapp - via your method, a party of 4 would earn the same XP for defeating 6 monsters as a party of 6 would. Obviously it's easier to defeat 6 creatures the more PCs you have, so the bigger party should earn less XP.

I'm not sure how to explain more clearly. How about I just type up what the P2 CRB has to say on the matter.

Core Rulebook wrote:


Different Party Sizes
For each additional character in the party beyond the fourth, increase your XP budget by the amount shown in Table 10-1: Encounter Budget. If you have fewer than four characters, use the same process in reverse: for each missing character, remove that amount of XP from your XP budget. Note that if you adjust your XP budget to account for party size, the XP awards for the encounter don't change - you'll always award the amount of XP listed for a group of four characters.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Yes sorry, that is indeed XP for each PC, not shared among the party :)


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

To put it another way, if you have a non-standard party size (anything other than 4 PCs), you can add up the XP for every creature and hazard overcome in an encounter, then divide that by the number of PCs you have and multiply it by 4.

Fighting 4 of the creatures:

40 * (4/6) = ~26 XP for a party of 6

40 * (4/4) = 40 XP for a party of 4

Fighting 6 of the creatures:

60 * (4/6) = 40 XP for a party of 6

60 * (4/4) = 60 XP for a party of 4

Fighting 9 of the creatures:

90 * (4/6) = 60 XP for a party of 6

90 * (4/4) = 90 XP for a party of 4


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Zapp wrote:

If you're asking if XP is per character and per monster, then the answer is yes.

In the Playtest Bestiary, the lowest such XP reward is 10 XP (for a critter four levels lower than the party level).

If you even gain XP from such an easy foe, a party of six characters would gain 60 XP each from defeating six such critters. That would leave them each 940 XP away from leveling! :)

Since the party consists of six heroes, the encounter budget (60 XP) would still count as Trivial.

I myself am accustomed to thinking in terms to total XP for the encounter (360 XP in this case) but that figure has no use within these rules.

All that matters is xp per character.

This isn't quite right. The XP per character values are still based on the assumption of a party of 4.

A party of 4 PCs fighting 6 creatures that are level (party level - 3) would get 60 XP.

For a party of 6, this fight would be scaled up to be against 8 or 9 of the creatures, to maintain the same challenge as fighting 6 of them would be for a party of 4. However, the XP reward is not increased, so they are fighting 9 creatures but getting 60 XP each.

Alternatively, if a party of 4 defeated 4 of those creatures, they'd get 40XP. If instead, a party of 6 went into that encounter, you'd add another 2 of the creatures to keep the challenge equivalent, but not add any XP. The party of 6 would get 40XP for defeating the 6 creatures.

It took me a little while to grok, but basically you build every fight as if it were for a party of 4 PCs, work out the XP for that, then add adversaries and/or hazards to the encounter to keep the challenge balanced for a bigger group of PCs, but don't add extra XP for the new bits.


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


Quote:

Alchemist kit costs 9gp 6sp and is 4 bulk, 6 light.

Studded leather armor with dagger, sling with 20 bullets. Adventurers pack, alchemist tools, bandolier,crafters book, 2 sets of cantrips and a sheath.

I assume that 'cantrips' is a typo,

I'm 99% sure it's 2 sets of caltrops


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
Unicore wrote:
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
What's the XP equation? That's what I'm dying to know
The XP equation is that it takes 1000 do to level up every level. Or are you asking about how to determine how much XP a creature is worth?
The latter, sorry. How do you figure out how much xp an encounter gives based on the CR of the encounter?

There's a table in the GMing chapter of the CRB that tells you how much XP each adversary is worth, based on the difference between party level and adversary level. You add that up for each adversary faced, and give that amount to all PCs involved in the encounter (no dividing by number of players). There's an explanation of alterations for party sizes other than 4 (you add/remove adversaries to the combat but don't award additional/less XP), and there's a similar table to work out appropriate XP for hazards.

1 to 50 of 117 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>