Making an example that adheres to the normal rules of leveling is easy. I'm not upset. I think it's funny to look at the "normal" outcome.
Your idea is fine, too. 10 hours is not a one shot in my book either, but I'm old.
Search Posts
Let's say you play super fast with fast progression. A session takes 3 hours. To make L2 in 2 sessions: 6 hours To make L3 in 3 sessions: 9 hours To make L4 in 3 sessions: 9 hours Total time not counting rest: 24 hours I can already imagine the discord post for this one: Hey, looking for 4 speed players for quick oneshot. Game will take 24-32 hours depending on whether we vote to sleep or not. Astronaut grade mandiapers recommended to limit break time. Game starts in 30 minutes! Have a good mic, no drama pls.
It attempts to counteract any spell from outside the globe whose area or TARGETS enter into it... This looks clearly written to me. The target of a Heroism spell is an orc. If the orc enters the globe, they risk having Heroism dispelled.
Not a big deal. I wouldn't fight the player on this. I would allow it. What's 55 v. 60?
How is an adventure that covers levels 1-4 a oneshot?
I assumed it was this guy from the first mention of psionics: Asking $30,000 for the project. The most disconnected from reality (deleted) Kickstarter I've seen. Confirmed with the last comments. There's no point engaging further. Make peace and move on.
Personally I think that however the math works out, it is going to end up that the carriage travels at the speed of plot. Ha! This^
I get your stance. The rules say particular things about everything classed as overland travel. If I were ruling on this, I would differentiate between people (who the system assumes are traveling 8 hours a day before encountering fatigue) and propelled vehicles that travel nonstop. Sailing ships, airships, magic carriages that all travel nonstop should go their real speed, not their "speed translated into overland travel" speeds.
I ran the math based on a speed of 60 which is 30' per second. That gives it a speed of 20.5 mph. So, it reaches its max 250 mile journey in around 12 hours. Right, but that's rules for people. The Mystic Carriage is not people, and it says it does not stop unless the road is blocked. That's why it has the 1 week duration, so the GM can introduce an adventure along the journey without disrupting the ritual. If it's unimpeded, it goes nonstop at speed to reach the 250 mile point in 12.19 hours. That's no different from a sailing ship traveling 24 hours a day without fatiguing its passengers.
I ran the math based on a speed of 60 which is 30' per second. That gives it a speed of 20.5 mph. So, it reaches its max 250 mile journey in around 12 hours.
It's hard to imagine wanting to use Migration if you're high enough to cast Rank 8 spells. 20mph for 8 hours? So it gets your party 160 miles in a day. Rank 3 ritual Mystic Carriage goes 20.5mph and up to 250 miles (500 on a crit success) for a ritual cost of 50gp, and you don't have to "hoof" it (heheheh). The carriage let's you relax inside in comfort.
You would not believe the number of times that 25% miss chance makes a significant difference to an encounter. I've run the math on this, and it comes out to roughly a quarter of the time! ;) To pile onto the other comments. Maps are never big enough to do this strategy. Never. Bows have a really long range increment. And when you go beyond the first range increment, nothing stops you from continuing to shoot. So for a map to even take you out of first range increment, it would have to be outdoors and span 200' of unbroken space. To take you out of second increment (still accurate)? 300'. Maybe you'll play on a map like that once? You don't even need to kite. Just stand back a little and shoot. The idea sounds cool, but it's not going to do anything for you. The folks who get mileage out of kiting are people in melee who want to move up, get an attack in, and move back. That happens over ranges that maps sometimes allow for. Not dungeons often, but outdoors sure. Also, beware of being more than 30' away from your party. When something happens to you, no one will be able to help (cast a heal, etc.). You won't be able to help them either. Your turns will likely consist of being a turret spending all actions to attack. I hope you like that play style. Otherwise, it's going to get boring quickly.
As someone with severe medical trauma now unable to see, hear, or discuss certain things, I cannot grasp the level of entitlement someone would have to ask the world, a publisher in this case, not to show those things or go out of their way to provide an alternative version of the product. Paizo staff is being extremely nice about this, but the only realistic option is for consumers to take responsibility for themselves and apply the filters they need to live their life. I tell people I game with about the thing I can't discuss up front. It's not easy, but I suck it up, because it's my problem, not anyone else's. Folks are nice enough to avoid it afterwards. That's great and easy for them. It's not like they have to publish five different versions of a product to avoid someone's triggers. That's not how life works.
Hi, from Japan.
Play samurai and ninja to your heart's content. Nobody is gatekeeping.
There's no chance of succeeding by relying on others to do everything for you. It costs more to outsource that than you can possibly make back from an adventure. No one is going to do that work for an unknown creator on commission either. If you can't invest in your own professional skills to lead the effort, no one will invest in your idea. To be honest with you, your idea has no value. That's not a commentary on whether it's good or bad. The value comes from editing, layout, art, maps, marketing, and leadership. If you're not providing those, you're not generating value. Ideas are like b*~!%~%$s. Everyone has one, and no one thinks theirs stinks. Now get out there and learn some valuable skills.
Thank you for sharing your idea. I'm reminded of advice I once received. A business with a brilliant idea that can't execute will always be beaten by a business with an adequate idea it can execute. Writing, art, editing, layout, cartography, and marketing are all professions. Good Kickstarters are invested in, because people believe you have pro skills and have access to all the others needed to publish successfully. Ideas alone are rarely enough to get funded. First, develop your skills and work on your content. Learn as many of these professions as you can. Then, learn how to put them together to be a publisher.
Wow, this is onto something. The substitution it is talking about is the die roll, not the stat. That means an investigator could wield a non-finesse/agile weapon in addition to a suitable weapon or unarmed attack, roll a 1, then attack with their battle axe instead to get another chance to roll better. In fact, they could really hack this by starting with +3 strength. Wield a reach d10 or a d12 while starting with a finesse unarmed attack. Roll well on DaS, use your unarmed attack. Otherwise reroll with your d12. Bastard swords would allow a lot of flexibility with this style. I can't believe I didn't think of this before.
This was a good thread necro'ed. After reviewing the logic cases, each with scenarios to disprove them as the correct action phrasing "theory of everything," I think the only thing that's clear is that the writers weren't consistent in their wording. I'll have to rethink what to allow based on what's too good or too bad to be true. That's not an issue. It's interesting to see these flaws uncovered though. Thanks for the thoughtful discussion.
This is a good way to think about it. Even on a Success, it dazzles for 2 rounds. That's one of the best low level Success results. Critical Success The target is unaffected.
Range 120 feet; Area 10-foot burst
A wave of magical light washes over the area. You choose the appearance of the light, such as colorful, heatless flames or sparkling motes. A creature affected by revealing light is dazzled. If the creature was invisible, it becomes concealed instead. If the creature was already concealed for any other reason, it is no longer concealed. This is a school spell I was forced to memorize on my wizard. It turned out to be useful plenty, but depending on your interpretation, we were fudging who it affected. Against invis or concealed creatures (and concealed is more common than you'd think) it not only makes them easier to hit, it turns the tables with dazzled, making your team harder to hit instead. Here's the problem. Invis/concealed creatures are bold. They're right up in your party, because their defense means they can handle it. If it affects everyone in the 10' burst, sure it makes the enemy a degree of protection worse, but it's going to affect your teammates too, and it makes them a degree of accuracy worse and completely balances its effect out. You might as well not even cast it. How are folks ruling this? Are you just letting it affect invis/concealed creatures, or are you strictly forcing everyone in the 10' burst to save?
Great post, James. I love hearing this level of engagement from your team and getting the scoop on why things developed the way they did. I'm playing through Kingmaker P2 for the first time currently, so it's especially interesting to me to learn this background detail. From my perspective, the complaints I've heard about these "warts" are undeserved. I love this kind of play, so I think the systems are great especially with V&K's additions. For some folks, simple play is better, so I get the negativity. Covid was underplayed wild. I ended up moving to another country during it. Unbelievable change for being stuck in the house.
I haven't, but if you had Dubious Knowledge, you would probably guarantee no crit fails. So if you're good at detecting BS info, or your GM likes being funny, you would learn something useful every time.
It's the company who's put out the best version of the game to date and continues to pump out great content. They have my support, and I'm happy to send them money when I make purchases. Their rules are free on AoN, and they continue to invest in Foundry support. Wins all around for me. What's to gripe about?
Never read anything about it. Assumed it was just a dogslicer with the cutouts packed with explosives that blow up when you hit someone with it.
Hard as iron,
As I destroy,
Don't fall into the stereotype of being a joke. Get hard!
...the bleed returns immediately. ...bleed damage will return... The argument for bleed returning immediately is only supported by your insertion of the word "immediately" or "next round" into the rule. It's not in the poison description, but inexplicably you keep adding it. I get that you think this line must mean something more, so here's a way to think about why it might be in the description other than author error or poor writing:
Agree with NorrKnekten, the poison obeys the general rule of applying effects on stage interval. If this poison were intended to break with that, it would state an alternative time interval to re-apply bleed. It does not. You keep adding it yourself. I don't think this thread will progress past this difference in interpretation unless both sides understand the grammar tenses being used and what events truly fulfill them.
Trip, even when logic shows the RAW reading of the rule, you're not accepting it, because you believe the re-statement of the normal rules means something different must be happening. That's the definition of an RAI argument. You insist that it must mean something more, even when the math shows that it's completely not intended to do that much damage.
This. Over and over.
You are 100% correct in what you have just said except for the portion in bold. However, you are hung up on a logic flaw in your conclusion that the poison must return immediately. Nowhere in the poison does it say when it must return. It does not in fact say as soon as you remove the bleed, it comes back. You incorrectly believe that it must be the next round or immediately. The poison text says, "the persistent bleed damage will return if the poison's duration is still ongoing." Here's your logic error: The return statement holds true if the bleed damage returns at the next stage. It does not become false if the bleed does not return in 1 round.
For those of you arguing that this poison makes you bleed every round automatically: This poison is L10. It is virulent.
In the typical case when someone is afflicted by this poison, they will automatically endure two Stage 1 effects: 3d6 bleed (and Drained 1 making it harder to make the poison's fort save)
You're arguing that this poison does 205 points of damage and cannot be mitigated. For 200gp (pocket change at L10), this would be the greatest damaging effect in the game gold piece for gold piece. No way. L11 Blightburn Resin is 225gp
It is not Virulent, so let's compare properly to the above example by requiring 1 successful save:
Even if you double that, it's only 20% as much damage as the lower level poison. Don't get hung up on phrasing even when it's rules text. BotMG doesn't do anything differently from any other poison, despite that weird sentence. It doesn't say when to re-apply Bleed, so it clearly happens like any other poison - at stage time. The math supports that for its level.
NortKnekten is correct according to how Pathfinder writes its rules. The poison says the bleed will return. True. Nothing says when the bleed will return, so it defaults to normal poison behavior. When the next stage triggers, if the poison is not resisted and cleared, bleed is applied. Thus, the addition of the sentence with bleed returning is meaningless and unnecessary. If the sentence said the bleed returns in one round, that would be a different story, but it does not. This is already a virulent poison. No need to make it any worse.
Remember, the remaster was to disconnect Pathfinder from DND. Not republishing a spell doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't viable. It means the name had to go. That's certainly the case for these spells. Maybe Paizo didn't have time to rewrite them yet. You're welcome to use them in your games though. Some groups use the remastered version where one exists, but if a spell doesn't have that, then do what you like. Meanwhile, check out the remastered version.
There are more ways to become immune to death effects than being undead. Can the spell target an undead? No. Can it target someone protected by a death ward? Yes.
The problem is the same as Stride. "I Ready for a specific stage of resolving an action, where the enemy has spent their action but not had an effect yet" has never been a valid Ready Trigger. Nothing different with Leap instead of Stride. This is the relevant RAW. Triggers have to specify something a character can see and experience, not just a mechanical stage of resolving game actions. Opponents are constantly moving and targeting, looking to find an opening to land an attack. You cannot trigger on things like ending movement or being targeted unless the feat or ability granting the reaction specifies it. Trying to argue around that is rules lawyering and meta-cheese. Can you do some strategic things similar to this with Ready? Sure, if it's something legitimately observable by the character: - "I run (stride) as soon as a foe gets within 10' of me." - Yes
Spell called Paralyze causes paralysis. I wouldn't roll a save if the target is immune to paralysis. I would tell the caster they're completely unaffected so it's clear. Trying to argue the target would be stunned by this spell on a successful save is classic rules lawyering.
Well, you're solving the problem, but at level 4 you're also adding a big bonus to the companion. I think making it level 2 without the companion rage would be fine. Most groups use free archetype now, so it synergizes well. You could get beastmaster and this at the same time and make your build come online. Consider a line of feats to share rage and enhancements at a higher level. I would drop it from this feat.
That hasn't been my experience. After each casting of a summon, I give it a score of 1-5 for effectiveness and track the trend on a spreadsheet. My scores average 4.2 (with 5 being the most effective). I might be a high performer, but for me summons are not a wasted top rank slot. If you pick a good creature for the situation, I haven't found it hard to achieve an effective result compared to on level P2 spells.
I'm playing my second wizard who uses summons, and I'm happy with the outcomes. There are levels where attacks and athletics are good. There are cool spells you can leverage from your summons. There are nice 2A abilities you can get off on round 1. Folks complain about the 3A cost to do a summon, but a better way to think about it is 2A for casting it and 1A to command it do 2 actions of its own right away. That's pretty fair. They also waste enemy actions with 100%+ effectiveness. Sure, they can get taken out easily, but they can also get lucky and last a whole fight, especially with clever play. Hits on a summon don't require healing and waste the enemy's 0 MAP attack. If you like details and research, it's easy to build a list of summons and what they can do for you. Then it's not hard to pick one that's ideal for a situation. I like this sort of thing, and it's one of the reasons I like wizard. I have reasonable expectations that a summon is not an I-win button and won't outshine anyone. I also view that as a challenge to try to apply them as smartly as possible to get a lot out of them. Summons are sweet in that context.
Sounds like cheese when you apply the same logic to different scenarios. You have an ability that imposes a -2 circumstance penalty to attacks against you for a round. An enemy attacks you with an ability that gives them a +1 circumstance bonus to hit. You think their +1 should be treated as the same thing as your -2 and nullify it? No, it makes sense to treat penalties and bonuses as different things.
Here's 4 reasons why monster entries in the Bestiaries have more rules text than they do flavor text... Thank you for adding that background to the conversation. It's always excellent to hear directly from your team on the reasoning behind publications.
As a GM, I absolutely never write an ending to an encounter that nullifies player agency. Being able to change the world and affect the story is the one thing tabletop beats computer games at. Some degree of nudging can be expected so that the party is able to engage with content, but the less of it, the more of what's special about tabletop can be enjoyed. When it goes beyond that, it's railroading.
A sustain focus spell with a useful 1A effect is wonderful. It raises the bar for wizard focus spells and is long overdue. If your turn is after a martial, they can end their turn next to a foe more safely. You can move them back forcing the foe to waste an action reengaging. If it's a reach fighter, that opens up a reactive strike synergy. If it's a shield user, they can raise their shield for 3rd action, and you can scoot them away. If no foes have a turn between you, you can move your martial into reach of a foe to let them start their turn attacking. No move action needed. If someone is injured, you could move them back, possibly to a healer. Then you could also move someone into place to block the fire foe from reaching them. It could constantly be a useful option.
I hear a lot of "it's not supposed to do that," "it's not supposed to increase damage," "that's what picks are supposed to do." None of that is written anywhere. To me you come off as an adversarial GM. It boils down to this: Two enemies are side by side, which let's pause right here, is not common... and your axe player can get into reach of both of them, which pause again, puts them in risk of high damage... and in this situation where they've invested in a feat and invested in the CRIT spec of axe, and they happen to score a crit, you disable the CRIT spec effect of axe, because... pick, because target, because you personally think your player having a feel great moment with their axe isn't how the game should be played? The game isn't that fragile. You don't need to protect its integrity by dying on this hill. Let your player have their moment and celebrate it. I would feel robbed if I were your player, and I'd probably find another game if the GM were rules lawyering against me with "target" wording.
Hi, GM. You are wrong in several ways. First, axe crit damage is only the weapon die. It's a small bonus for scoring a crit. It's not close to pick crits. Second, you are singling out axe to shut down its crit effect. I can't guess why, but think about the non-swipe scenario.
Now, you're saying that because of wordage in Swipe that somehow axe crits stop working against targets beside each other. It doesn't make sense. You should support your player trying to make this very situational and niche weapon attack work. Give them the damage and be happy for them if they are ever in a scenario to use the feat and manage to score a crit. Avoid being adversarial.
What's Oracle systems for the GM?
The idea that I've seen even one episode of Mandalorian is presumptive! Methinks the lady doth protest too much. JJ and the Mandalorian
I already heard from JJ. It's a runelord collaboration with the Mandalorian. Baby Yodas are the new ancestry.
Started playing in the 1980s and D&D with the red box, then went through all editions while also playing other games like Call of Cthulhu... Ditto. We were up to 3.5 heeavily modified in a Mystara campaign when one of our teen players mentioned one day that he was playing Pathfinder, and it was awesome. Ok. So I checked it out and was really impressed. We converted and switched for the rest of the campaign. Everyone was happy. 4.0 came out. I read it. I read it twice. Nope. If I want to play WoW, I wouldn't do it on tabletop. I was so impressed with Paizo and P1, that I committed to P2 for the playtest and beyond. It is the most elegant version of D20 I have ever seen, yet if you had shown it to me in the early 80s, I would have recognized it as the same game I loved. It's such a win to have it. I can see myself playing it for a long time.
And I already really dislike surface-only spells in this game full of flying enemies. Then people start saying ground isn't a surface... LOL
The ground or floor is fine. They are incontrovertibly a surface and usually flat. A vine could come out of them just as easily as a wall, and if history has proved anything, you can crush people against the ground just fine. It's a primal spell. I wouldn't even care if the ground weren't flat. There's no point trying to limit this spell except to be antagonistic. |