ShadeRaven's page

First, let me say that anyone interested in a virtual table top should look into Fantasy Grounds by SmiteWorks. It's a fantastic host for online gaming (as either a GM or player).

With that in mind, want to promote an adventure series I am in the process of developing that currently exists on Fantasy Grounds (though PDF version of the adventures will be coming out after each release).

Details on the series, each release, and subsequent PDF version can all be found here:

Conquerors of Daexor Nu (Adventure Series)

Each adventure should be self contained enough to stand alone and should fit into most standard fantasy worlds. For those who get a chance to play the series, I hope you enjoy and I always have a willing ear to suggestions and feedback.

Okay, for the life of me, I am struggling to really understand Item Quality, Item Potency, and Item Bonus as they exist now and as they interact with each other.

So in Doomsday Dawn, the Lost Star, a creature has with it an Expert Longsword. Looking at the Rulebook, here’s what I find:

(Page 180) – Longsword, 10 sp, 1d8 S, 1 bulk, 1 hand, Versatile P
- Simple enough. A basic longsword worth 10 sp, not frills other than versatility.

(Page 190) – Item Bonus: Weapons and skill-boosting items of expert, master, and legendary quality add the listed item bonus to attack rolls with the weapon or skill checks using the item (see Table 6–19).

Table 6-19: Item Quality
Expert, +1, 350 sp….

Okay. So that should mean an Expert Longsword is 350 (or 360 as I would probably rule) sp and is +1. I am guessing it’s therefore really a +1 non-magic Longsword that does 1d8 damage but is +1 to hit? Because if we look at page 178, we see this:

(Page 178) – Magic weapons add one or more weapon damage dice to your damage roll. These extra dice are the same die size as the weapon’s damage die.

An expert weapon isn’t magic, just well made.

To make it magic, we head to:

(Page 370-371) – Runes, Weapon Potency: A weapon potency rune grants two offensive benefits. The weapon’s wielder gains an item bonus to attack rolls with the weapon equal to the potency value…Second, on a successful attack roll, the weapon deals an additional number of weapon damage dice equal to the potency value.

Okay, so our Expert Longsword needs a +1 potency rune added to it to get the damage dice, although it’s already a +1 weapon from expert. I guess. Anyway, this costs 650 sp and is a level 4 feature.

So our +1 longsword is now around 1000 sp and can do the +1 attack rolls and 2d8, but that Expert Longsword must only be a +1 with 1d8 at 350 sp. Right? Both could have a Property Rune etched on it, if desired. So I could have a Ghost Touch Expert Longsword (non magic) worth 450 sp or +1 magic version worth 1100 sp.

Is that actually right? Am I getting this correctly? This stuff jumps all around and there’s not always a lot of clarity involved.

I also wish we had a little more clarity on a pricing mechanism for Adventuring gear that can be expert or master as there doesn’t seem to be rhyme nor reason behind which are worth 2500 sp and which are worth 7200 sp at the same level and quality.

So my playtest group welcomed the advent of the Medicine: Treat Wounds addition to the rules with open arms. A chance to have something different than Cleric Healbotting as an avenue to adventuring in Golarion.

However, we just played a couple of nights of PF2/PT where characters were getting beat up pretty notably. The Cleric’s Heals were all used up but the desire to stop just to get heal spells back was undesirable based on the RP of the campaign. Fortunately, players had invested in both Medicine as a skill and the Healer’s Tools as an item – it was our first real test of the newer features that came with the rules update.

This began some real observation on the use of Treat Wounds in the game. After literally hours of discussion on the subject, here’s a lot of what was expressed (as an aside, this group is coming from 5E with Short Rest, Long Rest, Second Wind, and Hit Dice healing):

1st) Treat Wounds felt like a more “in character” way of healing naturally. This was appreciated, though some thought that the 10-minute skill check routine created a lot of die rolls that then broke immersion as more and more were required.

2nd) The bigger concern was how it felt like Treat Wounds really made Full Rest healing terrible. A single 10-minute rest with a competent Medicine user was as good as a full night’s rest. That 16 CON level 4 Fighter got 12 HPs in 10 minutes – and 36 in just a half an hour. Had he taken a full 8 hours rest, he would get just 12. The DC of that Medicine Check was 16. Assurance on an Expert Skill almost made that automatic, but luckily it’s not (however, at level 3, EVERY SINGLE Treat Wound check will automatically succeed with Assurance – DC 15 – so Treat Wounds is essentially a regeneration skill, but fortunately it’s only that level the numbers work). The Healer had an 18 WIS (+4) and Expert Medicine at level 4 (+5). With a DC 16 and a +9, he will succeed 70% of the time, which he did 3 times in a row in the case we had for 36 HPs. There was only a 5% (crit fail 1) of any sort of healing train slowing.

So the real concern was that suddenly 8 hours of rest seemed inconsequential. Couple that with how good Treat Wounds is (from 4 to 12 in our 4th level group) with time, there was concern that it became a Must Have skill (medicine) and item (healer’s tools), even with a Cleric in the group. With there being no associated cost after the initial kit purchase, it felt a little odd – are there really 100 hours of bandages, tinctures, herbs, salves, etc., in that one medicine kit so that a Medicine trained character can use it forever, healing 1000s of points of damage? That also seemed unreasonable - maybe there should be some associated cost with more and more use (IE: limited charges on each Healer's Tools).

It really did feel like a 10-minute AoE regeneration tick hoping to dodge that die roll of a 1. That made it a must skill for every party it was decided.

Don’t want this to be too long, so I’ll try to be concise. How are people dealing with transitioning from exploration to encounter mode especially as it relates to the narration and implementation of initiative?

First, let me share how I have been doing it, based on my interpretation of the rules which still feel a bit vague at time, in hopes of sharing ideas, getting feedback, and improving my gamemastering of this playtest (and eventually PF2 down the line).

I’ve spent a lot of time in the past doing the typical process: group explores, combat happens, everyone rolls for initiative. I try to narrate this transition, but inevitably, it comes down to the usual thing: blah blah blah, roll for initiative. Everyone knows it’s going down from that point.

However, with PF2, I’ve taken a different approach. As part of the exploration/discovery process, players actively give me their actions and roll their perceptions. “I sneak to that pillar and look around.” “I head down that hallway, keeping an eye out for trouble. We know there’s orcs in these ruins.” “I study the ground, looking for tracks or other signs of orc passage.” These all become default initiative rolls regardless of whether combat begins or not. If the orcs aren’t there, then they move on and the next set or skill checks determine what initiative will be if combat ensues.

So as combat starts, it’ll be something like this:
I roll initiative for the 4 orcs just ahead. They get scores of 14, 12, 10, 5. Griblet the Goblin scored a 17 stealth, his initiative score as well. Gordray the Monk’s scouting down the hallway netted only an 8 perception. However, Jrey’s survival check for tracks was a solid 19, putting him at the top of the initiative tracker. Combat begins as such, with Jrey.

Me: Jrey. You see the distinct muddy tracks of the orcs you guys are pursuing, clearly fresh, leading to your west. At the edge of the torchlight, you see a shadowy shape that you have come to recognize all too well – Orcs!

Had Griblet been on top of the initiative tracker, combat would have ensued with something like “Griblet, as you slink along the wide hallway, keeping to the shadows and cover of the pillars that run along it, you come upon the 4 orcs your party has been hunting. Their readied weapons and angry expressions are clear indications of their ill intent. It does not appear they are aware of you yet, but they certainly have their eyes down the hallway where the light of the monk’s torch glows brightly.”

And so on, including if an orc had gone first, it would begin with them emerging and attacking the party first.

In this, the players have really come to enjoy it. There’s no sudden roll for initiative announcement to break the narrative immersion and indicate that combat has started – it just happens as part of the game flow.

In a bit of a twist, too, I sometimes allow for some additional tweaks to initiative rolls for players, though this is probably a little more of a departure from the core (though I find the rules vague enough to give me some latitude on how to play out combat initiation). For example:

Traveling through a dangerous forest, everyone is on edge, even Griblet, so perceptions all around. However, there's a strange, acerbic smell in the air that someone with Nature Training might be able to identify as Troglodytes - so I call for anyone trained in Nature to make a roll. A good roll there might boost their initiative as they at least recognize some additional danger from the evidence at hand. The troglodytes, who were all hiding using stealth, suddenly leap to the attack - fortunately for Jrey, something in the air had him wary (Nature roll resulted in a 19), so he reacted quicker than most. His perception initiative changes from the 9 he rolled to 19 now, moving him to the front of initiative once again! Combat begins with me describing Jrey's sudden awareness of the distinct stench of Troglodyte and proceeds accordingly.

How are others handing this and what do you think of this approach?

I just came to realize that had I bought the PDF through you guys first, I could have then used that to reduce the price of the product in Fantasy Grounds. I would have loved to have the PDF to read over offline when not playing online.

So that begs the question, is there any reverse process where I can get the PDF through my purchase of the full product through FG/Steam?

I had written a relatively long winded post on this subject, that failed to publish: perhaps that was for the best? So I will try to be concise this time.

The gist? I am not really a fan of the new XP system. Generic XP based on party level vs creature level requires looking it up (or having it handy) and doesn't allow for variation in differing individual levels in a group. 60 XP encounter for a party of 5 that include 2 1st and 3 2nd divvies out the same for everyone. Example: 4 goblins (to a 4 player party). Worth 80 XP to a first level group or 60 to a 2nd level group, and I had to look that up to see what High 1 meant instead of seeing 320 XP. In the old days...a room would be valued on the creature XP (320) and variation in levels meant that 320 divided by 4 meant more to lower level characters. Not anymore (although I would probably house-rule that the 2nd-level characters get 60 and the 1st get 80).

I also am not a fan of the new-wave RPG style where everything in microwaved for fast consumption entertainment. Encounters are small groups, individually wrapped, and built for quick resolution. The Temple of Elemental Evil or Caves of Chaos would be impossible (or severely gutted). Even in Burnt Offerings (AP1 in PF1, I've DMed 3 times), I examined one of the first encounters (Die, Dog, Die!) as it was a good encounter and a solid challenge but would now be considered Extreme (160 xp) and quite possibly TPK inducing. And that's the 3rd encounter during the Swallowtail Festival, the introductory scene.

Perhaps I am a bit of a curmudgeon. Perhaps I miss the old days where levels were more difficult to attain as you went up making the journey one of endurance and achievement. Maybe it's just me, but I know I am not a fan of this race to level 20 feel where every level is the same as the last. And I am not a fan of the "simplified" XP, Conflict, and Encounter Building that promotes small, high-impact encounters where combat is essential over by the end of round two. No more +2 attacks vs AC 18 or Dodging Fighters protecting more vulnerable allies.

And maybe I am also the only one who encourages players to think defense (total defense, dodge, front-line protectors) in a world that seems to be all about the pewpewpew and leading the DPS meters.

These things induce old-school sighs. I worry that D&D is no longer about the journey but about the "end-game" where max level is expected.

So I have been reading Colette's extraordinarily well written and insightful reports on her playtest experiences with an attentive eye so that those areas of greatest confusion or concern could be prepared for. I look forward to some of the other playtest threads as well, but hers was the one I got to first. That thread and the replies, interactions, and information is pure gold.

That said, the one thing that struck me as unusual, and perhaps unnecessarily problematic, was her report on the excessive (and lethal) number of critical hits their sessions were incurring (by and large, against the players). So what I am hoping to clarify is a simple question:

What makes anyone think that a critical success based on the Difficult Rating (10 over DC rating) applies to combat?

The rule book is pretty big so maybe I missed something but it seems to me that Strikes vs. AC are not a DC employable contest and that the only way to incur a crit is on a natural 20. That's how I (we) have interpreted combat results so far. Any expanse on the natural 20 rule (outside of having feats/powers that improve that range) would be significant and definitely deadlier.

I am not saying that encounters will suddenly become mundane (they are still quite threatening without the excessive crits), just that her reports of 1-shot (even vs. shield readied defenders) kills might be overstated because of a rules interpretation.

Am I missing something?