Yakmar

SaveVersus's page

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 107 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

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.


18 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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

This reminds me of a scene in Coco where a skeleton sneezes and says he's allergic to dogs.

Coco asks how can he be allergic if he's dead?

The skeleton says, "I also doesn't have a nose, but here we are."


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

For an "in world" interpretation, a skeleton PC can drown because they still retain some semblance of their living self. This means that they either remember, or believe on a subconscious level that they can drown, similar to phantom limb syndrome. No amount of logic can shake this irrational belief.

A lot of the Basic Undead Benefits can be rationalized this way. I mean, how else would poison work on a skeleton?

This all ends up a little more comical than I think anyone intended though.

"Dude, the poison is just sitting there on your femur. Get a rag and wipe it off. it wasn't even a contact poison."

"Nooo! I need the antidote, pleeeease!!"


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I don't like telling players to homebrew their games, but if something like this affects all your players equally (the Dedication Feat effectively adds nothing to any character), then I feel the Free Archetype variant might be a good thing to add.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Oragnejedi42 wrote:
If someone at your table says "I don't have dice" is it unreasonable to offer them some?

I'd be more accurate to say something like, "I didn't bring any d12's for my great axe."

And then someone else say, "Here, roll these 2d6. It's better on average and 1d12 is too swingy anyway."


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Perpdepog wrote:
Fumarole wrote:
Clearly we should all just play GURPS.
Funnily enough the very thing that's being discussed happened to me with GURPS.

I had a friend who couldn't stop gushing about GURPS, so I thought I'd give it a shot. We all made PCs for a game he was going to run and after I turned mine in, he looked it over and said, "I'm a little shocked. Out of everyone here, I thought YOU would understand the system better than anyone else and make a better character."

... I didn't bother showing up to the first game. :-D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
siegfriedliner wrote:
... being told that you might want to try pathfinder 2e which fixes the problem your talking about in your piece in my mind counts as fair comment.

I agree... depending on how it's presented.

"Y'know, X Game handles Issue Y that you have a problem with."

is a lot more palatable than

"Get out of the dark ages already, put on your adult pants, and just start playing X Game. You can thank us later."

Try as you might, you can control how someone will respond.

Also in a celebrity's case (internet famous or otherwise), seeing "Try X Game" fifty to 500 times in a row would start to grate on anybody.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:
I think the whole thing could be solved by individuals not commenting with something that was not asked for.

Regrettably, I submit This from 2004.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
If people publish something on internet, why should other people not react to it in good faith ?

I'm gathering that it's people reacting with unsolicited responses, at least initially.

"I like D&D 5e," or "I really wish 5e had X."
"Y'know, PF2e is actually better than 5e in most ways," or "PF2e addresses X and would solve the problem."

Then compound that with these responses being made in either good or bad faith, and one bad apple spoiling the bunch.
In one person's case, frequent people pitching PF at every opportunity.

I do feel that if you post/offer something in a public forum, then you open people to react however they want, which - even in good faith - might not be the response you were hoping for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
People have a habbit of "reading between the lines" even when there is nothing there.

And that's just the nature of the medium.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So if we buy a hardcopy from Paizo, will it be the 3rd printing?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

... and a lot of it is we can control how we type something, we can't control how they read it.

If someone is having a bad day, or they're just normally a condescending person, they may read a comment like they're being talked down to, even if that's not how it was meant.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Leon Aquilla wrote:
If you don't want feedback, I wouldn't solicit advice or talk about how much your favorite system doesn't do (x) online.

So I've had a change of perspective on this.

I used to suggest stuff like that; the system doesn't support you're idea, so here's one that does...

But most times, that's not what the poster is asking; they're asking for ideas to modify something familiar that they already like.

It maybe helpful, but it isn't constructive.

It also may be the right answer, but you can't make someone see something until they're ready to see it.


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

I'd LOVE to weigh in here.

As someone who played 5e exclusively until mid-2021, and was way too active on D&D reddit, I was seeing people shill for Pathfinder 2e for months starting in early 2020, every single day...

As much as I liked 5e, I was looking for more for a very long time. The system has its merits, but wasn't crunchy enough for me.

I got the 2e playtest as soon as it was available, but quickly gave up on it because it looked TOO crunchy for what I wanted. Didn't give 2e another look until this year when I ran into the "Different Battle, Same Tactics" issue with 5e that Taking20 mentioned with 2e.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Some bad faith people aside, I feel this is largely not toxic and people are projecting. This is all an opinion, so I' not backing it up with facts and only submitting it as my perspective.

1. People are passionate about things they like. Personally, I was very elitist in my 20s; the things I liked were superior and the cream of the crop. I didn't throw it in anyone's face, but I'd ask people if you like X, you'll love Y and here are 15 reason why. If they considered it cool, if they didn't, I wouldn't hound the issue, which leads to...

2. I'm sure if inspected, a large number of these people saying "try PF2e" are fire and forget; they make what they feel is a helpful post and move on. The issue is these people are "internet famous" so they receive a LOT more of these posts than you or I would. This is skewing things because after the 50th post, it starts to sound like a broken record.

3. This is a stretch, but stereotypically "nerd culture" is antisocial, which means we're less skilled in getting our point across (I'm including myself in this). In my 20's I processed things a lot more logically than I do now and didn't consider the emotional impact.
If someone mentioned they didn't like something, then I'd suggest something different, list the reasons why it's better, and I'd get confused when my suggestion wasn't taken. If my suggestion answered all their problems, it didn't make sense to me why it was ignored.

4. People are passionate about things they like (redux) and feel invalidated when an overwhelming majority reject that. If I mention something about D&D and the majority of my replies were "Try PF2e instead," then I'd feel like my opinion didn't mattered, and that would probably sour me towards trying PF2e.

5. Generally, happy people don't announce they're happy. If someone is happy with D&D 5e, then they're most likely not going to post a reply saying so. This means even if the majority of replies are for PF2e, that doesn't mean the ENTIRE audience feels that way.

This isn't to say that we should downplay the impact of bad apples. Some people hate D&D and will take any chance to shoot it down. Some people think they're being helpful and are getting upset that their suggestion is being taken, and now they're belligerent about it. Some people are evangelical about PF2e and want to convert as many people as possible.
But I think it's a bad idea to take this as the sample size and extrapolate it to the group as a whole.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Did a Google:
Initiative Card PDF

It has space for 3 attack types, but you could write in the skills you use most often for your campaign instead.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Common: You're Good.
Uncommon/Rare: Check with your GM

If your GM doesn't have the book: CHECK WITH YOUR GM (no matter the rarity)... and send them the Archives of Nethys link.

For Example: Your GM doesn't have the Book of the Dead and you want to take the Skeleton ancestry. https://2e.aonprd.com/Ancestries.aspx?ID=50

1 to 50 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>