Seoni

RumpinRufus's page

Organized Play Member. 3,395 posts (3,492 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 5 Organized Play characters. 4 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,395 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

What party would you build if you were trying to maximize the number of encounters the party could face in each day of gametime? Say for example that you wanted to clear the Emerald Spire Superdungeon in less than a week, and you can bring a party of 5.

Maybe something like:
1) Big Stupid Fighter
2) Gunslinger
3) Archery Ranger (gotta have someone who can use the CLW wand)
4) Kineticist
5) Unchained Rogue or Swashbuckler with UMD ranks

This is kind of inspired by that common experience of looking back over a campaign and being like "We've been playing for 6 months and only a week of time has elapsed!" So I am wondering about how far we could push that. In the extreme, you would level up from 1-20 in a single day. That seems unrealistic, but if you were trying to do it, how would you go about it?


Thanks, that's the passage I was missing!


Do you get any flanking bonus when attempting a grapple? It looks to me like you should not, since flanking specifies that it applies to melee attacks, and grapple does not appear to be a melee attack. Though by the same logic, flanking also shouldn't affect disarm/trip/sunder since they also don't appear to be melee attacks, they only take the place of a melee attack.

Flanking wrote:
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

The combat rules seem to imply that combat maneuvers aren't melee attacks, as specific combat maneuvers are called out as "taking the place of a melee attack"

Attack Action wrote:

An attack action is a type of standard action... You can apply these to any combat option that takes the place of a melee attack made using an attack action (such as the trip combat maneuver), though options that increase damage don’t cause attacks to deal damage if they wouldn’t otherwise do so (such as Vital Strike and trip).

Melee Attack: While a melee attack isn’t an action type itself, many options and other rules affect melee attacks. Some combat options (such as the disarm and sunder combat maneuvers) can be used anytime you make a melee attack, including attacks of opportunity. These options can’t be combined with each other (a single melee attack can be a disarm or sunder combat maneuver, but not both), but they can be combined with options that modify an attack action or are standard or full-round actions.

However, there's a counterexample in that the feat Dirty Fighting implies that combat maneuvers do benefit from flanking:

Dirty Fighting wrote:
Benefit(s): When you attempt a combat maneuver check against a foe you are flanking, you can forgo the +2 bonus on your attack roll for flanking to instead have the combat maneuver not provoke an attack of opportunity. If you have a feat or ability that allows you to attempt the combat maneuver without provoking an attack of opportunity, you can instead increase the bonus on your attack roll for flanking to +4 for the combat maneuver check.

But then it gets more complicated, like, if combat maneuvers benefit from flanking does that mean they are considered melee attacks? If so, could you use a maneuver like Dirty Trick at the end of a charge? Or is there a separate rule that allows combat maneuvers to benefit from flanking, even though they are not melee attacks?

Charge wrote:
After moving, you may make a single melee attack.

If so, what is the benefit of the feat Kitsune Style?

Kitsune Style wrote:

Prerequisite(s): Int 13, Combat Expertise, Improved Dirty Trick.

Benefit(s): While using this style, you can attempt to perform a dirty trick in place of an attack at the end of a charge.

So, a few related questions:

1) Do trip/disarm/sunder benefit from flanking?
2) Do other combat maneuvers like grapple and dirty trick benefit from flanking?
3) Are all combat maneuvers considered melee attacks?


A CG inquisitor of Groetus sounds like a ton of fun to play. I'll definitely take the Sin Eater archetype, but trying to decide if I should also take the Living Grimoire archetype.

On one hand, there's something aesthetically pleasing about killing people with an ironbound copy of the Book of the Last Moon. On the other hand, an archetype that loses Bane and Judgment and locks you into a low-damage light weapon sounds like it could be a real drag.

Is there any way to make Living Grimoire viable as a melee combatant? Or should I drop the archetype and use a better weapon?

Fluff:
Dr. Herby Covio is a big teddy bear figure, with a shaved head, a full beard, and a deep, friendly laugh. His favorite activity is killing people and eating their sins. After all, the more people that die, the faster the Last Days will arrive and transform the Material Plane into a new, more perfect realm of existence! And besides, why should people toil away in this miserable mortal coil, when a blissful afterlife could be mere moments away?

His knowledge of the divine realms is encyclopedic, an ability he always tries to leverage when convincing the goodfolk he meets that they'd be better off after he kills them. When this persuasion fails, he won't kill the unwilling, although he is perpetually perplexed as to why someone would choose to remain in this life rather than be transported to Shelyn's realm in Nirvana or the halls of Cayden Cailean in Elysium.

Dr. Herby is uniquely suited to delivering souls to happy afterlives, as Groetus has revealed to him the talent of obliviation, in which he can eat the sins of the dead and transform those sins into pure nothingness. Not only does this help deliver the lucky departed to a harmonious hereafter, but it also removes these misdeeds from the Akashic Record so that when the Portal of Incarnation crystallizes all essences into a purer form in the next Great Turning, the next world will be better for having these sins expunged. And it's also quite invigorating!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My take on Kendra Deverin: She is impatient and no-nonsense. Overall she is good-natured, but she can be commandeering and demanding. She has a tendency to pace restlessly while talking, or if she is sitting down she may tap rhythmically on the table while waiting for a chance to interject into the conversation.

Her vision is to continue building Sandpoint to become a prosperous cultural center to rival Magnimar. She is proud of the theater and the glassworks, and after building a new bank her next great ambition is to put a magical college on Chopper's Isle. This magical school would be called the Builder's College, and would focus on teaching practical magic that engages with the community to improve people's lives, perhaps even requiring internships where its wizards spend a semester working in cooperation with a non-magical craftsman or company. This sets it apart from the abusive and insular environment of Korvosa's Acadamae, or the esoteric mysticism of the Stone of the Seers in Magnimar.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

By request, we're back! This 'Everything About' is looking into the four noble houses of Sandpoint: Deverin, Kaijitsu, Valdemar, and Scarnetti. Post all of your musings and homebrew material on any member of one of these families here!

Everything about 'Everything About':
I figure every GM wants to run 3-dimensional NPCs, but not everyone has the time to prep every one. So I'm hoping this can act as a reference thread for GMs starting the AP, where they can take advantage of the creativity of GMs who have already invested the time into making these characters interesting.

Previous threads in the series:

  • Belor Hemlock
  • The Sandpoint guards
  • Ameiko Kaijitsu
  • Brodert Quink
  • Let's see all of your content (original or not) about any member of the noble families, including but not limited to:

  • Non-canonical backstories
  • Mannerisms and descriptions
  • Relationships with other NPCs
  • Encounters or side-quests
  • Favorite activities
  • Images
  • Anything else that helps flesh out these characters!


  • Kendra Deverin gets up on the stage and makes an announcement - everyone who wants to participate should gather by the steps of the cathedral. When she announces the reward is 50 gp the crowd oohs and aahs, and someone shouts out "Forget about the cathedral, now we know where our tax money went!" getting some laughs from the crowd. (But, Kendra has been planning this as a way to introduce visitors in town to what Sandpoint has to offer, so for her it's worth the gold.)

    My players considered using the "distraction" of the scavenger hunt to go around sniffing for trouble, so I prodded them by saying "The reward is 50 gold pieces" and they got the hint, hahah.

    At the cathedral steps, the hunters are separated into Sandpoint natives and non-natives, and the non-natives get a three-round head start (after all, the mayor's goal is advertising the town to the visitors.) Everyone is pointed in the direction of The Way North, and then a whistle is sounded, and the non-natives are off. Three rounds later, the natives are released, and now there's a mad scramble to The Way North to pick up the scavenger hunt maps.


    Teleport is another one. Mishap should be if you roll 01, not if you roll 100.


    The Paizo forums break up long text strings with spaces - those links will work if you manually delete the spaces out of them.

    "Sandpoint Residents" Google Doc

    Sandpoint NPCs Google Doc


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    DrSwordopolis wrote:
    Enhance Victuals wrote:
    The transformation also attempts to counteract toxins in the food or water.
    Is "attempting to counteract toxins" a reference to a defined mechanic, or just filler while you're still working on the mechanics of the spell?

    Many PF2 spell-based mechanics work such that lower-level abilities can't invalidate higher-level powers (for example, Detect Magic can't see through illusion spells unless Detect Magic is cast with a higher caster level than the illusion.) So I imagine "attempt to counteract toxins" would mean that if your caster level is high enough, it will counteract the toxin, but won't have any effect if your CL is too low.


    5 people marked this as a favorite.

    Interesting domain powers - but, if it costs a feat with Expanded Domain to get an extra 1st-level domain power, and a second feat with Advanced Domain to get the 2nd-level power, are these really strong enough?

    I mean, I love tasty food, but even so, it seems almost impossible to justify spending a feat on it! Especially with the additional cost of the spell points it requires. Gives a new meaning to "flavor" ability at least...

    And then Artistic Flourish - spend two feats and two spell points and 10 minutes to make an item slightly better? Honestly, how many times in an entire campaign do you foresee that ability being used? Or Tempt Fate - spend two feats and two spell points, and if you fail then you just spent those resources to actively make things worse!

    When I first read that clerics could take an extra domain with a feat, I thought that sounded cool! Since each deity has only a small number of domains, I feel like the domain abilities could be slightly more powerful than regular feats. Instead, these previewed ones at least don't seem very compelling (dare I use the word "trap")?


    12 people marked this as a favorite.

    I don't see the issue with Ring of Sustenance, as I'm not really interested in playing "Eating Simulator 2nd Edition".


    gustavo iglesias wrote:

    I don't understand why there is such a compulsive temptation to try to make everything symetric. It's something pretty obvious, and we all fall into it (myself included), but it's not really a good idea.

    Just because Monk will work with Vows does not mean Rangers will work with estrangements. It's also a useless burden to attach to class creation in the future. What will a psychic have? Or a summoner? What a Hunter? What an arcane xylophonist, the brand new class Paizo will create somewhere in 2023?

    Firstly, I'm not even saying it's a good idea - that's actually why I hadn't posted it until now. But just to be clear, these would be completely optional, they would just be feats that you can take, I'm certainly not proposing them as class features.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    PossibleCabbage wrote:
    I could see "voluntarily take an anathema in order to gain certain mechanical benefits" as being a thing one could spend a general feat on, similar to deific obedience in PF1.

    I was mulling over an idea like this - take a feat that pairs a restriction with a benefit. There could be different ones for each class, for example:

    • Barbarian superstitions
    • Bard conceits
    • Cleric commandments
    • Druid taboos
    • Fighter hubris
    • Monk vows
    • Paladin codes
    • Ranger estrangements
    • Rogue vices
    • Sorcerer impulses
    • Wizard oppositions

    It'll be a tough design challenge though to balance them, and make the restrictions meaningful without being too overbearing.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Just throwing it out, designing PFS for 20 levels means it will be harder to find a table for your character, unless they stretch out the tiers (and it doesn't sound that fun to play a 1st-level character at the same table that someone else has a 6th-level character.)


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    Very interesting that metamagic Reach Spell doesn't seem to increase the spell level!

    (Also, I love that Lamashtan clerics can choose to "channel positive". That totally fits my vision of Lamashtu!)


    Catharsis wrote:
    What's with the delayed blog? It's keeping me awake here.

    Well, the strategy is to release the controversial blogs on Monday so the mods can keep up with the vitriol on the forums - and post them at 4:59 PM because ?????


    I'm actually hoping that druids are the best blasters!


    Mark Seifter wrote:
    RumpinRufus wrote:
    An optimized barbarian put through the same test might also come out looking like a 9 or a 10. It's pretty much just a known fact that if you optimize your character and then bring them to an AP or PFS game you are going to steamroll it.
    Indeed! That's rather the point of the number line. PF1 doesn't hit its own expected baselines of what presents an actual challenge, especially when you optimize/hyperoptimize. PF2 is being designed to meet its own expected baselines. What this means is, if you compare what you're seeing in PF2 and it is not as powerful as something at 9 or 10 in PF1 (whether it's the barbarian you suggest, or a souped-up blaster, or a "god wizard" or a dual-wielding gunslinger, or any other character at that level), that's a good thing. Because it's the other half of the same coin that you as a GM will not be forced to raise the challenge level way above baseline to challenge PCs; you can do so with the expected framework of what will be challenging. And these characters will not be "falling behind" the hypothetical 9 or 10 character because we just don't have that any more (at least as well as we can avoid it). Now there's nothing wrong with having a group full of 9 or 10s (or even separating out '10' into further granularity for just how much it can solo) and then amping the difficulty with an experienced GM who knows how. That's how my group rolls too (in Jade Regent, their level ~16 group faced off against 4 mythic CR 20s and a group of characters with PC wealth and build, and then a second phase afterwards, and they won). But it's pretty impenetrable to newer GMs and is very GM dependent if they can pull that off on their own, since they're flying well beyond the game's expectations. We want a game that can work with you to help build encounters of various challenges, and the first step to do that is to make it so you can actually use the expected encounters and get something close to what you should.

    OK, I definitely agree with the design goals here! And as long as a specialized blaster can do equivalent damage to a frontliner, I'll be satisfied.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Captain Morgan wrote:
    RumpinRufus wrote:
    Mark Seifter wrote:
    To try to use some numbers here to explain, suppose that there is a 0 to 10 scale of what you can do in an encounter, where 5 is about what you would do as a reasonable share of a 4-person team and 10 is "I can solo everything, you are coming to watch." If non-metamagic blasting was 4 in PF1, metamagic blasting was 6, hyperoptimized blasting was 9, and the strongest nonblasting caster shenanigans was 10, and we curb that "other shenanigans" category, then if blasting in PF2 competed with "hyperoptimized blasting" from PF1, it would be the new caster problem child.

    Those numbers seem way high to me!

    I played in a party that had a hyperoptimized blockbuster blaster (crossblooded sorcerer 1/admixture wizard X with Magical Lineage for Fireball and all the metamagic feats) and I'd say they were around a 6.5 on that scale. The blaster sorcereress in my current Runelords game is non-optimized and probably a 1...

    What are other people's experience with this? How would you rank PF1 blasters on the 0-10 scale?

    I think it is pretty hard to comment without specific builds, but even then when we are talking about things that vary a lot from table to table. I do think there's a point where a well built blaster can pretty much solo encounters though-- I've done it without even using metamagic.

    I don't know how much the exact numbers matter for Mark's point though.

    But by "solo encounters" do you mean solo certain specific blast-friendly encounters (lots of mooks in a tight space,) or solo any arbitrary encounter? Because my experience playing PF is that most fights are against 1-2 enemies, and I've never seen a blaster solo a single-enemy fight (at least not without Dazing Spell.) So rating them as 9 (just one step from "I can solo everything, you are coming to watch") just doesn't match my personal experience at all.

    My experience in PF1 is that you need to hyperoptimize a blaster to even stay relevant. Players who bring non-hyperoptimized blasters (usually new players) invariably end up disappointed when they're doing 10 damage each round while the martials are doing 30 damage.

    Mark Seifter wrote:

    It depends on what you are fighting; a GM can always throw harder stuff (like APL+5 encounters mentioned elsewhere in the thread, which adventure guidelines say to never do but a GM can get away with easily in PF1 if the group is hyperoptimized enough). My scale is based on monster baselines and the sort of encounters you'd expect to find in a published adventure. Having played that same (or similar) hyperoptimized damaging build in PF1, against standard opposition, the only thing other party members were useful for was a meat shield and occasional assistance if something blocks all my damage types. One of the other players in my group back quite a few years was curious, so we ran a test-drive through From Shore to Sea (he picked it especially) where I was only allowed to deal cold damage (which many foes resisted) and since I asked for meat shields (and people to make my skill checks), I received a team of NPC-classed experts who weren't allowed to take any feats or abilities except Skill Focus and other options that buffed skills. We crushed the adventure, including one encounter where the monster is really high level and you only fight a piece of it (avoiding more for spoilers), but we (well I) killed the full creature. So bizarrely, I actually do have empirical evidence of a well-built blaster + placeholder NPCs to soak hits vs a module. I don't really have data for anything else interesting like this; it was a random thing our group did when I was back in college.

    In any case, the numbers don't matter if you agree with the relative placements (mostly just if you agree that there is some "other shenanigans" category that can move down).

    Interesting, but I think the experiment might be testing "optimized character in a published adventure" as much as it's testing "hyperoptimized blaster vs standard PC." An optimized barbarian put through the same test might also come out looking like a 9 or a 10. It's pretty much just a known fact that if you optimize your character and then bring them to an AP or PFS game you are going to steamroll it.

    The thing that I don't like to see is when a new player comes in, and all they want to do is build a blasty damage-dealing caster, and they are consistently doing half (or less) of the damage of the frontliner. If you specialize for blasting, I'd like to see you do an equivalent amount of damage as a frontliner. After all, the frontliner is performing two roles - tank/damage sponge and also DPR, so if the blaster is only performing one of those two roles and doing it half as well, it's no wonder they leave the session feeling worthless.

    Thebazilly wrote:
    I'd agree with those numbers.

    To clarify, you're agreeing with Mark's numbers or mine?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Mark Seifter wrote:
    To try to use some numbers here to explain, suppose that there is a 0 to 10 scale of what you can do in an encounter, where 5 is about what you would do as a reasonable share of a 4-person team and 10 is "I can solo everything, you are coming to watch." If non-metamagic blasting was 4 in PF1, metamagic blasting was 6, hyperoptimized blasting was 9, and the strongest nonblasting caster shenanigans was 10, and we curb that "other shenanigans" category, then if blasting in PF2 competed with "hyperoptimized blasting" from PF1, it would be the new caster problem child.

    Those numbers seem way high to me!

    I played in a party that had a hyperoptimized blockbuster blaster (crossblooded sorcerer 1/admixture wizard X with Magical Lineage for Fireball and all the metamagic feats) and I'd say they were around a 6.5 on that scale. The blaster sorcereress in my current Runelords game is non-optimized and probably a 1...

    What are other people's experience with this? How would you rank PF1 blasters on the 0-10 scale?

    edit: I wasn't counting Dazing Spell in the above assessment, as I don't really considering it blasting at that point. If you add Dazing Spell in then "blasting" becomes insanely more powerful, but I'm more wondering about actual damage-dealing blasting.


    I like the suggestion of spell circles instead of spell levels. Fireball is a third circle spell, Disintegrate is a sixth circle spell, etc.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    First tip: get off this forum! This is a forum for GMs, even most of the thread titles here have heavy spoilers.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    How about a universal archetype that buffs your blasting? Call it Elementalist and then druids, wizards, and sorcerers can all take it.

    I agree we desperately need stronger blasting in PF2. I'm 100% OK with it requiring investment for a caster to rival a fighter in DPR, but if they invest heavily into blasting they should be able to get close. So many people want to play blasters, especially new players, it's a real shame PF1 doesn't support that playstyle.


    Cool, please post an update on what you change and how it all goes! AFAIK you'll be the first one besides me to run it, so I'm interested to hear your suggestions and feedback.


    TheFinish wrote:
    It's still 3 actions (that don't even bloody work as written) to apply a DC 13 poison to a weapon and it works for 1 hit. That's it. Unless the save bonuses have been drastically reduced, I don't see how it's any better than PF1 poisons except in price.

    I assume you can spend those three actions at the start of the day and have your weapon poisoned until you use it.

    Have we heard any indication that poisons lose potency? Certainly alchemist-generated "unstable" poisons will deteriorate after a day or round, but I don't think there's been any hint that bought-and-paid-for poisons will degrade once applied.


    Blave wrote:

    Re-post for visibility:

    Somehow I seem to be the only one who thinks there will be more powerful bombs at higher levels. Do y'all really think they'd give the Alchemist a limited-times-per-day attack for 4d6 at level 11 while the rogue deals unlimited 10d6 with his +3 shortsword and sneak attack?

    The 4d6 is the base damage of a level 1 bomb times 4. I would assume there are higher level bombs with a much higher base damage. I could see a level 11 character throwing level 6 bombs (analogue to spells) dealing like 5d6 damage or something like that. And if an alchemist multiplies all damage by 4, the damage will be much more useful.

    Keep in mind that the alchemist is targeting touch AC, so their crit probability is WAY higher.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    TheFinish wrote:
    And poisons still have super low DCs. Yaaaay.

    Did you miss the 5 gp price tag? I was actually wondering if DC 13 was too high.

    I don't know what kinds of other dangers or restrictions are involved, but if I could just visit the local apothecary and spend 5 gp for a poison that has a half-decent chance of slowing and maybe KOing my enemy, I would probably poison 100% of my weapons 100% of the time. Obviously drow sleep poison will not be that readily available, but if other poisons are similarly deadly with similarly low costs I can see a massive shift in the percentage of characters that use poison.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    It's also interesting to note that both the elixirs mentioned (Bravo's Brew and Lesser Bestial Mutagen) along with the one we already knew about (Elixir of Life) give +1/+2/-1/-2 types of effects.

    I think a lot of people were expecting PF2 to end the era of "fiddly +1/+2s", but it looks like they're here to stay.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Mark Seifter wrote:
    NielsenE wrote:

    From the examples shown, it appears that activated alchemical items require resonance by default. (However most the examples show 'no resonance cost')

    There's also the line about attuning elixirs -- so if you steal an alchemists's elixirs you can't use them yourself. Neither the Bravo's Brew nor a mutagen. The Bravo's Brew, feels a little odd to me to have to be customized to a person, while I understand it for the mutagen.

    That line about attuning in the paragraph on the restrictions of mutagens that starts with the word elixirs should say "mutagens." We should have a fix soon!

    OK, good! It was bugging the verisimilitude center of my brain to have "non-magical" elixirs be attuned by spitting into the brew.

    (It still bugs me that "non-magical" elixirs require resonance. I'm hoping that little piece of equivocation drops out in the playtest.)


    Yolande d'Bar wrote:

    Thread resurrection!

    I'm actually running a Skill Challenge at a game tonight, and I'm really curious to hear how you guys have adjudicated them in the past:

    a) When a skill challenge begins, do you tell the players that this is a skill challenge?
    b) If so, do you inform the players ahead of time, you need x number of successes before y number of failures, or are those victory conditions a secret?

    In other words, should the players know their characters are in a sort-of mini-game or should the mechanics be kept secretly behind the screen, for the DM only?

    Personally I probably wouldn't reveal the meta details, I would probably try to come up with an in-game description of what is happening, that has a strong implication of what action should be taken and the potential consequences of failure. (If you want to give more details on what your skill challenge is going to be, I could try to help you brainstorm an immersive description.)


    Isn't the experience of being undead also quite hellish? I thought that for example many undead suffer from endlessly ravenous hunger, and that feasting on flesh doesn't actually satisfy the craving, it just kind of dulls it.

    I'm not sure how much of that is canon - what do we really know about the experience of being undead? Could you really morally justify creating something that is doomed to eternal suffering?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    As long as we're doing this thread, we may as well have a proper poll.

    Poll is here.

    Results are here.


    Crayon, to answer your question please refer to my two posts upthread:

    RumpinRufus wrote:

    The math I'm worried about isn't adding or subtracting 10... it's all the +2s and -1s that I need to account for when the check total is in the ballpark of DC-10 or DC+10.

    For example, I know the mook's listed attack bonus is +4, and he's flanking and receiving a +1 from Bardic Performance. I know the PC's AC is in the 15-18 range. So ordinarily, if I roll a nat 11 or better, I just say "it's a hit" and move on. It's only if I roll a 8, 9, or 10 that I actually have to ask the player "What is your AC?" BUT, now with >10< rules, if I roll a nat 1 I need to check against AC-10, and if I roll a nat 18-20, I need to check against AC+10. So the range of rolls for which I need to ask AC has gone from {8, 9, 10} to {1, 8, 9, 10, 18, 19, 20}. The "active shield" rules are only going to make this worse, since AC will often be varying round-to-round in PF2e, so you can't just memorize everyone's AC.

    RumpinRufus wrote:

    As a GM, say I'm running a combat with three types of enemies. I have goblins, goblin commandos, and an NPC. On a goblin's turn, he attacks and I roll a nat 3.

    In PF1 I literally don't even need to look at his statblock at all, I just know it's a miss. I've just resolved an entire turn in about 3 seconds.

    In PF2, I need to look at the statblocks, find the goblin's stat block, find the attack bonus, look up at the board to determine flanking, try to remember if there are any other buffs or debuffs active, look back at the die result, add everything together, ask the PC what their AC is, they try to recall whether or not they put their shield up, they respond, and then I can finally resolve it.

    It may seem trivial because you do all that so frequently, but this is the stuff that bogs combat down. I love the turns that you can resolve in 3 seconds because it keeps the action moving so quickly, and now it looks like those 3-second turns are dead and gone (at least when your PCs have fumble-triggered abilities.)


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Tarik Blackhands wrote:
    I'm really questioning what the problem is.

    As a GM, say I'm running a combat with three types of enemies. I have goblins, goblin commandos, and an NPC. On a goblin's turn, he attacks and I roll a nat 3.

    In PF1 I literally don't even need to look at his statblock at all, I just know it's a miss. I've just resolved an entire turn in about 3 seconds.

    In PF2, I need to look at the statblocks, find the goblin's stat block, find the attack bonus, look up at the board to determine flanking, try to remember if there are any other buffs or debuffs active, look back at the die result, add everything together, ask the PC what their AC is, they try to recall whether or not they put their shield up, they respond, and then I can finally resolve it.

    It may seem trivial because you do all that so frequently, but this is the stuff that bogs combat down. I love the turns that you can resolve in 3 seconds because it keeps the action moving so quickly, and now it looks like those 3-second turns are dead and gone (at least when your PCs have fumble-triggered abilities.)


    Hah fair point, read that as "possible builds with strong healing."


    kyrt-ryder wrote:

    This problem is a combination of a lack of education and the game coasting too long on old tropes.

    For one thing, the 'example party' should not include a cleric to help prevent this sort of assumption. Perhaps Wizard, Ranger, Bard and Monk would be good.

    Emphasize in some sort of 'party composition' section [likely within the Classes Chapter] that most parties get by with out-of-combat-healing and that In Combat Healing is assumed to be a rare treasure used by players who like that sort of play experience and absolutely should not be pushed on anyone because it's not needed.

    Agreed. It needs to be explicit from the start that in combat healers aren't needed or expected.

    I would prefer none of the classes get any built-in healing powers. Optional healing powers they could pick if they wanted as class feats certainly- acupuncture qingong for the monk, morale inspiration from the fighter, healing music from the bard, etc- skill feats to boost/accelerate what should be a very powerful out of combat heal skill prior to feat investment or general feats to enhance the heal spell, but no 'healer class' so to speak.

    Don't try to protect non-healer parties by making them the only ones viable- that method doesn't even work if you look at the assumptions and expectations of many casual groups out there.

    Protect non-healer parties by including clear and concise education in the rulebook, and protect the fun of Healer Fans by making Combat Healing a powerful option to those who wish to pursue it.

    I do agree with everything you're saying - if they find a way to make it crystal-clear to new players they shouldn't allow themselves to be bullied into playing a role that's not interesting to them, then I have no objections to a strong healer class (except maybe for combat speed impact.) But, I don't know how easy it will be to get that message across in the CRB.


    Deadmanwalking wrote:
    RumpinRufus wrote:

    You can literally do it the exact same way. Roll 3d6, subtract 10, and divide the result by two (rounding down.)

    You have to do that anyway when you fill out your bonuses on the character sheet.

    Yes, but having to do this is clunky, awkward, and does not make for a less complicated or confusing system (which seemed the goal) at all. This becomes even more true if you're doing something like 4d6 drop the lowest.

    So you're calling the current system clunky, awkward, and confusing? Yes, I agree.


    I had a player ask me during our last session "Do I add my ability score, or my ability bonus?" I agree it's completely unnecessary to have the score, especially if all stat bumps in PF2 will be in increments of +2.

    Deadmanwalking wrote:

    Not having full scores makes it much harder to roll for stats and get anything resembling a mid range distribution.

    Now I hate rolling for stats and know it's not gonna be the standard method, but it will be in the book, and it gets super weird if you do this.

    You can literally do it the exact same way. Roll 3d6, subtract 10, and divide the result by two (rounding down.)

    You have to do that anyway when you fill out your bonuses on the character sheet.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    The fact that even in PF1 where combat healing is weak, there is still a very common sentiment that someone needs to play a healer makes me very worried what would happen if PF2 buffs combat healing.

    I've actually seen people post on reddit with questions like "Right now the party is a druid, a witch, and a ranger, so we need a healer. How can I make a cleric that isn't boring?" This conception that you need a healer just won't die, so reinforcing that conception by making combat healing powerful will unintentionally mean a lot of players get pressured into playing a character they have no interest in playing. This is especially a problem for new players! New players don't have the system mastery to refute and say "actually we can get along just fine without a cleric," and they're more likely to accede to pressure from other players on what kind of character to make. That leads to uninspired characters and bad (first) play experience.

    I'd almost like to see language right in the cleric class description of the CRB, something like "While druids get their healing powers from their connection to natural life forces, and wizards get their healing powers from manipulation of the material fabric of the world, clerical healing powers are a direct gift from the divine." Just some kind of bright flashing message to brand-new players - "there are other options!!!"

    To clarify, I have nothing against the cleric class - I actually love it - but I do object to seeing players get pressured into playing a specific role, and that happens A LOT. Buffing combat healing is bound to make that problem worse.


    Catharsis wrote:

    OK, my assumptions on how spell points work were apparently very wrong. They are only for spell-like abilities, and they're a shared pool among all such abilities:

    http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkpv&page=14?All-About-Spells# 691

    I guess Use is not an appropriate word here.

    Fixed your link.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    Voicing support for "Power Pool".

    It seems perfectly descriptive, and I could even imagine one of my PCs using the term without it sounding metagamey.


    Mark, if we are playing something besides Doomsday Dawn will we still be eligible to respond to the surveys?


    13 people marked this as a favorite.

    I was hoping Mage's Magnificent Birthday would make its way into this edition!


    7 people marked this as a favorite.

    Details, glorious details! Thanks Mark!!


    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    Resurrection. Resurrection being made impossible is enough reason that necromancy is evil. Once someone's been reanimated as undead, Raise Dead is flat-out impossible on them. Even True Resurrection fails unless you destroy the undead creature inhabiting their body.

    Even if someone willingly volunteered for their body to be made into an undead creature (which is definitely the only way necromancy could possibly be not-evil,) you don't know if some higher power might want for them to be resurrected at some point. If they've ever been reanimated, at the very minimum that's going to require Resurrection instead of Raise Dead, and if their body is still animated then it could require a Wish to summon the corpse so it can be destroyed before being resurrected.


    8 people marked this as a favorite.

    Definitely agree - you should get at least 2 ancestry feats at level 1. Otherwise all the races will just look the same at low levels.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Please same tone, more info, longer posts if necessary.

    (Btw, is anyone else bugged when the word "spoiler" is used for their reveals? It's not a novel, it's a rulebook, you're not "spoiling" it by telling us what's in it!)


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Arachnofiend wrote:
    I'd reaaaally like to know more about how ability scores are generated. If it's true that backgrounds play a part I'm worried that we're going to get into a situation where all Barbarians take the same 3 backgrounds because they grant a STR boost, for example.

    I'm really concerned about this as well. At the very least, I'd like as many backgrounds as possible to have multiple options for stat boosts.

    Example backgrounds:

    Mercenary: +2 to any stat

    Scholar: +2 to Int or Wis

    Escaped slave: +2 to any stat

    Thief: +2 to Dex, Int, or Cha


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Quandary wrote:
    RumpinRufus wrote:
    Quote:
    Fey Fellowship, which makes a gnome more charismatic when dealing with fey
    For these types of super-situational feats, can you at least balance it by giving a whopping huge bonus? Otherwise we get something like Dragonheart: you get a bonus to saves against one specific type of creature... and by that way, that bonus is +1. Enjoy. (Has anyone ever actually taken that feat??)
    My angle on this is similar but opposite at same time. Fey does not need be super-situational. IMHO Gnomes themself should be Fey. As with Wayang. As with the Tian Xia Spirit-creatures I forget name of. Paizo has said they will take less-strict approach to Type abilities, so having actual Fey type for all of these shouldn't be a big problem IMHO. I just think this would be good for game, and makes things like Favored Enemy: Fey alot more relevant. IMHO they might as well collapse Gnome and Fey languages as well, but YMMV.

    Making gnomes fey is interesting, I could get behind that. They certainly retain a very strong connection with the First World.

    Wayangs on the other hand are clearly not fey, they're connected to the Shadow Plane and don't have any canonical connection to the First World. (And besides, if you told me the feat is not so bad because it boosts your Cha checks vs wayangs, I'd ask you how many campaigns I'd need to run through before seeing my first wayang.)

    1 to 50 of 3,395 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>