Northlander's page

First thanks for replies everyone! Seems this is something that probably needs to be discussed extensively with a GM before the game starts.

My concern is that the GM might have entirely different idea about what the spell can or can't do - and those things might pop up only when the spell is first used.

It's even worse if we both agree on rules and I figure out some trick which basically allows us to bypass all encounters, forcing the GM to change the rules mid game. Either that or the GM makes the critters act in a way that breaks the suspension of disbelief - and makes my character unfun to play in the progress.

i.e. if I end up using the wall trick every encounter that probably wouldn't be fun for anyone involved, but at the same time it's a stretch for enemies to suddenly start checking for walls if they have absolutely no reason to believe the party is hiding behind one.

Combine this with some way to create distraction at a range or a silence spell to block any sounds from your party, and you are basically guaranteed to be able to safely skip a lot of encounters.

3. If they go on to shoot lightning bolts or rays of frost through the wall, enemies may reasonably realize it is an illusion even without a disbelieve check. My own solution in scenarios like this (or having an ally inform you they created an illusion) is you can try to ignore the illusion and move through it, but you need a will save to overcome what your senses are telling you to run headfirst into a brick wall. On a success you can move through without spending further actions.

This seems like a reasonable solution until you realize there are various things you can do to bypass it which are even reasonable because it doesn't have physical presence.

You could attempt to blast the illusory wall into pieces in which case the spell or the bomb would just go through and hit things behind it. You could charge and smash the wall with a hammer in an attempt to break it and you would just charge through.

The other (more iffier imo) explanation is that for all intents and purposes the wall actually exists until you disbelief it. Nothing originating from a person that believes in the wall can pass through it, no fireballs, no lightning bolts, not even the hammer used to smash the wall. Not even if they see allies who successfully do those.

All other creatures not, including allies, minions and eidolons yet I allow the caster to use Aid as free-action (those who receive yet have to use it's own reaction) to allow them to use as circumstance bonus in disbelieve checks and without need to touch the "object" if the caster talks to his/her allies that this is an illusion.

I was also thinking that maybe point out action from anyone who has disbelieved the illusion could give others free action to disbelief the illusion.

This would mean that only the one who interacts and successfully disbeliefs the illusion would lose action (if they inform allies). I feel this is more in line of the intention of the spell as it's still not a guaranteed success.

If no one has yet disbelieved or used the point out action, then anyone who interacts with the illusion would still need to use an action to disbelief it.

However I'm still not entirely sure what exactly is the disadvantage for *not* disbelieving the illusion. You can still reasonably ignore its effects by virtue of just interacting with it - assuming you have reason to interact with it in the first place.

The effect is not a mind-affecting phantasm so a character would not make excuses as to why the brazier they just lit doesn't actually shed light or why their hammer just went through the wall that they tried to bash down. Of course they are wasting an action here so the end result is pretty much the same, so in my opinion the result should be automatic disbelief in which case they could use the "point out" action to help others disbelief it.

If you are not even aware of anything being out of place, I'm hard pressed to believe you would interact with the object in the first place. Case in point creating a false wall just ahead of the real thing and hiding behind it. Why would anyone suddenly believe there's anything special about the wall. I mean do people regularly go around their place tapping walls to see if they are illusions?

This is incidentally why I'm also against allowing wall creation (even if it makes my life easier and GM's more difficult). It's just easy way to bypass any chase encounters as you just create a wall and hide behind it. At least with a suddenly appearing door or a stone slab that was not there before, critters have reason to expect foul and investigate it.

You can create anything that you want inside the 20-foot burst area with any movement you want that's the duration is no more than around 6s (1 round time) in order to prevent it to override Illusory Scene spell.

Hrm so no definition as what counts as an object? One round is still a lot so you could create the sample waterfall, a door that opens and closes, a pool of molten rock spouting a looping lava geysir, fill the area with fog cloud, create a maze of mirrors etc etc... so many opportunities here.

I also allow characters to use Seek action without touch (up to a 10-foot square adjacent to you) if they want (usually giving some circumstance penalty due the distance, illumination and lack of some special senses) to disbelieve from distance in order to prevent traps triggers being hidden by the illusion noticing inconstancies between the illusion and the environment.

Another interesting point. I was actually considering a "troll build" sorcerer with Djinni bloodline. Illusory object and Glyph of Warding seemed like a fun combo for this specific reason. You could hide the glyph and the spell with an illusion.

Anyhow. Thanks for letting me know how you run it. I'm hoping others chime in to give me a better idea if this is the way how most do it... cause I can see a lot of fun ways to mess with encounters.

Hello

I come from PF1 environment and would like to try my hand playing a sort of illusionist in PF2.

I'm reading the various illusion spells and their relation to actions and they are a bit confusing as to what they can do - specifically the illusory object. I'd like to hear if GMs agree with my perspective on things.

It says it can create illusory visual image of a stationary object and gives waterfall as an example but what counts as an object?

Normally I'd rule that object is not an effect or a composite. For example a building or a maze is a composite of individual objects where as something like a simple bridge, a sword or even a brazier is not if we follow the rules of natural language. We don't think sword as as a separate hilt and blade objects but we can easily point out individual objects like a door or a window that is part of a building.

This means you could create a door, a cage, or even a simple bridge but not a shed, a maze, or a drawbridge. I wouldn't even allow you to create a wall but you could certainly create a stone slab to block a doorway.

Now the waterfall example confuses me as I wouldn't normally allow creation of a waterfall. It's not an object like for example a fountain. It's part of a scene similar to how a cavern wall or a crystal cluster is and imo it should be something that requires illusory scene. For me an object is something you could pick up and move around even theoretically but I don't see how you could pick and move a waterfall without destroying it. A fountain, a well or a bird bath yes, but a waterfall no... but based on the description I assume this is wrong interpretation?

Effects are not objects but can be part of an object within a reason

You couldn't create an orb of light, a fog cloud or an area of darkness because they are not objects but you could create a flaming brazier, a cage around someone or a fountain with bubbling water. That being said illusion only creates illusion and not actual effect so a lit brazier would not illuminate a room. It wouldn't even show up in a room without sufficient ambient light for that reason.

Dousing yourself in illusory fountain would not extinguish any flames because while it might (heightened 2nd level) feel and sound like water, it wouldn't actually make you or your clothes wet or even quench your thirst.

I would also rule that a two-way mirror doesn't work for this reason. A normal mirror with ability to reflect a scene are still within reason since it's part of what makes the mirror appear real. Not extra functionality.

I assume this is pretty much the correct interpreration cause otherwise it would be something more in line with a creation spell.

Illusory objects fool senses but have no physical presence

Illusory object creates something perceivable within limits of your senses even if you disbelief them. You can't perceive any more than your senses normally allow but they can fool senses only if you could perceive them in the first place (i.e. a person who can't see visual illusion because they are in a dark room is immune to visual illusion because they can't see it - even if it's illusion of a flaming brazier cause it doesn't actually shed light to illuminate the room).

Disbelieving the illusion doesn't make it go away

Now here it gets a bit confusing because this wasn't said anywhere in the spell or illusion descriptions (that I found), but seems to be something people have consensus on. Basically the summary of all of it is that if you can perceive the illusion, you can disbelieve it, but that merely tells you it's not real. It doesn't make it disappear because it's actual false sensory input and not a phantasm in your mind.

This apparently means that a door still obscures your vision but doesn't block your movement through it, a disease ridden rotting corpse still smells rotting but wouldn't make you nauseated, and you still feel the pricks and pain from a thorny rose or from falling on an illusory spike but not take any damage. None of that would have happened in the first place anyway because illusory objects don't have physical presence.

I get that some of this functions as a limitation because while your enemies can't know how many people are behind the illusory door, neither can you. The best you can do is lob fireball through and hope it hits someone. I also get it works as a deterrent so people don't try stupid stuff such as running face first to a door or across a slab of spikes covering a corridor. I mean even if they disbelief all that, the pain is still there.

My problem is that I feel there should be some effect from perceiving the effect even if it's illusory. If you force yourself through an illusory door and still feel the impact, shouldn't that at least make you clumsy or stupefied 1 or something for a turn?

Who disbeliefs and what and why?

Here it gets more confusing because "Any creature that touches the image or uses the Seek action to examine it can attempt to disbelieve your illusion".

Does this mean that under all conditions illusory objects are disbelieved personally? Including the caster and his allies? I'd assume the caster automatically disbelieves but I didn't find anything concerning that.

Also there seems to be a strong indication you have to disbelief before you can act. Why would you need to disbelieve existence of an illusory door if... say... a barbarian decided to bash down a door without investigating it first. It's perfectly reasonable action when facing a door so where does the disbelieving come in?

She would merely charge and pass through it without apparently affecting the door in any way. I mean the door could not stop the charge since it has no physical presence. It merely feels solid. It's not actually solid.

Wouldn't any normal person in that case just think "gee, there's something odd going with that door/wall" and since the illusory objects don't block sound or anything else, couldn't the the barbarian just shout "What the hell happened, I just went through!?" and everyone else goes "oh, so it wasn't a teleport trap or barbarian getting disintegrated by touching the door, guess I can walk through!"

I'd more or less judge at that point that everyone disbelieves or at least can act whichever way they want such as try to run through the door, BUT if they do, they would be stupefied or something along those lines because disbelieving doesn't actually remove the sensation (as mentioned above).

Otherwise forcing creatures (and players) to spend multiple actions to discern the true nature before they can act sounds (to me) way too powerful. I could see myself destroying entire encounters and overshadowing others with a few convenient illusions. In my head illusions are more to sow confusion and act as deterrent rather than something that actually eats up actions from entire groups of eniemies.

I mean why pick for example slow when you have a first level spell that can do the same? At the same time I don't feel it would be fair or fun if the GM just said "oh they know it's an illusion and just ignore it".

TL;DR; How do GMs deal with illusions and disbelief?

Northlander wrote:

I'm indeed using Archives of Nethys to figure out the rules but I was under impression they are not OGL material and you need to own the rulebooks to actually use them?

Currently they are still OGL - though that will be changing once the ORC license is finalized ;)

The only place I know of where owning the rulebooks is needed in order to play is in Pathfinder Society. There may even be option to use the Core Rulebook in PFS without owning it. Not sure on that though.

Ah thanks for the info. I guess I can always get the books later, too, if this is the case.

Also thanks to The Raven Black for suggesting Pathbuilder. It definitely helps sorting through some of the stuff.

Yes, PF2 is very much a new game rule set. It has the same theme - but that is about it. Including character build priorities and optimal combat tactics. A lot of PF1 players have a bumpy entry into PF2 when they try to use PF1 mentality in it.

As for using the Archives of Nethys for learning the game, you can read the rules for character building and combat from the rules links and get a pretty similar experience to reading it from the book.

Though I would agree that AoN is designed for reference rather than teaching. The rules tab isn't where I would instinctively go first on the site in order to learn how to build a character. So it may be a bit non-intuitive.

I have played DnD starting with red box and moving through to 3.5 and did some 4E experimenting - and I feel the changes here are bigger. The entire terminology has changed in many places (i.e. ancestries instead of races) as is the way to create characters (i.e. ability boosts instead of rolling or point buy). This is the biggest hurdle for me.

By comparison I find for example the action system and acccess to different spell lists to be iterations of the old system. The spells are still on a list and gated behind classes so not much change there. The actions seem to be still largely the same, only now you are not stuck into specific types and some stuff (like spells) use variable number of actions.

I'm indeed using Archives of Nethys to figure out the rules but I was under impression they are not OGL material and you need to own the rulebooks to actually use them?

Thanks for the replies.

I was actually thinking PF1 when I wrote the stuff as I didn't expect such big changes between PF2 and PF1. Now that I've read about PF2 rules, they are like two different games!

Also for some reason I missed the PF1 section with its advice corner, so... whoops?

I'm intrigued by PF2 as it looks very interesting. It's just that I don't own the PF2 rulebooks so can't play, and I'm a bit leery about getting the books if I can't find games.

Found the correct forum so flagged this myself for transfer since I can't delete it anymore.

Hello all

I haven't played pathfinder or any RPs since 2014 and have kind of gotten out of touch with all the stuff it involves and how the games are run.

Does anyone know where I could find games running mix of PBP and Discord in GMT+2 friendly zone?

I'm looking for a mix PbP with chat (not voice) based Discord as I do not speak English very well. The optimal for me would be that we mostly play PbP and then occasionally gather to run discord encounters. If not. I'll look into PBP.

Does anyone run returning player friendly games and/or short refresher campaigns?

The "you shalt not do this in PBP" rules in the PBP section are a bit overwhelming. I don't really want to join a game where your head is bit off simply because you didn't use bold or italics in a correct spot. That doesn't sound like fun so I'd rather have a campaign where GM gently guides to proper PBP etiquette.

How do GMs and players feel about non-human races like Kitsune and non-optimal builds?

I like character building but I'd rather have a character that is fun to roleplay than optimized killing machine (though I do optimize within the concept). I have also developed a mild dislike for playing humans, including humans with pointy ears (elves) or short stature (dwarves).

I'm a human in real life so I'd rather play something else in a game, but I'm slightly worried that the general consensus here might be that you have to "prove" that you are capable of playing one. Still. I'd rather stay within humanoid range than play... say... a pegasus (albeit I did play awakened wolf Druid once).

For me roleplaying is important and I can't do that if I don't actually enjoy playing the character, so I'd also expect the non-human nature being treated more than just stats - that is, I'd expect NPCs to react to it for good or for worse. Are these reasonable expectations?

I don't want to create characters only to get frustrated if they are not picked for a game cause GM just sees red flags.

Speaking of roleplaying and RAW vs RAI

For me roleplaying is important BUT I also need encounters for the game to progress. I think also part of the reason why our previous games died was mixed expectations. Either too much RP for rollplayers in the group or too little RP for the roleplayers in the group.

However, as I said, I tend to play characters that are more fun than super efficient so I might at times need a bit RAI rather than RAW during encounters. I do respect rules cause they provide a good framework but I also enjoy finding creative uses for spells and effects. How do people feel about this?

Finally touching character appearances

I don't think character creation rules specifically touch this but how much you are allowed to tweak character appearances based on the concept in your head? I realize I said I tend to pick fun over efficiency but having both is the optimal and I don't intentionally want to gimp my chars.

For example I've plans for a Kitsune Sorcerer with Kitsune Bloodline (or Rakshasa bloodline if Kitsune bloodline is not available) in the theme of nine-tailed fox. However I absolutely do *not* like the magic tail feat. For my character concept he would get a new tail every time he gets a new spell level (i.e. at level 6 he would have three tails cause he has access to 3rd level spells).

This is purely visual representation of his growing power with no game mechanics involved so in my head there's no conflict as it's merely RP flavor. Is this perfectly reasonable or a red flag?

Would the character work in organized play?

Back in the day while I was still playing DnD I skipped organized play cause I just played online and all the chronicles stuff with hundreds of pages of reading and rules felt overwhelming. They still do but I kinda would like to try since you can apparently have Pathfinder society games online. I'd just need a good and patient GM to explain all the stuff to me and I'd definitely would like to try playing the Kitsune as described here (since Kitsunes are apparently available from the get go - unless I misunderstood).

Thanks for reading!

Edit: I should probably mention this concerns d20 and not 2E as d20 is the only system I know. There just doesn't seem to be any separate forum for that...

Will timezone be an issue? I run on EET (Eastern European Time; GMT+2). Well actually currently it's EEST because of summer which is in fact GMT+3 (or BST+2 hehe).

Dotting as well but... hmm. The campaign seemed to start pretty RP heavy but got lighter as it continued. I like RP myself so I'm sort of on the fence about this.

I was also thinking a Bonuwat sea witch or a waves or wind oracle but there appears to be an application for a sea witch and an oracle already.

I'd like to give Masego a go though. He was made for a campaigns like this originally. Of course I need to update the crunch.

Ahh yes. I saw the inquisitor but missed the witch for some reason. Eh. I'm more likely to go for a Bladebound Magus if there's no strong opposition for that. A half-orc one.

I mean I've been playing a sorcerer in the other PBP so I would rather avoid the more traditional arcane casters.

The one I've built as an alias (Gorrim Blackblade). How would that look background wise? He is pretty far from home but the motivation is the same regardless of the place, and I'll need to redo some of the crunch but basically that's the story.

I've a few characters that I could enter depending on the needs but I'm also tempted to build a sea witch style character after reading a bit about the background.

Hmm though in all honesty I'd like to know what are the chances to get in at this point. It takes a while for me to build a character backstory I'm satisfied with and do all the crunch.

Wow. This couldn't have come out a better time. I just finished a new Bard (Archaeologist) alias who is based on Numeria and has connections to Technic League. Now to find an (online) campaign...

Onwards all brazen spelunkers!

I would if I could. I am unable to pick an avatar either for my alias or for my primary account. That has been the case for entire day and since the forum does not seem to support custom avatars. I get the images but selecting one does nothing. There's also no separate save button or it's damn well hidden.

Maybe there's a posting requirement or something but could not find it from FAQ? Not sure what to do. :)

I will pick an avatar once I am able and get a separate portrait too for accuracy.

I guess based on Hadassa's post we can assume he has been around for a bit. I guess that explains his dishelved apperance. I was still the post while you posted your comments. Hehe.

Consider it formatted now. :)

Would a character like this be acceptable?

Thanks for notifying about this Hadassa. I've been poring over the Pathfinder rules last night but I'm still newbie to them even if I'm very well versed in the d20 system itself. I'm buying the herolab ruleset for them as I write this (huzzah for multitasking) but it might take a while for me to cook up something good.

I'd be interested in applying but there might be a slight issue here. Our timezones are almost the complete opposites. For example my 6 pm is your 7 am. :)

If that's not an issue I'm thinking of a Human or more likely Half-Elf Sorcerer. Probably leanings towards smart-mouthed illusionist with tendency to annoy people with this tricks but this depends on the setting!

Speaking of the setting. I'd like to know the premise. I'm afraid I don't know much about legacy of fire. I checked the intro which states it is initially about retaking a village overrun by gnolls. However it later changes to more adventurous theme even heading to the planes. I need to think about proper character theme and motivation for long term adventure.

Basically what is our role and relation to the situation? Who is backing us or is this a random decision by a group of adventurers? Are we already allies? Relatives? Potential lovers? Hired guards? Adventurers? Representatives/hirelings for the pactmasters? A mix of criminals buying their freedom by agreeing on some dangerous task and their overseers? Will the interactions with the gnoll to be diplomatic, kill on sight, other?

I'd rather tailor my character to what is required than introduce something that does not fit. However even before that I'd like to know if the timezone is an issue. :)

Hmm. You are probably right. I didn't view it as a "terms and conditions" when I wrote it. More like a list of things I like and dislike for DMs to check when they search for people.

However after browsing the forums it looks like players outnumber DMs significantly so it's unlikely DMs are in fact searching for people. Not when for every new game there seems to be plenty of applicants.

I don't think there's a way to delete a thread and it seems this one will reflect poorly on me for various reasons. I would rather start from a clean slate in that case. Oh well. Just another lesson to be learned. :)

Thanks Edward. I'll give it a look but I don't think it's exactly what I'm looking for. I think people might get a bit misleading impression from some of the things I listed. For example I do like rules. They provide a framework for which to work with without it getting completely out of hand. At the same time if someone starts nitpicking in midsession about something minor it's highly aggravating.

Also I'm not sure how well I would be able to pull off the magical youngster concept not having been considered a youngster for past 20 years or so. Plus I tend to go for a bit more serious play. :)

Also thanks Larkos. I'll just have to keep an eye on them then!

Hello. I think this is the correct place for this. Please don't kill me if it is not! *whimper* ... Ahem. I haven't played any pnp games in years but now the old itch is back so here I am! looking for an online campaign.

I realize there are open campaigns listed here but people there would not know anything about me so I thought I'd choose the approach where I tell what kind of game I am looking for.

Below are a few details I think most DMs/GMs and other players would like to know. Most of them are just personal preferences but I've learned there are a few potential showstoppers. It's only fair to inform about them.

• I'm not familiar with pathfinder rules. I'm very familiar with d20/DnD 3.5e rules.
  
• There will be days when I can't post because of real life obligations. I try to give a warning in advance.
  
• English is not my native language. Expect mistakes. I do not tolerate l337 speak in pbp games though.
  
• I play gay characters. Inter party/npc conflict over this can be enjoyable. Real life death threats are not.
  
• I do not ERP. I'm all for adult themes and implied actions but once clothes come off it's fade to black time.
  
• I prefer D20 systems. My favorite levels are 3-10. Modified rules are ok. Other systems are ok with training.
  
• I like mixing my PBP with OpenRPG sessions. Especially for combat. It is not mandatory though.
  
• I like campaigns about shades of grey, intrigue, horror, and about exploring the unknown (homebrews are optimal).
  
• I dislike dungeon crawls, hack & slash, and campaigns about clear cut good & evil and god killing themes.
  
• I dislike rules lawyers, munchkins, special snowflakes, boyfriend/girlfriend favoritism and GMs that are out to get you.
  
• I like games where players play characters with flaws and personality. Special but not overpowered.
  
• I dislike games with the mysterious stranger who is a bad-ass human/vampire/werewolf/demigod hybrid with dark past.
  
• I enjoy inter party conflicts borne from ethos or from conflicts in interests. Coming to blows ok. Killing other players not.
  
• I like a mix of non-combat and combat with both types of gameplay being rewarded and woven into the story.
  
• I like games with story and plot. A joint effort between GM and players. Some constraints are good.
  
• I dislike players who just sit there and wait for the combat. Even worse if it's the GM.
  
• I dislike players who force actions, reactions and words on other players in their narrative without their permission.
  
• I'm fine with fantasy, low/mid-powered superhero and future scifi campaigns (as long as it has space magic).
  
• For superhero and scifi I play only homebrews not set on modern earth. I dislike time travel themes.
  
• I'd rather pick that floating pyramid with no other apparent powers than the +1 flaming burst longsword.
  
• I like both human and nonhuman races. I dislike if non-human races get human treatment when they are not supposed to!
  
• I usually play only males and have a bias towards idealized characters. Even if they are non-human.
  
• I like playing sorcerers, beguilers, psions, psychic warriors etc over traditional fighters, wizards and clerics.
  
• I value character theme over power and expect to be rewarded for playing my character for what it was made for.
  

Phew. That's a long list. I hope I didn't scare anyone with that list. As I said many of those are preferences but those are what make a good game experience for me. So. Does anyone have an opening? Maybe a trial run?

I'm someone who had never even heard about pathfinder before someone mentioned Pathfinder online at Neverwinter forums. However I've plenty of experience with MMOs and their predecessors MUDs and I find the approach that Goblinworks is taking intriguing and very risky.

Now I freely admit I'm more of a themepark player since sandboxes tend to be mindnumbingly dull. At worst they are "kill anything that moves in an environment void of any real focus" while at best they can be... well, I suppose more like single player games such as Skyrim - and even Skyrim has story.

It looks to me like Pathfinder Online aims to be a niche game. Niche games are not bad. They won't be hugely popular but they have very faithful fanbase, assuming developers actually respect their fanbase. Keeping the fans satisfied is going to be a monumental undertaking because everyone has their own vision of the world. Certainly it would help if the source for the game was not an environment where only imagination is the limit.

As a stranger to the setting and rules my concern is more related to the game itself: Will this be the type of sandbox MMO where mobs loiter around in massive groups without no apparent purpose and where players end up forming small secular elitist groups that don't talk with anyone else, or will it be something where the world mimics better real life, where it is easy to travel from one spot to another, and where the world itself supports interaction between players by focusing on "hotspots" (i.e. towns)? I like to give Skyrim as an example because it attempts to do something like this even if it is a single player game.