O. N.'s page

47 posts. Alias of o n.


Well, this year we finished our 3 year long Anima: Beyond Fantasy campaign (we died like chumps but it was fun), and started a number of new games, which we haven't played much yet but are ongoing in our hearts at least:

Numenera (only one session, but it's been fun so far)
Mutants and Masterminds (currently on hiatus because one of the players lost his character sheet)
Ryuutama (in which one character managed to actually die in?? our gm was impressed)
Godbound (also only 1 session. Love the faction making rules)

Added to this is Starfinder, which is mostly Space: The Memes, and Pathfinder 2E which is having great success.

I have to say, Colette plays about as unlike me as you can get while playing the same thing. I love Fire Emblem a lot, but it's just not what I'm looking for in Pathfinder. Still, I'm glad they're having fun.

The whole anime aesthetic is also not my thing, but Dahak as a wee anime manakete is just so funny an image I'm tempted to use it myself. Almost burst out laughing at work!

I've long wanted to play as some sort of talking sparrow (awakened? ex familiar?) that's actually a summoner. Their eidolon would either be humanoid for confusing people or really big, haven't decided.

We're currently about to finish the campaign were I'm basically Orochimaru but not actually outright evil so that's one off the list. Ate a magical library, stole a couple bodies, all good.

My solution to that was taking the maps, and then just copy pasting screenshots of the relevant creatures, traps and mechanics near each room. So I have one giant jpg where I just zoom in the relevant parts. So far it's worked like a dream. I do have Photoshop, but I think it should work in gimp or paint too.

Also made a google docs where I pretranslated and summarized most of the dialogue I'd need for later, because I suck at translating on the fly since my brain keeps offering words in german instead of spanish, which the rest of the table doesn't speak.

We too are only in Pale Mountain, with them just about to enter the tomb. Lots of fun so far. Reading this thread has been inspiring. :)

thejeff wrote:

I believe the sorcerer bloodline in question is the Imperial one, which gives you teleport as its 6th level spell.

If that's intended to be covered by the "uncommon" rule and thus dependent on GM permission, that's weird as hell and needs to be addressed.

Oh, I see. Huh. Yeah, I doubt that one is meant to be under the Rarity rules. It'll probably be patched like the Nethys one, I assume.

Snowblind wrote:

The Sorcerer bloodline still has it.

I feel like reminding people that this is in the core rule book (or the playtest version of it, at least). This is Paizo attempting to put their best foot forward. It only goes downhill from here when we get to the splat-books.

The sorcerer bloodline gives you Teleport, because the sorcerer bloodline gives you either the occult or the arcana spell list. It is, if you notice, still marked as uncommon. P. 127: "You choose these from the common spells on the spell list corresponding to your bloodline in this book, or from other spells on that spell list to which you gain access." Meaning you still have to speak to your GM (be it by buying it with your money ingame or finding it as loot) to get it. So...yes? Wizards and Bards also get it. What of it?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azmodael wrote:

What has changed directly:

-No longer possible to provide huge to hit buffs
-Stacking AC actually required investment in first edition

As DM I could easily harass the squishy back line using relatively weak monsters and some creative thought.

So... you no longer can easily kill things that were supposed to be difficult, and now can spend brain power and resources on other more interesting things besides maxing AC, which you were gonna do anyway. Sounds like fixes to me, honestly.

I'm pretty sure you can still harrass the unarmored 'squishies' with something. Not all wizards will have maxed dex and athletics, and if they have built for that, they're not quite 'squishies' are they? In our game there was around 4 AC difference between 2 characters, which is a big number now, so...

But, beyond my possible issue blindness, I think Zman0 has the right of it. Why not both, indeed.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Azmodael wrote:

The way system is built currently is that you could be utterly surrounded by low level creatures and not care at all, because their only hope is to roll a nat 20 to hit you and even if they did they would do insignificant damage because damage dice also scale with levels.

I hate that in previous D&D editions. I hate it now with PF2e. It breaks down all immersion.

I haven't been playing PF1 for as long as some people here, but... is PF1 (unmodified!) actually capable of telling the story you guys speak of? Unless you stoped at like, level 4, I don't think so. In a couple levels the ole goblin guys were just irrelevant anyway. I'm not sure what has actually, directly changed that's causing all this outrage. As far as I've played and read, PF1 should already be immersion breaking for you. I mean this in a completely honest way, but I don't get it.

Snowblind wrote:

As an aside, while double checking that the above example was correct, I couldn't help but notice that a sorcerer bloodline and a cleric god pick (nethys) both grant access to Teleport, which is the go-to choice for "plot wrecker" spells.

I am sorry, did I say 1 forward, 2 back. I meant 2 steps back, and then one sideways onto a rake. Because what the hell is the point of restricting general access to this stuff if PCs are explicitly allowed to pick it anyway through slightly roundabout means if they really want to.

I didn't bother searching for the sorcerer part, but as of at least 1.4 Nethys doesn't give that spell anymore.

Dr. Zerom Brandercook wrote:

The variance you mention sounds fine to me too, but my problem with the add level advancement isn't this.

It's partly aesthetic, with +52 perception or whatever just not feeling or looking right (no edition or clone of d&d has had so many modifiers this high). It's just big numbers with no real justifiable reason behind them. Cumbersome. Bloated.

With the way all skills increase it becomes preposterous pretty quickly when a high level barbarian is so diplomatic, and a high level mage is so deadly with a mundane weapon compared to a low level fighter, and so on.

Inflated DCs are a problem. You have this bloated chart, that you basically HAVE to reference or memorize, when it could be so much simpler. For example, 5e DC table: very easy DC 5, easy DC 10, medium DC 15, hard DC 20, very hard DC 25, nearly impossible DC 30. That's it. That's all you need to know from level 1 to level 20. Pretty elegant.

As a DM you need to justify increasingly massive DC numbers just to have a challenge. This then becomes a wash, because as you increase the DCs, everyone's skills also increase, so really it's just similar odds with bigger numbers. Treadmill effect.

This applies basically to every value in the game that adds + level. It's...

Having played games with +255 to a skill and % calculations, I was just thinking that I liked these small numbers in PF2...

It's a difference of how people see the higher levels I guess. Can I swallow that a 8 str 20 lvl wizard can trounce a lvl 1 fighter with his bare hands? Depends on how they explain it. Do you get progressively more magical as you level? The experience of killing All the Creatures in the Land, and watching your lvl 20 fighter buddy fight, made you just better than this mere mortal dude who just walked out of his town? Considering the level of crazy that the high levels imply in Golarion... well, yes. It also works better for some skills than others. Should the barbarian have learned something of Not Pissing People You Like Off in all these levels? Yeah, probably. Though I admit that it may not work for everyone. I find it fun actually. *shrug*

Now that I think of it... maybe they could add a note about how you can tank your own skill values if you want to for RP. A disadvantage if you will. Or optionally just turn off automatic +lvl to untrained skills. That seems fine.

The table is kinda confusing, yes. But that's more a problem of the table than of +1/lvl directly, I think. Needs more examples to get an idea of what 'standard human difficulty' is.

Edit: I keep forgetting the profanity filter.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Having actually played now (RL finally cooperated), my lvl 9 competent but not super optimized char has a difference of 10 between her best (+15 without armor) and her worst skill (+5). That's a whole crit range. Should she regularly use her worst skill? Probably not, but she also probably won't instantly explode if she tries, which I like. I'm fine with that amount of variance, tbh.

So, my opinion on the whole +1 lvl... it doesn't make me scream I LOVE IT at the top of my lungs, but I consider it a perfectly valid way to build the game, and so far it has worked. So yeah.

Edit: To clarify, if someone comes up with a better Skill system I'm down with trying it out. But if the current system is the system that comes out with PF2 I' won't cry either.

If I remember correctly from an earlier thread, a developer mentioned the DC20 door was put intentionally there to see how players reacted to am out-of-level challenge. It's been weeks though so don't quote me on this.

Lucas Yew wrote:

As many others proposed similarly, I believe it'd be the best if it was something like...

...add your weapon dice of a number equal to whichever is the higher of your proficiency or your weapon's potency...

This way, legendary weapons still matter in making a total newbie warrior capable of putting the hurt on that rampaging dragon, while also making a 20th level Fighter skewer hill giant skulls in a single drive with that totally ordinary pitchfork found on the nearby barnhouse while goofing around.

This rule, I like it. Classes that naturally get proficiency can be cool without magic (and maybe get more flavorful items), and the less martially inclined (eg: the ones that can't use armor) can still keep up if they spend the money/feats.

That still leaves the +5 bonus in the leagues of either magic weapons or a Legendary feat. Lvl 17 maybe?

Aramar wrote:

I don't know if I like the idea of not only rolling my players' initiative for them, but also rolling it in secret.(There's a Dork Tower strip on that topic somewhere) Either way, indicating that they 'feel something' would be a sure of indicating that they're in for combat sooner or later, and while some groups might be able to avoid metagaming that at all, with my group at least it's pretty unlikely.

The ooze is a good example of 'sooner or later combat' - my PC's rolled Perception when they entered the 1st room, actively looking for anything of interest, and they all rolled poorly and so failed to even note that the ooze was present. The ooze attacks when something gets near, so that point we ended up rolling Perception v Stealth for a second time - and the ooze went last. Without a surprise round mechanic, it makes the PC's look like incredibly trigger-happy murder hobos - the ooze hadn't even had an action before the players had a chance to beat it...

But is it worse than what we have now? Now they roll perception, and when after rolling poorly you tell them they saw nothing, they knoww you're b%%$@+@!ting. Then they get stabbed by "Surprise Assassin."

Wanting the system to be both participative AND a true surprise is... almost unfair. Either you take it upon yourself to roll for them and note it down, or they participate in the game and do as if their PCs saw nothing (while squinting suspiciously at your notes, probably), and that's true for both PF systems.

And really, that they 'felt something' doesn't necessarily mean a fight is comming. There's more than one reason for something to hide and try to sneak past the PCs, and encounter mode doesn't need to be a fight. Maybe a chase? A competition with friendly rivals of who gets to the mcguffin first? Mysterious mechanisms? Depends on the plot, I suppose.

I believe it's probable that the PF2 system pretends for that initial perception vs stealth TO ALSO be the initiative rol (unless it's a very long, complex sneak that requires more rolls), but I'm not 100% certain. In either case, rolling initiative means the ooze must have done some aggresive movement, and that it lost means it just wasn't fast enough. "As you enter the room, you see nothing, but as you turn your head to say something you suddenly see something rushing towards you! What do you do?" If the ooze was just laying there unthreatingly, inmobile and uninterested the initiative roll was unnecesary. Or they're just murderhobos, which is also possible. It happens.

There is some level of contrivance in a game played 90% in our minds like some sort of codified mass delusion.

EDIT: Look at that, ninjas. Apparently I lost initiative.

Aramar wrote:

1. The most reasonable might be to assume that the foe was Readying an action, which would mean that they could get a single action off as a reaction to a PC walking into the right place, and then I call for initiative to determine where everyone else falls in order

2. If the creature was not readying, and goes to take an action which would start encounter mode, but rolls poorly for initiative, the the PC's hear the 'Glass Breaks', but would be unable to to actually do much for their, since the foe hasn't actually done anything yet and is still not within any line of sight.

I don't have the book with me right now, but, as I see it:

PC is sneaking: They roll stealth vs passive perception, and it they fail, the enemy 'feels something' and gets a chance to Seek and/or act (basically, the enemy WON initiative). If you critfailed sneak, I guess maybe they see the PC right away, would have to check that. If the PC succeeds, they go first (winning initiative), becoming Sensed as they attack, unless they have a feat against that or something.

PC is being sneak upon: The enemy rolls vs the PC's passive perception EXCEPT if the tactic is 'paying attention' (searching?), in which case maybe the GM ought to roll for the PC's active perception if thy want to keep the suspense. If the enemy fails, the PC 'feels something' but don't know where or what (basically, the enemy LOST initiative), they have to Seek. If the enemy critfails, the PCs see the enemy. If the enemy succeeds, they go first, becoming Sensed as they attack.

Do creatures that were already hiding somewhere get passive or active stealth vs active or passive perception, for example in case of the ooze in Part 1? Hmm. I would have to read sneaking again.

Anyway, in case of multiple people, the ambushed all roll either active perception or passive, depending on what they were doing, while the ambushers roll either passive or active stealth. All this is either rolled secretly for suspense, or open if your players can avoid metagaming. All these results tell you who saw/felt what first.

Ej: if a creature rolls really good stealth and wins agains everyone EXCEPT one (say, a rogue), then that rogue 'feels something' and goes first, maybe finding the ambusher/alerting the others, then goes the ambusher, then everyone else (who may or may not be flatfooted anymore after being warned, would need to check).

If it works like this, it IS very organic, and I actually like it. It's gonna need some adjusting time to remember all the details though, not gonna lie.

TheFinish wrote:
A level 0 Goblin with +0 Strength has the same To-Hit with it's weapons as a level 1 Str 18 Character that's an Expert in his chosen weapon. Heck, they have a higher To-hit bonus with their Dogslicers (which aren't Finesse) than a 1st level Goblin Fighter could ever get (they're capped at +5 due to 16 Str).

That's a good point, I suppose. Though what it really comes down to is that 'enemies' and 'characters' are built with completely different methods and intentions. Is this against the inner logic of the world? Yes, unless you put in some 'chosen one' thing. Is it necessary for entretaining play and challenge? Maybe. Haven't had time to GM it myself yet, so I can only conjeture and read the forum.

I will say though that the CONCEPT of both using different rules doesn't not bother me, as long as it helps play. Maybe a -1 to hit for all enemies in the playtest would make a noticeable difference? Something to test I guess.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kerobelis wrote:

And there is nothing wrong with thinking that way. Its the great divide, bound vs unbound (accuracy). I prefer it the other way, but I understand people wanting it this way.

Must resist urge to argue.....

And I appreciate it! I don't dislike the feel of being, in the end, human after all when divested of all the magic extras. I just like the other option a bit more, at least in magic heavy fantasy.

It's indeed down to preference. I just like the feeling of inherent competence, even if you never get to exercise it ingame. I get to imagine my PC in shorts and suglasses having a good time in a dangerous enviroment.

TheFinish wrote:

That's fine. I'm not passing judgement one way or the other, just pointing out that there's a glaring difference between systems. Adding level to everything has several implications that have to be taken into account, not all of them good.

I mean even discounting the absolutely headscratching attack bonuses on enemies in the PF2 bestiary (seriously, look them up. All of them are super optimised fighters, it seems), adding level to everything means you're always on a very fine...

I feel obligated to mention that, they are indeed dangerous, deadly monsters that eat people or each other. It doesn't exactly break my SOB that they are optimized fitghers.

When I GM, I was thinking of just straight up saying: "You find a bottle, and if you check it closely with your senses you can tell it's magical. It says: "Uncle Ben's Basic Cure All!" You know Ben is an apothecary in the city center. The bottle looks pretty disgusting though, caked in sewer detritus in a goblin cave. Are you sure it is what it says it is?"

That way they can take the potion if they dare, and add some verisimilitude to the world. Also gives me a place with a bit of story for them to go later, if they want to buy stuff. Also it can lead to fun moments.

11 people marked this as a favorite.
TheFinish wrote:
ENHenry wrote:
O. N. wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
It can lead to some interesting scenarios, like your 15th-level character, having a drink at the bar, and a bunch of ghouls burst in and attack everyone, and they just sit there, drinking, while the occasional ghoul hits them, to their annoyance.
That got a irl laugh. Love that image, thanks.

Ghoul from PF1:

Melee bite +3 (1d6+1 plus disease and paralysis) and 2 claws +3 (1d6+1 plus paralysis)
AC of a 15th level Fighter in PF1: 28 (+4 Full Plate, 12 dex, and +4 Ring)

This happens under PF1, too. :-)

The difference is the PF2 character can be stark naked (or just unarmored) in the bar and be AC 25, still completely untouchable by the ghouls. Meanwhile your PF1 15th level fighter, if stark naked (or just unarmored), only has an AC of 11. And he'd most likely get demolished.

I'll be honest, I like that there's some way to show a character is powerful and skilled beyond just how much magic armor they have. They're just straight better at it (you could argue this should apply to weapon dice too, but that's another thread). The lvl 14 character I made had, naked, a minimum skill bonus +12 and maximum +21. I find that to be perfectly acceptable. He sneaks amazing, and while arcana is not his field, he's seen enough s&+* to recognize magic when he sees it. A ghoul tries to bit them and they just dodge without thinking about it, because ghouls are chumps. Seems fine to me.

I've made 2 higher level chars so far. While making a 1st lvl one takes me about 15-20 mins, they took me about double that because I hadn't read all the classes yet. It was pretty fun, I hope I get to play all of them!

Were I stalled a bit was equipment. That took like an hour in itself. The treasure section in the pdf not having its items indexed was a pain in the ass; that and all the little rules about quality, magic, and items being scattered everywhere. Not to mention spells.

Conclusion: making higher level characters is fun, fast and easy, but the organization in the pdf makes dressing them and choosing spells tedious. That can be fixed though.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
It can lead to some interesting scenarios, like your 15th-level character, having a drink at the bar, and a bunch of ghouls burst in and attack everyone, and they just sit there, drinking, while the occasional ghoul hits them, to their annoyance.

That got a irl laugh. Love that image, thanks.

I would asume the fact that they went first in initiative means they noticed something with their perception vs the (hypotetical) ninja. Basically they got 'a bad feeling', I guess. Doesn't mean they know exactly where you are or anything, they still have to find you.

If your Stealth's high enough, and you have patience, you could even recreate the classic "it was probably nothing" Skyrim experience, I suppose.

LuniasM wrote:
It's doable, but it takes a while to really come online.

I'm okay with it being harder than just being a wizard. You're working on two kinds of magic at once after all! But the flavour is nice.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, when you said you guys usually did political intrigue, I thought of Part 6. It also has some combat, but mostly interactions and some puzzles. I thought it sounded really interesting.

Though, I have to ask... AC 12? Where they all naked? I usually don't play particularly optimized, but I don't think I've ever dared go that low.

Edit: I'm glad they took it well though. Hopefully the next one is more entretaining.

Shady Stranger wrote:

I really like the Class Dedication feats. They open up a LOT of options.

I wonder how a Wizard with Cleric Dedication would be like? If that's even possible?

Well it should be. "Sure, I like praying to my god for the spells they think I'll need, but it never hurts to try to work it out yourself, you know?"

I want the Barbarian dedication to add to my Cleric, just because the image is great with her tranquil elf appearance. I suppose I can go with fighter for the playtest.

I also now want to add the rogue dedication to everything, because I love stealthier characters in general.

Eventually I'll try to remake my magus, and my two Anima characters: I think a Bard/Rogue or Fighter, maybe, and the other a Monk.

It certainly makes a rogue a better 'go break his legs but don't kill him' guy, with seems correct.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

To be fair, Quasits were f!+@ing deadly in PF1 too. I still remember that part of Rise of the Runelords. Who will win? 3 lvl 2 PCs or 1 demon pixie thing? The answer might surprise you.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
Actions and Reactions: Though exploration’s not broken into rounds, the exploration tactics assume the PCs are spending part of their time taking actions. If they have specific actions they want to take, they should ask you, and you can decide whether it’s relevant and whether to switch to encounter mode for greater detail. PCs can take any relevant reactions that come up.
If you can just mix in Recall Knowledge and Seek actions as you please, purely as an example, then there is no point at all in having exploration tactics.

The way I read that section, the whole thing is mostly a guide for GMs about how to handle that part, not a straighjacket. Sure, experienced GMs may not need it (it IS basically the same thing as before, but more codified), but if you've never mastered before it may help.

"Ask your players what they want to be doing. Being sneaky? They have to go a bit slower and can roll Stealth for Initiative. They want to go extra fast? They'll get tired sooner. They are on alert? They get to start weapon in hand and shield up. Looking for magic? Walk slowly and go full radar with Detect Magic. They are trying to walk with a high level spell constanly going and f#!*ing up your perfectly good encounters? Tell them they are getting tired. Remember, in the end is up to you, use your judgement!"*

Is this what they intended? If it was, was it well expressed? I don't know, but this is how I read it, and maybe the reason it's not working for you is that it's being applied a touch too rigidly.

*Please note I don't have the book with me right now.

Edit: I'll agree that the examples are kinda bad. My guess is that two people wrote that and didn't proofread as well as they ought to.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
O. N. wrote:
Honestly, if you don't have the baggage of PF1 experience, there's no reason to feel like you're not getting enough.

I think that's a bit of an unfair expectation. This isn't a new TTRPG. This is a new edition of a pre-existing one. People will come in with certain expectations. IMO those expectations should be met unless there's a good reason to net meet them.

I suspect we're actually getting as many options in PF2e as PF1e, they're just coming from different sources. So if we increase ancestry feats we might need to decrease something else.

I actually think that a lot of the difficulties people are having with accepting some of the changes and conceits of PF2 is exactly that. I've been trying to consider it as a whole new, unknown game and I think it's helped me a lot to see it for it's own merits. Granted, it does have its problems that have to be fixed, but they're certainly less distressing that way.

I would perhaps allow a General Feat at first level instead of more ancestry ones, to add to the 'personal' part of ancestry->background->personal.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

Did either of them pick Half-Elf, Half-Orc, or Adopted Ancestry at 1st level? If they didn't, I can see why they would have been content with the options given.

"The 1 veteran player and 1 that had played 5e before both made half-orcs."

Honestly, if you don't have the baggage of PF1 experience, there's no reason to feel like you're not getting enough. I've played games where the only difference was basically appearance, and generally you just roll with it.

What I would like is higher level ancestry options. 2-3 really cool high level things that you can choose at lvls 10+. They don't even need to be mechanically powerful, just novel.

graystone wrote:
O. N. wrote:
EDIT: Serious question, how did you get a bathtub into a sack, I thought you couldn't do that with big things?
Collapsible bathtub

Now THAT'S magical; I kinda want one in my house now. Thank you.

graystone wrote:
The the new game, a 2nd level spell provides food. Purchase pack animal is 20 sp and an Unskilled Hireling is 1sp/day.

*looks at the trail of dead innocent horses that were just in the wrong place at the wrong time* Yeah... I don't think that's gonna work, at least with my group. Around lvl 4 we just gave up on that, we just felt too bad.

graystone wrote:
Being able to do that in it's small package is darn magical. JUST being a magic retrieval system is super mundane porter work.

But... what you just described is the same thing... ANYWAY, this is obviously very important to you, and I don't care enough, so you do you.

EDIT: Serious question, how did you get a bathtub into a sack, I thought you couldn't do that with big things?

Malikor wrote:
O. N. wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

So, since 2E reduced the penalties and raised the lower limits of carry capacity, Bags of Holding should be considered *more* valuable?

I'm having trouble following that line of thought. Doesn't that mean characters are likely to more frequently shrug at the Bag of Holding and keep their Resonance reserve for flashy stuff since their carry capacity isn't an issue?

Just because you don't NEED one for everyday use doesn't mean you can't WANT it. It IS still useful (how can you rob dragons without one?) but it's no longer an unavoidable expense to actually do stuff.
And what about loading said horde into the bag? You stow all the coin in nonmagical bags, on a small horde, that is probably going to be five or so items, each one requiring a RP to put in. THen when you want to distribute or sell, that's more...

I reread the item description and the Activation descriptions and, as far as I can tell, you only require the RP to open and then close the bag. It doesn't say you have to pay for each item, only for the ACT of opening.

"If it’s turned inside out, the items inside spill out unharmed, but the bag must be put right before it can be used again."

Meaning many items can pass through the opening, but OPENING it is what costs RP. So, throw hoard in, close, then turn inside out inside of your bank/hideout of choice.

Edit: now, the question is... can you keep it open forever? Rules don't say.

graystone wrote:
O. N. wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

So, since 2E reduced the penalties and raised the lower limits of carry capacity, Bags of Holding should be considered *more* valuable?

I'm having trouble following that line of thought. Doesn't that mean characters are likely to more frequently shrug at the Bag of Holding and keep their Resonance reserve for flashy stuff since their carry capacity isn't an issue?

Just because you don't NEED one for everyday use doesn't mean you can't WANT it. It IS still useful (how can you rob dragons without one?) but it's no longer an unavoidable expense to actually do stuff.
So it's meant to JUST be a super extensive porter? IMO, it seems easier to just hire some strong peasants: less money and you don't have to pay each one RP... Or a wagon. After all, it's JUST useful for downtime treasure removal. :P

@WatersLethe too. I guess part of the disconnect between our views here is that I never considered it anything else BUT a super expensive porter where you put the stuff you don't need everyday. And even if I didn't, I've played too many games with magical inventories for it to feel super magical. In a game with constructs, mind controlling music, curses, aliens, and space-time portals, what is for all purposes a bag a bit bigger on the inside kind of feels more 'duh, obviously it exists' than actually amazing.

Graystone, do consider you actually have to protect and feed these porters though! At least the bag doesn't require maintenace. Also it seems to not explode anymore. :p

2 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:

So, since 2E reduced the penalties and raised the lower limits of carry capacity, Bags of Holding should be considered *more* valuable?

I'm having trouble following that line of thought. Doesn't that mean characters are likely to more frequently shrug at the Bag of Holding and keep their Resonance reserve for flashy stuff since their carry capacity isn't an issue?

Just because you don't NEED one for everyday use doesn't mean you can't WANT it. It IS still useful (how can you rob dragons without one?) but it's no longer an unavoidable expense to actually do stuff.

Mergy wrote:
Paradozen wrote:
Been working on a strength rogue, using intimidation, You're Next, and Dread Striker to line up death chains.** spoiler omitted **Works out better than I had thought. Medicine stuff is mostly because I like battle medic (though it might be better off saving it for a few levels later, when crit fails aren't options for the DC 20 check). Uses athletics and intimidation to make foes flat-footed, then swings with the hatchet mostly chosen for not being an iconic rogue weapon.
I like your hatchet man. Very spooky weapon choice! Can I ask why Assurance? It seems like it wouldn't see too much use, as it's only better than your rolling a 5 or 6.

Dunno about them, but as a person who rolls regularly low, and knowing a friend who rolls either 1s or 20s but at the wrong time, lemme tell you I'm gonna love that feat for my characters.

Almarane wrote:
O. N. wrote:
Under the rules, 10 L bulk items is 1 Bulk. If you have 10 str, you can carry 5 bulk without penalties. Even if you, for some reason, have medium armor and a sword and a light shield with 10 str, you still ought to be able to carry 10 wands/potions in a satchel. Why would you need to keep small stuff like that in a Bag of Holding?
Because you also have to carry your backup weapon. Or maybe you want to store your spellbook, your basic crafter's book, your crowbar, your rope, your healer's tool or your lantern somewhere safe and not have to bother about it until you need it. Or you just looted three heavy armors from your ennemies and don't want/can't to run through the dungeon with them on your back or run to the nearest town to sell them. Or you have 5000 silver pieces (5 bulks) because you looted the treasure of a small, poor dragon.

Well, I said what I said because that's what you said you used it for (wands, potions, bombs), when such small things you use all the time in combat should probably be in your pockets and not on your luggage. I'll give you the backup weapon, though if you have 10-12 str then you'll probably have a L bulk secondary weapon, I think.

The other things you mentioned now are loot and downtime and daily preparation stuff, which is what the bag of holding is actually for, I would say (though personally I'd never put my spellbook in a hole to another dimension, but that's me and my paranoid PC).

I feel like the spirit and the letter are having a pretty obvious fight here, but my inner Dresden Files fan is amused.

I would say already being unconscious stops you from benefiting from being knocked unconscious, though.

Under the rules, 10 L bulk items is 1 Bulk. If you have 10 str, you can carry 5 bulk without penalties. Even if you, for some reason, have medium armor and a sword and a light shield with 10 str, you still ought to be able to carry 10 wands/potions in a satchel. Why would you need to keep small stuff like that in a Bag of Holding?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

How I read it, is that, assuming a Hardness of, say, 10, ANY damage BELOW that would actually be... resisted by the shield, and not dent it. It's when it's a lot of damage at once that shields die. I suppose it would be like having really conditional DR.

I'm not sure what's actually intented here, if we are supposed to track the shield's "HP" or not, but it's also true that you can spend time repairing it every morning while the magic dudes do their prepaprations, so I wouldn't mind too much if that were the case.

We were playing Shattered Star (Little Sinner Star, as we called it), but had to sustend due to IRL. Eventually those that are left want to continue, but we'll have to wait to finish the other things we started in the meantime. There I played a overly curious magus with a morningstar. For some reason, in this game everyone who died was reincarnated as a halfling. This happened multiple times.

Right now my main game is Anima, playing as a warlock (surprise! it's basically a magus), where the party is stubbornly trying to not murder anybody and stop being hobos. This has been very confusing for our GM, because the usual plot bait doesn't work, and we accidentally forced one of the bad guy's plots to start early because we actually collaborated with the authorities, which wasn't expected. To correct this he's now dangling the opportunity to steal a Zeppelin in front of us. I'm afraid it's working.

We're also playing Dead Suns (as a mechanic), and testing a Mutants and Masterminds adventure for a kid's class our DM will teach in a month.

At this point I love Pathfinder because I get to use all my dice instead of only my d%. The absurd amount of resources is also a big reason.
Individually, other games may have more versatile or better designed 'sections', but even if Pathfinder is not the 'best' in something, at least it's 'good' in almost everything I look for in a game. It's just a solid choice for me.

I've been playing Anima Beyond Fantasy for over two years now, and I still haven't even looked at convocation and ki techniques because that s+#!'s too much. Determining damage still confuses me sometimes, not to mention needing a goodamn calculator.
In comparison, Pathfinder was a lot easier to learn. While the book is chaotic, you only need to hunt all the terminology down and play some scenarios, for everything else we quickly googled a rule or just winged it. It helps that it has a lot of online resources and people who asked the same thing. It could be worse, is what I gues I'm saying.

I struggle to actually play as anything but True Neutral. I _think_ I've managed to make my current caracter CN at least. I hope.

Android Spacefarer Operative 1/Akashic Mystic X

Spacefarer is mostly because I've traveled a lot and wish I was travelling more. The Operative is because I have to put my climbing skills, the strength, and the occasional accidental invisibility somewhere. Akashic Mystic is the closest I found to noncharismatic artist who likes to know things. Seems accurate enough.

"Local magus searches for lost arcanist mother, smashes runelords with Carlos the morningstar on the way."

"Country bumpkin wizard loses both a millenia of history and own body, runs away, accidentaly joins the Rebellion."

I've had other characters, but they've died too soon to do this.