Rushniyamat's page

Also, I apologize for my post cutting off part of your post there ... I have no idea why they've been doing that lately.

If the quote is too long it does it automatically. You can cut quotes from a post by just deleting unwanted ones when you reply.

Queaux wrote:

Rushniyamat wrote:

First, the second paragraph is on pathfinder and games which don't have built-in negative effect for...

I take your point here, but I think it's overreaching a little and not making a mechanical connection in others.

The overreach is that games like Pathfinder 2 that incorporate a wargame are very deterministic and result in loops. I think PF2 has the capacity to be non-deterministic through the use of varied balanced options that will all result in different situations that can't necessarily be ranked by effectiveness. How, for example, do you rate combat options that could result in a peaceful resolution against those that are more effective but can't be peaceful?

The mechanical connection you're failing to make is that something like choosing to use the "telepathy" move is similar mechanically to using the strike move even if the "telepathy" move allows for more narrative description. That leads narrative games into the same loop situation described previously.

I don't feel like it does. A narrative game is far more likely to ask different questions than a more mechanically focused game will.

For example, PF2 encounters are only really good at asking can the party solve this encounter via some mechanical means (this could be combat, a spell, or a skill check like stealth or diplomacy) and if the answer is no it asks if the party can escape. Very rarely, and almost not at all in an AP, does it set things up so that failing a combat encounter (not defeating it or running away) results in anything other than a TPK or Deus x Machina event.

A narrative game has far more room for failure to be an option as it often lacks a hard game over state for the player/party. Thus each encounter asks, how can this group of characters influence the story to be as favorable as possible and allows for a wide spectrum of results. As such it's easy to set up scenarios where a player who finds their main trick unable to work can actually have the most...

Thank you ver much for explaining a hole in my argument better than I would.

I want to add few things. Mechanical focused TTRPGs tend to take every general ability and either specificlly say what it can do and what it can't or seperate it to several small abilities which have specific outcome. You want gravity manipulation? You need to take telekanisis, flight and more to represent that. It restrains you but you also don't need to deal with a$#holes.
This feature create the repetition: you always return on the same outcome (although you can try use the outcome to lead to a creative outcome, but it is hard sometimes, especially in combat), and even if you have many options, they will return on themselves in the end.

Narrative driven also have this problem, but it comes from the player side: either they use the cool thing over and over again or they don't want to describe what happens. Great systems avoid this problem by creating mechanics which let you be creative and make describing fun and natural.
Powered by the Apocalypse does it well. Great Moves are general, but the details are up to you . Additionally, since Moves are so general, people find themselves saying what happens naturally because they need to fill the gap in their mind . In Masks: New Generation you can't just say that you Unleash Your Power by using gravity manipulation - No one knows who the target is and what happen on-screen. "I force the masked person to stay on the ground by using my gravity manipulation" - now something happens and you can trigger a Move. Thomas, description don't need to be the fancy thing we are used to from D&D and Pathfinder, this is enough, and when you get tired of a specific use, it is much easier to try a new one ("I use my gravity control to put the sofa on the masked man", "I wrestle the masked man and make him fall prone"). In mechanic centered games you describe it through mechaincs: "I strike with my sword", "I cast feather fall". The problem is that the mechanics may take the spotlighr and that you are restrained by the mechanics.

My players do the same thing over and over again with some variation here and there. They did this in every version of D&D and PF2 or any RPGs ever made.

[...]

It's that way in pen and paper RPGs. Video game RPGs like WoW. And even single player RPGs. It's never been any other way as long as I've played any of these mediums.

You can't say every TTRPG has this problem - because you didn't played everyone - and there are systems which frequently avoid this problem: narrative driven TTRPGs. They might not be for everyone, but they solve the problem by generaly not being combat focused and by forcing you to describe your actions in a creative way.

My players do the same thing over and over again with some variation here and there. They did this in every version of D&D and PF2 or any RPGs ever made. It's not a new thing. Kill the enemy your fighting in the way you've built your character to do it is not some bad aspect of the game, it's a built in feature. It's expected. I don't know why anyone would bring this up as some kind of negative aspect of a RPG of any kind.

It's that way in pen and paper RPGs. Video game RPGs like WoW. And even single player RPGs. It's never been any other way as long as I've played any of these mediums.

Blades in the Dark, a narrative driven game about criminals in a haunted city, makes your life very hard if you kill someone: you gain +2 Heat (how much attention your crew draws, in the bad way), the Spirit Wardens (corpses destroyers which use crows which circles around dead bodies) might appear, and if they don't destroy the body, a ghost will hunt the players down for revenge.

You can always add complications for killing creatures: their organization and loved ones will seek revenge, they will return from tbe dead and so on. I agree that combat being so centric aspect of the system creates problems, but there several solutions - although they are very lacking, so you don't really have some :(

So we were happy to move to 5e when that came along with its narrative focussed approach,

I don't see how 5e can be called a "narrative focused" RPG - Its designe doesn't come close to it in my opinion. The abilities are too restrictive and focus on the mechanical side, and its skill checks doesn't really ignite the imagination like good Powered by the Apocalypse moves. Its mechanics, like Pathfinder and many other RPGs, weren't built to tell a story just by using them (the classic something or nothig checks problem for example) - you can tell a story while playing it, not by playing it.

Arachnofiend wrote:

Is there anything preventing you from using Animate Dead with the undead troops?

Unfortunately...

Troop wrote:

A troop is an organized collection of component creatures, typically Small or Medium in size, working as a cohesive whole. A troop is 16 squares in size and has two Hit Point thresholds in their HP entry, under which it reduces in size to 12 squares and then 8 squares. A troop has the Troop Defenses, Form Up, and Troop Movement abilities. Most troops have a weakness to area damage. Because they consist of multiple discrete creatures, they can't be summoned.

Is there any balance concern (apart from their size)?

Do not call the cat Dave! Stop psst him! He will... Great, we have to start the battle over again.

I prefer not to add more ancetries and instead expand the current ones.

I recommamd exploring the OSR for inspiration for rules and changes. One good idea you can burrow from them is making monsters dangerous and deadly, but adding a lot of freedom to the players' approach to battles: ambushes, allowance of clever use of the surroundings, and more. Also, running away should always be a valid option.

If you want to keep magic, make healing spells dangerous in some way. Maybe they attract demonic influence, require dark methods or are dangerous to the user. Forbid teleportation spells (but teleportation rituals should still exist. And add consequences for performing rituals). Furthermore, you should find an in-world explantion for why magic is rare.

The people who are just in it for the story and dont care about combat. (Many d6 systems)

Notice how d6 systems give the players many ways to change their chances. While often giving players game changing abilities.

This isn't fully true. As YuriP, there are many d6 that have complex combat system and intersting outside combat mechanics. Additionaly, it is true that a great number of d6 systems are centered around the story. However, it doesn't mean this systems players are not intrested in combat - they just tell it diffrently (at least in systems that doesn't really seperate combat from the rest of the game). Hell, sometimes, even usually, a combat of an in-narrative system is funnier than most stategy focused combat systems because it tells a story and flows (Yes, I am part of the "d6 group", but I like good combats - this why I like systems like Lancer).

Also, narrative focused d6 systems doesn't necessary reduce the power of the dices. In fact, they usually reduce the power of the GM. Furthermore, they are many systems that doesn't use d6 pools, like Powered by the Apocalypce (I understand you just gave an example. I don't even know why I do it).

Cyouni wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Strange picking Ray of Frost when Telekinetic Projectile is more or less what he described.

Also strange how you picked:
* Fireball, an AoE spell that was made strong because that is what is expected.

and

* Grease, which is in fact NOT A TRIP. Not to mention that its usually not used to prevent things from getting closer, but to allow the party to whack at them.

Also strange how you are stating it as if all casters get those spells.

Let's see.

Telekinetic Projectile: 10d8+7 at level 20 (52 average), 0 investment.
+3 major striking flaming frost shock greatsword: 4d12+3d6+13 (average 49.5)

Are you really certain that's the comparison you want to make?

Telekinetic projectile - 2 actions does 78 at 0 differential (average of 52 on a successful hit)

Flaming Greatsword = 2 actions does 129 at 0/-5 differential (average of 49.5 on a successful hit).

Thus martial does 65% more damage with the same 2 actions.

EDIT NOTE: same to hit even though in-game it would be more likely for the martial to hit so disparity is even greater

Yes, that is the comparison I want to make

Did you compared the attack to a fighter or to a master prof martial? Also, don't forget that you should compare it to ranged attack, not melee.

Temperans wrote:

Strange picking Ray of Frost when Telekinetic Projectile is more or less what he described.

Also strange how you picked:
* Fireball, an AoE spell that was made strong because that is what is expected.

and

* Grease, which is in fact NOT A TRIP. Not to mention that its usually not used to prevent things from getting closer, but to allow the party to whack at them.

Also strange how you are stating it as if all casters get those spells.

Let's see.

Telekinetic Projectile: 10d8+7 at level 20 (52 average), 0 investment.
+3 major striking flaming frost shock greatsword: 4d12+3d6+13 (average 49.5)

Are you really certain that's the comparison you want to make?

And to support, before someone will mention spellcasters' spell attack, in level 20 legenderay caster spell attack bonus is equal to master martial bonus minus one (although you can still mention the actions)

Thunder999 wrote:

Doing almost as much damage as a not that focused ranged martial a few times per day isn't some great feat we've all not noticed, it's terrible.

Limited resources are meant to produce better effects, not worse.

Right. Imagine if the martial character was able to, only 3 or 4 times per day, throw a dagger at an enemy within 30'. It does 1d4 + Str mod damage, and on a critical hit, a specific minor debuff (like -10 move, or no reaction) for 1 round.

In exchange for this impressive ability, he doesn't have any armor proficiency, can only use a few specific Simple Weapons, only has 1d6 hit points/level, and can't ever get any magic items to help with that "thrown dagger" attack or damage rolls (It's an innate ability, not a weapon, so it slowly increases on it's own and can be used a few more times per day at higher levels).

Yes, your point is right, but it has weakness: if the limited resources are more powerful than unlimited resources, when the first are used they may overshine the later and make it usless in comparrison because it will have more impact. Think of the typical combat in d20 systems, which limits the number of times you can do things and when (Actions/Turns/Rounds). Because of the number of times limit, you want to have the greatest impact by using the smallest amount of "time" (actions/turns/rounds). Limited but powerful options have greater power in comparison to the unlimited but cost the same "time" because otherwise they will be equal in power. That makes the limited but powerful better in combat because it takes less "time" unless it is really limited (and then appears the player's prepective problem: why this attack had more impact than several of my attacks?).

Furthermore, there is an additional problem. If the limited but powerful option can be used very few times, the player will have less chances influencing the story and less fun. However, if the player powerfull ability can be used handful of times, the other players will have less influence over the story.

There are two types of balance in games: game balance and fun balance. They are connected to each other and can't be seperated.

I hope more TTRPGs publishers will start supporting such tools. I always wished for an app like Lancer's COMP/CON, and don't think we will ever get one (I don't want to go too deeply to it).

- An ability that gives you bonuses against trip and shove (your armors connects itself to the ground).

- Elemental Charge: when taking elemental damage your armor charges itself with the elemental damage, which can be released as an explodion.

- Mech: An action that tranaform your armor into a small mech that covers you, but makes it more vulnerable to damage.

Memyselfishness wrote:

Yep! My friends and I have been using a homebrew setting since we first started playing Pathfinder just under a decade ago. It's a hodgepodge as anyone can choose to run a game in the setting and there's a ton of stuff going on it. My main setting area is an isolated continent about the size of South America. It hasn't had contact with the other continents and lands for thousands of years. Along with Japan+Spain humans, there's a Mexico-Aztec inspired orcish islands (colonzied by the humans).

It has high-tech dwarves who live in large underground megalopolises inspired by modern day Tokyo and Seoul with vast canals and aqueducts inspired by renaissance era German and Dutch farmlands. It's got an African Savannah meets Kansas halfling nation that does lots of trade and agriculture, cursed with forever winter forest elves, sketchy Catholic-esque church run by Pacific NW frontier inspired halflings, religious zealot Russian inspired hobgoblins, Egyptian and Native American Pueblo inspired Nagaji who worship a Pharaoh-Jesus-Hitler analogue (long story) who is prophesied to return, Inca and Maori inspired jungle tribes of beastfolk (crocodile, gorilla, sloth, parrot, frog, turtle, bear), demon magic-tech apocalypse island filled with gnomes, and a whole lot more little groups of peoples and ancestries such as Stonekin, Leshies, Feykin, and Fossilites. This is just the one continent that I am the primary writer and designer for, there's a whole lot of other continents and nations as well. We're hoping to one day release a published module and setting guide for 5e, PF2, and Savage Worlds or whatever popular RPGs would fit the setting at the time of our release.

And when pray tell are you going to put this setting in Print? I love Golarion but a trip to other worlds is great too (and more settings means more opportunities to see Pathfinder in a new light).

It sounds exceptionally cool.

I have my homebrew world as well, but you've touched on some elements that...

My homebrew setting started from the following thought: "what if creatures' ability to speak as humans would actually make sense?".

It is greatly depends on the playstyle you want. Also, if you realy want to see suggestions for build we need to know what level your character is.

First thing to know, in Pathfinder 2e teamwork in combat is realy important. Sometimes teamwork can determine if a fight would be deadly or not. Don't ingore abilities that don't increase your damage but will help your allies (like Trip). Additionaly, Pathfinder is a system that was built to almost not allow min/max. As long as your core stat for your attacks is 18 ( make your core stat 18, it is realy important ), you will would be fine.

The math in pathfinder is realy tight. +1 to something can look as a minor bonus, but it isn't something you should ignore. Because the realy tight math and the fact that passing the DC by 10 or more turns success to critical success, which can double the damage you inflict or give a good benefit, +1 could realy matter.

Pathfinder 2e mechanics are structured in a way that makes teamwork a very important aspect of the game, but unfortunaly it isn't writen in the books clearly enought. There are some players and GMs in this forum who say they have to adjust the encounter balance rules because they used advanced teamwork.

For example: You play a fighter with good intimidation and athletics. You know that one of your allies goes next. You can just attack, probably hitting because you are a fighter, or Trip as your first action and them demoralize. If everything succeded your ally (and probably more) would have +3 to hit and the enemy must use an action to stand up. Is it worth it? Maybe: not if the enemy was a mook and you could hurt him severly, but a mid level+ enemey - Yes.

This could become even wilder with spell as Synthesia and flanking (add a bard and you can get insane bonuses to hit).

It was a pleasure to playtest and discuss with you. I hope that this thread will continue in some way even if the Drifter would be presented during the playtest.

For those intrested in the Drifter concept, Midnightoker develops an class with this theme in the Homebrew forum.

I just noticed the infinite grit cycle and didn't used it in combat - I can't tell how it feels. Furthermore, don't forget that most discharge cost 2 action or a reaction, so usually - at least for the gunslinger - you can't use it in certain terrains because the enemies will move.

The fight was against 2 Nuckelavees and a Night Hag (all of them 9th level monsters). It was a hard encounter (severe difficulty), largely because the terrain, which was full of cover, and since two friends who haven't played TTRPGs before were willing to try an combat encounter. I did explained tactics to them but I tried not to overwhelm (10th level PCs after all).

I gave the drifter and the swashbuckler to my friends and played the bard. They understood the mechanics fast, but the drifter player were to eager to use Discharge, so it didn't maximased grit use, and I myself made a mistake: I should have replaced Coilspring Stance with Walk Tall.

Conclusion: grit is easy to learn, it could be temping to discharge frequently (especially for new players) - but I don't think it is a big problem - and the Drifter feels good. Grit do feels meaningful to have.

I runned a 10th level party with Drifter (Gunslinger Dwarf), Swashbuckler (Wit) and Bard (Enigma).

Drifter's Feats: Long Shot, Fan the Hammer, Running Reload, Quick Cover, Coilspring Stance and Penterating Shot.

Grit cycle felt realy good, but I felt that sometimes limited the action routine a bit - however it was worth it because the Discharge (Additionaly, I noticed that you can use Fan the Hammer + Reload and have infinate grit. It is true to most other paths as well). With the Bard's composions and Synthesia and the Swaskbuckler's Unbalancing Finisher I could sometimes easly hit with Fan the Hammer twice and more.

I watched Cody's videos for a while, and I don't totally agree with the people of the community who thinks he is just making staff. I found Cody a quite reasonable voice, but I do agree that this video is a low point for him, which comes from unawerness to the changes in gameplay, not in mechanics, and mostly because the format of this video - clickbait, which largely hurls opinions and damages a company' prodact.

Further, and it is a larger problem, it keeps the status-qua: D&D, or any other big system which sells the most (I know Pathfinder is a one), that prevents other game systems - usually not less good, sometimes better for a diffrent play style - from growing, hurting creators and players.

Edit: before people will react to this comment, I want to say: there is always going to be a larger game with more players, but currently the mainstream isn't open to other games. I live in a country where the term TTRPG means to other people just "D&D".

The Drifter (the missing feat is Quick Draw) routine:

Stride (or advance for next step), draw for free the longsword, Strike with it, Strike with the kama or return the longsword for next turn.

Okay, Battle Report:

The level 6 party included an orc ronin drifter, human sorcerer with the angelic bloodline and a ranger. They fought against a Bodak, which didn't rolled well but was able to drain them.

The drifter dealt the most damage. I gave him Iado Stance used spare actions to return its weapons to their place and then draw them back in order to deal additional damage.

Conclusion: I think the class is balanced. I played only with myself and the battle was slow as result, so I can't say how exceiting the class is (I did enjoy creating the character).

I have free time today, so I am creating a bunch of characters and going to run combats. During character creation I understood how stupid I was: you can play a Ronin with a bow - the none Outlaw archer exists with the current rules and only needs some feats to support it.

Midnightoker, you need to change the name of the Duelist's Challenge feat. The Duelist archetype has a feat with same name.

I understand. I myself don't see Legolas as Drifter, it wasn't good exmple.
Additionally, after thinking a bit more I understood that the real problem I have is that most of the feats for range combat work only with firearms. There also some feats and abilities as the Outlaw's Dirty Trick which doesn't necessary need to be limited to melee attacks (aside from bows, it opens a space for throw weapons).

And I love Outlaws, I just wanted to open a space for bow using characters who don't take advantage of others weak points. If I will find a bow-user character that could be used as inspiration for a class path I will submit it in the thread.

Midnightoker, I have to say: you did a realy good job. I noticed a wording problem in the Honed Technique gunslinger benefit - currently it is unclear if the Reload action is part of the reaction.
If it is indead what you have intended, the following wording would be better: "[...] with the Return the Favor reaction, you may make a single Reload action as part of the reaction".

It is a small corection (if any), but at least to me, important. Thank you very much.

I am not sure how you could to it with an animal companion, but take the Familiar Master Dedication (In the APG) at 2nd level and choose the Manual Dexterity familiar ability, which grants your familiar the ability to use mantipulate action like Interact.

For the future, threads about character builds should be posted in the Advice Forum (I recomend reading all the forums description before posting).

I think it is to powerful:

1. Necromancers can heal now.
2. Three spells is too much. Yes, for prep casters more known spells mean less than for spontanous casters, but you can gain three additional 3 spells every 2 levels.

Long Jump and High Jump require two actions. So doing a strike would require a third action, and this feat just saves it.

Humbly,
Yawar

Quick Jump reduce the routine to 2 actions (High Jump + Grab an Edge + Strike). You have a point, but the real advantage of Sudden Leap is that you can preform it with Leap, High Jump and Long Jump, save a reaction, jump further and land saftely (my altternative is more for low levels or if you prefer not to choose Sudden Jump).

Yes, you can't do that because you can't "break" an action with action (using an action before you finish the prievous one). An altternative to Sudden Leap, which is valid if your GM is kind enough, is using Grab an Edge to catch a flying creature (Grab an Edge is reaction, so you can "break" the action) and Strike next action - it is rule lawyering, but 'edge' is not a very specific word.

I think spell attack progression (the end bonus is almost fine and is equal to master martial attack -1) problem needs to be solved. Transforming spell attacks based spells to DC based spells is deleting a portion of the game and narrowing the design space.

One common solution I see often is adding runes to spell attacks (+1,+2 and +3). By using this method, the gaps between spell attack and master martial attacks will be few and small (I compare spell attacks to master martial attack because their similarity at max level). My main consern is that the bonus at high levels will be equal to the bonus of a fighter, which will make the later's niche less special (and could be unbalanced. This concern is a consequence of the comparison to master martial end bonus)

The solution I prefer is seperating spell attacks progression from spell DC and make the first scale like a master martial attack bonus up to master prof and creatig item that will function as potency runes.
This method can cause confusion and makes dispelling a bit clanky (there are more, but these are the major ones). Still I prefer it over the first one, but as I said, it comes from the comparison to master martials' bonus, so you can try to change my mind ;)

Also, all (serious) casters go up Legendary, while most martials are stuck at Master.

They gain legendary prof, but this is an illusion: since spell attacks don't get Potency Runes, they are actually equal to master martial bonus -1 (and only at level 19-20). The bigest problem of spell attacks is how they scale : as noted in the last sentence, the finale bonus is quite alright, but because spell attacks scale with spell DC, spellcasters gain their rank increase to attacks two levels only after martials.

My solution is to add to the game a level 2 item which gives +1 to spell attacks, seperate spell attack progression from spell DC and make it similar to master martials attack progression (to 5th and 13th, but without changing the legendary prof level). This way spell attack would be equal to these of master martial and the gaps between them would be only at few levels and usually quite minor.

Here's an idea. What about a property rune or magical item that gives an item bonus to spell attack rolls? Most casters aren't going to spend a lot of money powering up their martial weapon, but having some kind of "Spell Focusing" rune would give them ample incentive to do just that.

I don't think paizo will add potency runes to spell attacks (in the extreme case only +1) because some of these spells have stronger effect than normal attack. Additionaly, the main problem with spell attacks is how they scale and not their final bonus (which is equal to master proficency -1). Paizo realy limited themselves by not seperating the spell attack progression from the spell DC.

Rushniyamat wrote:

1. A solid and balanced spellcasting point system.

2. Damaging spells for every tradition and damage type.

Agree with the first, but actually disagree with the second.

Divine and Occult shouldn't have a wide breadth of damage spells, it's not really their "thing". For example, right now Occult has almost no spells that target Reflex, and I think that's by design. It does mean my bard player was very happy for animated assault, but I don't think it makes sense to take a "checklist" approach like this.

The result is that the traditions feel too similar.

I personaly think the divine and occult traditions should have more damaging spells (furthermore, I think my post has a wording problem - I meant to say that each tradition should gain new damaging spells and that each damage type should have more spells). I do agrree that spell traditions must have their own theme and style.

Witch should have more hex-cantrips. Additionally, I think that some metamagic feats that add nasty effects to your hexes would be nice.

I want wizard feats for each school of magic (at least 2 for each, and not just focus spells).

Necromancy in Fantasy is more than animating the dead, especially in RPGs. Necromancer plays with life and death and uses them to his advantage. I think a necromancer class should be able to do more than animating the dead.