Shaheer-El-Khatib's page

182 posts. Organized Play character for Bastien Beau.


RSS

1 to 50 of 182 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey that seems fun !
My turn !

So I'm a Nomadic Halfling with the Street Urchin background and I decided to be a Fighter.

So since I'm Nomadic I speak Common, Halfling and ... let's say Dwarves.

For the first feat I will go with Sure Footed since I expect to fight a lot on roof or other uneven places in cities.

STATS :

For : 10
Dex : 18
Con : 14
Int : 10
Sag : 14
Cha : 12

Skill :
Trained in Acrobatics
Trained in Thievery
Trained in Society
Trained in Stealth
Trained in Deception
Lore : Underworld

I'm not quite strong so I will try to pick agile Weapon and go down the dual-sword fighting style. I will try to make up my lack of damage by having two attack that have more chances to hit.

So I pick Double-slice as first Class feat. After that I will pick something to use distance weapon because there is nothing for twin fight at level level 2, then Twin Parry at level 4.

For defense I will most likely go with light armor, probably Studded leather since I have hight Dext and I expect to sneak and hide. Maybe try to get on in Mithral to avoid the check penalty.

At some point I will pick "DISTRACTING SHADOWS" and "Very Sneaky" so that I could use this rountine in fight :
- Hide behind someone taller than me (easy, and not restricted to allies)
- Move to get to someone that lost sight of me because of the previous action.
- Use double-slice on the flat-footed guys. (Does it still work for the second attack in double slice though ?)

Edit : (I just noticed that doesn't work, unless you are gobelin with the "Very Sneaky" feat).
I'm too lazy to found something else.

Almarane wrote:


Hmm... a Keen-Eared Elf Street Urchin Fighter. My dices are feeling classic today.

We definitely know each other !

Friend or foe ?

Probably foe.
I may have been someone that had to steal to survive but I despise brutish people. I may start has Chaotic Neutral, but the more I will witness bad people doing wrong to innocent, the more I will stand against them. Probably ending Chaotic Good (depending on how you view alignement though).

Some kind of mix between Robin Hoods and Batman.

Rogue would probably have been way better though but I kinda can pull it off I guess.
Maybe teaming with an actual Rogue is the better solution.

Anyway that was fun to test this randomization.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I disagree with some point but I am on Phone so it is not easy to write.

My group never had cleric and did things without much troubles. No one though it is mandatory to have one.

Secret roll are usefull when you want to avoid the "I rolled High so my info is 100% safe". Once the players all rolled knowledge. Only one got a false information but they didn't know it. I used it also for perception check when searching hidden stuff.

They don't think fighting is static. Quite the reverse in fact. Fighting being dynamic is one of the first good thing they pointed out.

So far they liked the bestiary.

About the book search : new system = You don't remember things Well.
PF1 needs a lot more book tracking at start. We Forget it because we played for years but PF2 is really easier for people that weren't "infected" by PF1. (I'm not saying that in a bad way but my english knowledge is lacking to accurately explain that)

Scarab Sages

Really helpfull.
Nice job !

Scarab Sages

Tridus wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

See, none of that logic remotely explains how a 200 lb dead weight flopping around is Bulk 8. Indeed, most of that logic directly argues it should be more than that by quite a bit.

Hence my confusion.

ACcording to bulk, 1 longsword is the same difficulty to carry as 10 shortswords. Bulk doesn't make any sense if you analyze it, think about it, or even look at it.

It's just a completely arbitrary number not related to anything. I don't think it's even fixable, since the scale has so little precision that you simply can't make representative numbers for most things. It's an attempt at simplification that doesn't simplify, but instead divorces things so far from the real world counterparts and basic sense that it makes it harder to understand.

I once had to carry 1 Katana and 5 short katana (don't remember the name) when I was in Japan.

The Katana was a pain in the ass because it is very long.
It doesn't fit in the bag, and if you put it anyway it prevents you from putting a lot of other things inside it.
The short katana could just be put altogether inside and no problem.

Bulk works for encombrement (not always) but it works very weirdly for the weight part though.

Scarab Sages

KATYA OF VARISIAN wrote:

The other day my wife said to me "I have a 16 wisdom". I believe that she honestly believed this because she is a librarian with two masters degrees, one from NYU.

If you make any character under the current rules you will always have an 18 in one stat at first level. This is just insane.

The strongest man on earth cannot lift 3x his weight or drag 5x his weight.

Wrong. Long Qingquan is 56kg and lifted 307kg. That is nearly 6 times is Weight.

KATYA OF VARISIAN wrote:


The most beautiful actress/model barely rates a 15 in charisma.

Subjective. We have no idea since Charisma is abstract. Futhermore Charisma is not just physical beauty. Hitler may have been 18 considering how so much people followed him. (Godwin point achieved)

KATYA OF VARISIAN wrote:


No one with a wisdom above 14 would ever enter the political arena because s/he would be wise enough to see the pitfalls.

You can have Wisdom and be Evil or use Wisdom to counter your opponent.

KATYA OF VARISIAN wrote:


The smartest rocket-scientest at MIT probably has a 16 intelligence.

We have no idea. There is no clear statement that link Intelligence point and IQ.

KATYA OF VARISIAN wrote:


I don't see the need for such exaggerated scores.

Why do we make the rules so that only the GODLIKE can survive?

The rules are a bit hard for the suboptimal yeah.

But whatever solution that they could use the people with better stat Will be better and that is ... normal.

Scarab Sages

The Once and Future Kai wrote:
Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:
So you can use this reaction each round and have 0 impact from the poison. It may be fine in fight (because you need to choose between that and another reaction) but outside it would be too powerfull I guess ?

No – that was not my intention. Let me try rewording the Trigger to, “You become afflicted with Poison or the Sick condition.” The idea was one round at the onset of a condition. This would negate afflictions with a duration of 1 but longer durations would persist.

Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:
Bad wording at the end. It seems like it make you immune to the triggering attack which would be silly. "You can't use this reaction twice on the same trigger each day" is more clear I think.

I made a halfhearted attempt to use the same wording as the rulebook but failed badly. Let me try again with, “The attacker who landed a Critical Strike is bolstered to your use of Stoneborn Resilience.” The intention being that you survive a Critical Strike but that you cannot spam the ability against the same foe to avoid dying indefinitely.

Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:
Peace Keeper

I am not sure about the mechanics but I’m a big fan of the concept. I think with a bit of polish it could be a great option. I don’t know that I like it being locked to Elves – are they particularly peace loving in Golarion? In Dragonlance and Tolkien many of the Elven cultures have militant histories.

Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:
Personal note : It would work as a skill feat too. Maybe even as a basic action "ask for cease fire" or something.

Parley with the Enemy would be a fun and flavorful Skill feat.

Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:

Feat: Curious about everything; Level 1; Common

Traits: Gnome
Gnomes tend to be obsessive with one subject but some prefer to learn a bit about everything You are trained in all Lore skill.
This seems overpowered. Bardic Lore grants access to all Lore but only for the Recall Knowledge action. Perhaps this could have a similar...

"Curious about everything" is badly worded.

I didn't mean "all lore" but just the 4 knowledge (arcana, religious, nature, occultism) so that it is effectively 4 skill increase, just like the already skill that met you become Legendary on 1.

It may bit stronger because you get the 4 At level 1 though.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:

All reasonable points from your perspective, but one of them I want to address

Gorbacz wrote:

3. I don't abdicate the power, I merely am not interested in exercising it, or in spending the time necessary to judge whether I need to use that power or not. Rule 0 should be used to fill in gaps in rules and to make The Rule of Cool take precedence before RAW, it should not be used as a hammer to punch out imbalances of the system. Oberoni Fallacy and all that.

We're meeting to have fun, not to argue whether Matt's emergency force sphere is OP or not. There's absolutely no fun in such arguments for us.

I think that is one thing you cannot get away from. You, as the GM, are not a player, you are the arbiter and storyteller. Hence you have to do arbitration sometimes. I'm not saying that your approach is "wrong" or anything, but very different from my personal take.

You missed the point.

If you need to constantly homebrew things, you would be better just making a system on your own.

PF1 is so broken that I saw tables with so many homebrew that I doubt anyone would reckognize it as Pathfinder.

And they didn't did that for fun. It was literrally HELL for them to spend weeks creating something that fix issues without creating new ones and easily doable without rewriting most of the books.

GM ruling is fine. I use it a lot for narrative purpose. But when people stop every 10 minutes to complain about the 10 level Rogue that somehow can manage to nova 200 damage on average each round several times per day, there is indeed something that went wrong somewhere.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm currently watching 7 groups self-exploding because PF1 is unbalanced and players get mad that some can "break the game" by combining things that probably weren't intended to combo but it is somehow RAW.

Then their anger make necessary for the GM To balance things on his own.
And he needed to do so much work / research to try it but the rules are so massive that he eventually gave up.

He doesn't gave up just the balance thing.
He gave up roleplaying game as a whole.

So. Yeah. Balance things a bit please.
Or at least make it so the game is more homebrew friendly. And pf2 seems (seems) more easily homebrewed for me.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think you miss a bit the diversity objective.

I am fine with abilities class locked as long as there is a way for other classes to have a weaker version or a slightly different version in other classes.

Like a Fighter dual weapon being somewhat different from a ranger or Barbarian dual weapon.

I am not fine with chain class feat that lock you in one path after your initial selection at level 1 or 2.
Since every time you can select a class feat there is also the "next feat in the chain" that become avalaible. You are almost forced to take it every time (because starting again with low level feat to take another path feels underwhelming).

It's not true for each class on the same scale but some are really focused like this (Looking at you Paladin. There are only 3 Paladin build that seems workable. I may be wrong though)

Overall I still like playing the Playtest.

Scarab Sages

I have no real comment about the stats but I liked most of the feats you suggested.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:

A long time ago I put too much work into a homebrew d20 System Racial Trait Progression ruleset that I never completed. Looking over the Pathfinder Second Edition Ancestries I find myself instinctively going back to that creative space and thinking up additions to it.

So... Here's a thread for all of us to brainstorm options that we'd like to have added to the Ancestry/Heritage system.

Allow me to start with some adaptions from my old homebrew ruleset.

Feat: Bite Back the Bile (Reaction); Level 1; Common
Traits: Half Orc / Orc
Trigger: You are afflicted with Poison or the Sick condition.
The demands of your body cannot compete with your bloodlust, you push back illness or poison until you can afford it. When this feat is triggered, you may delay becoming sickened or poisoned by 1 round. This delay lowers duration of the poison and sick condition by 1.

So you can use this reaction each round and have 0 impact from the poison. It may be fine in fight (because you need to choose between that and another reaction) but outside it would be too powerfull I guess ?

I would say the duration of the poison should not decrease for that round. Or maybe add something like "You can use this reaction only when there is a visible hostile creature engaged in fight against your party" or something like that.

The Once and Future Kai wrote:


Feat: Stoneborn Resilience (Reaction); Level 1; Common
Traits: Dwarf
Trigger: You are reduced to 0HP by a critical success.
As the strongest metal is forged in hotted fires so Dwarfs stand resolute against the greatest adversity. When triggered you do not gain the dying condition, instead immediately gain 1HP and temporary hitpoints equal to your constitution modifier x your level. You are bolstered against the source of the critical success.

Bad wording at the end. It seems like it make you immune to the triggering attack which would be silly.

"You can't use this reaction twice on the same trigger each day" is more clear I think.

The Once and Future Kai wrote:


Feat: Wannabe Gremlin; Level 1; Common
Traits: Goblin
Some Goblins just want to watch the world burn, others just want to watch from the shadows as a carefully planned prank ruins someone's day. When you roll a Success or Critical Success on the Disable Device action while Unseen, treat the number of successes as doubled.

So - what homebrew Ancestry/Hertiage feats have been percolating in the back of your mind?

Kinda OK I guess.

Some idea of mine :

_______

Feat: Peace Keeper (Reaction); Level 1; Common
Traits: Elves, auditory, lingual, concentrate (?)
Trigger Initiative is rolled.
Elves live long enough to know both the value of life and that most fights are meaningless, starting often with misunderstandings.

You can roll Diplomacy for initiative when facing intelligent foes. At your turn you may try to Make an Impression at the cost of 3 actions with a -2 penalty. If anyone before you acted hostile toward the other party the penalty is -4. You can chose to not make an Impression if anyone used action with the attack trait but you MUST do it otherwhise.
If there is a leader you roll against his DC.
If there is no leader you roll against the highest DC.

Success : Resolve the current turn. If no one attacked after your turn the fight stop and you can try to talk to Resolve things peacefully. The starting attitude of the other party is hostile.
Failure : no effect

Special : The GM may rule that in some case it is not possible to succeed (like opponent have clear orders to kill anyone without negociation).

Personal note : It would work as a skill feat too. Maybe even as a basic action "ask for cease fire" or something.
In this state it doesn't Feel really elve like.

_______

Feat: Curious about everything; Level 1; Common
Traits: Gnome
Gnomes tend to be obsessive with one subject but some prefer to learn a bit about everything.

You are trained in all Lore skill.

_______

Feat: Excentricity (reaction); Level 1; Common
Traits: Gnome, auditory, concentrate
Trigger: Someone critically fail to Make an Impression check.
Gnome are often seen as weird and people more easily accept that they act strangely without thinking too much about it.
When someone fail to make an Impression you may try to Make a deception check to make diversion.

Success : The target is so distracted by your acts that they forget what didn't please them before. Their attitude don't change toward your party.

Critical success : The target is Actually impressed / interrested by What you did and his attitude toward your party increase.

Failure : no effect

Critical failure : You somehow annoy the target and his attitude decrease one step more.

In any case the target become bolstered against this effect.

______

Well I don't really have good ideas...

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Making it scale with proficiency would work better I think.

Kinda like unchained skill but proficiency in place of ranks.

Scarab Sages

I agree with this topic.

I would also like that class feat for any classes have some kind of auto scaling (less than Powers of course because they don't use ressources) mainly to avoid the "You pick that feat at level 1 so now you MUST pick this one at higher level, then this one, then this one" because they are chained together and making another choice is crippling your character

Scarab Sages

Mark Seifter wrote:

One thing you don't have to worry about: every class is going to get more pagecount in the final book, and that generally means a wider variety of feat options.

Muses are intentionally a little more flexible to see how people like that flexibility compared to later abilities locked into your 1st level choice (barbarian, cleric, sorcerer, wizard) or feats that withhold some of their punch if you didn't pick the matching 1st level choice (druid). It's been interesting to see the different responses to the different styles.

That is really interresting.

I like that choice at level 1 and important by I strongly dislike when this importance is made like "You have to expand every feats in your tree To milk you level 1 choice because everything else is locked".

Did you consider giving a level 1 choice that give free Fixed feats as you level up ? Doing so would make level 1 choice meaningfull while still giving the player a real choice when picking class feats because he won't be forced to pick one.
Though it would need a very bit changes of the feat List to make it balanced.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

You manage to say exactly What was on my mind but I didn't manage to explain it as clearly as you did.

Thanks.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm in the middle of chapter 2.
My players are motivated but it is hard to schedule games when you have work and family.

A chapter take around 2 sessions it seems and I would be Lucky if I can play every 3 weeks.

Scarab Sages

Tieflings
Lizardfolk
Kobold

I can't remember What else I picked.

Scarab Sages

HWalsh wrote:

They don't want you to be able to auto succeed and get infinite out of combat healing.

Treat wounds has already destroyed one of my games as every encounter ends with people scrambling for 50 minutes to heal everyone to full.

The game worked BEFORE this was added.

In a real game (not the playtest campaign) you roll a random encounter if they sit down to often. Or just make it obvious that if you waste time the next challenge might be harder.

Not every time of course but enough to make them worry each time they wonder if it is a good idea.

That being Said I would have make it :
- Heal 50% more
- Take 30 minutes. If you are interrupted you gain nothing. (A skill feat could be 15 minutes for half healing).

The DC ... I don't know.
NOT related to the Healer level for reason already Said.
NOT related to the receiving character level because the idea that nearly NOBODY on Golarion could Heal a totally normal arrow wound on a level 20 character seems silly to me.

But I don't know what would be smart to use.

Scarab Sages

Fuzzypaws wrote:

With so few spell slots and thus so few opportunities to shine, cantrips should actually be sitting at about 75-80% of an equivalent weapon user, because it's what a caster will be stuck with most of the time. As most cantrips already do less damage than an equivalent weapon, making them take 1 action instead of 2 would be ideal. If they stay at 2 actions a cantrip should actually do more damage than a weapon, or do equal damage with some rider like a minor buff or debuff, because you only get to use it once per round.

Highest level slots should be about 200% on average for single target or 100-150% for area, depending on factors like size of area, any riders, etc.

Once a low level slot would be equalled or outpaced by a cantrip, it should become a cantrip. So there should be text with such spells saying that if you have it prepared in a slot of tier X but have access to slots of tier Y, you can cast it at tier X at will.

I don't agreed about the action for cantrip you proposed. They should be significantely weaker to compensate for the versatility of a spellcaster.

However I agree that something like "spell whose level are at least 4 level under the maximum level spell you can cast become cantrip that you can use at will" could be interresting.
It would need some research though to be sure that won't open some crazy non intended effect.

Scarab Sages

I was thinking about something like this :

When you reach 0 you become wounded 1 (or 2 if the hit was critical).

Any damage you take increase the wounded condition by 1 (or 2 if critical hit or critical fail Save)

Wounded X become : -X in all check. You are still conscious.
Magical healing reduce the Wounded condition by the number of dices rolled.

When your wounded value exceed you CON modifier (minimum 1) you become inconscious and dying 1 (or 2).

Dying : same thing as now but DC 15.

Example :
PC with CON +3

Reach 0 : Wounded 1. Still fighting.
Got hit : Wounded 2. Still fighting.
Got Healed by 1d6 : wounded 1. Still fighting.
Got hit : Wounded 2. Still fighting.
Got critically hit : Wounded 3 - dying 1
Got Healed by 1d6 : Wounded 3 - Conscious
Got critically hit : Wounded 3 - dying 2

Side notes :
- I though about "slow" for wound but that would limit it at Wounded 3.

- I used wounded X to be like the usual system but I would myself prefer a table of negative effect (blinded by blood, slowed, dazzed...) to pick by the GM (To match the attack that wounded the PC) or roll randomly.

- magical healing make it a lot more harder. I don't like it as it is. I would need to think about It.

- That probably make people with High CON way more harder to kill but they also take huge penalties if they keep fighting.

- Too much complexe to run with npc each fight.

Overall it is not a good idea right now but maybe with some tweak here and there....

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Tamago wrote:

I think I saw this suggestion on the other thread, and I liked it. The DC should be based on the level of the creature you're healing, rather than your own level. For most cases this would be the same thing, but it would allow for high-level NPCs being able to easily heal the party, or low-level PCs struggling to save a high-level creature. That seems more interesting to me.

Natural Medicine could very easily just become, "You can perform the Treat Wounds action using the Nature skill instead of the Medicine skill."

No need to reinvent the wheel, and characters who are better at Nature than Medicine will find it quite useful.

Noted, thanks!

Sooooo a random healer can heal a level 1 arrow wound but "somehow" the same arrow wound on a level 20 suddenly is an impossible task for 98% of all the Golarion Healers ?

Scarab Sages

I would prefer something like "pick 3 Ancestries Feats at level 1" and make it so that these feats auto scale like cantrip does.

A general feat could be something like :
Cultural Integration
(The character should have stay in a specific culture for Y years)
You pick one non-biological Ancestry feats from any Ancestry.

Scarab Sages

Leedwashere wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
ENHenry wrote:
doubt we'll see many Tuba-playing Bards, anyway.
I dunno, it feels like in this edition it's wholly possible to play a bard who never puts down their instrument to pick up a weapon, so I can see people who want to do this choosing to play whichever instrument conjures the most amusing mental image- sousaphone, marching glockenspeil, tenor drum kit, etc.

Can you use a didgeridoo as a staff?

I'm asking for a friend <.<

I now picture a Gnome Bard using a freaking triangle like a madman while laughing hysterically to make people confuse and angry.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ahlmzhad wrote:
pauljathome wrote:

I've played a druid with animal companion at level 1, 4, and 5.

The level 4 was a bit of a special case. The druid was primarily a wild shaping druid and he took the animal companion specifically to see if it would be of any use at all.

My opinion based on these actual playtests is that the animal companion is neither under powered or over powered. Even the low powered companion had its uses

With the level 5 druid the bear was a good contributor, bringing the druids contribution up to being on par with the martial characters.

Given that the animal companion effectively adds ONE to the actions taken I certainly don't think that it dominated the game nor made the druids turn take too long. Most of my thought process was deciding what Team Druid did. Actually doing the actions was simple The animal almost never bothered attacking twice. Usually moved and either attacked or used its Work together benefit together with a single attack).

The level 4 companion actually went a bit better than I thought it would. About 1/2 the time it wasn't worth the action to actually use so it just stood there. The rest of the time it was worth the action (usually for its work together benefit more than for its attack).

Didn't take much damage as the GM didn't feel like wasting attacks killing it :-).

Had a reasonable level of power for a single class feat (my level 4 feat went to better wild shaping).

I didn't find it over powered particularly. They always function as another PC. My problem is that the AC doubles the number of actions one player has, and so they wind getting twice as much time in each combat round as the other players. Which leads to a lot of discontent from the other players.

I Feel like you play with jerk.

It is the first time I saw anyone complaining about that and I played with more than 50 people.

What is the next step ?
"When the mage use a spell the ennemy must roll a Save. It take more time than when my fighter hit with is sword" ?

Utterly ridiculous.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

First time I ever found people Actually thinking it is hard to count diagonales. It never was an issue in any game I was.

Smurf.

Scarab Sages

graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I strongly disagree. Having one person with Medicine borders on being a requirement, but more than one is a luxury and in no way necessary. One person provides sufficient uses most days and in most situations. You need some extra for when they crit fail, but you need some for in-combat healing anyway.

You hit why more than 1 person is REQUIRED to max out medicine: crit failure. If you're expecting medicine to cover you on an adventure and the single person crit fails on the first roll what then? everyone goes home for the day? Now lets say you go to the next person, but they don't have as good a roll and crit fail more often so it's sooner before it gives out... I'm REALLY not seeing why everyone doesn't have it.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
In most games, most of the time, taking Medicine is a waste for most PCs. Specifically, it's gonna usually be a waste if someone else has it, and almost always a waste if two other people have it.

Will it be used every time? No. Will it be used at some point? I'd say 100%. Can you say with a straight face that you don't expect any failures before the party is healed enough? Or that secondary will fail more? I'm not seeing how it's a waste. Is a knowledge a waste if you only use it every few adventures?

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Because it's usually completely superfluous and you want to use the skill rank for other things.

This is another reason you want multiple people with it: if you use only one person, they effectively only get 1 skill they can use every rest while others can do other things. Now what do you do if the 'healer' wants to use a skill during the break? Or to you take a break AFTER your healing break? Or what happens is the 'healer' is knocked out/petrified/paralyzed/ect and can't make the roll?

Deadmanwalking wrote:
10 minutes almost never makes all wounds go away unless they weren't very serious. And bandaging up after a fight is very thematically sound.
You're reading different fantasies...

1/ You usually avoid overlaping competence in a group.

2/ If everyone take medicine and max it you Will 100% lack in other area and that can doom you.
Good luck with 6 Legendary medicine if the threat is a death sentence in court and no one took Diplomacy.

3/ Yes it is still really appealing. It should be. Having a lot of appealing option make build choice matter.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:
By which I mean the time limit existing is less likely to elicit a response from a participant in the story along the lines of "...that's goofy."

We'll have to agree to disagree. In a 'we don't know when the ceremony will start so we have to hurry' situation, taking a 1/2 hour nap is more 'this is goofy' than the wands: it's like the video games that give you an 'urgent' quest but has no enforced timeline so you can put it off. It's a very narrow road to walk to make the longer wait make more sense with a time limit.

As to the rest, it seems like optic.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
The thing is that using Treat Wounds is only free in terms of money (well, you need to buy a healer's kit, but that's a negligible expense). Doing it reliably requires a fairly decent skill investment, and also a fair bit of time in many cases (and takes more time the less you invest in the skill). Both are significant investments, far more significant than the money required for a Wand of CLW is at 10th level in PF1.

I don't see it as an investment but more a requirement now: what party isn't going to buy a healers kit [the whole party can use it] and is there a reason for anyone to not max out the skill? it's the new perception skill that most everyone maxed out.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
It's also not unlimited

Close enough. By the time everyone crit fails, the other resources they have will be out and they need to rest anyway. Again, why wouldn't everyone take the skill for free rolls?

Deadmanwalking wrote:
And then, of course, there's the thematic element: Using a dozen Wands of CLW is a bit odd and not supported by the fiction, while having a medic patch you up between fights is intuitive and supported by the fiction.
I'll disagree on thematics. Using magic seems far more in step with them than a few bandages, some spit and a 10 minute break makes all the wounds go away. A med patch works in sci-fi and mundane adventures but that's not pathfinder. 'Fiction' doesn't...

If that is your problem just reflavor it as a Ritual that everyone learning medicine (the art of healing) learn.

You are a Monk ? Said you learn to boost others ki with some time and increase healing.

You are a cleric ? Throw some religious pray.

Fey Sorcerer or druid ? Suck healing power from Mother Nature.

Fighter ? I have no idea but ultimately I Will found one.

Anyway if the flavor is the issue it is not an issue.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Mechalas wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
I do agree that Hero Points feel like a cheap "get out of dying free" card, and I don't like them. I especially don't like how the "dodge death" ability is SO good that no sane PC would ever use the 2-point or 3-point abilities. "I can reroll one attack, or I can save my life three times? Huh, tough choice..."

Hear, hear.

Remember in PF1 how you could do really fun and cool things by spending one point, but it cost two points to rescue yourself from death?

So now we've reversed that, cut down on the cool things that you actually can do, and in compensation we give them out for things like "bringing food for the group" and "taking notes".

First time seing anyone saying that Hero Point were good in PF1.

I played with maybe 50 players and each time that was removed out of the game faster than light.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

For myself I am both trying To help the dev by adding idea but also nurturing myself with the really good houserule that people far more talented than me post here. It Will improve my GM skill in a lot of way.

So ironically the game being disapointing is a good thing for me in some way because it make a lot of people coming with interresting Fixes that can be used somewhere.

See you next year anyway.

Smurf.

Scarab Sages

I think that races feels better overall. Most feats are more thematic than a lot of racial traits in PF1 (for my tastes at least). But underwhelming.

And the fact that you pick Ancestry Feats as you level up bother me.

I would prefer something like "pick 3 Ancestries Feats at level 1" and make it so that these feats auto scale like cantrip does.
I think it would be better.

Scarab Sages

One a side note I would like that Rogue can start as poisoner. It's thematic and not broken at all.

Needing to wait mid-level made a lot of my players unhappy.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
StratoNexus wrote:
Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:

My issue is that the examples given in the corebook don't go above level 5-8 for difficulty.

So when you diagnosize a "level 13 DC" you end up with a number but absolutely no idea at What it is expected to be.

Let's say you want some bridge to challenge a party and you found out that the DC should be 28.

Some of the harder to pin down challenges for higher level parties are really just scenery to level 13+ characters. Is a bridge really a challenge at that level? That isn't to say I wouldn't consider something bridge-like for the setting that could have challenge attached to it, but I would have the event in mind and then set the challenge based on that, rather than picking a DC and trying to fudge an event into it. Most environmental issues will be trivial at higher levels. Earthquakes and meteorites seem like a cool thing that could occur once in a campaign. I fail to see how getting "locked" into a difficulty for those is going to really be a problem?

"Watch out, tomorrow is Tuesday, meteorite dodging day!"

"Locked" in the idea that anything you set up as a higher challenge should be obviously harder.

So it become a new reference. But a SUBJECTIVE one. Two people won't agreed about "What is harder between X and Y" since it is a personal bias.

And the more you play the more you have those reference scattered accross every level and it become a nightmare to imagine a next one that would fit in the good level difficulty without breaking versimilitude created by the previous challenge you set up.

Smurf

Scarab Sages

Dire Ursus wrote:
Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:

I agree on the principe.

My issue is that the examples given in the corebook don't go above level 5-8 for difficulty.

So when you diagnosize a "level 13 DC" you end up with a number but absolutely no idea at What it is expected to be.

Let's say you want some bridge to challenge a party and you found out that the DC should be 28.

Great.

Sooooo ?
Is the bridge in rumble while a tornado is here ?
Is there a lava stream that splash against it ?

You could say "whatever if it works" but the more you play the more it is difficult. Because you always need to think about something believable to explakn the increased difficulty while not creating inconsistencies. And no guidelines.

Example of jump (random number just for the though):

DC 10 : x feets
DC 15 : x+5 feets
DC 20 : x+10 feets or x+5 feets with slippery edges.
DC 25 : x+10 while there is a earthquake.
DC 30 : x+10 while dodging meteorites rain.
DC 35 : x+10 in a tornado... ? Is that really more difficult than the meteorite ? No idea. You just Pick it randomly because you need it that time and then you are "locked" in this for the rest of the campaign.
DC 40 : Jump to the moon ??

I read myself and I Feel like I don't make any sense but I totally fail to properly translate my issue in english :(

Smurf !

That's the thing though. A simple bridge that would realistically hinder 13th level PCs SHOULD be special. Every single challenge that is presented to the PCs don't have to be their level. They could come to a level 5 difficulty skill check but maybe you can add some monsters to the environment, or some traps. Higher level skill checks should be extraordinary things because 13th level PCs failing because of a gap in the bridge makes no sense.

I never denied that.

My issue is that they don't give scale.
So for one GM something might be "level 14" and another GM Will say "level 18" because since there is no indication it is up to everyone to build his own scale.

Nice pic though.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree on the principe.

My issue is that the examples given in the corebook don't go above level 5-8 for difficulty.

So when you diagnosize a "level 13 DC" you end up with a number but absolutely no idea at What it is expected to be.

Let's say you want some bridge to challenge a party and you found out that the DC should be 28.

Great.

Sooooo ?
Is the bridge in rumble while a tornado is here ?
Is there a lava stream that splash against it ?

You could say "whatever if it works" but the more you play the more it is difficult. Because you always need to think about something believable to explakn the increased difficulty while not creating inconsistencies. And no guidelines.

Example of jump (random number just for the though):

DC 10 : x feets
DC 15 : x+5 feets
DC 20 : x+10 feets or x+5 feets with slippery edges.
DC 25 : x+10 while there is a earthquake.
DC 30 : x+10 while dodging meteorites rain.
DC 35 : x+10 in a tornado... ? Is that really more difficult than the meteorite ? No idea. You just Pick it randomly because you need it that time and then you are "locked" in this for the rest of the campaign.
DC 40 : Jump to the moon ??

I read myself and I Feel like I don't make any sense but I totally fail to properly translate my issue in english :(

Smurf !

Scarab Sages

Rysky wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Upping Ranger damage doesn't fix the fundamental problem with the Ranger. Honestly, Paizo, if you want to create the Hunter, create it. Hunt Target, Monster Hunter, Hunted Shot, Hunting Companion, Master Monster Hunter, Shadow Hunter....just create the Hunter. You don't want to let go of this concept, fine, but at least acknowledge that it's not a Ranger that you've created.
It's not the Hunter either, and calling it that would annoy people who liked that Class. The Hunter wasn't about hunting at all, the Ranger had more hunting stuff on it. The Hunter was about buffing themselves and their buddy with Foci, Spells, and Teamwork Feats.

The hunter was just a pet educator anyway.

Also : Smurf

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon Onozuka wrote:

Thoughts on Multiclassing:

Why does Paladin Dedication grant proficiency in all armors when everyone else only increases existing proficiency?

Multiclass feats granting straight HP increases feels wrong to me. Seems like a tanky character who wants as much HP as possible is now forced to pick up some multiclass.

1/day abilities: I hate these with a passion. By my count, we've got 4 of these now, Barbarian Rage, Fighter Attack of Opportunity, Paladin Retributive Strike, and Ranger Hunt Target. Either grant the class feature or give nothing, don't clutter up a character sheet with 1/day abilities that don't feel rewarding. Especially considering that most of these don't even make much thematic sense, ("I'm a barbarian that can only get really mad once before I need a nap in between.")

THIS.

Scarab Sages

5 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Dasrak wrote:

Couple of suggestions:

*Treat wounds should use the medium DC based on the highest level of the targets. This doesn't make a difference when healing party members, but could be significant when healing NPC's.

*You buffed the read aura spell to match the change to the identify magic skill actions, but not the mending spell to match the faster repair times.

+1 to Treat wounds being based on the target's level rather than your own.

I understand the reasoning behind using the medic's own level, but from an aesthetic perspective, it feels nicer that it's easier for a high level medic to easily heal low-level NPCs, or a particularly difficult challenge to perform surgery on an injured, but otherwise powerful Dragon.

I understand the DC in a game perspective, but I don't get it ingame.

Why is it harder to heal someone that took an arrow at level 10 that is was at level 1 ?

Scarab Sages

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Great update so far.

Still waiting for :

- Rebalancing Ancestry Feats (selecting 1-3 at first level that scale like cantrip as you level up)

- Broaden the Classes by adding more feats (but that could wait for a book after the rule book)

- Suppress some Feat Taxes so that you could go one path (inside the classe) then dipping a bit in another path.
Currently you are nearly forced to just "pick the next feat in your path" so there is not really a choice. Or at least not enough.

- More example for the DC table. I got number, great, but story wise what is considered "Level 14 medium acrobatic check" exactly ?

- I would do my usual joke about the Nymph in the Bestiary but it seems my last comment was deleted so ... was it because of that (harmless) joke ? I got no notification.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

TPK is easy in every game if the GM is actively trying to do it.

I could kill party of level 6 with just one monster of FP4 if I wanted to in some case.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:

While I appreciate removing the slowed condition from the dying rules, I cannot help but think that the wounded condition will make it even easier for a gang of determined enemies to beat down on a massively-AC-debuffed, dying PC in order to finish them off once and for all. That is a tactic I have been using in my playtest games to force TPKs, and the new wounded condition will make it even easier.

According to the playtest rulebook, "only the most vicious creatures focus on helpless foes rather than the more immediate threats around them," but then, how are PCs supposed to survive those vicious creatures exploiting the wounded condition?

I cannot help but think that every sorcerer is going to multiclass into paladin, completely ignore the code of conduct due to the explicit lack of penalty for doing so, and then enjoy their medium armor. This seems like a ridiculous state of affairs for sorcerers.

Since when was it difficult to kill a dying PC ?

In PF1 you are dying at -1, and assuming a medium Constitution of 14, nearly anything can kill you in 2 hits.

And that is if you were at -1 to begin with.
In reality you are at 5, then someone hit you with 20 dammage and you died instantly with absolutely no hope at all (unless a Breath of Life avalaible).

Or do you mean making the "healing the down guy again and again" is way more dangerous ?
In that case, yes, it is the case.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

At this point you could just build a totally new classe flavored as Oracle or Inquisitor.

I Will probably redo 80-90% of the classes (basically suppressing tax feat and adding more interresting reaction. Probably a bit more of iconic capacity "free"), make Ancestries feat " Take 3 At 1th level that scale as you level up" and boost (very) sligthly spells.

Also nerf the bestiary.

I Will most likely steal your Ritual idea.

Scarab Sages

35 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Apparently Paizo can't tell us because to do so would bias our feedback Instead they want us tilting at windmills and only afterwards will they tell us what the point of anything was.

You are becoming more and more toxic by the days dude.

Take some nice vacation, breath, remember this is just a game with an absolute 0 impact on your life and take it easy.

Even if it end up as the worst game ever there is no reason to be this upset.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
We've been asking the first question since day 1. Still haven't gotten an answer. I don't expect this thread to be any different.

You got an answer in the last blog.

" But it's equally important to the data collection process that playtesters not know what those goals actually are until the test is over, since to do so any other way would bias the results."

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Shield.

The proper rule made them as resistant as toilet paper.

Scarab Sages

I have more issue about the fact that you need an action to remember something.

IRL I don't need to stop 2s to know that the thing before me is a tiger, a predator than run fast, climb tree, is solitary and use claw and maw.

But I guess more exotic things could be harder to remember so... maybe ?

Maybe since monsters have rarity level and Knowledge have proficiency it could be tied together one way or another ?

Untrained : 1 action to remember common monsters.

Trained : Free roll to remember common Monster. 1 action for Uncommon monsters.

Expert : Free recall roll for Uncommon. 1 action for rare.

Master : Free recall roll for rare. 1 action for Legendary.

Legendary : Free recall roll.

Something like that ?
Although you could say everyone should know a bit about dragons even if they are not common.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a mix between the Ritual Healing Suggestion and the Bandage of Healing suggested on another topic.

Personally I think whatever idea is better than the current state of the game so... yeah. Sure. I would use it.

Scarab Sages

Tholomyes wrote:
Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:

I would like more :

- 1 Fixed boost
- 1 Boost in a selection
- 1 flaw selection

Example :

Elf :
Fixed Boost : Dext
Second boost : Chose between Intel or Wisdom.
Flaw : Chose between Constitution or Strengh

"Elf are gratious and cunning but their body is weaker than most"
(Alternatively, boost could be "Intel or Cha" if the setting is more like "elf are really curious and likable" than "old wise dudes")

Dwarf :
Fixed Boost : Con
Second boost : Str or Wisdom
Flaw : Dex or Cha

"Dwarf are strong, both mentally and physically, but aren't the most agile or social people on Golarion"

So that the race stay a bit more "flavor oriented"
(Because an elf with boost in Strengh seems weird To me. Although there are fictional world were they are strong as hell because magic in blood) but it opens more classes (Dwarven druid)

Or maybe just " Pick 2 Boost in this 3 ability List and one Flaw in this 2 ability list".

I generally am mostly fine with this (far less so with the other suggestions in the thread, which I generally don't think are well thought out enough), but in this instance, I'd still like to see something that grants what is now the free boost from ancestry. As it stands, that free boost does so much work, that getting rid of it is the wrong decision, and honestly, I think I still well prefer how it is now, but I think this could work, but it might need Backgrounds or something to pull a little more weight.

EDIT : I wasn't really awake when writting and my answer was silly.

Yeah sure. One free boost. Why not.
If you want it.

I wouldn't use this free boost myself though and stick with my first suggestion. I prefer Flaw being flaws. You can overcome them by training but that are the boost you get in the next step of character creation.
But at birth you has the Flaw.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some though about magic identification :

- "Read Aura" give some hints in 10 minutes.
The potion would label as "necromancy school" so you know it is not invisibility or shield.
Though it needs some heavy steel balls to drink it with just that knowledge.
So you can narrow a bit "We need healing but this is divination school so let's put it aside for now"

- Alchemical item are identified in 10 minutes (But it take a consumable if I recall Well ?)

- It may sound silly but I think a lot of potion could juste have their name written on it. Whoever made them probably don't want to mix them up with poison.
Well if it is ancient the writting may have gone off.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
LiquidLeoc wrote:
This is my first time posting here, just to endorse this idea. This needs to reach dev ears.
Thank you for making your first post here! I saw someone (not me) bring it up on the developer's twitch stream on Friday but it was one of the questions they missed. I'm thinking of creating a twitch account so that I can ask myself.

I would use my account to do it but I am not sure I can with the hours delay between USA and Europe.

I am very curious to know if they ever read this thread and What they think about It.
In the stream he just said "MoAr hEaLiNg SpElL" so I am a bit worried about them not even looking at the tons of alternative that people post here since week.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Leedwashere wrote:
But it boils down to one of two options: Fix the prices or fix the HP. My original post champions the second, while your proposal champions the first. Both can work equally well for the items by themselves, but the latter potentially requires fewer systemic changes. But as long as one of them is implemented, it will be sufficient for me.

I'd think the best solution would be to adjust both prices and the healing. Some prices are bad, 1,200 gp for a potion is nuts. Maybe if it was a raise dead item like the Elixir of Rejuvination it might be worth the price. But for healing? No way. Even for 100% of HP. And as you found out, adjusting just one variable makes the other go nuts at the extremes.

My general assumption for price for healing items is that 1 use items like potions should be more expensive per healing received than wands (just not 1,200 gp). I see them having different uses. Potions are for quick emergency healing in combat. In combat the incentive is towards something fast with a lot of healing in one shot. Wands on the other hand, can be ok in combat, but might be best used for between-fight healing when time isn't as essential but maximizing the value is. Guzzling a six-pack of potions between each fight just isn't the most practical method of healing. Or potentially the role for between-fight healing could be moved to something else entirely (like magical surgical tools or bandages that work over 10 minutes or so) and have wands as the versatile switch-hitter of healing items that can do both well.

Another way wands might be able to be balanced is by adjusting the number of charges depending on the level of the wand. For example 5 for a 1st level wand, 10 for 2nd, 15 for 3rd and 20 for 4th. So changing only that and assuming a modifier of 4 and single targets would give:

  • 1st level wand, 5 charges 27 gp: 8.5 hp per charge, 42.5 hp total, 1.57 hp/gp
  • 2nd level wand, 10 charges 72 gp: 17.5 hp per charge, 175 hp total, 2.43 hp/gp
...

Maybe new items like :

- Bandage of healing (lesser)
3 actions to put.
After 10 minutes the wounds under the bandage Heals up to 10 hp.

- Bandage of Healing
3 actions to put
Same but up to 30 hp.

- Bandage of healing (greater)
Blablabla ... 90 hp.

For the price I have no idea but less than potion so that potion are for emergency use in fight while bandage are useless in fight.

....

Well that is kinda just short rest with GP cost though.

1 to 50 of 182 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>