Sauce987654321's page

More lower CR colossal monsters, possibly around CR10 and under. I would like more monster options for giant monster fights against lower level parties and lower tier mechs. There are a decent amount of them, already, but doesn't hurt to ask for a couple more.

Basically, since it's endgame, I would make it akin to a polymorph effect that's permanency'd, as the spell permanency. Possibly immune to dispel effects, maybe.

Reading above how "wish isn't powerful enough" confuses me at what that even means. Wish is as strong as the GM wants it to be, like, that's literally the entire point of the spell. You know, the last sentence that states you can go beyond the listed effects.

I like reading descriptions and lore of monsters. It's good to have some context and an idea of how to gauge them from one to another.

Beyond that, I was never interested in Golarion and its history. I personally preferred it more when they didn't talk about it and kept it to APs and such. It's fine that the game has its own primary setting, but I'm willing to wager that the vast majority of PF2 games played have nothing to do with Golarion.

Not to sound rude or anything, but your question doesn't really say very much. What is unique to you? Do you mean creatures the game considers uncommon? If not, any creature can be as common or unique as you want them to be in your game.

I don't really have a top 5, but my favorite is Tehialai-Thief-Of-Ships. I'm always fond of big monsters, especially those with artwork that have perspective.

The approach to kaiju is amazing. Kinda wish dragons had gotten a similar treatment

I agree that dragons can use hazards based around them. If you mean building hazards and discarding their statblocks, then no. Not every big impressive monster needs to be statless :)

Pretty odd to assume that PF2 can't do fantasy characters because it can't reliably emulate certain characters 1-to-1 with class levels.

Some of these issues you have mostly stems from GMs not knowing what genre they're even trying to emulate with their game. Concepts like "villains busting out new forms" or a PC suddenly gaining new powers isn't something the game is going to directly shove down your throat. There's nothing stopping the GM leveling up a PC mid encounter, or giving the villain transformation abilities or a one time use power that levels them up.

Other examples you've given seem rather doable if we're strictly limiting it to PC capabilities. Creating a mansion in a demiplane sounds like a reflavored Magnificent Mansion. Running across clouds sounds identically to air walk. Making a fortress "disappear" just sounds like a large AoE that simply deals enough damage (stone structures only have 58 HP and 14 hardness). A PC wearing weighted clothing to hold them back just sounds like a PC artificially lowering their own statistics/bonuses.

The game isn't going to tell you how make your game "anime." However, if you just open your eyes and look in the books, and if you're willing to reskin and reflavor certain aspects, then it honestly does it just fine.

Do you always assume you can't do something because the game doesn't explicitly shove it in your face?

I'm not seeing too much confusion, here exactly. You'd just apply the hardness value against a single source of damage. A flaming sword, which would deal two types of damage, is still a single source of damage. They aren't somehow separate. That's also how it worked in PF1, and I don't see any indication that this changed.

I don't like how they got rid of most monster templates. I get that if I'm a GM I can do whatever anyway, but it gives other GMs less incentive to easily make something beyond what's in the books.

This is something I also greatly appreciated in Starfinder. It has pretty much everything you need to transform your monster into something else entirely. Like, want a colossal cybernetic T-Rex? We got you. Want a giant two-headed direshark from hell? We got you.

Out of the many things that were gutted from PF2, this shouldn't be one of them.

My opinion is that interactions between starships and characters tend to be very sloppy overall. It's better to avoid such situations narratively and wing it when it does come up than have a hard coded RAW to reference.

A soldier X shooting a tier X fighter with a cannon and disabling it makes sense. A vanguard Y punching a dreadnought Y in the bow and breaking it does not.

And, a soldier 1 shooting a shuttle 12 and failing to damage it makes sense, just as a soldier 20 shooting a penetrating line rail gun through a level 9 HQ bulk freighter and disabling it does.

IMO it's the kind of thing that works better without a hard RAW answer.

EDIT: replaced fighter with soldier because starfinder

I was looking more for a discussion whether my reading of the rules seem correct or not. Not so much about whether it breaks verisimilitude or not and how it necessarily affects your game.

As far as how it affects your games, I'm not seeing too much of an issue with it, honestly. It's less about "let's go crazy with spaceships" and more about presenting a simple solution when the two scales occasionally interact and nothing more.

If we're going to talk about if and why it makes sense, then I'm always going to say yes that it does. I'm not saying let a low level character destroy a capital ship with his rifle, let's not exaggerate this. However, when the game has standard vehicles competing in size with huge sized starships, and has end game encounters like a living doomsday weapon and a flying death sphere that can literally crack planets, excuse me for not considering the verisimilitude of these interactions too strongly, lol.

Quote:

What is the problem I have with this? Well, the obvious, nobody wants to deal with 35 hardness and 2,400 hitpoints at any point in the game at any level.

Then I suggest finding another way to destroy a starship.

Starships are not the only thing capable of mounting starship-scale weapons, as indicated in Against the Aeon Throne Book 1, p. 7. So it shouldn't be unreasonable to mount starship weapons on a vehicle chassis. But much like a dedicated mobile SAM launcher they would probably not be able to defend against conventional attack.

I said that because I personally think it's a very sloppy rule, otherwise, and why I think it's not actually how they intended you to handle it.

The whole point of my post is to take a closer look at what they exactly mean when saying you treat a starship as an object. Attacking the starship bulkhead in a combat scenario would be treating it as a structure/terrain, but the rule says to treat it as an object. I noted the difference between an object and terrain in my quote in the OP. The only viable objects with statistics are vehicles. Starships are also considered vehicles in that same quote. I'm saying they want you to treat a starship as a vehicle, based off of this. If you are wondering why they didn't just say that, probably for the same reason they weren't clear with starship weapon attacks against people.

I could totally be wrong, but the evidence I've shown is pretty undeniable, imo.

Its a bit of a kludge, but its probably an unavoidable kludge with the system as intended. The alternative would require a complete ground-up revamp of the object/terrain damage system, which would probably spiral out into a Mutants & Masterminds-scale rebuild of the fundamental system chassis. Because if you can blow a hole through starship hull armor with your personal capabilities, you should be able to do the same with a building wall, or the side of a small mountain, or etc. Which is perfectly reasonable a premise, but Paizo probably didn't want to have to account for superhero-scale terrain rearrangement/destruction in their Space D&D.

Yeah, they definitely are in favor of the dungeon crawling aspects of D&D and Pathfinder. It's not limited to PCs, either. If you read the Kyokor's description, it can destroy entire city blocks with a few swipes of their claws, and entire landscapes get wiped out when they fight another colossi. However, they can't do any of that in their statblock for the reasons you mentioned.

There is also the interaction between fighting a starship and fighting on a starship to consider. If the weapons of the PCs can damage a starship when the PCs are trying to damage it, they could also accidentally do the same thing when the PCs are fighting on a starship but do not want to damage it. It is a lot easier for the GM to rule that neither sort of combat damages a starship.

The rule I quoted in my OP says that you would be treating the ship as terrain if you're on the ship. You wouldn't damage it in the same way as opposed to fighting one.

And if a group of level 13 PCs can fight a CR 16 fire whale and win, they should probably also be able to take on CR 1/4 starships too.

But then you have the endbringer devil, should PCs capable of taking on a CR 19 enemy also be able to down a tier 14 huge sized cruiser with their handheld weapons?

I think there are certain tiers and sizes of starships that can be fought and downed with PCs' mechs, tanks, and laser guns, but there should be others that can, for the most part, ignore that scale of weaponry.

At that point it's less a problem of RAW and more a problem of writing starships and starship creatures consistently.

I think the rate at which starships are immune to PCs on foot/in mechs should be a combination of the Starship tier and the base frame size.

A level 16 mech should be able to tango with level 8 fighters and shuttles and light freighters.

But it probably shouldn't be able to replace a starship's main gun when you're attacking a level 12 battleship or a level 17 ultranought.

The Fire whale was supposedly greatly weakened from a recent battle, according to the AP it's in, which is probably why it's 1/4 tier.

I do think a group that can beat an Endbringer can take down a tier 14 ship. Not in space, of course, they generally aren't space capable. If it's set up as an encounter in atmosphere for the PCs to deal with? Absolutely.

I wouldn't get too caught up in how big things are in terms of combat. Nobody thinks a tiny ship should beat an ultranought 1v1, but it's allowed by the game. Massive vehicles like the Dioxide Wingship is 1,200 ft. long but only level 11. The giant template doesn't even add to a creature's CR, despite basically doubling its size. The CR/level of something is just a measurement of effectiveness, regardless of what form it takes. The game doesn't seem to really care about size, for the most part.

I thought it was mentioned (nad makes some sense to me) that starships just don't realistically take any damage from the PCs 'light' weapons. They just simply bounce off or do superficial damage.

I suppose if you consider different parts to be similar to a bulkhead you mentioned, then it is effectively immune to PC fire in a realistic way.

I'd understand if they implied that weapon attacks would be ineffective, whether it makes sense or not, if they wrote something like "weapon attacks from PC's generally have little effect on the hulls of starships." From where I'm standing, it looks like they tried to give GMs the option simulate it differently. Making starships practically invincible sounds like genuine bad game design, as it allows the PCs to abuse this in any situation that allows them to get away with it.

If we're talking about whether it makes sense or not out of game is a different matter and mostly just wanted to focus on the RAW. Let's not forget though, these hypothetical weapon attacks are not necessarily coming from people such as a foot soldier or guardsman, but possibly from a building sized military vehicle or mech. We shouldn't only picture someone shooting their laser pistol at a spaceship when determining if it's realistic or not.

Sauce wrote:

If we just simply use a bulkhead, according to the rules I listed, this would be treating the Starship as a structure/terrain. That's not what the game says, though, it explicitly states that you model it as an object.

It explicitly says you no longer model it as an object.

Most vehicles interact with abilities and spells normally; the effects of an explosive blast on an exploration buggy can be determined using the typical rules, for example. (bnw note: obviously the typical rules for an object)

However, if you are on an exceptionally large vehicle, such as a sizable aircraft or a starship, the vehicle effectively becomes a type of terrain, and it interacts with the effects of abilities and spells differently (emphasis mine)

Ie, the rules explicitly say to treat the starship as terrain and stop treating it like an object. Otherwise you wouldn't be treating it differently, or indeed, there would be any need for that entire paragraph.

You would treat the Starship as terrain provided you're in it, as in boarding it. I'm talking about simply attacking it in a combat situation, not just shooting the walls that are inside it.

The other rule I'm referring to is "shooting starships" in the CRB where it states that you treat the starship as massive object. I probably should have had that rule copy and pasted in the original post.

Starship weapons and regular PC-level weapons work on different scales and aren’t meant to interact with each other. If characters choose to shoot at a starships with their laser rifles (or cast a Spell on it) while it is on the ground, the GM should treat the starships as an object (a particularly massive one, at that). At the GM’s discretion, if starships weapons are ever brought to bear against buildings or people, they deal Hit Point damage equal to 10 × their listed amount of damage. However, starships weapons are never precise enough to target a single individual (or even small group) and can, if the GM decides, be simulated as deadly hazards instead of weapon attacks.

I've had this discussion with a couple of people on a discord server, which admittedly went absolutely no where, but made me want to make this topic. I was suggested to FAQ this or something, but I'm not interested in doing so. Let's be real, a dev isn't going to answer this, especially over an interaction that they don't want in the first place. Just as reminder, this isn't about homebrewing rules, I'm talking straight up RAW.

Basically it all just comes down to is, what is intended to happen when you attack/shoot a starship with a creature scale attack? The obvious answer to most would be just to simply use starship bulkheads in the section covering structures. What is the problem I have with this? Well, the obvious, nobody wants to deal with 35 hardness and 2,400 hitpoints at any point in the game at any level. Surely you can use other values for different thickness, but I challenge if this were even the intention to begin with, as it seems very sloppy, even for it potentially being an afterthought in the rules.

People would obviously think, "if that isn't what they wanted you to do, wouldn't it be explicitly stated in the rules?" In a perfect world, sure, but that isn't always the case with this game. An example of this is how starship weapon attacks work against creature scale targets and such. Everybody would just say deal x10 damage. I said because they aren't allowed to target and can only function at best as a hazard, we should use rules for traps to simulate this (traps are described as environmental hazards). Nobody agreed with me, but when Orbital Weapons came around in SOM, lo and behold, they work exactly as I described. This is just an example. I'm not interested in speaking further about how starship weapons interact. We got our answer, now to move on to the opposite scenario.

The rules for attacking a starship states that you treat the starship as a massive object. Instead of using a bulkhead, I think the intention was to use objects such as a vehicle as a stand in, when treating the starship as an object. Why do I say this? I mean, aside from using something that definitely works better, imo, the book itself doesn't consider structures/terrain/environment as actual objects, as noted here on page 272 of the CRB:

Most vehicles interact with abilities and spells normally; the effects of an explosive blast on an exploration buggy can be determined using the typical rules, for example.

However, if you are on an exceptionally large vehicle, such as a sizable aircraft or a starship, the vehicle effectively becomes a type of terrain, and it interacts with the effects of abilities and spells differently. The GM is the final arbiter of what type of vehicle classifies as terrain, but examples include airships, mobile factory crawlers, ocean liners, space stations, starships, trains, or any vehicle larger than a typical creature that is size Colossal or larger.

Consult the following guidelines when using abilities or casting spells on vehicles classified as terrain. For the purposes of abilities and spells, exceptionally large vehicles are not considered objects; instead, their various component parts (bulkheads, consoles, walls, etc.) are considered objects. In general, abilities or spells with a stationary or immovable effect (such as wall of force, zone of truth, or the entrance to an Akashic mystic’s memory palace) or spells that are anchored to a vehicle (such as wall of steel) move with a vehicle and are not fixed to the physical spot where they are used or cast. In this way, effects that originate from a character on a terrain-sized vehicle and target an area on that vehicle move with the vehicle, instead of manifesting in a static spot that the vehicle quickly outpaces.

Beyond these guidelines, the exact effects of an ability or spell that originates from a character on an exceptionally large vehicle are up to the GM.

If we just simply use a bulkhead, according to the rules I listed, this would be treating the Starship as a structure/terrain. That's not what the game says, though, it explicitly states that you model it as an object. The page I listed explicitly treats objects and structures/terrain differently, and they're listed separately through the book, such as the disintegrate spell, for example.

Why use vehicles specifically, though? Well, back to the aforementioned rules, the game also considers even starships and space stations as vehicles.

Now I understand they didn't tell you how to exactly create said vehicle, but honestly they wanted the heavy lifting in this scenario to be solely on the GM. I mean, how does the HP convert when taking damage afterwards, what about repairs during mid combat? Who knows, and it's obvious stuff like that wasn't meant to interact with creature scale targets and not just "haha, ship big, creature small."

Am I making sense here? I'm not crazy, right? Lol. I really do think this is what they were going for but just kind of left it more as a grey area.

Hopefully I got my point across somewhat clear. Writing on a phone is miserable, sometimes, and if something isn't clear just mention it please, lol.

Zombies and skeletons. It's easy to build them with any monster you like while still retaining a low CR/level. You can have large scale encounters with zombie krakens and skeletons the size of buildings while still being under CR/level 10.

What you also can do is simply give vehicle statistics to a starship when it's in atmosphere/landed. They should be statted as objects, as mentioned in the CRB.

For example, your tier 6 small starship can be statted as a level 10+ gargantuan vehicle (statted as a vehicle is presumably higher level). It's weaponry would function as hazards (traps) where you would use values from the chart provided in that section (tier = CR of trap?)

I don't have any of the page numbers, sorry. It's all in the CRB, though, and shouldn't be too difficult to find.

I assume kaiju are going to be hazards and not actually monsters, right? I recall this from an AP of some kind that I obviously never bought, lol.

I agree that Expert is boring and Rogue is definitely better, but he just doesn't require 15 levels of it, lol. I honestly wouldn't go much higher than even 2 levels of it, assuming everyone else isn't somehow amazing in Perception & Sense Motive, which imo shouldn't be the case, anyway.

Carrie would be an Aether Kineticist probably of some sort. I personally wouldn't throw too many levels on her, considering I didn't see her do all that much besides tossing stuff around and killing people. Maybe like 4 levels of it or something to gain access to Telekinetic Haul if we're going to be a little more flashy about it.

I could throw a statblock together, but I'm only on here via mobile, and that would be a nightmare to format, for me, lol.

Automatic weapons were also a thing back in PF1. It had both the automatic and semi-automatic properties, which makes either an extra attack similar to rapid shot (semi) or an AoE cone (auto).

The Boogeyman is already sort of a stand in for the whole Freddy Krueger role. Maybe throw a Dream Eater template if it makes it seem closer to him.

The Blob would just be some kind of ooze, maybe slightly reskinned. I'm not seeing Carnivorous Blob, though, unless I just don't remember well enough. The Carnivorous Blob is really massive and can devour buildings, and it takes up a whole city block in the 2E art.

I'm really not seeing Hannibal Lecter as a high level character, like that. There's more to horror movie characters and monsters than just simply how high level they are. Majority of the time they're only interacting with non combatants that aren't even CR1. When I think of Hannibal Lecter, I'm thinking of a creepy super genius, not an MCU character that can easily dodge lightning bolts and can wrestle a rhinoceros to the ground. Just my 2 cents.

Probably Kineticist is what you want, then, since martial focus/cut from the air is a thing. It seems to cover what he does, for the most part.

I'm seeing suggestions for Gestalting, but I think it's unnecessary. Vader doesn't exactly have such a wide variety of powers that he needs two classes to cover it.

I'm thinking probably Magus or Kineticist is a proper fit for Vader. If we're just going based off of the movies, he doesn't really do all that much that can't be covered by a magus. I'm not too familiar with expanded universe stuff, if you had that in mind, too.

That intuitive sense of how unassailable something truly colossal would be, partly due to how effortlessly it would swat anything human-sized, just isn't particularly well supported by the game.

I think it does it fine, for the most part. Maybe they could've done more to make bigger enemies feel truly gigantic, but that's another issue.

Most gargantuan+ monsters are already higher level encounters. This is not an accident. Your everyday soldier, mercenary, adventurer, whatever, isn't going to be able to fight said monster head on because of the level disparity. However, when you tell the game to put a medium sized combatant in the same level bracket as the giant monster, that's exactly what you're going to get. This isn't a flaw of the game, this is the progression system simply doing its job.

If this interaction isn't what you're looking for, the best solution is to not put the game in this position to begin with. Your 15th level character isn't John McClane or Rambo, but closer to somebody like Thor or The Hulk from the MCU.

While I'm totally not against a Colossus graft, what would they do with it exactly? Just asking, because all of the Colossi do completely different things from one another. The only thing that relates to them is the subtype and their useless demolish structure ability (lol).

What I like to do for bigger encounters is to use Predators and Herd Animals and throw templates on them, since they're very vanilla monsters on their own.

Leon Aquilla wrote:

johnlocke90 wrote:

So interesting thing to note, low and mid level mechs can do more damage just falling on their opponents. A colossal object falling on you does 10d6 damage, reflex save for half. Do it from 30 feet and with a decent acrobatics check the mech only takes 1d6 damage itself.

At low levels, a mech can reasonably one a shot another mech doing this.

Mechs aren't objects for the purposes of that rule any more than a dragon is.

It literally says on page 112 of Tech Revolution in big, capital letters: "Mechs aren't objects"

No, what it says is "mechs do not count as objects for spells and abilities that affect objects.". Environmental damage rule are neither spells nor abilities.

How else would you determine the damage from a 200 ton mech falling on a person?

Sounds like an oversight, to me. It doesn't make sense for a mech to fall on something and cause damage where as no other creature of similar size can do the same.

He's definitely correct about the hit points on walls. A Kyokor in its description is able to wipeout entire city blocks in seconds, yet can't knock down a concrete wall in a couple of rounds. Most Nukes aren't knocking it down, either.

I think that's their way of balancing mechs, considering they get hardness, regen shields, and generally more actions available.

Last question from me. Are there options for mounting weapons on vehicles, say like an airship? I know it basically says in the GMG that you can stick weapons on them, such as a crossbow. It seemed less than bare bones, though, which is why I'm asking this.

Revolvers: yes and no. There is a specific section about revolvers that says that extremely rare cases exist because they were brought to Golarion from other realms (such as WW1 erra earth), but because it is beyond the technology level of the world they are not statted out. However it does give guidelines to create them for your world if you want.

However I did see a "Long Aire Repeater" that has 8 pellet magazines.

What kind of guidelines, exactly? I'm not asking for paragraphs copy and pasted, but maybe a brief example or just a gist of it.

Can't help but ask, because I find the exclusion of such weapons to be rather odd. It even mentions them in the GMG for steam settings.

What other kind of vehicles stood out to you? I remember reading that there was a clockwork castle of sorts. What is it, exactly?

I think in most cases, Kaiju in media are usually taken down by either other Kaiju (or creatures of equal or greater strength), or massive/high-tech military might; not a group of 4 adventurers.

But really, PF2 seems to be treating Kaiju as near-apocolyptic or godlike forces of nature, rather than creatures. Also, with the changes to creature size, I think the intended idea is that Kaiju are bigger than even some of the biggest creatures. Even an Ancient Dragon is small compared to King Mogaru. If Collosal was still a size, Kaiju would be bigger than that.

Well yeah, in most cases. You normally don't see a party of 4 where an individual party member is more powerful than a creature that's capable of wiping out entire civilizations singlehandedly.

Apocalyptic godlike encounters sounds exactly like what a party of 20th level characters should be fighting against. It doesn't do the game any favors if we're going to try to find reasons why many end game encounters shouldn't be eligible as a direct encounter, like "it's too big," "it's a force of nature," "it's godlike." Mind you that most encounters like this already exist, but probably wouldn't be if this is the mind frame the designers had when making them.

As far as Kaiju go, let's not forget the point we're at with this game, currently. A lone druid/sorcerer party member can have the power to summon any aforementioned Kaiju as an ally and even transform into a Kaiju themselves. Like I said, I have no problem leaving entities out of the picture like Godzilla (Mogaru) for the sake of maintaining its status. However, if we're also going to say that any Kaiju that walks onto shore from Pacific Rim should spell game over and a TPK to a 20th level party, then I feel like we're not being very fair here and haven't given it much thought.

Wouldn't be the first time it happened :)

Sauce987654321 wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

Sauce987654321 wrote:

belgrath9344 wrote:

Prince Setehrael wrote:

So Erik stated that Kaiju are also in this book, does that mean we are getting stated Kaiju... hopefully King Mogaru?

Kaiju function like Hazzards because no matter what u can't kill them . king mogaru has a statblock in part 2 of fist of the ruby phenoix ap

Kind of an odd reason to leave them without stats. Kaiju in movies that they're based on die all the time. If they're still intending to leave them as high of a CR as they did in PF1E then that's probably the reason.

I think main reason is that kaiju operate on different scale than Pathfinder player characters.

Like the ridiculous thing about Pathfinder 1e kaijus was that they are essentially larger than maps, but character is able to kill them by hitting them really hard with sword to toe.

Like when you get into something on kaiju scale, even spells should stop affecting them same way <_<

Even they don't get stats, we've already crossed the line for Kaiju sized monsters. Some examples are the Animated Colossus (100'), Canopy Elder (up to 200'+), Desecrated Guardian (houses multiple temples), and the Mu Spore which easily outsizes all of them.

The sword to toe doesn't have to be described that way. The combat is an abstraction, after all. The GM can easily say that they're jumping around on it, briefly climbing it etc.

Yeah, but like... Wouldn't it be lame if Godzilla is killed by guy stabbing him in the eye? It would make them rather underwhelming kaiju

It doesn't have to be everyone's favorite Kaiju that gets killed off. You could use another Kaiju, like say from Pacific rim. It would probably have to be a group effort anyway since it's level would be a bit higher than 20.

It can be a group where the Druid transforms into a giant monster of their own to battle the monster, while an arcane caster is calling down meteors upon the Kaiju, and the Barbarian attacking it with his hammer so fiercely that it creates shockwaves each blow.

It's a matter of preference at that point. It's only underwhelming if you perceive your 20th level group/party members as underwhelming, along with the GM not making the fight particularly enjoyable.

Sauce987654321 wrote:

belgrath9344 wrote:

Prince Setehrael wrote:

So Erik stated that Kaiju are also in this book, does that mean we are getting stated Kaiju... hopefully King Mogaru?

Kaiju function like Hazzards because no matter what u can't kill them . king mogaru has a statblock in part 2 of fist of the ruby phenoix ap

Kind of an odd reason to leave them without stats. Kaiju in movies that they're based on die all the time. If they're still intending to leave them as high of a CR as they did in PF1E then that's probably the reason.

I think main reason is that kaiju operate on different scale than Pathfinder player characters.

Like the ridiculous thing about Pathfinder 1e kaijus was that they are essentially larger than maps, but character is able to kill them by hitting them really hard with sword to toe.

Like when you get into something on kaiju scale, even spells should stop affecting them same way <_<

Even they don't get stats, we've already crossed the line for Kaiju sized monsters. Some examples are the Animated Colossus (100'), Canopy Elder (up to 200'+), Desecrated Guardian (houses multiple temples), and the Mu Spore which easily outsizes all of them.

The sword to toe doesn't have to be described that way. The combat is an abstraction, after all. The GM can easily say that they're jumping around on it, briefly climbing it etc.

Prince Setehrael wrote:

So Erik stated that Kaiju are also in this book, does that mean we are getting stated Kaiju... hopefully King Mogaru?

Kaiju function like Hazzards because no matter what u can't kill them . king mogaru has a statblock in part 2 of fist of the ruby phenoix ap

Kind of an odd reason to leave them without stats. Kaiju in movies that they're based on die all the time. If they're still intending to leave them as high of a CR as they did in PF1E then that's probably the reason.

Quote:

I also find it odd that they mention that you can't break sturdy walls with out tools and downtime, yet provide HP, hardness, and BT anyway. It's like they had no idea how they wanted players to interact with walls and the section just ended up being a bunch of mumbo jumbo.

I believe the intention was to prevent certain players from abusing the capability of breaking walls during exploration of let's say the rooms of a haunted house (Malevolence adventure F.T.W.). I interpret it as something more similar to "it's in the GM's rights to tell you that you can't break every wall in the game".

As for providing HP, hardness and BT, it could be useful for a downtime activity too. Let's say, the GM decides that a "smash the wall" downtime activity takes 1 hour and at the end of each hour you make an attack roll and you compare your result with the wall's characteristics in order to deduce how much damage/progress you have made. You can also rule that if one day has passed (24 downtime activities, 1 hour duration each, 24 * size of party total attack rolls) and no sufficient damage has been made, then an event is triggered.

At least that's how I would do it.

It's a fine suggestion, to make up for what doesn't seem to really exist in the rules.

I was in a PF1 game years ago and had a GM do something similar to this. It's what he had to resort to since the rules for smashing walls in PF1 is just as confused and unsure of itself as it is in this game. Basically it was just dealing damage over a long span of time as you basically put it.

The issue I had is that we were all 16th level and it felt so out of place. Here we are smashing gigantic constructs and golems harder than rock, only to get caught up on a wall and struggling to chip it away for hours of in game time. We didn't have disintegrate on hand or any weapons that were appropriate, and since the game thought it was appropriate to blanket all other weapons of all qualities from effectively doing so, that's how we ended up doing it. It was something that I still remembered, but didn't bring it up since it's very awkward in high level games.

Honestly, the best solution, imo, is to basically highlight the part were it says you absolutely needs tools and downtime, delete it, and make it part of another skill that deals with construction and carpentry of some sort. I would add something more flexible such as "most low level weapons and other forms of attacks are ineffective against particularly sturdy walls, such as a stone wall" and have it be GM discretion if "higher level weapons and attacks" would affect the wall as normal, such as a magical weapon of some kind or a breath weapon from a rather sizable dragon. The text can be cleaned up, but hopefully I'm getting my point across.

Thanks for the response. You pretty much said everything I needed to read. Yeah, the athletics section is a little messy.

I also find it odd that they mention that you can't break sturdy walls with out tools and downtime, yet provide HP, hardness, and BT anyway. It's like they had no idea how they wanted players to interact with walls and the section just ended up being a bunch of mumbo jumbo.

I'm reading through the skill and saw the part where it says "with a high enough result, you can even smash through walls."

I see the checks required for doors but obviously nothing for walls themselves. Are they in another part of the book? What am I missing here?

While I love mixing scifi and fantasy together, I don't like it when it's only a few weapons, armor, and other equipment. Having stats for technological vehicles, like a tank, aircraft, and maybe a sample space ship would be cool instead of having to homebrew it or convert it from somewhere else.

Catapults, as in the siege engine, right?

We have rules for magical airships and steam giants, but we're just getting rules for these, now? Admittedly I haven't followed this game too much, but that's a bit odd imo that they never existed in this game in the two years of its release xD

When I think of a shifter class, I think of a summoner's ediolon ability, but transforms instead of summoning. It would be very customizable, can grow larger as they level, and the eventual Kaiju form, similar to the Druids, but with many more options.

The tech guide in PF1 was cool, but hopefully they expand a little more than just gear. Maybe adding in a few vehicles like a hovertank and some aircraft.

There is a feat in D&D 3.5's Complete Warrior that allowed you to pull stuff off like this, called

Shame that something like this never cameback around in Pathfinder, as far as I know.

Its not inherently the silver in the silver arrow that is doing the killing either. Nor are they even the same as Light Arrows.

Silver Arrows are cursed arrows, arrows cursed by Ganon's own curse that infected the Fairy's bloodline and magic.

So... there isn't a pathfinder analgous to that really.

I mean, I don't know about anyone else, but this does seem like an obscure factoid in Zelda lore, to me. I don't know if most people would care to see them stated as anything beyond magical silver arrows. If you're going for a Zelda based game, then it should just be implied, at most, if it's an important detail you feel you must add. Other than that, I don't feel like it really adds anything to the game to go above and beyond what Pathfinder already has available, in this case.

I've always liked the cybernetic template from Starfinder.

Tbh, I've had a lot more fun with templates in general in SF compared to PF.

And people in golarion can end up being stabbed by a sword two hundred times in a day and walk it off. The realism of how deadly irl weapons are died long long ago.

It's not like you're only fighting other people, either. When a setting allows a high level character to transform into a Kaiju, only to battle an even much larger monster that can swallow you whole. I'm not going to think very highly of a mook with a rifle.

No, I believe it's intentional. I figured this to be the case when I saw their damage values. 6d8 for a level 10 weapon to 13d8 for a 13th level weapon is quite the jump. Hence why it's not an AoE. So, yes, it targets normal AC.