Hakotep I

SaveVersus's page

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 123 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I actually prefer PDFs to books in this case now; errata gets pushed and I can download the updated version.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
Just a note that there is a thread in the Rules forum for the 3 targets/attacks thing already.

Nice.

I still think there's some Turing-test-level mental gymnastics being performed, but I can appreciate the interpretation; my first 2e question was regarding Power Attack (when the MAP applies).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Not to add fuel to the fire, but I've always read "up to 3" as 0, 1, 2, or 3 targets, and never as the same target three times. I've interpreted "up to X" to mean that if I have less than X targets, I can still use the spell/feat. Compare this to "select X targets" specifically and then being prohibited from using the spell/feat because I can't target EXACTLY that many targets (or worse, having to include allies).

I know I've seen spells/feats that have called out ahead of time that the targets must be separate, but is there a spell/feat that says "up to X" that allows you to target the same creature? If we can find example to support "up to X" allowing you to target the same creature multiple times, then I'd say this argument has legs.

For example, Magic Missile allows you to target the same creature more than once, but:
1) it doesn't says "up to X."
2) has specific rules for if you target the same creature with more than one missile.
This would be an invalid example for this argument even though the intent and end result is what we're looking for.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Thanks for the clarification.

The rules say you can't drop below -4, but the only background to offer negative reputation is Child of Notoriety (-1). That would mean everyone would have to choose the same background, which although possible, hasn't ever happened in my group.

Obviously, by GM's Fiat I could make Charlatan or Criminal (CRB) a bad thing and award negative reputation, but I just wanted to make sure it wasn't already mentioned somewhere and I missed it. :-)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The backgrounds in the player's guide have reputation modifiers.

If a player chooses any other background (CRB, other books), does that mean their modifier is zero?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
Page 18 lists gate junctions, selecting an impulse junction is an option there. So it's an option to dual gates.

Bzzt; I totally missed that bullet point. Or I probably read it, then promptly forgot it once I started looking at the table.

Thanks.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Is the level one impulse junction different than the level five gate junctions?

So a dual+ gate Kinetic will never get the impulse junctions?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Hiya.

Just got the ROE PDF and my brain is making this more complicated than it needs to be probably because the single, dual, and multi gate from the playtest confused me too.

What's the difference between a Lv 5 Dual Gate Kinetic and a Lv 5 Single Gate Kinetic that Forks the Path? Is it just trading a feat in a second element for a junction?

Aside from "Prerequisites: exactly one kinetic element" for feats, is the term "Gate" just flavor after character creation?

TIA


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:

With so much else being changed/renamed that seems really really dumb.

It’s a name. What is so paramount that the name can’t be changed or else systems will fall apart? What’s there to be backwards compatible with?

They want the revised books to be compatible with everything 2e.

For example, if some old AP out there says something like, "Barbarians are not suggested for this adventure," but PF2R renamed the class Battle Rager, or Emotional Warrior, people might get confused.
Note: I know those examples are dumb, but I'm trying to think of something that doesn't have a direct correlation to Barbarian.

You could probably have a sidebar explaining what stuff got renamed, but then that presents 2 scenarios:
1. You have one, big sidebar to save space. You now have a sidebar everyone has to remember is there, like an errata box.
2. You move each sidebar next to the thing that was renamed. So the Berserker sidebar says, "Anything referring to Barbarian is applicable to the Berserker." Now WE might know the reason for the change and can easily make that correlation, but new players - who have never played the game before - might not, and now they also have to remember that name change because they bought an older AP. Imagine these forums filling up with "What book is the Barbarian in?" posts.
2a. A sidebar off any length might feel like a simple thing, but it's still takes up real estate. In that R4C livestream, they mentioned the original corebook was over 800 pages and they had to edit like crazy to get it down, either by chucking things or reformatting the text until it fit.

Personally, I'd be okay with a name change, but like I said above, I knew what a barbarian was before so I can make that swap in my head.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It was mentioned (in a Roll For Combat livestream) that in order to keep things backwards compatible, some name will have to remain, the example being Barbarian (since other stuff references Barbarian).

They said if/when it comes time to develop PF3e, then they can start revising things, like possibly renaming the class Berserker.

This revision is mainly to fold in all errata, plus scrub clean any OGL/D&D/d20 identifying stuff.

I just wished they named the books the same +revised instead of * Core.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Side note though: I really like hydra encounters because the decapitation mechanics really make it feel like less of a sack of hit points and more like an actual monster where you can target body parts and inflict wounds. I don't know if the game would be better if all monsters worked that way, but it is a nice change of pace.

I wish large, single encounter monsters were treat with more hit locations.

Like a dragon could have two wings and four legs. For simplicity, the AC is the same, but something like one leg dropped to zero HP: move penalty, 2 legs: -2 AC, etc.

I don't give the dragon more HP, or split the HP; I just track a hit to the leg doing leg damage and main body damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

You can't really think of it in terms of "realism." For example, a fireball isn't really an explosion; no one is moved away from the center of the blast, and there's no distinction of damage from the actual fire, or the radiated heat from the fire, or the unfortunate few who inhaled at the wrong moment and would clearly have lasting damage to their lungs (not to mention damage to their lungs from the pressure wave of the explosion).

It's best to think in cinematic terms: a fireball goes off, the heroes raise their fleshy arms to protect their fleshy faces, and people look worse for wear.

My table doesn't equate Hit Points as "Life;" it's an irregular countdown timer counting down (and sometimes up) to the hit that "gets you."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Signal boosting this Twitter post.

I kind of want "let's find some paths" to be the "Hail Hydra" of ORC. :-D


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

This mean we'll see Starfinder 2e sooner than expected?

I know there's nothing wrong with SF1e, but I like the PF2e system.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Driftbourne wrote:

After watching 29 videos on the OGL 1.1 it sounds like the idea that game mechanics can't be copyrighted got tested in 2016 for the first time. In that case, a game used an exact copy of another game's mechanics, and the game using the copy won the case. So could come down to just changing some terms and ensuring the language describing the rules is different enough.

It might be hard for WOTC to copyright terms like Ancestries, race, or species because all living things have them.

For AC Starfinder already has EAC and KAC which helps.

I think OGL 1.1 is too much of an overreach by WOTC, and they will have to back it down some and hopefully won't be able to drop OGL 1.0a. But even so, it's still a big wake-up call that WOTC shouldn't be trusted.

Rolling a d20 to meet or exceed a target number would be easy to keep. Especially by not calling it *Class, so stuff like DC and AC could be easily dropped. Hell, EA and KA could be kept by just dropping class.

White Wolf/Onyx Path broke their stats down into a Power Stat (Physical, Mental, Social), a Quickness Stat (P,M,S) and a Resistance Stat (P,M,S) for nine total. Paizo could do something similar, even minus the social stats.

Even though there's nothing wrong with SF combat, PF2e changed their combat up enough that I'd like to see it in SF.

It sounds dirty to say "d20 system with the serial numbers filed off" but there's enough separate history in Starfinder to differentiate it easily.
Pathfinder might have to lay low for a while, but Games Workshop already proved that you can't copyright stuff like Elf, Dwarf, and Orc, so maybe it doesn't.
The Adventure Card Game used Force Missile in place of Magic Missile, so there exists an avenue to remove the D&D iconic descriptors.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Two examples I can think of off hand...

The Caster that has to "dig deep" to pull off a spell after their reserves are tapped. I believe Raistlin does it once when he attacks what he thinks is his brother. Psychic has a similar feat or ability where they get a nosebleed, but "Psychic" has never really fit well in a fantasy type setting. Sadly I'm looking for something other than Vancian casting really.

The second - and kind of adjacent to the Necro Summoner - is a martial caster/summoner that summons things to "fight" for you, but they only last for the instance. Like, summoning a burly, shield bearer to block an attack for you, then they disappear. Thematically, the PC does nothing on their own. Short of calling in these "favors," the PC doesn't have any special abilities. I want to say Donovan from Darkstalkers has a similar powerset, but it's been years... decades since I've played any of them, so I'm probably misremembering his moves.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I don't have Strength of Thousands, and I don't know how many books your GM has, but ask if a lot of of monsters have Attack of Opportunity. It's not common in the Bestiaries, but it's been mentioned on the forums here that AOO shows up in adventure paths a lot more than you'd think.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I might be wrong, but I think spellcasting actions were "linked" to VSM components in the playtest.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
SaveVersus wrote:
Page 15

I also just got Pg. 22 also.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
SaveVersus wrote:
Page 15

... and I'm out of printer paper, le sigh.

There's two symbols on the page. Do those mean anything?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Page 15


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
keftiu wrote:
Seems like only Subscribers are getting them?

Not al of us; I don't have anything.

I'm a new subscriber though, so it could be seniority-based??


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Sanityfaerie wrote:
You were pretty generous with the house rules there, especially against the skeleton. That's not necessarily a bad thing, especially for new players, but it is worth noting.

I agree; I don't normally have an issue with houseruling if it makes the game fun, but I'm not sure any of this is helpful for a playtest... unless it's to say the class isn't viable without houseruling.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Verzen wrote:

Call it, "elemental incarnation" then...

Yeah, something like that.

Dual and Omni gates could mix and match what they like.

I wouldn't know how to hammer defenses from 1e into 2e though; too much crunch.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ryuujin-sama wrote:
I think a lot of what people were looking for was something that was like the old Elemental Defense where every element had something going for them. In 1e they got them at 2nd level and they increased generally as you leveled with greater increases from Burn, but we don't have Burn in 2e. In 1e everyone started with 1 element and could branch out to a 2nd at 7th, and could then spend a feat to grab the Elemental Defense of the 2nd Elemental Defense.

Yeah, I don't have a dog in this fight because I didn't play a Kineticist in 1e.

But from a design perspective, it just feel unimaginative if every element is just like every other one.

They already have Elemental Resistance at level 3. They could easily add an "Elemental Shield" Feat which could springboard off Elemental Resistance. Give it the Overflow trait and you get some boost based on the element spent... but that's where you start to get iffy.

Your example for Air, +AC from ranged attacks, is very easy to imagine. Metal could give you an AC reaction, like a shield. That's easy to imagine too. The problem starts when you try and shoehorn the other elements into this "defensive" perspective.
Take Fire, for instance; the easiest thing to imagine is that it burns the opponent, but that's not really defensive. That's more "reactively offensive."
The example I gave for Water, +AC when you move, isn't really thematic. It's the "idea of water" (water flow around things), but doesn't have much else to do with it.
The only thing I can think of for Wood is a Naruto-style Substitution Jutsu thing and that isn't thematically wood either.

So I suggested limiting what elements get what in order to 1) keep things collectively thematic, instead of varying levels of thematic to "in the spirit of" and 2) to entice and reward players for expanding their Gates.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Doesn't have to be those three specifically, but I wouldn't give every element a "defensive"... uhh, element.

I know that helps dedicated gates, but if they could split and limit the number of options, they could focus on making them synergize so omni gated people could be a beast in burst moments.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I would probably limit to just Air, Earth, and Warer.

Air: +AC vs Range
Earth: Temp HP (think ablative armor)
Water: +AC while moving


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Sanityfaerie wrote:

It's not even just the feats. Universal gets a lot more raw utility, too.

- Just gather. Gathered fire sheds light like a torch (and can probably be used to ignite and/or cook things). Gathered water is fresh and drinkable and can probably be used to clean stuff. Gathered air could reasonably be used for cantrippy wind/breeze effects.
- A bunch of different class features. Adapt Element, Extract Element, Pure Adaptation, Elemental Resistance and Elemental Immunity all benefit from the flexibility that Universal brings.
- A couple of the general feats. Voice of Elements and Command Elemental, in particular.

I didn't think of that. I was stuck with like, attack impulse feats.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Am I just not seeing this?

You only get 10 class feats (not counting your initial Lv 1's), and you're splitting them between class and impulse feats.

Not counting retraining every level, you don't really get the option to swap until level 9.

Let's say that you go half class and half impulse, that means by level 20 your schtick is to cast 5, maybe 6 elemental abilities? And this is your THING? I can't se why anyone would spread themselves so thin with a universal gate. Especially once you add hybrid impulse feats when ROE comes out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Does this feel like there's a big potential for watering-down? You have class feats and impulse feats competing for the same slots.

A dedicate gate, or a dual gate... seems maybe okay, but if you're a universal gate Kineticist (with 6 elements by the full book), it feels like you'll barely scratch the surface of what your class can do, and that will be at the higher levels when the game is potentially over. Avatar, you are not.

I do like that there's no bookkeeping; it's like a channeling mechanic, but you either have the element primed, or you don't.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I wouldn't mind a PF equivalent book to Xanathar or Tasha's, where stuff from the APs were collected into one book, with possible errata, if needed.

I know it's on AON, but I'd like a book.

But I'd also like something for the other classes that only got their initial feats/subclasses, like how the Oracle got the Time mystery.


19 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

There's a big difference between, "You like 5e. Have you given PF a try?" and, "Drop the training wheels already! Just play PF and thanks me later."

I feel the kneejerk reaction was to tell people, "Stop. Just... stop," and that wasn't the correct response either.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:

I might accept bow as a non-weapon implement (Regalia, for example).

I don't think it breaks any RAW.

I think the OP is more interested in making use of Implement's Empowerment more than the type of implement though.

Although they might also not prefer to have a weapon with non-combat benefits.

I do like this idea in an Excalibur sort of way, however. Like, it's just a normal weapon, but the belief people attach to it gives it power.

Does your implement have to remain mundane? For example, say my regalia is a sword that's been passed down for generations. Could I add runes to it and keep it as my regalia?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Ok, so clearly the majority here has a different opinion than you do; after rereading the section, I'm inclined to believe that the Weapon Implement doesn't apply to bows either*, but maybe there's a way to workshop this?

So far, I haven't seen a post from the authors unless it was to thank people for enjoying the work, so I don't expect to see a reply on that front. These forums also seem to explode in the sheer number of posts and I have trouble keeping up sometimes. I tend to bow out once I see something like (86 new), so I wouldn't be surprised if they see something over 100 posts and decide to not chip in.

----

You and your group seem like you're okay with using a bow as your Weapon Implement, so just go with it? Doesn't seem too far out there that you could wiggle your bow in a figure 8 patter before firing, so that should satisfy Implement's Empowerment.
I'd probably drop your arrow/esoterica idea because I don't think it was needed and the description for esoterica seems to indicate things like knick-knacks and other things of "immaterial value" (and arrows are almost always useful).

If not that, have you considered homebrewing a new Bow Implement? I'm sure you'd rather not (I don't always like homebrewing), but it's probably not that difficult considering the number of implements you can pull examples from. You could largely just copy the Weapon one, then make some range-specific bebefits.

*: If my argument for a ruling is along the lines of "reading between the lines" (I doesn't say I can't , or it doesn't not not say it), then I feel I might be trying too heard to shoehorn something. I worry about what a rule says, not what it fails to say.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Baron Ulfhamr wrote:
So my barbarian and my friend's bard are from different parts of the world. The barbarian has been bred and trained to be a mage hunter (as magic is outlawed where he is from) but has fled that land for story reasons. The bard has similarly immigrated to a magic-permissive province once his aptitude for it developed. This concept is the crux of the story the GM is developing, so I'm trying to find all the hard lines to steer around here (as is the GM). It's homebrew, but we like to follow RAW as much as makes sense.

Since this odd couple pairing is the focal point of your game, your GM should ignore any rules that get in the way of this narrative.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The errata doesn't address Unlimited Potential and prepared slots, sadly.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

One thing that hit me while reading (and rereading, and rereading) this section...

Can I add energy to a spell that already has the Fire trait?

Like, can I open with Burning Hands and say I'm adding?

I'm assuming yes, otherwise every single fire/cold spell in my repertoire is forever flipped, and I'll only ever cast "Freezing Hands."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The rules for Oscillating Wave don't exist in a vacuum.
I think any reasonable person would read that section and determine you can add or remove energy, your choice, then flip flop from there. The sentences around "Once you add energy..." seem to indicate such.

It IS badly written though.

What I don't know how to fix are Thermal Stasis and Redistribute Potential... unless you make Oscillating Wave optional, so you can cast them vanilla.

I dont know if that breaks OW though. Like, is flip flopping supposed to be beneficial, or a hindrance?

I also don't know how to fix Unlimited Potential. Maybe once a day, and instead of "prepared spell" you don't expend the slot??


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think the idea of a superstitious Barbarian was someone's attempt at force role playing an A-Team/B.A. Baraccus situation where you have to find clever ways to use magic on them...

It just doesn't work though.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
aobst128 wrote:


Specifically, oscillating wave needs 1 more minute in the oven followed by 1 more minute in the freezer.

Unless you keep putting it in the freezer, then you'll never have to put it in the oven.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The Psychic needed a couple more minutes in the oven, but I like this version of the class over any other d20 equivalent class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Since Conservation of Energy reads like it's mandatory ("...decide whether you're adding energy or removing it."), I'm of a mind that Redistribute Potential makes both area hot, or both areas cold, thus destroying any flavor the cantrip has.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Xethik wrote:
Their weapon is a martial weapon - but Mindsmith does not grant you martial weapon proficiency, correct. That doesn't feel like an error, though.

Yeah, I'm assuming the archetype was intended for classes like fighter or barbarian, etc.

Seems weird that it's not blatantly listed though; it's like classes are secretly banned.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
AlastarOG wrote:

Thaumaturge does have pseudo spell like powers with the wand implement.

Can feel very "magickey" specially if you have an ancestry with lots of innate spells like automaton or tengu since the thaumaturge is charisma based.

I thought about wand, but I assumed the OP wanted to feel more like a caster and less like a "Prodigal Sorcerer."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think my biggest complaint about this book is it really needed to be a volume 1, 2 and 3 kind of thing.

So many interesting ideas and we get an appitizer's worth of material to use (not counting the adventures).

I would have rather gotten two of these sections fully fleshed out, then another book with two more sections fleshed out, and repeated until we had everything.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ventnor wrote:
The upcoming Thaumaturge might also work. It isn't a spell-slot caster, but it does have a lot of magical tricks and is a martial class as well.

Throughout its class feats, a Thaum can cast common spells from scrolls from any tradition, which sounds awesome. The hiccup is it's one spell per spell level, up to level 7 at 20th (so 7 scrolls total).

A very neat cherry on a pretty cool cake, but doesn't really make you a caster.

Lv 01 Feat: Lets you use Class DC to cast from scrolls.
Lv 06 Feat: Lets you cobble a 1st level spell scroll, at 8th: a lv 1 and lv 2 scroll.
Lv 12 Feat: Lets you cobble a 3rd level scroll. 4th lv at 14th, 5th level at 16th
Lv 18 Feat: Lets you cobble a 6th level scroll. 7th lv at 20th.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Reversing Charge, Pg. 186

Looks like it had a different name in the playtest because is says:
"You then teleport back to the square from which you began your Snapback Charge."

It then goes back to Reversing Charge in the next sentence.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Harles wrote:


I guess I want to start with the rules and make sure I'm running everything correctly before looking at retraining three decades of GMing habits - though some of that might be in order (especially since I've had this Killer GM title following me since 3rd edition D&D - when the focus of the game turned very tactical and the rules became very precise).
Some of the advice I've been getting has been kind of diametrically opposed, so it's hard to know what to do.

If you've been known as the killer GM for 30 years, and it's not "accidental" TPKs (bad luck rolls, etc.), then I think you should lean into it as long as it's fun. Maybe look at some Old School Revival stuff.

Otherwise, you need to learn how to keep the game moving forward.
For example, if Locked Door A is not important to the plot (just a treasure room), then a failed lockpick roll means the door stays locked and you don't get to try again.
If Locked Door B is important to the plot, then that Door has to open no matter what. So a failed lockpick roll instead opens the door, but the picks break, or the door opens, but guards are alerted.

From a combat perspective, if the fight is leading to TPK Town, you need to do something about it. Either fudge monster HP (lower it), or fudge die rolls behind a screen ("miss" more often).
If you're better at miniature combat than the players, you need to dumb down your playstyle so you don't wipe out the party.
If you're down to one player, the enemy could demand surrender, or tell the player to run and tell everyone what a badass the monster/villain is.
If the party does TPK, you still control the narrative. The party wipes, but wakes up in a cage/cell and now they have to escape. Book of the Dead came out; revive the party, but they have to take ghoul archetypes.
If the party TPKs, they are resurrected and owe a debt to the benefactor who paid for it.

The story doesn't continue unless you turn the page, so it's your job to keep these things in your pocket and avoid dead ends.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Rule of Cool, I'd allow it, but I think a better perspective would be:

What other spells benefit from this ruling?
Is there another spell-attack-roll Spell that gets a bonus? How many Spells, and would this push those spells into "must take" territory over other spells of the same level?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Without knowing HOW your players are dealing with each encounter (and how they use the time between), I don't think you're going to get a specific perspective to help you; the best you'll get is general, wide reaching advice. Still helpful, but not as much as an actual post mortem of your encounters.

For example, If your players move into position, then stand there swinging until the monster is dead - since D&D Opportunity Attacks trained us to not move - that leaves your casters open because monsters will just walk around your front line. NOTE: Adventure Paths seem to use Op Attacks more often than advertised, so it looks like it's a tactic that's hard to shake anyway.

Also, an example I've seen before: If your mob of "mindless" skeletons is using advanced military tactics on the party, maybe you're taking things too seriously. A fix for this example would be to add someone "controlling" the skeletons and giving them these tactics. The party can then focus on that NPC and once they're defeated, the skeletons become easier to deal with.

1 to 50 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>