Pappy's page

I am terribly disappointed to report that our playtest is over. While we enjoyed some of the features of the new edition, (scaling cantrips, and bulk - much to my surprise), the decision to abandon was unanimous.

We adopted the revised action econony from Unchained in our weekly Pathfinder game soon after that resource was released. So the action econony was not a new feature for us.

I look forward to seeing the finalized rules, but I must confess that we did not enjoy our experience with this new (unfinished) version. Perhaps that will change once feedback is considered and the new version finalized.

We are a group of mature gamers with decades of experience playing different role playing games. I am more than a little crestfallen that the playtest wasn't a fun experience. Maybe we just aren't up to the playtesting task? It felt like work and we puzzled over some of the design decisions.

Tonight I had a lengthy heart to heart with my group and we decided to continue with classic Pathfinder (with our house rules to correct issues as we see them). We considered switching to a different ruleset or genre, but will hold off on that for now.

I have this image of the legendary cat fall skill feat on a full plate fighter, dropping from the heavens into the middle of a battle, his halfling rogue ally saying, "Standby for Titanfall!"

Haha!

I'm not clear as to why skill ranks are still being used instead of moving completely to a skill feat system. I like the concept of skill feats adding depth to the broader 17 skill categories.

Side note, I know this is how you guys build monsters but outside of maybe the Multiattack and Resistance/Weakness, I wonder how GM's will be able to build/alter monsters. Say giving them Class levels or Templates.

Friday Blog maybe?

As a GM who loves to modify monsters with class levels, I am anxious to have more details on this topic. Will monster advancement and class levels still be an option?

I like that they are addressing niche abilities that didn't fit challenge rating. This is good news. Thanks Mark.

I have some players who will be ecstatic about upgrading specific armor.

Just caught up with posts on the thread. I'm saddened to hear that archetypes are rumoured to be generic rather than class specific. Archetypes are incredibly popular at our table as a way to further refine character class to fit player concept. Disappointing.

* I really think there should be a word that means this, but all I can think of is orthogonally or perpendicularly, neither of which is quite right.

How about 'rookian movement' to borrow from a chess piece? ;)

I really like the new art.

Pappy wrote:

Thanks. Sounds cool.

EDIT

I hope this is a net new feature, adding anothe

I think it's supposed to be a temporal/causal progression.

Like
- you were born a dwarf.
- you trained to be a blacksmith as soon as you could work the bellows
- then you were ordained (or w/e) as a Cleric of Torag

the first step being Ancestry, the second being Background, and the third being Class.

I like the concept. It formalizes something that I have been asking players to do as part of character background (for future roleplaying ideas and hooks that I can draw from).

Pappy wrote:

This may have been stated already, but are ancestry backgrounds essentially an ancestral archetype? I hope to still see something akin to archetypes for the classes as well as this ancestral background feature. Archetypes have been fun.

Backgrounds in the Playtest Rulebook aren't directly tied to your race. The ones listed here are suggestions.

Thanks. More options are always welcome!

This may have been stated already, but are ancestry backgrounds essentially an ancestral archetype? I hope to still see something akin to archetypes for the classes as well as this ancestral background feature. Archetypes have been fun.

Pappy wrote:

So last night at our weekly game I mentioned the new goblins as core race addition to PF2. Each player has decades of gaming experience. It is worth mentioning that all players loved the We Be Goblins modules as a zany departure from the norm. Even so, not a single player was happy with the change to core for goblins. Lots of head scratching all around.

An earlier comment on this thread suggested that the introduction of goblins as a core option was targeted primarily at new players without years of experience (baggage now?) with the artists of carnage and mayhem formerly known as goblins. I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment. Obviously it isn't universally true as lots of experienced players on this thread love the change, but why would new players have any cause to object to goblins as a common option as heroes? Perhaps designers see goblins as a key differentiator between the new version and other popular table top games and a key push of future marketing campaigns.

and my group who have all ben gaming since the early or mid 80's have all liked it, i do not see pro or anti goblin preference to be an issue with how long people have been gaming

I hear you. And this will always be the limitation of anecdotal "my gaming group" stories. Even players with similiar experience will see things differently.

Pathfinder goblins have a very distinct character. Acknowledging how this character may be an issue as a common player option is not archaic. It respects a mythos that was purposely created.

Those holding with these beliefs do not seem willing to let them go. Those who are arguing against them are getting frustrated that their arguments do not seem to be accepted.

Friend, your post appears to fall clearly on one side of the AT versus TO spectrum to which you refer. I don't think its on the side that you think it is.

It certainly would solve things if we could just let go of what we consider important, but whose "important" should have prominence? Are those arguing for a big change always right? Maybe. I'm not convinced.

So last night at our weekly game I mentioned the new goblins as core race addition to PF2. Each player has decades of gaming experience. It is worth mentioning that all players loved the We Be Goblins modules as a zany departure from the norm. Even so, not a single player was happy with the change to core for goblins. Lots of head scratching all around.

An earlier comment on this thread suggested that the introduction of goblins as a core option was targeted primarily at new players without years of experience (baggage now?) with the artists of carnage and mayhem formerly known as goblins. I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment. Obviously it isn't universally true as lots of experienced players on this thread love the change, but why would new players have any cause to object to goblins as a common option as heroes? Perhaps designers see goblins as a key differentiator between the new version and other popular table top games and a key push of future marketing campaigns.

A new core race option appears inconsistent with "slower shift" to me. But we will see I suppose.

I could be wrong, but "core" suggests to me that choosing a goblin hero is just as common as halfling, gnome, elf, half-elf, dwarf, human, and half-orc. I mean why not? They are all presented as viable options in the core rulebook.

One of these things is just not like the others in my view. Sorry goblin. I love you, but not as a common option.

We had a great time running the We Be Goblins modules. That said, I'd rather not see goblins as a core race. Especially when we will have to wait for supplements to introduce aasimar and tiefling.

Nox Aeterna wrote:

Well, personally i think i will have to house rule the core rule book anyway, so it doesnt annoy me as much as some others here.

But yeah, i do find weird that new GM mostly would take up a system where they need to cut stuff out from the get go, then again, maybe because they are new to PF they wont have as much as those of us here longer against goblins.

Almost everyone who is anti it, is anti it because they have conceptions of it from PF1. For new players and gms, they aren't going to have that issue at all. Unless someone else makes it an issue.

Most PF2 players are going to be from PF1. At least for the first few years.

Hard to go back to a grid after playing gridless. Love gridless.

There is no monster with a "fumble" reaction. There are a few PC (and thus NPC) abilities that trigger on an attack roll critical failure, but those aren't reactions to make the NPC who rolled the critical failure act like a goof; they are reactions where the PC with the reaction does something awesome like make a riposte.

Until some dastardly GM gives a monster some class levels. Who would do such a thing? Me, that's who.

The realities of book publishing are that we can't do more than give little bits of information here and there at this point. The book isn't done yet.

But we also couldn't sit on the fact that we'd be releasing it any longer. We have to give people a window to preorder it, and we need to give retailers the time to both order stock for themselves, and to ask us questions about the process and playtest rules set at GAMA in a few weeks. So we had to announce the playtest one way or another.

I appreciate your response and I understand completely that difficult decisions are an integral part of all businesses.

Perhaps I was too critical of a post that I read as trivializing those of us who are desperate for clarity and not looking for some kind of guessing contest. This may not have been a charitable interpretation on my part.

I'm not sure that having us run in circles speculating what your design may or may not include is a great use of the goodwill of your customers.

True. Not the same game. Not so different that we can't convert over our favourite components from the original I hope.

We adopted the revised action economy from unchained in our group. Overall we enjoyed the system but we ran into some issues:

Some classes rely heavily on swift actions. They are placed at a disadvantage if swift action or minor actions cost one of three actions to use. Our solution was to give everyone a free swift/minor in addition to the three actions.

Casters enjoy a power boost if they do the following: cast a spell (two actions), then use last action to begin casting another spell. Next round complete the spell that was begun the previous round (one action), then cast another spell that same round (two actions). Of course damage between rounds could interrupt, but very often our casters were able to cast three spells in two rounds.

Monks and archers with multiple attacks quickly ramped up their number of attacks with this system. This left the fighters and other non-multi attack classes behind. perhaps eliminating the 0/-5/-10 mechanic would help fix this imbalance.

Some more random boss thoughts (been burned way too often with bosses that took hours of careful design only to be petrified and killed immediately by resourceful players and lucky rolls):

Bosses are prepared. It should be very difficult to catch them completely wrong-footed.They don't fight fair. They aim to win the fight before it starts.

Bosses have the big picture. They should have an information network at their disposal to warn them of potential threats. They know more.

Bosses have resources. They have both time and treasure to stack the odds in their favour.

Bosses consider worst case scenarios. They have bug-out plans, emergency contingencies, insurance policies etc.

Bosses rarely fight to the death. You don't become the boss from being slow on the uptake. If they see the odds tilt against them, they don't go down with the ship just to make a point. They retreat and regroup.

Bosses remember. Had a run in with a boss or an important crony? The boss remembers. They get even. They punish with ruthlessness and thoroughness. Making a boss angry should be a very big deal.

Bosses have others take risks. That boss fight you were planning, the boss figures that having the party destroyed by one of his many minions is much better than getting his hands dirty.

Bosses are infuriating to players (and that's a good thing). The party is nothing to them. An annoyance to be crushed. They love taunting heroes with past victories. In order for this to happen, the boss has to have opportunities to communicate (or have players hear of the boss communications through an intermediary).

Bosses are memorable. The boss is not just a stronger version of a minion. They are unique. They are the equal to the hero and then some. The boss is over-the-top. More evil, more crafty, more cunning, more vicious than what the players expect. A boss fight entails all sorts of surprises. Players should have plenty of "oh boy, I sure wish we had known that before!" moments when dealing with a boss.

In general, we DMs often create bosses that really are better lieutenants than bosses. At least that is what I'm guilty of doing.

For the next month or so we are going to be trying out variations on the standard rules in an effort to create a house rules document for easy reference. This coming week we are going to try the Pathfinder Unchained revised action economy and background skills.

Players are bringing a level 4 character and have been asked to level up this same character to level 8 and level 16. Everybody is using Hero Lab so this is not as onerous a request as it may appear. We can then test the rules adjustments and variants at low, mid, and high levels.

We will see how much we like the changes, then try some different house rules in following weeks.

Once we have our house rules document set, we will be starting a brand new campaign that will likely last another year or two.

Here we go, the legendary Heroes of Sandpoint:

Hakarnab Shatterface: (male half-orc drunken master 16/ ninja 2) After getting some key buffs from other party members "Hak" became a real bruiser. Known for using a certain mask to petrify big enemies that only could possibly fail saving throws on a "1" (my dice hate me), and breaking the jaws of spellcasters. Hakarnab never let the fact that he had one eye noticeably larger than the other get in his way, though his liver is probably done for.

Jaylyn: (female halfling rogue 18 scout archetype) While it took some gear for her to really shine, once the jaunt boots entered the scene all sorts of dead enemies were the result. She became the "need more d6s over here" character at the end. Crippling strike strength damage sure adds up in a hurry!

Tess: (female elf ranger 18) Never any doubt that archery is powerful in the game with this one. Crazy damage almost from level one that never looked back. Then her wolf companion (aptly named "Samson") was a constant force to be reckoned with. Some astute favoured enemy choices further enhanced our artillery character. At mid levels she was going through so many arrows that she finally broke down and added the "endless ammunition" enhancement to her longbow.

Tavish: (male half-elf Cleric 1/Fighter 10/ Holy Vindicator 7) Famous for casually asking enemies if he could "show them his sword" signalling to the rest of the party that diplomacy was over. The most common statement from this player was, "potential critical, another potential critical, yup that is another critical." At the end, his AC was into the 50s and I had pretty much given up on hitting him.

Tirkari: (male half-elf Cleric of Abadar 4/ Wildblooded Empyreal Sorcerer 4/ Mystic Theurge 10) Filling the much needed role of mage, Tirkari was instrumental in saving the party on many occasions. With a sense motive check that was obscene, he was a better lie detector than that "Lie to Me" guy (especially after the accidental immolation of a 'reformed' bandit led to some legal complications). The choice of sorcerer became a bit of a sore point when an abundance of treasure in leather-bound bindings appeared. Tirkari was the master of the well placed "silence" spell - the bane of enemy casters.

Hardly an optimized party, but they worked very well together and discovered all sorts of synergistic strategies. Outside of combat, they each created unique personalities and took unexpected turns that kept the game interesting and fun. Great players all.

We meet weekly and game for about three hours. Though we missed very few weeks, it still took us about 22 months from start to finish. I'm super lucky to have a group of friends like this. We are all in our mid thirties and older with families, jobs, and the demands of life. Yet we carve out time each week to get together to create stories, destroy bad guys, and enjoy each other's company.

And to think, I could have chosen golf as a hobby! No thanks. I'll take d20s and imagination please.

After several hundred dice rolls, more than a few "uh-oh, we're done for"s, and almost two years of weekly gaming, our group has just finished Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition.

What a journey! Lots of things to like about this campaign. Things I would change? Sure there are some elements that could be altered to better fit our particular gaming group, but on the whole it has been a resounding success and lots of fun.

This was my first time running an adventure path from start to finish. Not sure if I will do it again, but now I understand why they are so popular.

The Heroes of Sandpoint ride into the sunset... victorious!

Congratulations to our group of seasoned gamers. With such excellent friends, oh the adventures we will yet create!

I find the revised action economy in Unchained an intriguing concept. Would like to see this more fully implemented.

Still really enjoy the game. It fits our group well and we have a great time playing it with houserules and without.

I have to say that I have been guilty of all of these at one point or another. But recognizing common shortfalls is the first step in getting better at the GM craft.

This leads to another problem behaviour, the incorrigible GM. Some GMs are just not comfortable recognizing that they may be doing something that is detracting from the fun. I'm not sure how such set-in-their-ways GMs can be helped if they are not willing to exercise some introspection. Maybe have them take a break for a while so that others can show how a few changes can make for a much better game. We all have met that person who takes kind-hearted and gentle suggestions as terrible affronts to them, their mother, their dog, and their ancestors.

This may be one of those instances where showing a better way by example could go a long way.

Like Humphrey has said, maybe they just don't understand how important it is to realize that the GM and the players are actually on the same team.

Sometimes it can be frustrating as a GM to see carefully constructed obstacles easily overcome by experienced and innovative players. When I find myself feeling this way, I remind myself to celebrate with the players when they use a cool ability to melt through a foe that should have been difficult (or so I thought). Every player needs the opportunity to showcase a strength at every session.

I do think that players can reduce the oppositional tendencies of GMs by avoiding comments that suggest hubris. In-character comments of bravado are fine, of course. I'm referring to those comments made out of character that betray an "I'm untouchable so bring it on!" attitude. No thanks. Makes me want to hard counter the player to cure some of that hubris. This is no good, as it can lead to the type of oppositional gaming that really isn't suited to this type of game.

I think what bothers me about players who display arrogance (again, not referring to an arrogant character, but the players themselves), is that it feels like oppositional play to me. A type of trash talking on the court that offends me as the person putting more time into the game every week than the players combined. I'm not suggesting that the OP suffers from this, but I get the impression that many on these boards feel that they need to make characters to get under the skin of the GM. How does this create better games?

Hey, writing a novel inspired by a game group is an exceptionally high complement to the group. But expecting them to follow a GM-created script to the letter takes away the player investment in the story. Players should feel that it is their story as much as anyone else's. When it begins to feel like a colour by numbers type experience, the whole group suffers.

Hard to imagine players getting excited about playing a character where everything they do has been foreordained by the GM.

Shared storytelling requires GMs to be comfortable with letting someone else take the story in a new direction.

Just my view from personal experience.

I think the worst thing about the OP's experience, is not the GM messing with the OP's character build. The big red flag in my view was that you were going to be playing through a novel that she is writing. That is a very bad sign. It means that she had likely decided the outcome of every obstacle and you were just doing a read through. No thanks.

The story that is created by the enitre group is so much better when character decisions matter.

I once played in a game where the GM had already decided what the entire story would be and then inserted overpowered GMPCs to keep us completely on the rails, always. I feel bad for the guy, as you could tell that he had put lots of effort into the world he had created. However, when we figured out that it really didn't matter what we chose to do, all of us checked out. We weren't trying to sabotage his game, we just were coming up with solutions that he had not considered. It quickly fizzled out. Great player, but not really a GM (at least not yet).

I appreciate all of the GMs who were willing to run a game for us over the years. However, the worst one ever was a person who had trouble getting along with the friends who had introduced him to our group. Not only was his style that of letting us spectate on his precious story in which we had no influence, but the constant bickering and arguing at the table from across the GM screen was just too much to handle. I'm an older gamer and I just can't stomach such juvenile behavior. I didn't mind the guy as a player, but he was too short-tempered to sit in the GM chair. When he failed to show up without any advance notice to our weekly game because he just wasn't in the mood, he was removed from the group.

I strongly advocate for all players to try to run a game at least once. Being a GM isn't easy, and getting that prospective of the game is important. However, not everyone can step into the role and run a successful game on their first attempt.

Like all talents, with enough practice, I think that even bad GMs can get better if they are willing to listen to feedback from the table. There are excellent books on being a better GM that are worth every GM's time regardless of their experience behind the screen. I have been running games for a long time as a GM, and I still feel that I have a ton of improving to do!

This sounds absolutely horrible. Did you insult this guy's mother or dog or some such for him to target you, or does he threaten other PCs too?

I think that you should find a new group ASAP. It is painful to read accounts like this. The hobby can be so much fun, and help create lasting friendships. Sad to hear of someone having such a bad experience.

do the gauntlets in a suit of armor count as weapons? the problem is that leather gauntlets would be more like cestus. and gauntlets from padded armor would be oven mitts.

The gauntlets that come with metal armour can certainly be used as weapons. I would not think that gauntlets would be considered weapons if they are leather. Those are just gloves really.

Reading this thread has made me grateful to the fair and balanced GMs who introduced me to the hobby many years ago.

The capriciousness evident in some of the rulings listed is downright scary.

Will o wisp has been a problem in more than a few combats. CR 6, immune to (most) magic, high AC, flying, naturally invisible, fast healing if around dying creature. Surprisingly nasty.

All above suggestions are worthy. I typically run with 5 to 6 players. I've found that keeping character wealth slightly behind where the wealth by level table says it should be also helps.

Of course, if players are breezing through all encounters, you may want to have a look at the "DM's guide to creating challenging encounters" that was put up on the forums by a kind soul (my apologies for forgetting your name mate). I agree with the author's approach to encounter design and it does scale well with larger groups. Have a look sometime.

A couple of our houserules off the top of my head:

The minimum number of skill points of any class is 4 rather than 2.

Fighters can apply weapon focus and specialization feats to the weapon training groups they select rather than just individual weapons.

This is a fun thread. Really like reading what others are doing in their games with almost no flaming to speak of.

As a kind of corollary to this, all else being equal, the setting which allows everyone to play what they want is better than the nonflexible setting.

I have to respectfully disagree. Our most memorable games have been played under some restrictive settings. All divine classes, all monstrous races, all multiclass, or something else entirely. Maybe it was the challenge we enjoyed? Maybe we liked it because it would change from one setting to the next? At any rate, our group would discuss what restrictions we would play for our next campaign if any, then go with it. Sometimes I wouldn't like how a certain restriction worked out. We would discuss afterwards. Talk about what we liked and didn't, then brainstorm the next concept.

Having wide open, choose anything in print, is fine, but restrictions need not reduce the fun that we have as a group.

Not that I coup de grace PCs... I can't remember ever doing it. I just don't accept the argument that GMs shouldn't do it or that it makes no sense tactically.

It actually makes a hell of of a lot of sense tactically.

I have used coup de grace on PCs. There were no tears around the table, and no fits of rage. I always set up the CdG with some dramatic descriptions so that the rest of the group has a chance to intervene if possible. This situation usually involves a lot of panic and lots of laughs afterwards. If the PC dies, well *stuff happens.

Many of the comments on this thread remind me of a great blues song lyric, "I've got nothing to lose, so I just can't win." Threat of failure is what makes success in the game so satisfying.

Multiclass? You bet. Just for a fun experiment we ran a party recently where ALL players had to multiclass. I had all the NPCs multiclassed as well. Definitely not optimal builds, but still had a good time with some interesting combinations.