Jirelle

Red Rabbit's page

Organized Play Member. 37 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS


>> Spellmaster Dedication is enough to sell me on not taking Spellmaster, regardless of what the rest gives.

I know what you mean, but would like to speak a bit pro feat taxes: Combat expertise was horrible, but I kind of liked feat taxes when they are not totally useless. I really liked to play a character dedicating her life to, in my case, learning the ins and outs of being a snake style monk, even though it meant that not every feat in the feat chain was gold


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I always wondered what happens to devils when they "die": do they just go back to hell or are they really dead?


Good for you, and yeah, it's basically because it doesn't fit my expectations: if there would have been a new class called the "Protector" or some such with the same abilities that the Paladin has now - that would have felt okay for me.


Doktor Weasel wrote:
the paladin is [a] major problem, not because of effectiveness, but because it seems to completely lose sight of what a paladin is and just think it's an armor-guy who hurts people who hurt others (but only if they're standing close enough). It should be an active crusader against evil.

This... it is the only thing I really don't like about Pathfinder 2 so far.

Maybe the "active champion" will be available in a future product?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

With both the AP and the stand-alone "The Fall of Plaguestone" taking place in Isger: are they somehow connected?


8 people marked this as a favorite.
zimmerwald1915 wrote:


for four hundred years [that house] was among the most barbaric and despotic on Earth

...

Quote:
The argument that the Romanovs were uniformly repressive

Was never made.

Quote:
the idea that the Romanovs were uniquely brutal

Was also never floated. I used the word "among," and in any event, bringing up their contemporaries is simply whataboutism.

The way you argue here is among the most odd ways to argue I have ever encountered


17 people marked this as a favorite.

>> She is a Romanov, and that house for four hundred years was among the most barbaric and despotic on Earth

Sorry, but that sentence is so wrong, on two levels:
a) having ancestors who did bad things doesn't make you a bad person. The historic Anastasia was killed when she was 17, she never ruled, it's hard to make a claim she was a bad person
b) pick any country or region and it's rulers from the same time period: there will be terrible things they have done. It's a bold claim to say one of them was the most barbaric, and imho this shouldn't be done so casually in half a sentence. If you really want to make that claim, you would have to compare the Romanovs to what the rest of the world did in that time, which would for example include countless wars, colonialism, slave trade...


14 people marked this as a favorite.

No wait, it's alright... You can totally tease us a little


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh Fringe! Now I know what happened to Aroden: he was kidnapped and now lives in an alternate multiverse, not knowing he does not belong there.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Blog said wrote:
Resonance continues to be a topic of discussion amongst players, and our surveys are just starting to give us a picture of how it is working in play. Only about 1 out of every 4 players ran out of resonance once during Part 2, and only 1 out of every 10 players failed their check when overspending resonance and became cut off during Part 2 (usually alchemists). Now, the important thing to note here is that this is not really showing us how resonance is being used, merely that players aren't running out very often, so be on the lookout for survey questions in upcoming parts that will delve a little deeper into exactly how you're using resonance at your table.
This is really discouraging to read. It still feels like a defense and justification of resonance instead of actually addressing the issue. I've already pointed out in last update's blog how simply looking at how often people ran out isn't really a good metric because resonance discourages the use of things that require it. And frankly, 1/4 is too many in my mind. The 1/10th failing their check is also more than it should be. Especially since actually having to do a check at all is a strong incentive to never attempt it unless it's a life or death situation

... And that's exactly what they say in the blog: that the current questions about resonance are not enough an that they will be asking more questions. There *people*, me for one, that actually like the concept o resonance and wouldn't rather have working resonance rules then playing with something like "you can have 3 magic items, period".

And there *are* people who don't want that magic items should be limited by GM decisions alone. I am currently playing in Magnimar, and it would feel just wrong if you couldn't buy healing potions or simple wands because "there is no trader who has them available".


Strachan Fireblade wrote:

I suspect this is something Paizo is monitoring very closely. The big thing that is unique to PF2 is the 3 action system.

I know that in D&D, their devs had the average numbers for success being around 55-65% of the time. But you only had one action. No one wanted to miss half the time and do nothing useful. The key difference here is that you have three actions. You can miss, and often, attack again. If you hit once, and miss with the other, you still had a productive round. I would guess the devs erred on lower numbers instead of higher numbers since it is possible to attack 3 times a round now.

At any rate, I feel this will be adjusted in time.

The last point I would add is this: Many editions seem to have under powered monsters in the first bestiary for the edition. Rather than under perform, their thoughts may be to have base line monsters higher. I don't actually know, but its a thought rattling around in my brain.

But if you have three actions, a competent character (say: a fighter) should have a small but significant chance to hit even with the third attack. They should have a chance to crit from time to time. So, maybe hit on 7 or better for the first attack, 12 or better on the 2nd attack, 17 or better on the third? That would be in the ballpark of what I personally would expect.

Ranger, monks etc. could then be 1-2 points worse then the fighter, bards, clerics etc. still 1-2 points worse (and would hit with ~10 or better on the first attack).


I am not completely against using a keyword: I really like "bolstered", for example. On the other hand, if the best we can come up with is either completely arbitrary words like "basic" or "standard", then that is probably a sign that it shouldn't be done by using a keyword. How is magic missile less "basic" than fireball? It would probably be better to have a few more lines then.

I couldn't find out if the 2ndedition CRB is fixed at 434 pages (like the playtest), 578 pages (like the 1st edition CRB), or another size? I always assumed it would be 578 pages


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corwin Icewolf wrote:

overland flight is nowhere to be found. the closest thing is heightening fly to 7th level for an hour of flight. So yucky. I didn't want to break the game. I just wanted to be able to fly around all day and feel all awesome. Now it will take all my 7th level slots for 3 hours of flight. It honestly makes me want to cry.

I mean come on, there's nothing like flying, pterodactyls fly, superman flies, Thanos flies(in a helicopter, but still...) batman flies(sort of) and most relevantly powerful wizards fly. How can you be a high level wizard if you can't fly whenever you want? it's like not having a staff or a wand, or at least a magic ring. It's iconic. the moment any of my wizards or sorcerers in pf1 could cast overland flight that was when I envisioned them as having truly made it as a spellcaster.

I am so happy they nerfed it.


I like that utility spells are restricted. Nerfing Fly makes scouting and climbing much more relevant. It also fits to what you said about casters being better once or twice a day: the ranger can scout better than the wizard most of the time, but if you really need it the wizard can fly around invisibly


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, that was a surprisingly balanced review, given the thread title


Jeff Deaner wrote:
Red Rabbit wrote:
As I have been reading through this I ran into a lot of posts that suggested more than one change ("I like this, but not that and that"). I would like to try something: a vote.
Forum votes are unproductive. Paizo have already started this. If they thought that this kind of view was useful, they'd have added a voting feature to the boards.

Yeah, I have a feeling there was a reason that there are no votes when I made it... Do you happen to know what Paizo said were the reasons for not having votes in general? I understand why they don't do it for rule that need be balanced against each other, but for the small changes in layout we are discussing here I don't see a problem


Tripped is just flat footed + one action to stand up again. Disarm can end the fight for good (and requires to draw another weapon, which is also one action)


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Please mark this as a favourite if you rather would have the skill feats arranged with the skills in the skill section


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Please mark this as a favourite if you like that the skill feats are arrangend as they are now, together with the general feats


As I have been reading through this I ran into a lot of posts that suggested more than one change ("I like this, but not that and that"). I would like to try something: a vote.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My group struggled with this sort of thing too. I think it's less about picking one of the four class feats, it's that just about everything is so rules-dense that you need to go look up stuff all the time if you don't already know the system. Take Sneak Attack, for example:

sneak attack wrote:

You deal additional damage to flat-footed creatures (see page 322). If you Strike a flat-footed creature with an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, or a ranged attack, you deal 1d6 extra precision damage. For a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, that weapon must also be agile or finesse. As your rogue levels increase, so does the number of damage dice of your sneak attack. Increase the number of dice by one at 5th, 11th, and 17th

Ok.. I get that. And also what Jason S said:

Jason S wrote:


Yeah the process of learning the game is really bad.
Too much has changed from PF1. And it's not an easy read.

, and that should be made easier where possible. From the top of my head:

* they could explain some of the rules before presenting the class, e.g. in the form of a gameplay example (for example "bolstered", iterative attacks, spell DCs). I am pretty sure that will be done in the final product
* a leaflet for old PF1 players ("what's different in PF2")
* they already have the "key terms" sections. Agile and finesse should be explained here, at least something like "Agile and finesse are weapon qualities, please read page xyz."
* some flavour text: "If you catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from your attack, you can strike a vital spot for extra damage." - so people can extrapolate from that

I would still insist that all the steps you described are easier than reading all the feats from A to W (like "Weapon Finesse") and then decide which one to take, unless you happen to have played PF1 for a few years. And there are 432 pages in the PF2 rulebook, which is ~150 less than in the old CRB, so I am optimistic this all can be done. So as a message to the OP: I hear you, I understand in part what you are saying, maybe give it a second try now or wait until the rules are polished for a better reading experience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zardnaar wrote:


And then we got to the actual Rogue. And this is where things fell apart. Put simply there is a lot of moving parts in PF2. She had to go and read the class feats, then the feat section and the skill section, then cross reference everything if required. One could actually see the enthusiasm die. Note she is an ex 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder player, currently she likes 5E but will play OSR games if that is what I want to play. Some comments.

I read your post a few times now, but I can't get my head around this: there are 4 class feats (Bludgeoner, Nimble Dodge, Trap Finder and You're next), roughly a half page of text. You need to pick one of them, and you can always retrain them later, so it's not like you need to plan your character for the next ten levels if you don't enjoy doing that. And then there is a skill feat, where I would just go with "what skill sounds cool? - and then go through the 2 or so skill feats for that skill and level 1 (and again: if you picked the wrong skill, just retrain). It is orders of magnitudes more easy to build a PF2 character than it is to build a PF1 character, where you had to decide on at least one feat at level 1 (out of a list of how many? 50 or so?).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Narration wrote:


Kipping up is a pretty basic move that anyone who's trained in gymnastics or breakfall would probably know how to do. I even learned how to do it as a teenager, although I was never any good at it, somebody with a higher Dex probably would be. It was a DC 15 Acrobatics check in 3E/PF1.

As far as I know, in PF1, there is only Ki Stand if you wanted to stand up without provoking. I am reasonably sure that you cannot do it with an acrobatics check. Also, you couldn't (by RAW) crawl away. You can, of course, argue that it should be available earlier or that someone who is a master in Acrobatics shouldn't need a feat to do it. I think it's okay. I am with you when it comes to Survey Wildlife, that needs work. It also has an action symbol, even though it says "you spend 10 minutes".


Ampersandrew wrote:

Firstly, I'm moderately annoyed that these aren't shipping yet. I appreciate the efforts Paizo are making.

What I find particularly galling is I ordered direct from Paizo because I didn't trust Amazon not to screw it up. They made a right pig's ear of the Startinder release. Some people who ordered from Amazon had to wait for the second printing because they over sold their preorders. There isn't going to be a second printing of this.

Now I find that in spite of avoiding them, they've still managed to dick me about. The only physical product I didn't order direct (the maps) is apparently still sitting on a dock in New York. Frustrating. I'm visiting a city 100 miles away to pick up those maps and made a trip out if it.

At this point I'd make a joke about Paizo refunding my hotel bill, but some people are actually that unreasonable.

Yours grumpily a slightly annoyed UK resident sitting in a Dublin hotel.

Ah, the things you do for Pathfinder :)


FWIW, I ordered on amazon.de (I live in Germany), and they say that the delivery will ship on Aug. 14, and will arrive at Aug. 17. I had, of course, hoped that it would be faster, but oh well...


Mark Seifter wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:

There are rules for building encounters, and we highly recommend it for groups who are interested in trying out some homebrewed adventures.

But there's a huge difference in how usable the data is from a game where the GM built encounters using the monsters we built for the playtest and a game where the GM built the monsters. We are not only stress-testing the PCs, we also need to stress-test the monsters themselves for the first Bestiary, and custom monsters that wind up with an unusual power level not only dilute the monster feedback on the Bestiary monsters, they can potentially ramify into the feedback about the PCs as well, since what the PCs can do is in many respects colored by the foes they face.

Okay, this is at least something I can get a bit more behind. The opening of this was definitely misleading, because it sounds like there *are* details on creating your own adventures (of which encounter design is an integral part, and awarding loot). I understand not wanting custom monsters, but at the same time, hope that some thought has been put into this, and if it's going to be in the Core Book, wish it could also be playtested.

That being said, I don't know how much playtesting you're planning to do for future books, but coming out with a "Monster Builder's Manual" or more complete GM guide (Ultimate Campaign) as a separate book with a separate playtest might not be the worst thing in the world. I understand how that may be perceived as a "money grab", but separate books for players and game runners (of which there are many) and campaign/adventure designers (of which there are fewer), mgiht actually make sense.

There is definitely a difference between basic use and the ability to really mod your game with custom content, custom rules modifications, and so on, and I've said before I'm excited about the possibilities for a book about those topics to come early in the edition cycle, sort of like a deep design guide on various...

Will you really make your players roll for those? I never do. Besides, if you want a task that's easier than "a coin flip for an untrained character" just lower the DC a bit.


dragonhunterq wrote:

I am conflicted.

I feel I should like this more than I do.
I know some people disapprove of the practice, but there are also many who like to know where they are going mechanically and for them this will make planning characters more challenging.

You can plan your character, and if you get a cool non-common spell/feat/whatever along the way, you can re-plan. Isn't that twice the fun?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

At this point, I would really like a blog post about how healing is supposed to work in 2E.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I believe cantrips do not have levels and do not need to be prepared, they are instead your default option for "you can spam this at zero cost". A cantrip has an effect based on your level, not its level.

Ah well... then I have found one thing I don't think is great in this post :-/

Especially Detect Magic has the potential to solve many problems before they start and should have a cost. And I don't mean that because of power aspects.. there is a lot of interesting roleplay that is just unnecessary if Detect Magic is used. It should be a viable option to have a group where noone can cast it.


"Cantrips are spells you can cast at will, but they are no longer level 0" - does that mean you can cast them in addition to your other spells, or would a wizard need to prepare a cantrip at a certain level and can only then cast that as often as he likes? Or a sorcerer need to learn the spell? (Assuming spells for wizards and sorceres work as they did in PF1)


1) Oracle
2) Witch
3) Vigilante
4) Magus
5) Mesmerist
6) Shifter
7) Bloodrager
8) Swashbuckler
9) Cavalier
10) Investigator


I really like the direction where the rules for background skills are going. There should be more fluff skills, I presume the characters don't spend their whole time perfecting their perception and other skills relevant for adventuring, but will, for example, sing, play board games or drink to pass the time, and why not have a skill for those activities? So I would really like to see more skills rather than less, but divided into two groups as the backgronud skills rules suggest


Having different versions of the maps instead of the interactive maps would be really nice.


They out "the GM decides", "typically" and "advice" in the 'rule', but there is still a 4-page thread about how ridiculous it is that healing hospital wards full of sick children using Infernal Healing is bad. I cannot wait for the "Avoid music with lyrics" discussion.


I can answer a few of your questions:
1) You can't use a longbow while mounted, but you can use a composite longbow while mounted. See weapon description for composite longbow

5.
Yes

6.
Yes. Improved Precise Shot will allow you to shoot without penalty in that situation

7.
Yes

8.
Yes

See http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/equipment.html, "Ammunition"

9. I don't think there are rules for picking the right arrow from your quiver. You could, theoretically, make it hard for players to carry different types of arrows in one quiver, but generally I would assume that a character has some kind of system to know what is what. There are Efficient Quivers that allow you to always find the right arrow.


"Dueling" costs 7000 gp as a weapon enhancement, not (as blahpers seems to assume) +1 bonus. Was that maybe the OPs question? "Can you add weapon special abilities that are not priced as +X bonus to an amulet of mighty fists?"


"under the influence"