Planpanther's page

683 posts. Alias of Pan.


1 to 50 of 683 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Yeah a caper flick would work pretty well. Make some legend up about an item of immense power, but after centuries of searching most folks believe its a myth. Enter the party of diverse characters all searching for their own reasons (fame, fortune, esoteric knowledge). Catch wind of the items location but its in the bottom of a treacherous dungeon. The party must use their diverse set of skills to survive the traps and crypt guardians to reach the item. Flick ends with the party taking the item back to civilization.

Cut scene reveals that taking the item from its cradle has unleashed a threat that will need to be faced with in a future installment. Something like that would be fun.

DerNils wrote:
Oh, and it would be awesome if it didn't START with some apocalyptic threat. Have them fight a Gnoll Warlord or something, and when he is defeated you can Point to "Lord Soth will get you for this".

I agree with this. The worst way to begin is with a universe hangs in the balance story. You should walk up to that and not begin with it.

With 5E, Wizbro has gone all in on Forgettable Realms, so I'd assume that is where the first film(s) will take place. Maybe they will try and make Drizzzit their wolverine of the franchise?

I dont envy them this endeavor. Half the people want the cartoon or crit role, the other half want obscure novel trilogies (Thomas wants marvel D&D). Most folks dont know anything about those things, so introducing folks to the D&D verse will be difficult, let alone capturing a fractured fan base of wants...

Werthead wrote:

Worth noting that the only things on the resume of the writer of CHERNOBYL were instalments of the HANGOVER and SCARY MOVIE franchises, and the director had pretty much only done music videos.

So you can have a poor track record and then do brilliantly when the right project comes along.

I'm more constantly befuddled why they're not adapting one of the multi-million selling novels in the universe, which would bring in a much bigger fanbase and get people more excited, rather than constantly risking things on the random writer's idea of what D&D should be. That hasn't worked out well so far.

Sure, maybe jumping the gun on the writer's direction, but you do have to look at their body of work and wonder if it has bearing on the intended theme of the film (comedy, not humor).

I think the big part of the draw problem with D&D is that, despite folks thinking the novels are wildly popular, they are not popular enough to be a significant draw. Look at Rice's Mars series, which sold millions, bombing at the box office.

Just speaking specifically about PF APs:

I have brought the following to completion;
Carrion Crown (GM)
Iron Gods (GM)

Collapsed APs;
Curse of the Crimson Throne Book 2 (Player)
Kingmaker book 3 (player)
Serpents Skull book 3 (player)
Jade Regent book 3 (player)

The collapsed campaigns did so for a myriad of reasons. None of them are the typical obstacles of real life issues, flaky player attendance, or group social contract issues. I'd say it was a combination of GM burnout and loss of interest that would be the biggest contributor.

GM burnout was usually due to the amount of prep time required (even with printed material). Also, PF at higher levels becomes a bit of a bear to adjudicate and run smoothly. In my group for instance, there has never ever been desire to take a campaign beyond AP completion. At that point, we are well ready to start a new game as high level PF is not a sweet spot for us.

The loss of interest factor was a combination of GM and/or players losing interest in continuing the campaign. Some of this was due to lack of RP opportunities, some of it on GM burnout, and some of it GM not liking how the AP was progressing as written.

You may have noticed that the only APs that we completed are the ones that I GM'd. My players, I believe, would consider the endings satisfying to the campaign experience. I attribute that success to my drive to bring a campaign to completion. I strive to keep the game interesting and re-write (sometimes extensively) less interesting parts. As GM, I adjust to keep things fresh. The other GMs in my group are not as willing or have the time to make this happen.

Honestly, it doesn't surprise me to see most of our APs dying on the vine around book 3. It's usually a lag point (IMO) in the writing. Often, it seems some theme (often Mythos) is crammed into the middle to fill out the adventure that just doesn't fit. For example, a haunted themed AP that has an entire chapter dedicated to fighting aliens for some contrived reason. Often, the miss fitting chapter is well written, it just doesn't align with the campaign in the beginning or the end. This can cause players and GMs to lose interest and eventually the idea of giving up seems welcomed.

I wont waste a ton of time talking about high level PF, but it can cause burnout for many groups. Also, the APs start to lose content space for fun and exciting story/RP elements and give way to long drawn out dungeon crawls (which are required to challenge high level groups and their ever expanding resources). Keeping the game fresh can be real challenging when your focus is required on mechanics.

Ending prematurely is a bummer and not really satisfying. Though, starting a new campaign is always exciting and quickly washes away any longing for a previous cut short adventure. This im sure will vary greatly from one group/player to the next.

I look forward to hearing more and discussing this topic further.

Captain Morgan wrote:
I mean ghouls already have mechanics for evolved forms: Ghoul, Ghast, and Dread Ghast. And Dread Ghasts are retain their abilities from life, so they can be amped up the same as any other PC/NPC.

I thought monsters aint built like PCs anymore?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This thread has me thinking about some of the problems I have with modern blockbuster cinema. Why I disliked the SW prequels and hated Indy and the crystal skull. I'm sure there are a number of reasons, but the most stark among them is lack of immersive story telling.

It's like the modern experience is a more social media one. Everybody has to be in on it. Times when a character talks to themselves "obi wan is going to kill me!" Who the F are they talking to? Why are audience in-jokes given any thought? Just tell a damn story and let me act like a fly on the wall instead of a member of the useless chuckle head gallery.

Films have also moved towards break neck plot speed and total lack of reasonable exposition. The result is tons of logic holes because of ridiculous action sequences that last significant running times. Modern cinema feels more like an amusement park ride than a captivating story experience.

So yeah thats why my answer to the OP is "this happens a lot."

Why are computers a problem?

1.7 implies this if something official. Are you part of the Paizo team OP?

I loved favored enemy. Makes sense you are good at hunting a particular foe. You also got multiple FE during a campaign. If you GM was bait and switch though i could see that being aggravating. Then, I came online and saw how a lot of folks assumed FE was "genocidal maniac" so I can see why some wanted to see it go.

The new mechanic is meh. I'd rather the ranger get cool stealth and tracking abilities. The ranger just is missing something in PF2.

A lot of the issues we faced in the playtest was chargen. Often the choice was A or B. There was a C too, but it clearly sucked. MC/archetype/prestige all fighting for the same resource was a major bummer. If archetypes, MC, and prestige are opened up more, PF2 might have a chance with us. Who knows what the CRB will have in store?

Cavalier is definitely a good archetype. I love the class, but it is very hardlined to a mount. That doesn't play well in all types of campaigns. Being able to make a mounted specialist of any class seems like an ideal use of the cavalier. However, I do like some of the banner abilities and would be sad if cav archetype was purely mounted combat mechanics.

Im trying to think of why gunslinger would be even a good archetype? It just allows a guy to be good with guns. That seems like it should just be a feat package and not even an archetype. What am I missing?

No firearms yet, but do folks really believe they will be any good with them without being a gunslinger or multiclassing into gunslinger?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Greylurker wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
Brew Bird wrote:

In the playtest, very rarely did a character feel awesome or heroic.
Yeah, that's... pretty subjective and not something to be stated in such an absolute manner really. At my table the characters felt awesome and heroic on a regular basis throughout the entire Playtest, so it's not a ubiquitous issue.

My Ranger felt lousy to play. He is pretty much the only experience I have with the characters because I really disliked the character creation and flat didn't want to make another character, so I just stuck with the one I had, and he never really got any better. He felt under powered, His Archery skills just never seemed to measure up and he had a poor excuse for a pet the entire playtest. It felt like if I wanted to be good at something I had to give up half my character concept. Either be an archer or a guy with a faithful wolf companion, but trying to maintain both at a decent level just seemed futile. Ultimately I just stopped wanting to play it.

I still think it's got a good system though. I like the combat and the general systems. The 10 above or below Crit Success/Fail is just fine.

I just can't stand the characters

I had a similar experience. It felt like you were really being shoehorned into a single concept, and working against that was punishing. I had a similar experience in other systems that eventually I stopped using.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

For me the three action system is great because you can perform and move+attack at level one, something you couldn't do in PF1 as a bard. That seems to be the idea behind it. I enjoy having to decide if keeping my performance up is the best use of my third action or should/must I do something else.

As a fighter, using an action to ready a shield, and being able to move+attack is pretty slick. I like that I have to decide if an extra attack is worth trying to down an enemy or should if I should stick to defense.

This always seemed to be the intent to me with the three action system. Though, i'm seeing a lot of folks assume that the extra action is intended to give you more DPR, and if you cant attack more than its less fun. Something I dont agree with.

Though, I do think the hand grip action requirement is unnecessary and not fun.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
kaisc006 wrote:
Ugh am I the only one who finds the excuse “tight math” for almost all of PF2’s problems annoying? This is the first roleplaying game I’ve seen where the math comes before the narrative / world building...

Normally, I prefer tight math, especially from a world building narrative perspective. However, with <10> crit system and +1/level it feels really wonky in PF2. Not saying its bad mechanically, it just feels weird. Unfortunately, a number of design decisions have been made from it that makes it hard for me to get on board with PF2. Im sure that will vary greatly player to player.

gobo extra speed is gone?

I dont care about Goblins being a core race. My players encounter human, elf, dorf, etc enemies all the time and they are all core races ancestries. My issue is gobos are miles better than halflings and certainly better than gnomes by a good margin. I'd like some more parity among the small folk.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think Champions being a class of any alignment with LG being paladin is a good move. Was that something the surveys helped decide?

Some sort of dividers for the box would be nice after punching all the pawns. I had a friend make me some with a 3D printer, but I know that not all folks have access to that.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The mechanics dont fit my groups preferences, so we are unlikely to adopt PF2. My issues have been covered by other posters. Not all that bad, but not particularly great either.

Can I ask folks their thoughts on how they would houserule something?

Like how would folks divorce save and damage increases from magic weapons and armor, and put them on character leveling where they belong?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Why exactly is Athletics essential? I mean, yeah, climbing and swimming are relevant...but really only until Flight is available, and that becomes available right around when not getting level becomes an issue.

I would say one of Athletics or Acrobatics is going to be essential because at some point you might be grappled and you'd like to add more to your escape attempt (via "Escape" or "Break Grapple") than "your dex or strength mod."

Athletics is probably the more attractive of the two since it has more proactive uses.

Based on Jason's commentary, they aren't going to have you be untrained in anything used for defense. I'd probably assume you won't be rolling acrobatics or athletics to escape grapples until we hear otherwise.

Doesn't this basically make the universal appeal of proficiencies moot? I thought being able to pit skills against defenses and use skills for defenses was a selling point of a universalized +level to proficiency system.

There has to be a better way to accomplish letting characters be bad at things then destroying the elegance and value of adopting a universal proficiency system.

Elegant right up to skill gating and feats. Basically brought all the combat and combat feat problems of PF1 to PF2 skill system for us.

Go4TheEyesBoo wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

I do find the argument that dedications limit customization odd because they are one of the places where valid customization has so obviously increased.

In PF1e, Fighter 6/Wizard 6 is an invalid character concept. Full stop. You are a bad character, you are not going to contribute as meaningfully as other characters.

In the playtest, a 12 level Fighter who takes as many Wizard feats as possible is a completely viable character, and probably gives up less than a fighter in PF1e loses from giving up six levels.

But I'm not talking about multiclassing spellcasters, which was a system flaw that frankly deserved fixing. I'm talking about dipping martials (or even general combat feats), which was viable throughout PF1 and was actually a way to make them interesting. Fighter 1/Rogue 1/Monk 1 was viable as early as level 3. Monk 1 (Scaled Fist), Paladin 2, Gunslinger X (Mysterious Stranger) was viable. Or say something interesting like Fighter 5/Rogue 1/Oracle (Warsighted/Clouded Vision Curse) w/ an interesting play on Blinding Sneak Attack/Racial Heritage(Tiefling). Ooo, Dual-Curse Oracle would work great in that build too...but I digress...

The point is that any of the above builds would not be options in PF2, since anything more than maybe 2 classes is fairly prohibitively not an option (or at least heavily penalized by the system). And even then you're punished for looking outside your class with the Dedication feat tax.

And those restrictions seem needless. If devs had an issue with class dipping to gain powerful low level abilities (say, monk AC bonus), then rebalance the power which should never be a level 1 power. Fix the overpowered ability, don't limit the choices. Hell, look at the way Duelist PrC AC bonus works...people don't dip that as much as they do Monk since the AC bonus is dependent on Duelist levels to get the maximum benefit.

Yeah and archetypes and prestige classes fight for the same resource as MC...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Level mattering as much as it does is why the villagers will ask the visiting heroes to go kill that dragon that has been bothering them, rather than just banding together. Both are valid stories but only one of them really fits into "how playing these games works."

Not exactly. Sure, a village/town/city could send an army to kill the dragon, however, in process lose 75%+ of the village population. Instead, they can offer a cash reward for some specialists to do the job and save the town as an alternative.

Just pointing out that a BA world makes sense in how these games work too. I know thats not what PF2 is going for.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

Those are fair points.

Personally I have a lot of faith in Paizo, and I also strongly feel that the success or failure of PF2e is going to be in the Adventure Paths, which have always been the flagship product. I don't think what PF2e looks like even matters that much as long as Paizo continues to be the only company regularly publishing quality prebuilt adventures.

But I also don't play PFS, so I can't speak to the trepidation there; I can understand worrying about that, though.

This is a topic of discussion a group of us has, if the AP's or adventures are good to excellent but the main system is less than that, will people buy the AP's or adventures? Is there or has there been any example of this from the past? And does it apply today?


Thats a good question. My group is leaning toward not adopting PF2. If that happens then we also wont be getting the APs anymore either.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Richard Crawford wrote:
Planpanther wrote:

To be fair, you are forgetting all the proficiency and skill feat gating. The GM should be constantly dropping "you cant do that level of insert untrained skill here" on the PCs unless they have the prof and feats.

As a GM, the last thing I want to be required to do is tell players, "you can never achieve that". Blanket denials rob players' ability to creatively overcome challenges.

Nobody said never. You do require prerequisites for certain tasks tho.

12 people marked this as a favorite.

It is quite difficult for me to choose which of your threads to answer. My experience is that PF1 allows specialization choice to get you to those, "oh man i'm awesome at this" moments, however, at the cost of many, "im helpless and this is frustrating" moments. PF2 has raised the floor on these moments, but also dropped the ceiling.

Ultimately, I decided to go with your frustrated thread because overall PF2 has been a disappointing experience for me. I feel skill prof and feat gating are too arbitrary, also adds the combat feat issues of PF1 to the PF2 skill system. I also have a very big problem with the customization bottleneck, and dont expect any changes to my personal satisfaction.

Overall, I feel too general in PF2, and lack the ability to make the custom characters I could in PF1. PF2 sandwiches the system mastery of PF1 to a point thats too mediocre for my taste. Though, I admit this is probably a better direction to go to attract the average gamer.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:

In PF2e, +level to all skills means that lack of exposure to an idea or concept doesn't stop you character from being absolutely great at it. Fighting a bunch of kobolds in caves makes you great at repairing everything, even cars and laser pistols. Just because your character shouldn't know what a "car" is, isn't an excuse to not know all about them, how to fix them, and the physics of their innermost workings. Apparently you randomly "pick up" this stuff about every possible field of knowledge. So your barbarian isn't just great at recognizing odd spell effects that he should have never heard of, but also a whiz at hyperspace navigation, spacecraft repair, and computer science. You can't have it "halfway" where one set of ridiculous, implausible things is okay to know but another set isn't.

To be fair, you are forgetting all the proficiency and skill feat gating. The GM should be constantly dropping "you cant do that level of insert untrained skill here" on the PCs unless they have the prof and feats.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Stickers on books that say "now a major motion picture" I dont see a sticker on cars at the lot that say "now a major horseless carriage."

2 people marked this as a favorite.


Right now background is too much like 5E. Basically a set and forget at level 1. It could be much more nuanced and detailed than that. Something that could start simple and become more complex throughout a characters development.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

While mechanically it works, it doesnt feel right. /not signed

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeap, im with rysky and voss. Also, I dont want everything to be compatible with everything else. /not signed

thenovalord wrote:

Got to do the playtest at UK games expo last weekend. I played the cleric. I didn't roll above 7 and achieved nothing, the rogue rolled 4 20s and seemed very efficient

May need to play it again to get a better idea!!

Id much prefer Initiative to be based on what you are about to do, then what you were doing, to be honest.

Can you comment on what type of things you were rolling to do?

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Someone asked why I might not like this system and I'll voice a few of the concerns now. (Keep in mind this isnt a final opinion, I fully intent to playtest the system and see how it works)

Consolidated lists are always a bummer for me. In those systems it seems like you cram too much into too few spaces. Its more difficult to differentiate one character from the next. Things like ranks and feats can help, but have their own potential pitfalls. Its possible im just twice bitten thrice shy after WOTC last couple editions on consolidated lists. Seems like things had to consolidated to stop the PF2 CRB from having a thousand extra feats...

Exploration mode and its limits. As noted in some comments you cant sneak and do anything else until you gain ranks and get feats. Thats very limiting compared to PF1. I feel like that can hamper both GM and player creativity. It takes something that was vague, but useful, and turned it into a confined game space. I know some will champion this new paradigm, particularly at the PFS table, but I feel like rules have been added to a formerly open space and thats a loss in my book.

Feats... First issue with feats is they create a gate between doing things you should arguably be able to do and cant. No longer are ranks pushing character development up alone, you need feats too. I know some will argue that you get ranks like before, and now feats to make you cool too! The playtest might convince me of this. The second problem is a history of feats being unequal. Im not convinced that all skill feats will be matched and worth taking. Im afraid traps will rear their ugly head again and burn some folks at the table.

These are just my reservations about PF2 skill system which is #2 on my worry list after multi-classing. I'll be eager to look over the playtest docs and discuss more here on the forums.


Hustle would be a nice skill for streetsmarts. I'm assuming breaking stuff down falls under athletics? This is the problem with consolidated skills. Though an expanded list would need tons of more feats which is the problem with skill feats...

CyberMephit wrote:
Well admittedly it's a made-up example to stretch the system, but for example in CoCT castle Korvosa is guarded by lvl 9 guards when the PCs are recommended to be lvl 16. So similar fights do happen. I have no issues with the legendary rogue sneaking past them unseen or picking them off from the shadows like Batman, but it would feel strange if she is able to easily beat them on their own terms.

That was in PF1 and we cant assume adventure writing will be the same for PF2. Im with you tho on high level characters laying to waste packs of low level foes not feeling right, but thats intended for PF2, unfortunately...

Some consolidation makes sense, but 17 seems like too few for me What happened to social skills?

From the legendary medic I get the feeling guides will quickly rule out skills worth ever taking to legendary...

Thats just a feeling tho. I think legendary medic may have been a poor choice since there seems to be extra attachments that cant be mentioned at this time...

Now im wondering how easy it could be to axe skill feats and just drop PF1 skill system into PF2?

The Raven Black wrote:
I wonder how this structure affects multiclassing so that it does not lag behind in power level while also not becoming the de facto Go To solution for minmaxer builds

Ugh, I really hope i'm wrong, but I got this feeling they are doing either 4E hybrids or VMC.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Has a very homogenized appearance, which could result in a not so fun game. Wont have an opinion until I can really kick the tires.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

RotRL has been done to death. /not signed

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Justin Franklin wrote:
FedoraFerret wrote:
Honestly, in much the same way that Paladins have become spell point casters rather than quarter casters, I wouldn't be surprised to see monks become spell point casters as well. It would incorporate the popular Qingong archetype into the basic chassis, fit with the idea of mystical wuxia fighters, and unify all of their various ki powers and abilities into a straightforward system.
^THIS^ Also if I am not mistaken, my understanding is this pool of points is the same for all characters so (Ki, Spell, Rogue Talents, eventually Grit) are all fulled from the same points. So your 9th level cleric will have the same amount of points as the Cleric 3/Monk 3/Rogue 3.

I dont think a cleric 3/monk 3/rogue 3 will even be possible in PF2. It would be a cleric 9 with feats from the rogue and monk pool.

It might be nice to have PB and rolling methods that ignore ABC.

I have the same response to this as I did to making the witch a wizard archetype, I dont think i'd like how it feels. It makes design sense, but ultimately, I think you wont have an actual monk at all, just a fighter with a little monk flavor.

I do see a potential PF2 lite coming out of all this to help tables that want to shed as much complexity as possible. That could be a good thing, but a thing I would have no use for. YMMV


1-2 = -1
3-4 = 0
5-6 = 1
7-8 = 2
9-10 = 3
11-12 =4

I wish they would scrap ability scores and just use mods (which mechanically they have). In this new version you could just roll 2D6 and end up with -1 up to +4. Then at levels 5, 10, 15, you could just add +1s to 4 mods. /claps dust off his hands

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:

If anything, character creation looks substantially more complicated.

Really? Its as easy as ABC.

IDK, im seeing more of a marriage between 3E and 4E in the design myself. I think keeping ability scores at all is unnecessary complexity, but I know why they are doing it. I cant knock the entire system until I rock it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ugh stat boosters...

If they are as limited as described I can probably live with it.

Midnight Anarch wrote:
gwynfrid wrote:
That's a big change. The economy is designed around 3 actions. Spells are a good example, if you can cast 2 of your highest level spells in round 1 of the fight, the outcome will be altered decisively.

Easy solution: the 4th act can only be used for simple actions.

eh, isnt that getting back into classifying actions territory again?


PossibleCabbage wrote:

Seems like having parallel naming conventions for this sort of thing is good.

Its a little confusing that you have spells that cost spell points to cast, and spells that require slots to cast. They are not the same resource, but do similar things, but dont work together.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I still don't really understand why "Hit Points" are fine and "Spell Points" are not.

I got nothing for this.

1 to 50 of 683 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>