Rameth's page

203 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.

1 to 50 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm glad there is a black and white one as the color one is just ugly. I really liked the playtest character sheets. Oh well.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What archetypes are in the Core book other than the multiclass archetypes?

EDIT: Nvm I found the answer, should have used the search function earlier.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If something is viable then that means it is capable of working within the system. I can be almost any class and TWF and not really be worse off. Will I be optimal? No. But will I be able to kill the monsters? Yes.

The Alchemist, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Rogue, Sorcerer, and Wizard don't even have access to anything other than d8 Weapons (with a few exceptions like Cleric Diety Weapon). Now is it somehow less viable for a Wizard to use two a Club and a Dagger for his backup melee weapon instead of a Staff? Or is a Druid somehow worse for using a Scimitar and a Sickle instead of just a Scimitar? No they are not.

Now the only other classes are Barbarian, Monk, Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger. The Fighter and Ranger support TWF in their class builds and the Monk can TWF with 2 Monk weapons and is still able to use most of their Monk abilities (though I would say Weapon Monks still need a little more love).

So the Barbarian and Paladin are the only classes that gain access to those hefty D10 and D12 weapons but don't get anything for TWF. So yes MAYBE it's not in their best interest to TWF but they can still get a d8 and a D6 and mix and match weapon traits for some nifty effects.

That means 2 classes are actually "worse" for TWF. So no TWF isn't as bad as the people keep making it out to be.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have a reason. Maybe I don't want to. I can do damage just fine with 2 weapons or using a 2-hander. Not everyone cares about doing max damage all the time. As long as it isn't bad it's fine. TWF is not bad by any means.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The thing is in Pathfinder/D&D there are levels of play. Most typical fantasy tropes, such as LOTR, Harry Potter or even Game of Thrones are in the 1 through 7 range. There are only a few things in those works of fiction that cannot be created by lvl 7 or so. So after that you have to start getting into beyond that fantasy. Like Eragon (toward the end anyway), Beowulf, or most superhero characters. After Lvl 13+ the characters are essentially demigods. The stories of Hercules, Achilles or Superman are those types of stories. One just simply can't expect someone who is level 15 to behave the same as someone who is lvl 4.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

I promise you I can remember that level twenty people in PF2 are not normal and that they can do everything. It’s not that hard.

I’m not...

I wasn't saying you were arguing I was saying people in general.

For the record why is that you don't like it? If you can agree that higher level characters aren't normal then why is it a problem that they have all around good skills?

9 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the problem a lot of people have is that they don't remember that by the time your level actually makes you good enough to do anything you aren't a normal person anymore.

Like in Pathfinder 2E what lvl are "normal" people? I would think they would be lvl 3 or 4 tops. Those would be the most incredible people you ever met in real life. You know those people. The ones who have two degrees, know 5 languages, work out 2 hours a day, have traveled the world, never get sick and yada yada.

Now even THESE people would only have a +3 or +4 in an untrained skill with huge natural ability modifiers (+3 or +4).

By the time a character is lvl 10 they aren't by any means normal. They are practically super human. They are Captain America or Black Widow. They are Hawkeye or Ironman.

People seem to try and equate regular people into a fantasy game with fantasy characters and it just doesn't work that way.

Like I've heard people mention the desert witch. She's lvl 10 and she's only lived in the desert. She has 10 strength. So how does she have +6 to Athletics, so her Swim is +6. How can that be? She's never even seen a large enough body if water to swim in. How can she know how to swim?

My argument is how did she get to lvl 10 and only live in a desert? What has she experienced, overcome, and learned that made her practically superhuman? Cause I guarantee that just practicing her spells in the desert isn't going to get her to level 10 by any means. It just doesn't make sense. She would just die an old lady of MAYBE level 2 or 3. Which would still make her very strong to regular people but not near the sheer awesomeness that is lvl 10.

People trying to argue that someone who could literally one arm climb mountain, be able fall 50 feet taking no damage, or survive on a different plane of existence but can't swim is crazy to me.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My favorite thing from this whole post is people saying 85 F, around 30 C, is too hot. That is the most hilarious thing I've ever heard. 85 F is like perfect weather. When it's regularly 115F, 46 C, where I live you realize people don't know real heat.

Carry on lol.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:
Wandering is an exploration tactic, not an activity.

Well now you're connecting one thing, exploration and encounter modes (and the actions used in encounter) but not going the other way around. If Exploration Mode HAS to use the same game rules as Encounter Mode (which I would argue it doesn't but you seem to think it does) then that means everything in Exploration Mode HAS to have a corresponding action compared to Encounter Mode.

So that means the Tactics take 1 or more actions. While Activities are simply things that take take more then 1 action.

So it would make sense that wandering, which is about 1 1/2 stride actions would be an activity (as it's more then one action).

Now, it says you can order the Animal to do an Activity that it knows. As I just explained through reasoning a tactic has to be an activity, which the animal has to know cause it can wander itself. So you can order it to do so.

Now if you try and say "Well no they don't have to be the same cause they are listed differently" I would say well yes exactly. Cause they are different they don't work the same. So none of the Encounter Rules apply to Exploration because they are different modes.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's crazy how people can be different cause I feel like this book should have about 50% more then it has now. More Ancestry, Backgrounds, Class and Skill Feats. Then it would be good.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
swordchucks wrote:

I fully get the logic behind the +4. I largely agree with the +4. What seems to be skewed is the base DC for the checks. I can attest that the five people playing this game under me have been quite vocal about how much they dislike skill checks they are supposed to fail a lot. As game design, it just doesn't feel good.

This is also a really weird one to be using leveled checks for. Why is this check a level 9 check? This feels like exactly the sort of thing that should have a "static" DC. If the group were doing this in the same area at level 10, would it make sense for the DC to be higher?

That is also a very good point. Like it they were level 5 would the check be 24? 20+4 for group rolling? I don't really care about static DCs as much as the next guy but this was one of the exact things they said they weren't going to do. Like one of the hardest survival checks listed is level 4. So it makes sense that it could maybe be a level 5 or 6 which means the max it could be is 24 or 25.

As I've mentioned before in another thread it seems every check in the book is a leveled check. I think someone screwed up lol.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay when I first looked at the new DC table I was like okay whatever as they were relatively the same. But then I started looking at the new skill checks for Mirrored Moon and I was like dude c'mon.

Every Hex has a DC 30 Perception or DC 27 Survival base?? Why??

Only 3 classes have master perception at that level and none of them (Fighter, Ranger, and Rogue) have any reason to have more then +2 MAYBE +3 Wis. So even with a +2 Item bonus that means they would generally have a +15 or so Perception. That's only a 25% chance to find anything after 2 DAYS of searching?? Now Granted the Survival check is a little more doable but 27? Why are these checks so high?

There's not a single important check that's lower than 25. That's just not okay.

I mean yeah someone could roll a 20 but these just seem way to high for no reason. Was this intended?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What about making Proficiency AND Magic items increase damage but they don't stack? It would take some tweaking but if you make +1 Prof and a +1 Weapon give +1 to hit and +1d but not stack then you don't have this issue of a level 20 Fighter doing a d8 with a non magic sword but still making the strongest of swords relevant, as you can't get that extra +2/+2d anywhere else.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gaterie wrote:
Reverse wrote:
If the expectation is that the PCs will fight multiple enemies, multiple times a day, and that all enemies will try to mercilessly kill PCs at all costs, then the end result is going to be a lot of dead PCs.

This is the expectation of the game. Seriously, look at the xp table: a level 1 party is supposed to kill 25 level 1 monsters to level up; then at level 2 they have to kill 25 level 2 monsters; etc.

Being expected to fight 25 enemies over the course of a level and fight 25 enemies that are dead set on murdering you with no regard of their own lives as soon as they see you over the course of a level are two very different things.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is true RIGHT NOW but in a month? Who knows. If you want to make the playtest better PLAY IT and TAKE THE SURVEYS. They've already changed (and are going to change) 3-4 major things in the game. They are obviously listening and changing things to make a game that people want to play. Many people have already talked about Ancestry and how it was underwhelming, or just plain bad, compared to last edition. They will make changes.

If you were planning on PLAYTESTING don't run away at the first sign of trouble. That doesn't help anyone.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would just like to take the opportunity to say that I both HATE and LOVE the Monk class. As Martial Artist for 9 years (and counting) and having played 3.x for over 17 years I used to love the Monk class (I still enjoy it but not as much as I used to).

The problem with the Monk class is it assumes that only these mystical Monks are good at punching people (ha!). It assumes Stances are something that enhances you (like an anime power up, "Your armor is no match for my Mantis Style!") which is stupid and has nothing to do with what Stances are used for. It also assumes that Monks (Martial Artists) don't use weapons, or that only a few do. ALL old martial artists used weapons. ALL of them. Not using weapons is a modern thing (within the last 100 years or so).

So after getting that off my chest (lol) what exactly is the Monk going for? It seems to me to be a mix of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon & Iron Fist. It does well to give this sort of feel I think but I've yet to see a good Monk played in my games as the the one Monk I saw played had a 12 Str so his damage was garbage.

I really think they dropped the ball on the Monk. They should have done it like the Druid and given them different options. Like Mystic, Brawler and Weapon Expert. Let all of the options be available but you get bonuses within your chosen discipline. Like toward the end the Brawler is Legendary in Unarmed only, Weapon Expert is Legendary in his chosen weapon, and Mystic stays lower but gains access to a cool Ki power.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

My whole problem with playing them like they're *insert whatever* is as soon as you say anything except "realistically" I immediately become un-immersed and lose interest. Because that person is now playing it like it's a game. Like it's chess or checkers. It loses the Role aspect of the game. If I wanted to play a game where none of that matters I would play a console game. I play TRPGs to become immersed.

For instance imagine the most hectic time of your life. Remember the fear? The confusion? Anger? Remember possibly not (re)acting within the best of your ability? Now do you remember every detail of that situation? Do you remember the color of the other cars around you? Or do you remember what that random street witness was wearing? No. You don't.

Now that is exactly what the PCs and NPCs are going through every battle they get in. Realistically they would barely know what was happening 10 feet away from them, let alone whether someone was waving their hands around to heal or kill them or if the person who fell down is actually dead or not.

Now if they had a leader who watched from afar, giving orders and advice that's a different story.

I regularly have my threats make mistakes, run away or make suboptimal decisions. Thatales it so when someone actually does do that the PCs are like "Damn, these guys know what's up. We better not screw around"

Plus there are also very easy ways to "defeat" a group without killing them. That Manticore drops your party? Well it takes one of your group away as a snack, letting the other ones wake up and regroup, not knowing they are still alive. On the way you say the snatched player wakes up and stabs the Manticore, he drops into a river and floats away. The broken and ragged party now need to find a way to regroup all the while avoiding the Manticore, which after losing its snack is still probably hungry and goes and searches for a new one, giving them some time.

Party gets dropped by a bunch of Goblins? The Goblins don't kill them, they instead think it would be fun to torture them or present them to their leader, only he's uninterested and leaves them to be dealt with later. The party wakes up in chains and has a chance to escape.

Being narrative about defeat creates a much better story then just "Uhh well the Orcs just kill you because they have no need for you" Create a reason. Unless the players are being purposefully stupid or they fail at a critical moment don't wipe them. Let them build their story.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do understand your point. I can't say I've had the same experience though. I've only dropped one of players Animal Companions but so far none of my players have dropped to 0. They have had Healers in every party so far so that may have been a factor.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing is, and while I will probably end up house ruling Stamina into my games anyway, Treat Wounds is super time consuming. A level 1 party having to bring, let's say, a character from 1 HP to his max of 14 HP could take up to 140+ minutes if they have 10 or 12 Con. So the Wizard is at 3 HP and they don't want to waste any healing potions. Better be ready to wait 2 hours to Heal him up.

While Critical Successes will shorten that time even healing a 10 Con Character to max will still take 30 minutes if you get 3 Critical Successes in a row.

The funny thing is that actually having a +1 Con is detrimental to healing you with Treat wounds because while it gives you more HP you don't actually heal any more then a +0 Con. So at 3rd level our character has 26 HP with 10 Con or 29 HP with +1 but still only heals 3 HP per success. So it would take 10 more minutes to heal him to full, roughly.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:
Again, maybe it is just me, but if a game is being balanced around the idea that people will not treat it as a game, then that is flimsy game design.

How can that be true? It's a ROLE Playing Game. You are supposed to be playing roles. The Playing Game part is just to say that it isn't real, obviously.

That doesn't mean you're supposed to play it as if there are no consequences or the characters within are just mindless bots with a singular objective. If you do then you're omitting the ROLE part of the game you are playing.

I see this problem with players and GMs. Players don't use tactics, don't think of preservation, there's no sense of danger. If that's how they play then RPGs aren't for them. GMs on the other hand treat it as them vs the PCs. They play it as if it's a game where defeating the PCs is the final objective. The NPCs always fight to win because running away would be "too easy" for the players. And the GM can always spawn in new NPCs so who cares if they die? Again if this is the way you are GMing then RPGs aren't for you.

I hated nothing more when I played 3.x all these years when GMs went out of their way to kill players or screw them over. What's the point of that?

Also on a side note. The fact that you had Lvl 10 players killing CR monsters twice their level is terrible. THAT is a flaw within the system if that's possible.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

"Here, I'm trying a new recipe out. Can you taste it and give me feedback so I can perfect it?"

"It has too much salt."
"OK, well finish eating it and then fill out these forms."
"I don't want any more. It has too much salt."
"Don't you want to help make it better? You're going to be eating it for a long time to come!"
"I wouldn't count on it."

Except that's not how the playtest works at all. It's more like,

"Hey I'm trying to create a whole new menu that we're going to reveal in six months. If you agree to help you will get a free meal every week and all you have to do is fill out a survey to let us know what you think."

"Sure yeah I've always liked your food so far. I'll help you out"

"Okay here's the first menu, we've prepared one of every dish. Let us know what you think"

"I don't like 3 of the menu items. Get rid of them completely."

"Uhh okay well we can try to change them to suit your taste but they are important to the menu-"

"Just get rid of them they are too salty"

"Oh okay so add less salt? We can give that a try and you can come back next week and let us know what you think"

"Nah that's okay if you're not getting rid of them I'm not coming back"

See how that's not helpful at all and doesn't make sense? Unless you hate the whole system you're not helping anyone by leaving the playtest early. Even if you're having a bad time it's supposed to be helping them realize WHY you're having a bad time. Is it something you're doing? Is it a misunderstanding? A system flaw? Is a different playstyle needed from your group to have a better experience? All of these are valid questions. That need a lot of data to be sure of.

11 people marked this as a favorite.

So is the Ranger dedication supposed to make Hunt Target useless in combat? It says "however, you don’t decrease the multiple attack penalty for your attacks, and if you share your Hunt Target benefits with others, neither do they."

Targeted Hunter also doesn't change that. So you basically get a Hunt Target that only gives you +2 to Perception and Survival no matter what?

That's...really bad...

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure if that was intentional but that is indeed how it would seem to be. There should be a specific rule that says failing a saving throw only lowers your dying condition by 1.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would argue 8 is the lowest a person could be without being detrimental to the group. Anything below 8 and the character would ridiculously annoying if they were actually role played correctly.

Like you know that one stubborn guy who refuses to believe anything you say or always thinks he's right? Or for those of you who have done physical stuff have you every tried having a child or weak teenager help you move stuff? Someone who uses words wrong because he doesn't understand what they mean. Would you like to role play your character getting winded after 2 rounds of combat? Or how about just having to sit there and not be apart of the role play because your character simply doesn't understand that "smart people talk"? Or having him slip and fall walking up stairs because he has two left feet?

Those are things your character would HAVE to do if you had dump stats like that. Yet nobody seems to role play like that.

That might be fun once. But it shouldn't be the point of the game. The fact that you have to go out of your way to do it is fine to me.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just make Flat-footed apply to all things that have the attack trait no matter what the DC is.

The new Combat Maneuvers need A LOT of love as it. They are super boring and some are just straight up useless.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly the only real problem I have right is the Random AC, Saves, and hit bonuses. Like how does the Fire Giant have +14 Ref? It should have 10-1 for a total of 9. It's to Hit I can understand as it probably has Master Proficiency which would make it 10+7+1+2 for +20. BUT why does it have +20 to hit with its Gauntlet? It should be +19. ALSO why does it have +18 to hit with it's Rock? It should have +10 Max. 10-1+1.

I'm all for higher level Monsters being extremely lethal. But making them Mary Sues is just going to make everyone feel bad.

It makes me wonder if they wanted all of the monsters to have the same stats to see how they would do in the playtest regardless of individuality but they all ended up to strong.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah it seems like there are many bad circumstances. With your guys lack of a healer and/or frontliner I believe you should have run away. A Monster 3 levels higher than you is going to eat you alive, and it should.

AlsobI think that's the first time the playtest puts you up against a threat that much higher than you as well. It was probably meant to test how well the players do.

It should be, in the best circumstances, very hard to defeat. I appreciate that. Brings back the lethality of monsters. I always hated how easy monsters even 3 CR higher than me where easy to kill in PF1.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't really agree with you there. I think the current multiclassing is the way to go. You begin your path at lvl 2, getting slightly better every 2 levels or so. It's something that takes time, and it should.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Archive wrote:
Rameth wrote:

I don't understand. This fight sounds awesome. You guys barely made it despite being heavily weakened by the loff of 2 players. 7 rounds is not a long time at all. That sounds like an epic victory.

But encounters where the PCs spend 9 rounds doing the same thing over and over and over again because that is literally the best thing they can do is absolutely horrible.
Final hits v misses were 9/11 for the brain collector (81%) and 12/46 (26%) for the party.

I feel like you missed this completely.

Of course that wasn't fun. A 26% hit rate overall for the players is the kind of thing that feels terrible; it just feels like a slog in play, especially with declining to-hit chances. That's the kind of thing that gets you "did I roll 15+? No? Pass." and tuned-out players all around the table.

There's a difference between "difficult and exhilarating" and "difficult and 'just end it already'". Difficult, barely-squeak-by fights are not inherently fun. They certainly can be, definitely; I've had more than a few! But, they have to be kept from becoming a hopeless or 'bs' encounter. Having it feel like you can actually do something in the encounter is generally a good way to combat that. Effectively missing 34 times, while the boss casts mirror image repeatedly, probably didn't promote that feeling this time unfortunately.

That is my bad, I reread the end of his post where he mentioned 7 rounds and I assumed it was 7. To be fair 9 isn't really all that bad either, but I know that isn't your point.

My argument is that I don't see how this MAKES a bad experience. Would hitting him on 8+ and killing him in 3 rounds made it more enjoyable? I don't think so. At least not to me (though I understand that not everyone wants the same type of game). It's just seems to me what he described is EXACTLY what a boss battle should be after that sort of scenario. A HARD fought battle after WAVES of enemies drained your resources and then you have to fight a roided up boss? Yeah that should be difficult and not easy. But also how would have that fight changed if they fought him with the two missing players? Probably MUCH different I'm sure. Or fought him at the beginning instead of the end. A much different outcome. The point of the encounter also serves a purpose.

I also don't see how this could have been changed either. Either you raise his hitpoints and lower his AC so that you "hit" more often but then it just becomes a grind. Or you lower his AC and keep hitpoints the same and he's just murdered in 3 turns, like the last edition. The big bad boss guy killed in 3 rounds, woo.

Btw what's wrong with missing in the boss fight? Again I feel like people are leaving out that VERY important information. IT'S A BOSS. Like how "epic" would the fight against Thanos in Infinity War have been if they took him out in 18 seconds. Hitting him every time and just taking the gauntlet from his cold dead hands. OR how epic would the cave troll fight would have been in LOTR if Fellowship had just surrounded the Cave troll and killed it in 18 seconds. Come on guys, use your imaginations a bit. Think outside of "I hit" "He missed" "I missed" "He hit". If what the dice are saying is the only important thing then I think you're missing the point of Roleplaying. It's not Final Fantasy, there's other stuff going on. It's up to YOU to IMAGINE the scene. The system just gives it structure.

But I guess I will have to see how my group handles, we're literally doing the last two waves tonight. I'll see how they react to fighting that boss after having their resources drained. Maybe I'll come away with a different mindset. Who knows.

13 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't understand. This fight sounds awesome. You guys barely made it despite being heavily weakened by the loff of 2 players. 7 rounds is not a long time at all. That sounds like an epic victory.

On another note please God no don't bring back AoO. AoO was always one of the mechanics I disliked about 3.x. As someone who actually trains in martial arts, with weapons as well as hands, I know how impossible/stupid it would be to attack someone running past you when you're fighting with someone else. Tunnel vision is real. Also if casting a spell gets get AoO then so should melee attacks. One of the best things to do is attack someone mid attack, sounds like AoO to me.

Your football reference doesn't really work either as all of this stuff is supposed to be happening in the same six seconds. In your football scenario all of linemen would ready actions to grapple and you would go from there. But honestly the more you try and use the turn based system in real life the more it falls apart.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't really agree with this. Its simply because the system is new. I've devoured the book. I can create a lvl 1 martial character in P2E in 10 minutes. I can probably create a spellcaster in 15 min.

I can do the most important stuff for a lvl 12 character in like 20. It's gear that usually takes any more time. Against spellcaster are more time consuming but they always were.

It's just new. Get used to it and you'll do just fine.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Before the people come in saying how terrible the Ranger is I would like to say I agree. The Ranger is good stuff.

I do think some things need to be changed/tweaked/improved but for the most part the Ranger is pretty cool to me.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Almarane wrote:

And in my session of Lost Star the optimized Sorcerer felt like he was useless and none of his spells did anything better than a Failed result (except once when he did a critical success... negated by the ennemie's Hardness). As Jason said in another thread, please don't think your experience is everyone's experience.

For now, let's wait for the devs to analyze their data and tell us if most people did or did not like arcane spellcasters. This debate is going in circle between 4-5 people who will not change their opinion whatever you tell them.

You could say the same thing about a Barbarian who tanked all of his rolls. The outcome of the dice in a single play test do not show whether a character is effective or not.

You can however go off of how game play is effected when the dice rolls go as expected, ie not too good or too bad, as it was for several of my gaming sessions. The Casters did very well. Like I said mvps.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can't say that just because a class is helping the group out doesn't mean it's not broken. Spellcasters just break the game when used correctly. So that means there is a flaw within the game.

Also it isn't hyperbole. They are essentially Gods compared to martial characters. They can destroy, create, heal, fly, turn invisible, teleport, control minds, summon beings, control the weather. How is that not a God?

I do agree that raising up Martials is a good idea. But raise them up to what? In a system such as 3.x damage is abstract so anything that does damage can flatly be compared. If you look at all the damage a lvl 9 Wizard can do without magic items and compare it to a Barbarian hitting once or twice against a single guy then I just don't know what to say. While yes the Barbarian could kill everything that the Wizard can kill that doesn't mean that the Wizard isn't doing it better. The caster can consistently damage/impede/weaken multiple people while Martials can at best do it to one. That kind of power gap in 3.x was just to wide.

The system of having spellcasters and Martials work together was broken (or iffy at best) and needed fixing. Improving the Martials and nerfing the Casters has helped that tremendously. Some may not like it but it was a needed addition.

I do indeed want a game with Casters. It's just nice that they aren't wrecking the game with their power. I guess my main point is that I wholeheartedly disagree that P2E spellcasters are weak. I've seen it in play. They are doing just fine.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Possible Spoilers for Sombrefell Hall

I would like to add, and I understand that people might have differing experiences, I've run 5 sessions so far and every one of them has had spellcasters. In the latest one, at level 7, a player made an Evocation Wizard.

He's murdered everyone. Literally everyone.

He's fired off a Fireball, Lightning Bolt, and a lvl 4 Burning Hands in Sombrefell Hall. He's also used Color Spray and See Invisibility. He has made the combats soooo easy. After he's used his big attack he's used his Telekinetic Projectile and Disrupt Undead to mop up. I understand he's not able to keep this up forever but we're almost to the end of the campaign and he's still got a lvl 4 and lvl 3 spell. OH and he was going to use Knock earlier to open up something but he didn't even need to as he was Trained in Theivery, +4 dex and a skeleton key.

I just don't see how spellcasters are weak. I can understand they were nerfed but cmon guys Wizards were Gods in P1E. After like Lvl 8 they could almost one shot anyone and do damn near everything everyone else could do by themselves.

Is the current iteration really all that bad?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Are Lances 2 handed even when on a mount? They are usually held with 1 hand and a shield in the other, bracing the weapon against the mount. If I remember in P1E it worked that way, is it the same in P2E?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As I've stated before I think only allowing so many Stamina refills up to your Con mod+1 is the way to go. Having only 1 health pool makes any type of out of combat healing to strong. BUT having the pools separate, with one ONLY being refillable a certain amount of times per day, means that no matter how much EXTRA healing you have (from items or healing spec'd players) it won't be broken, just helpful.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think every time you go down you also add a Drained value. That way there's a "persistent" effect like last time and Drained also gives you a minus on Fort saves which means if you get dropped 3 times you're Drained 3 so you get a -3 on Fort saves, making it much harder to make the fort saves. It would make getting dropped in combat A LOT more lethal as well.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Again +1 for Stamina

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lyee wrote:
It's also not backed up by Paizo. I'm playing Doomsday Part 4, the level 9 section, and every DC is in the 24-28 range. At no point does it say 'scouting the wilderness is relatively mundane, so the DC is only 16' or 'these guys actually really need help, dispite their standoffish nature, the situation is in your favour and it's a DC 14 diplomacy' - nope, everything is 24-28. It's rubbish. My players don't feel particuarly competent even at their specialties. I understand that 'oh, you're trying to talk to that powerful beast? The inherently hostile one? Yeah, that's a level appropriate challenge. A really tough one, even. DC 30!' Not everything should be easy. But... have some range to these DCs!

While not every DC is within that range (there are several DC 18s) it still is exactly as you say. Every DC seems to be based off of the group being lvl 9, which is exactly what they said they weren't going to do.

I would argue against several of those DCs being that high. For instance one of them is against a CR 4 Creature and the DC is 26. Why?? Shouldn't you use a DC based off a High level 4 challenge and adjust from there? That means a max of DC 23 at extreme difficulty. The 26 doesn't make sense. I can understand some of the others but come on.

I wonder if the other DCs are scaled the same way...*goes to look*

5 people marked this as a favorite.

So.... Why does this matter? Like why does it REALLY matter. If they used He/Him, She/Her, or them/they the whole book does it change anything in the book?


No it doesn't.

It doesn't make it easier to read. It doesn't make it MORE inclusive. It doesn't do anything. Maybe they were just like okay the GM is a girl so all instances just use she/her to show its the same person in all instances of GMing. Whoopdie doo.

If you somehow have a problem with to many uses of her vs him then YOU have an issue that needs working out. Not Paizo.

Can we please stop bringing this up?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
Rameth wrote:

It doesn't even need to have a healing factor, just make it so you can heal it 2 ways, a number of times per day equal to your Con modifier +1 or rest for 8 hours. In my post I showed how a Lvl 1 Barbarian with no Healer and only 1 Potion of Healing fared MUCH better than the current system. Even having a healer didn't make it broken because Stamina cannot be healed by magic. So it was this nice give and take of managing your resources for healing and Stamina regen.

Saying healers can't heal stamina is a nerf to healers by reducing their effective ability to heal. It's worse when someone has relatively fewer HP and can get blasted from just over half to dying in one turn, because the healer has absolutely no way to prevent that, whereas they could have with straight HP by healing them to full. (In 1e we could also use buffs and other spells to mitigate it, but that was nerfed into the ground in 2e.)

This is a problem that can be solved without yet another pool of numbers that does the same thing as an existing pool but works slightly differently. We don't need that complexity.

Actually making it so Stamina can't be healed by magic is exactly what would make Healers and items still relevant. I'll explain.

If a player has let's say 14 HP and 9 Stamina. He takes 4 damage in one battle. He knows he can only regain his Stamina twice in one day (let's say) and he doesn't want to waste it yet, as he still has most of his total Health. So he trudges on. In the next battle he takes 13 damage. He then has to drink a potion or get a heal from a buddy which could be anywhere from 1 (if the potion) to 12 (from Heal). So let's say he heals 5 (around average). He was at 6 HP now he's at 11. After the battle he can use one of his rests and now he's back at 20 total health (11 HP and 9 Stamina). Now the Healer doesn't have to use one his heals on him and can wait until he really needs it again. He would also still have a potion on hand in case of emergencies, like the Healer going down mid combat. But that can't be misused because of Resonance, and cash restrictions.

Also because the dying rules you are never in fear of absolutely dying even if you are at half health, as the worst that can happen is you go to dying 2 with a crit. Therefore you would always want to wait until you Stamina is all gone (or almost all gone) before you rest so that would mean you're bound to take HP damage, and make the Healers useful.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I will again reinforce my support of Stamina in Pathfinder. Even just adding it in as an optional rule will probably appease a lot of people. It just makes sense and it works perfectly with Resonance as is. I explained in this thread.

It doesn't even need to have a healing factor, just make it so you can heal it 2 ways, a number of times per day equal to your Con modifier +1 or rest for 8 hours. In my post I showed how a Lvl 1 Barbarian with no Healer and only 1 Potion of Healing fared MUCH better than the current system. Even having a healer didn't make it broken because Stamina cannot be healed by magic. So it was this nice give and take of managing your resources for healing and Stamina regen.

I like the idea so much I'm probably going to houserule it into my games no matter which direction the playtest goes.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would like this as well. Not as much as Stamina but I would still enjoy it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My thing is how are class feats any different from what we already got in P1E? The only difference is more choice and them being called feats. That's it. Look at how easy this 2E character becomes a first edition character simply by changing name of "class feats".


1st lvl
Flurry of Blows, Graceful Expertise, Powerful Fist, Style Path

The Monk chooses from one of the styles below. From the mystical Ki arts, the weapon masters of the Shaolin or the Crane masters of Kun Lun. The Monk can pick an additional style at 2nd lvl and every 2 levels thereafter.

The Monk can pick advanced styles at 6th level or higher if he meets the prerequisites."

I don't have to go into full detail but I think you can see my point. It's the same thing. Just because it's called something different doesn't mean it isn't the same.

The only thing I would say is that the current problem is that a lot of the classes have are choices like "combat ability" or utility/theme option. Forcing characters to choose between these is a bad idea as it makes it seem like you're forced to choose between playing your class and being combat effective. I hope the feats and bundled a little differently to allow a choice between combat at 1st lvl and then utility at 2nd and then combat at 4th and so on. That way you're never forced to choose between combat and playing your class.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I again feel like this is because of the misunderstanding between how the Creatures lvl vs the parties lvl worked in P1E and how it works in P2E.

In P1E making lower level Guards try and spot the players was basically not even worth their time. Their bonus was so low that even a moderate investment into stealth would usually mean success unless you rolled less than 5 and they rolled more than 15. So the smart thing to challenge the players was to use same level enemies, even though it was supposed to be a challenge the players were supposed to get past.

In P2E using lower level guards isn't such a bad idea anymore. It's appropriate. A 4th lvl rogue would have +9 stealth and a lvl 2 guard would have maybe +3 or +4 perception? That's a DC of 13 or 14. The Rogue easily makes that.

It makes more sense for the GM and it makes more sense story wise.

The GM can now devise appropriate challenges where the invested still have a large chance of success and everyone as at least has a chance.

Story wise now you don't have to make up a reason why all the basic guards of the city are like lvl 4 instead of 2 and the captain of the guard is lvl 6 instead of 4. If that was the case then why are the heroes even needed if they've got a dozen lvl 4 guards walking around with a lvl 6 captain? The first scenario makes much more sense.

Numerically it might not "feel" as good but don't look at it from the numbers. Look at it from the role play perspective. And then look at it from the GMs perspective. I should all make more sense then.

Also lastly you have to remember skill feats. If they bring more of what they showed us for the playtest then skill feats should work out really well. Making up for those smaller numbers with cool abilities.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I understand exactly what he's talking about. The "cost" factor of magic doesn't make sense unless we all just "believe" it does. If spellcasters ever truly wanted to help people (assuming good alignment) they would cast these spells for free all the time. Even assuming there's 1 spellcaster of mid level in a city he could theoretically solve (or almost solve) all the towns problems for them. Like why have repairmen when you can just use mending? Why need pack Animals when you can just use Ant Haul? It doesn't solve all problems obviously but it does beg the question of why aren't they just helping? Are they just greedy? That opens up a load of other questions that need answering about morals and alignment and things like that.

In practice I really like the idea that he's talking about. There was once an additional system that removed spell slots but made each spell have the caster take nonlethal damage compared to the spell level. That means you could essentially cast spells all day but it would literally physically harm you to keep doing so. It had its own problem but it made a lot sense to me.

The problem is that the system is so finely tuned to how it works already a change like this would never happen. It would be a cool idea though to implement some sort of change as an optional rule.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I honestly believe that just making Resonance go off your key ability modifier would fix most of the issues. Almost everyone will have at least a +3 or +4 at first level so you get 4 to 5 resonance right off the bat. 4 or 5 potions seems fine. By the time you're 5th level you have at least 9. You probably have 2 invested items so that leaves you with 7. 7 seems the right amount. Considering how much potions are you'd always want the best one. Having 3 or 4 potions leaves 3 or 4 left over for other items, wands, scrolls, trinkets, what have you.

I can understand wanting to give Cha more importance but the tightness of the stats means you probably already have 2 or 3 in mind, you don't want to have another just in order to use magic items.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

After reading up Stamina I really like the system. Essentially making everyone have 2 smaller pools of Health and one that recharges. BUT how much would the game have to change to accommodate it? Honestly by looking it doesn't seem that much. Even going by how Resonance works the Stamina system would be perfect compliment to it. I think the best way would be to allow as many rests as your Con modifier+1. It seems to work great to me. Looking at a non healing party vs a healing party the healing party will still obviously have a huge advantage.

Take a 1st level Barbarian. He has 8 HP and 8+Con Stamina, let's assume +2 for a total of 10. So he gets his Race bonus to HP, let's say he's a Human so 8, giving him a total of 16 HP and 10 Stamina, so 26 total Health. Comparing it to how things are right now a Barbarian of the same level would have 12+2+8, so 22. Not all that different. So good there.

If HP can only be healed by Magic or Potions/Elixirs then he's bound to have at least 1 healing potion on since there's no Healer in the party. Our Barbarian isn't very charismatic so his current Resonance is 1. That means it really works out that he only would probably need 1 Healing Potion in an adventuring day.

So if the Barbarian takes only 8 damage in the first battle he encounters he might not even need to rest, as he still has 18 (16/2) left. In the next battle he takes 11, digging into his HP. He now has 7 health (7/0). He's pretty banged up. He asks the party to let him rest for 10 minutes and regains his Stamina pool. He's now at 17 (7/10). In the next battle he drops to a 19, those pesky crits!, but his friends manage to kill the threat before healing is required. He wakes up and has 1 HP. He decides to rest once more and drink his healing potion. He rolls a 3. He's now back at 14 (4/10). In the final boss fight he takes 13 damage. Barely standing. He only has 1 more rest for the day and decides to take it before leaving the dungeon. He's now at 11 (1/10). The party gets ambushed outside the cave by some returning monsters. He takes 9 damage leaving him at 2 Health (1/1) and no way to regain his Stamina and HP without resting for the day. It was a hard fight at their weakest moment of the day leaving the Barbarian almost dead but they prevailed. That is totally doable and requires no changing of Resonance at all, which I think Paizo would like honestly.

Now do that same experience with no Stamina and no healer. Barbarian has 22 HP. First fight take 8, down to 14. Second fight take 11, down to 3. By this time he has to drink his potion. He rolls a 3. He only has 6 HP left. Not wanting to leave he trudges on. The next fight he's dropped after a hit of 19. He wakes up at 1 HP. He now has to roll to see if he can overspend on resonance and use one of his party members healing potions to heal a Max of 8 HP. Let's say he succeeded and luckily rolled an 8. He's at 9. In the final boss fight he's dropped again. If his party did manage to win without him the ambush at the end of the day would definitely kill the party.

Now the same thing with Stamina and a healer, under the assumption that healing only works on HP. The Barbarian takes 8, down to 18 (16/2) . No healing required. The Barbarian takes 11, down to 7 (7/0), mid combat heal adds 7, up to 14. He's still only at 14 (14/0) so he decides to take a rest, bringing him to 24 (14/10). The next combat he takes that 19 damage but doesn't go down, he's at 5 (7/0). Another mid combat heal of 8 brings him up to 13 (13/0). He still needs to rest to be back in top shape, so he's now at 23 (13/10). In the boss battle he takes 12, he's now at 11 (11/0). The healer is out of heals, after patching everyone else up, so he's stuck at 11 HP for now (if he didn't bring healing potions). One more rest and he's at 21 (11/10). In the ambush he takes 11 leaving him without Stamina and no way to regain them and no more heals, but he's at 10 HP. So noticeably the healer in the party played a huge role. Instead of going down once and being on the brink of death he stayed up for the whole dungeon. The limit on Stamina refills means the adventuring day can't last forever but it's certainly a huge improvement over what we currently have.

Stamina just seems to be an excellent addition to the system, especially with Resonance, as now you want to have those potions to heal your HP if you don't have a Healer but it's still not spamable.

Seems a win/win. I honestly will probably house rule this into my games if it isn't implemented. It's awesome.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For now I'm going with

Arcana - alchemical/magically inclined or magically created creatures

Occultism - spooky, ritualistic, cursed, supernatural monsters

Nature - pretty much any animal not covered by the other ones as well as magical beasts

Religion - anything divine, angels demons and such

Society - any creature that has or had a complicated society that has written or oral laws and such

It takes some reading but looking at the skills and the monster can usually say what it falls under. I believe they left it out on purpose to leave it up to the GM whether or not the character has knowledge of it. Though I believe just stating which one it belonged to on the monster would have been better.

1 to 50 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>