Pirate

Ngodrup's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 118 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 53 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

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).


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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

*overhyped emotions achieve dangerously high-pressure explosion point* :DDD


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
sherlock1701 wrote:
Even knowing it was a one shot game, I still took around 15 to 20 hours studying the system because I was new to it. It's just what you do.

That's exactly the problem though - it's "just what you do" for the likes of us. It's not a good approach for being able to realistically bring in new players easily, which makes it bad for the hobby, and bad for business.

I've spent long enough making characters for people and holding as much information about their abilities in my head as possible - good, lovely people who I thoroughly enjoy playing with, and who for one reason or another - personal life, health and energy restrictions, time constraints - wouldn't be playing the game if I didn't do that to facilitate their game experience. So I've done that, and done it gladly. But during the playtest, after the first couple of characters, everyone was invariably fine to go off and make their own level 7/11/14/17 (or whatever it was for DD) characters, and just check with me on the few things they got stuck on or if they wanted some advice, and I knew that everyone would end up with a functioning character which they also knew the abilities of more thoroughly. And it really opened my eyes to just how much better my games can be when I have more time to spend prepping plot and encounters because I don't have to spend it helping people with character creation and leveling up and remembering fiddly modifiers and random feats they took 4 levels ago and how they interact with the current situation.

Spending hours on character creation may be "just what you do", but it shouldn't have to be. It should be "a thing you can do", if you want, but which isn't necessary. And imo P2 seems to have improved that balance, and I, for one, am happy for it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Bardarok wrote:
Popped in here to say that the twitch streams have been pretty great IMO.

You would say that :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Illrigger wrote:
The Mitwit entry under Gremlin. There they are

Yay! King Zuuga lives! :D


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

Wait, yes I do! Divine Lance wasn't in the playtest, I think it's a damage dealing divine cantrip, or maybe 1st level spell


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

I'm 100% sure there will be, but I can't think of any specifically that have been spoiled so far. Hopefully if I've missed one someone will let us know!


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

It's Than, not "Then"

different words with different meanings.

Gosh, it's shocking, really, that so many people managed to engage with the thread in good faith without anyone heroically pointing out the egregious typo/spelling error. How on earth did everyone infer the intended meaning so accurately?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
FowlJ wrote:
Accidents happen, my dude. It probably doesn't actually have much to do with being near Paizo, and instead a mixup with shipping or the game store.

Not a mix up, and quite a lot to do with being near Paizo - they started shipping already, and this guy got lucky and was near the top of the pile, most likely. So it's arrived already, cause it didn't have to travel far.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
@Voss - Where are you getting that it’s a ‘currency’ from?

I think because of conceptualising "spending" 1000 XP to level up, and then extending that to ask if you can "spend" XP on other things. It's a bit of a stretch but I can kinda see how they got there


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
graystone wrote:
In the example, a failure was being heard: it was already a set event on failure. As such, the type of failure shouldn't change just because something affects it: It should still happen but the silence prevents the failure from being heard. He feels it takes away the players agency because it could circumvent someones plans to mitigate such failures by changing the universe so another failure happens instead.

Exactly this. I wrote my own reply, but I've deleted it in favour of this. Why bother trying to alleviate negative consequences when the GM will make sure equally bad negative consequences happen no matter what you do? Might as well not waste the time or resources trying to avoid the negative consequence and just roll the d20 and hope for the best.

That doesn't reward creative play. That rewards tackling every challenge head on no matter what.

I think this is a very good point. A lot of the time I feel I disagree with you when you first state things, but I really appreciate you taking your time to explain your reasoning thoroughly, and even if I continue to not completely agree, I feel like I've learned a lot from the discussions and they've made me think more deeply about my approaches as a GM and why I run games the way I do. So thank you for your many contributions. Same goes for graystone.


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

In the playtest, one of my players main character (as in, for adventures 1, 4 and 7) was a Paladin of Irori who fought using a shield, and unarmed strikes with their empty hand. It's not exactly what you're going for here but it was pretty darn awesome as a character concept and worked well with the playtest rules :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Rysky wrote:
I believe Pumpkin was bringing up that only people that invested in the Knowledge skills made Knowledge checks in 1st (since if you were untrained you couldn’t roll for DC above 10), so if no one was invested, no one made the rolls.
Yes, but people could roll for those DC 10's or lower... Now that don't. Now they are actively punished to trying to recall anything they have a 50% chance or less to know.

I think this is an example where comparisons between games breaks down to be pretty meaningless. I do think it's odd that you're unhappy about having gone from "unable to attempt most knowledge rolls except DC10 or below" to "able to attempt any knowledge roll but it might be a bad idea". It seems to me like being upset about having more choice and resulting concequences, which imo is the core of the game.

Anyway, comparisons with 1e kinda fall apart - if you could only roll knowledge for DC10 or lower in 1e (how did you know it was DC10 or lower? Must have to ask GM and get metaknowledge about the DC of the check in the first place) - say you decided to only roll knowledge checks of DC10 or lower in 2e - you'd literally only crit fail on a nat1 (excepting for negative INT mods or similar). Hardly "most of the time" or anything. A one-in-20 chance to get false info is hardly "actively punishing" imo. If you add an investment of Trained in the skill (I don't consider Assurance to be necessary to be invested in p2) then you literally cannot crit fail a DC10 check unless you started with a non-standard -3 or less in your INT mod, and even then not once you got past level 1.

On the other hand, 2e gives you the ability to attempt higher DC checks, but with more possibility that you'll fail or crit fail. That's a choice. You don't have to take it, but the option is there. Which it wasn't in 1e.


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


But you can't tell me that someone that is not actively panicking is NOT trying to figure out what the heck is standing in front of one when they see something they didn't see before

I must respectfully disagree. At least in the first 6 seconds I would be trying to figure out if I'm in immediate danger, thinking about where to move, thinking about whether to use my weapon or retreat etc. If I get a second to breathe I might spend "an actions amount of effort" to sort through my internal knowledge to see if I can infer anything useful about the thing in front of me. But in the immediacy, if something's attacking me, all I know is what it looks like (which the GM should've described already) and how I'm going to react. In my opinion an action to recall knowledge is fine, especially if it's not a creature the character has come across before and they're trying to infer knowledge from its appearance or match it with something they've only heard of or read in a book.

We may be the odd ones out (or we may not!), but my table actually used the knowledge action more frequently during the playtest than they remember to ask for their free knowledge check in our P1 campaign. Make of that what you will.


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


Backpfeifengesicht.

What a great word, thanks to you (and Google) for broadening my vocabulary in this way :')


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

How strangely convenient that Qundle died just as Owen is leaving Paizo.

Poor Qundle.

I also thought this! Was it an organic coincidence, or...

Either way, RIP Qundle </3


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

I mean...secret checks are imo something that usually doesn't need a rule (except for some border cases maybe)

If the gm wants to make his roles rather secret then open, for whatever reason, it is kind of his style.

I mean, of course there could be rule for it, I haven't given it much thought tbh

In the playtest there was a specific tag for 'secret' on some types of check, i.e. checks that the GM makes for you. So if you crit fail a knowledge check the result is your PC gets false info that you the player don't even know is false, and stuff like that.


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

Aaaaand the excellent customer service team have done it again! Managed to pull my order out of the packaged-and-about-to-ship area and make the changes I'd requested! I'm chuffed. (Do Americans say chuffed? It's British for "extremely pleased")

Fumarole wrote:
That's unfortunate. For future reference, you can use the internet to place international calls for free.

Oh, cool! I did not know that, that is very useful information, thank you! :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Pan wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:


I've found that my players wind up using their hero points for important skill checks or saving throws over stabilizing.
Not mine, the players hoard them for staving off dying.

This is no longer a thing! I'm pretty sure it's now one hero point to reroll, or all your remaining hero points to not die stabilise without the wounded condition. That should stop people from hoarding them, or at least reduce it a bit!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
My old groups favourite bad description was to describe something as being the size of a dog.
What kind of dog?

The four-legged kind that barks, obviously :D


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


Yep. It's too bad. But I get why the designers would follow the surveys on that one, even if I would have preferred item quality rather than magic as the source of item bonuses to hit.

I get the impression that this is going to be one of the most commonly house ruled/GMG-alternate-rules-ruled things, at least among those of us who played the playtest


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

I know it's not particularly original or out there, but I am planning to make a halfling ranger who eventually multiclasses into a champion of Erastil. I usually play rogues and have never been interested in either rangers or paladins in 1E, but the playtest/2E rules have made me quite excited about them!

I am the eternal GM for my home game (which tbh I quite like being), but I thought maybe I would make him for organised play (which I haven't done before, but there is a Pathfinder Society lodge here in Manchester UK, and I'm interested in trying it out when 2E is finally out).


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

Hey folks,

If any of you are still wanting to place your orders in the meantime, Customer Service can help out. We cannot start subscriptions for folks, but if you do place your order and are shown the wrong products, just let us know and we'll be sure to get things straightened out. Thanks!

Hi Katina,

Myself and quite a few others have followed this advice, but are getting concerned about not having heard anything back / still having 1E products in our sidecart. Is a forum post a suitable way to let you know, or do we need to email/call?

Thanks :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Amaranthine Witch wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Huh. Level +2 is just the trained bonus from 1E. Nice evolution there.
That's a really interesting insight, and potentially a good argument to explain the system to PF1 players.
Class skills in 1E give +3 though. Or is there some other bonus I'm not aware of?

Level 1 + 2 = 3


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
David knott 242 wrote:

I hope we can get a real answer to what that Advanced GM Screen is before next month's auths are run, as I may want to cancel my pre-ordered GM screen if this one is better in my opinion.

I feel exactly the same! I am very curious about how it's different from the ones currently available to pre-order / whether I should change my pre-order. Also I hope that whatever the Advanced GM Screen is, that it is also available in landscape


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
FowlJ wrote:
Ngodrup wrote:
Me rambling about magic weapons
To be clear, magic weapons that deal vastly more damage on a hit are still a thing, by way of the 'Striking' rune - it's just that basic +to hit is now also magical, instead of being a part of weapon quality.

Oh yes I do know this :) and I do think it's better to have reduced the amount of extra damage dice available from the weapons themselves and increased the damage you can get from class abilities etc, I just preferred the flavour of to-hit bonuses being based on item quality. It seems to me that the reversal of that change is based on it being a legacy thing, which is fair enough - I actually like a lot of the legacy things that have stayed around because "it's what people expect from the game", it's just my personal preference that I preferred the playtest change for this particular thing :)


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

That's disappointing, it was exciting to have magic weapons(/potency runes) be Really Impressive and Impactful in the playtest, and made all the sense to have modifiers based on quality especially with the new proficiency system in relation to crafting, so having magic weapons return to small to-hit bonuses seems a bit sad (especially since they apparently don't even give a damage bonus like in 1e!)

I understand that it's probably all balanced with the new math and everything after the changes from the playtest, but it does feel a bit like a step backwards.

How common is DR/magic in 2e? i.e., Would it make a big impact on play/combat difficulty if I used the mundane quality explaination from the GMG?

1 to 50 of 53 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>