Skyth's page

I think you are right vic.

I'm going to look through the spells and see If I can figure out the issue myself so I can relate because no one wants to give me specifics.

There is the large (now closed) thread started by (Excuse me if I butcher the name) Maguskin that went over in a detailed analysis the specifics. The thread came close to 1000 replies.

Requielle wrote:

Evilgm wrote:

It's not bad that there's now a reason for a Wizard to actually use a sword if they want to be Gandalf

Which is great if you like Gandalf wizards. Not being sarcastic, that's perfect if that is the campaign world you want to create and the stories you want to tell.

I guess that's where it's breaking down for me. I don't mind an occasional Gandalf mucking about. But I don't want a campaign world full of them. I need space for the Raistlins, too.

And as I keep saying, YMMV.

Well, then you run into a problem that either you have a wizard who by default is competent with a sword and you can have Gandalf but not Raistlin; or you have a Wizard who should avoid melee at all costs and you can make Raistlin but not Gandalf. It's one or the other, unless you make classes much less meaningful.

In PF1 terms, Gandalf was an outsider with maybe 3 levels of sorcerer. His prowess with a sword came from the outsider hit dice, not the levels of sorcerer.

The biggest issue is that PF2 is not being marketed as an entirely different game. It's being marketed as a replacement for PF1. Thus it is understandable that people are upset that they can't still do the same thing. It feels like something got taken away from them.

Personally as soon as I started digging through the playtest and crunching numbers for the things that are important to me, I realized that this was a completely different game as opposed to an evolution. That lead me to nope right out.

When we get the first high level module with skill checks, it will give examples what they consider the DC appropriate context.

So we will need to buy more things in order to find out how the system actually works?

I think PF1e definitely punished you for falling behind more than PF2e does, without question. A straight Rogue who decided to have mediocre Str and Dex and focus on being an Int/Cha skill monkey is going to be so far behind a THW Barbarian's combat effectiveness that there often is literally no reason for them to participate in combat.

Even with effectively built Rogues, a creature with a little DR and immunity to sneak attacks is all it takes to make them completely pointless.

I see a lot less of that in PF2e.

I do agree that the treadmill is a little too obvious in some ways. I also think the range of appropriate encounters is a little too narrow.

And Treat Wounds very clearly needs to be based on the level of the target, not the healer.

Lastly, as I mentioned in another thread, I think there is a lot of confusion/poor perception of the system because a lot of people either don't understand Table 10-2 or are spreading misinformation about it.

I've heard a lot of people make comments about how "walls magically get harder to climb as you level up" and the like, and that's not only not true, but Paizo devoted nearly three paragraphs to explicitly saying that it's not true and that doing that is bad GMing.

You act like it won't happen often. What level/difficulty to use for anything is so up in the air that likely it will ended up being the character's level in a lot of cases.

Relying only on the magic items you find is problamatic as long as DC's have the assumption that you always have the best item baked into them.

Skyth wrote:

vestris wrote:

Matthew Downie wrote:

SuperSheep wrote:

To those people who want to hit 90% of the time on their optimized rolls... "Why?"

I like to achieve something at least 70% of the time I attempt to do anything that I'm supposed to be competent at.

Wasted actions are frustrating. Anything less than 70% and I start to feel actively incompetent. Imagine if Legolas sent arrows flying off in all directions...

The problem with iterative attack penalties is that if you're hitting 75% of the time on the first attack, you're missing 75% of the time on your last attack, and that doesn't feel good.

I think I'd rather attack with the same attack bonus for half damage than attack with half the hit chance...

Which is fair in general and no pressure scenarios, however if you compete against equally skilled opponents, as in combat you should not be successful 70% of the time. Or this would imply that defending is just a hell lot harder than attacking, to stay in the combat scenario.

That however would go both ways. This would make the already pretty deadly surprise encounter extremely lethal.

Against equally skilled opponents it is wise to not just swing like a mad man, which the current rules reflect nicely.

The whole point is that even if you're the same level, you are not 'equally skilled' as the specialist.

Why would the opposing fighter not be a specialist? Is that a thing only PC's can be?

It's possible for the fighter to be a generalist instead of a specialist. Plus having someone as optimized as the specialist should be a rare thing to encounter (once or twice a campaign at max), not having every enemy you fight be perfectly optimized.

Matthew Downie wrote:

SuperSheep wrote:

To those people who want to hit 90% of the time on their optimized rolls... "Why?"

I like to achieve something at least 70% of the time I attempt to do anything that I'm supposed to be competent at.

Wasted actions are frustrating. Anything less than 70% and I start to feel actively incompetent. Imagine if Legolas sent arrows flying off in all directions...

The problem with iterative attack penalties is that if you're hitting 75% of the time on the first attack, you're missing 75% of the time on your last attack, and that doesn't feel good.

I think I'd rather attack with the same attack bonus for half damage than attack with half the hit chance...

Which is fair in general and no pressure scenarios, however if you compete against equally skilled opponents, as in combat you should not be successful 70% of the time. Or this would imply that defending is just a hell lot harder than attacking, to stay in the combat scenario.

That however would go both ways. This would make the already pretty deadly surprise encounter extremely lethal.

Against equally skilled opponents it is wise to not just swing like a mad man, which the current rules reflect nicely.

The whole point is that even if you're the same level, you are not 'equally skilled' as the specialist.

I think I've figured out why we have a big disconnect in a lot of discussions. People who specialize in things and expend resources to be better at things do so because they want to punch above their level.

Every time there has been a discussion about specialization/balance/mandatory investment to keep up/etc it's always been thrown back that 'Don't worry, you'll be mostly facing things below your level so you'll get a chance to feel powerful'.

That doesn't work. In order to feel powerful you have to feel like you're punching above your level. This applies to combat and skill checks.

If you aren't better than expected for someone else at your level when you invest in getting better at a skill or get a magic item that boosts you, it doesn't feel special. The current setup with DC's scaling with the expectation of a perfectly optimized character for at-level challenges doesn't work when taking this into account.

It's a psychological thing, but if (Keeping all the other number the same. Same DC's, same number of monsters encountered) but calling them as being 2-3 levels higher than they are now would do wonders for the perception of the game.

As an example. 4th level character specializing in picking locks. An 'on level' challenge would be (Don't have charts available at moment so going off memories) a DC 20 check. Instead of calling it a level 4 challenge, keep the DC 20 but call it a level 7 challenge. Players would feel a lot more powerful if this was true.

The downtime rules for crafting (and other downtime rules) really turn me off PF2. They don't allow a level 1 PC to feel like they're good at anything.

Skyth wrote:

The issue is that the specialist who puts everything into being the best at something has maybe a 60% chance of succeeding in 2E. Someone with less investment (Plus penalties due to ACP) has realistically no chance of succeeding currently.

I see nothing in the rulebook that says I can't set a DC for a challenge where the specialist has a 90% chance of succeeding, but the non-specialist has a significant chance of failure.

Like someone really specializing in a skill at level 7 in PF2 will have a modifier of +4 (stat) + 2 (proficiency) + 7 (level) + 2 (item) = +15.

Someone who is not remotely invested in a skill has a modifier between +1 (a full plate wearer untrained in stealth with 10 dex trying to be stealthy) and +9 (untrained in the skill but with 18 in the stat in question).

So if you set a DC 15 challenge the specialist will succeed 100% of the time while the "horrible at this" character has only a 30% chance to succeed while the "untrained but competent" character succeeds 75% of the time. A DC 20 challenge it breaks down to 20% chance of failure, a 90% chance of failure, and a 50% chance of failure for these same folks.

At work, but way to make me feel special by allowing me to auto-succeed at a level 1 DC at level 7. Guess what, If you specialize in something and put your resources to it you should be making equal level DC's on at least a 80% level.

So regarding the "I want to succeed reliably at the thing I specialized in" I think one of the effects of having everybody advance in untrained skills, is that the GM is now able to intersperse regular "not very hard" climbing or stealth sequences and not have to worry about the Warpriest in Full Plate being left behind as they lack skill points to put anything in stealth or climb.

So if you have sequences which are somewhat challenging for non-specialists, this lets you provide opportunities for the specialist to feel "I am good at this" and when you have truly heroic challenges (like the aforementioned frozen waterfall clock) only the specialist has a realistic chance of succeeding so if they do, they feel *awesome*.

The issue is that the specialist who puts everything into being the best at something has maybe a 60% chance of succeeding in 2E. Someone with less investment (Plus penalties due to ACP) has realistically no chance of succeeding currently.

Looking for some more players to join my Saturday afternoon/evening Pathfinder game.
We play with Maptools (1.4.1.8) and use Discord for voice.
The campaign is more episodic with some Myth Arcs, but if you miss sessions, it's not a big deal (Due to the episodic nature). Heck, you don't have to bring the same character to each session. (Most players have about a half dozen characters). How it works is at the beginning of a session, I have several options to choose from and the players choose one and then choose the characters that want to go on it.
The gaming is more oriented towards dungeon crawling.
Campaign handout can be located here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ya3393k1gfojzhf/Fourth%20Age.docx?dl=0

Thanks. I'll have to add a summary of the previous ages and something to say who Shirak is.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/40416842/Fourth%20Age.docx

I've been working a bit more on my campaign handout. Just curious what people think of the background. Am I missing anything noticeable or is anything confusing?

Not right now...Got 3 people that were interested. If we have more openings, I'll let you know though :)

I run a Pathfinder game every other Saturday starting at 4:30PM EST and I am looking for a player or two to round out my group.

The campaign is episodic, where the players are expected to complete an adventure in one session (Similar to PFS). You don't have to run the same characters every time, as long as everyone in the party is within a level of one another.

The most important rule is that you choose to play a character that cooperates with the other players. No PVP action is allowed. Loot is always evenly split at the end of each session.

We play using Maptools (1.3.b86) and over Skype.

Here is a document about the campaign and some of the house rules.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/40416842/Fourth%20Age.docx

See, a power gamer is only an issue for the holier-than-thou role-players who insist that if you have a competent character, you're doing something wrong.

It's really grown to be a label of people playing the game 'wrong' according to some people, where really wrong depends on group dynamics.

Ideally, everyone in the group should have the same power level or be okay with differing power levels in the group so that everyone can contribute towards the overall goal of the game.

The biggest house rule that I use is with area affect spells. If you are threatening/threatened by something that is hit by an area of effect spell, you take 1/4 damage...Save for 1/8. If it has a non-damaging effect, save at +4 to be unaffected.

I never did like the pinpoint targeting of big blasts and people in combat are not stationary, rather are weaving around.

Shar Tahl wrote:

That is part of the problem with the "knowledge(local)" thing. Asking around is Diplomacy(Gather Info). The knowledge skill is knowing right away by yourself.

I disagree here. Gather information is more about knowledge that you can't get with knowledge skill, like who stole the monkey pet of the King's advisor. This is not find out things people generally don't talk about, and so you need to be able to coax it out of them. This is more learning the stuff that locals already have a good idea of. Best place in town to eat, who the local personalities are, etc...

I agree with you disagreeing. Knowledge(local) would represent passive observations and listening. Diplomacy would be when you're actively looking for for information.

I really see Knowledge(local) as more socialology. Knowing how groups and people act and applying that knowledge to your observations.

Another way of looking at it is it's an understanding of how society, etc works.

For instance, in the movie 'In the Name of the Rose' (I think that's the name of it. Sean Connery starred as a monk investigating a murder in a monastary).

In the movie, Connery's character, who had never visited that monastary instantly directs his apprentice to the latrine based on a quick observation of people's behavior.

Claxon wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Isn't anything worth more than 200,000 gp an artifact? Are you even allowed to actually make those?

It is a game design rule, but not an official one. It may have been official in 3.5.

Where is it from? I remember it, but can't find a source.

Ravingdork wrote:

Yep. There's no such rule in Pathfinder. And in fact, there are items worth more than that in the Core Rulebook that you are, in fact, allowed to make as a player character.

As with any magical item though, check with your GM.

What items are those, that aren't artifacts? I'm simply curious.

Almost any +5 weapon with +5 worth of abilities, particularly if it is made of a special material or has a static-priced ability added to it.

The old limit before it became an epic item did not include special material costs or costs for required material components ( for example, scroll of wish costs 25*17*9+25,000 gp but for epic determination, you ignored the 25,000 gp addition)

Navy Seal, Army Ranger, SAS, etc. are just different fluffing of the 'special forces' prestige class.

Doctor is indeed a society-given title. You can have all the skills of a doctor but not called a doctor by society for societal reasons.

Contract devil is good, because you can tell your simulacrum to give you the 3 wishes for a gold piece as the contract or something

Contract Devil only is allowed to make the other side of the contract someone's soul.

Looking at it, simulacrum of Contract Devil won't work, as if the contract is destroyed, all effects of the Wishes is reversed...Makes it pointless.

Step 1...Simulacrum of Contract Devil
Step 2...Sign Contract, get 3 wishes.
Step 3...Destroy both copies of contract (Immediately after signing, have devil do it :) )
Step 4...Go to Step 2.

The trick is is that it is a simulacrum under your control with the ability to generate wish-granting contracts.

Actually, it would work. Contract devil wish granting is a special ability.

What is the candle trick?

Using a candle of invocation.

Looks like it'll still work. I just worry about pissed off Efreet after once you're done with them then. Granted, if you offer them 500 gp for the three wishes (10 HD, short term service, non hazardous, so half cost...) it costs you 8900 gp for 3 wishes and they are less likely to be pissed off...One of which can net you 30,000 gp...

Still, with granted wishes, you need to have the critter completely on your side...Efreet are unlikely to be that.

Skyth wrote:

Nothing in Simulacrum states that you have to find or even see the creature that you are making the simulacrum of.

There's nothing in RAW about what simulacrum grants.

Not true, however...

So, RAW, actual RAW, this isn't guaranteed to work as 'special abilities' are not spell-like abilities and have their own distinct section on monster entries.

I will have to conceed defeat on this point.

Craft an item that can cast wish once per day, activated by a command word.

The spell level times the CL time 1,800 divided by 5 works out to 55,080 gold pieces market value. It would cost 27,540 gp to make.

An item that can cast wish unlimited times per day, command word activation, is 275,400 gp, or 137,700 gp to craft.

You can make crafting a lot cheaper with this build. Magic Capital can be gotten at a rate of 3/day using Ravingdork's build, and one capital can be used for 100 gp worth of crafting cost. Therefore, it would take 1,377 magic capital to craft the unlimited wishing item, which would take 459 days to accrue. You would then need to spend 138 days crafting the item, for a total of 597 days, or about 20 months. He would have to spend 1/8th of the item's market price, or 34,425 gp.

The DC is equal to 5+CL, plus 5 for each missing requirement other than a feat. A character would lack the necessary CL and spell to make it, making the DC 32 to craft this item. Doable.

You also would have to tack on an additional 2,500,000 gp for the 100 times material component requirement of an at will item I believe.

Skyth wrote:

Winterwalker wrote:

(Good luck finding a CR16-ish Efreet that goes along with this though.)

Nothing in Simulacrum states that you have to find or even see the creature that you are making the simulacrum of.

The effect is "duplicating" a creature, so it DOES matter if it exists in the game world, so a GM would need to rule on that.

I suppose if you are ignoring the RAW of a normal Efreet's HD you COULD do whatever you want. This would not be RAW though would it?

Assuming the planes are infinite, and the fact that there are rules to advance a monster by increasing the monster's hit dice, logically it stands to reason that there is an Efreet that has double normal hit dice as a 'normal' Efreet.

I'm not seeing any wording in the Simulacrum spell that the creature must be present, still alive, or even that the caster needs to know what the creature looks like, though creatures like this are likely to be famous :)

I figured it is a a rules question as it deals with how the rules actually work. Advice I see as a more 'real' environment of stuff that you would do in an actual game.

(Good luck finding a CR16-ish Efreet that goes along with this though.)

Nothing in Simulacrum states that you have to find or even see the creature that you are making the simulacrum of.

I could care less about GM approval. I'm talking strictly by the rules. Kind of an intellectual exercise. Anyone who tries this in an actual game deserves what's coming to them ;)

Btw, one wish will get you 30,000 gp which will more than pay for the diamond for the next one :) (Use the wish to duplicate a fabricate. Limit the value of what you are making to 30,000 to stay within the 10,000 gp limit of the wish for material components you don't need to provide).

How many ways are there to get infinite wishes in Pathfinder? I've thougth of one (Simulacrum of an Efreet of double normal hit dice. Use one of the wishes to cast simulacrum of the same Efreet and you have two others to do as you please with.).

Are there other ways? (I'm only interested in stuff from the PRD. Third party, and AP's, etc...Not interested in).

Someone who was a Navy Seal or other range of Special Operators. They will be infuriated if someone who did not go through their training calls themselves a Navy Seal. It is a special designation placed upon those who go through their particular brand of training and earn their badge.

See, this (And the doctor example) are social titles, much like the title 'Knight'. Anyone can claim to be a warrior, but if you claimed to be a Knight, you would run into issues :) Someone could have the same knowledge and abilities but without the official title granted by society.

Knight doesn't mean you have certain abilities as well. (I doubt Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was very good at mounted combat ;) )

uses the system set up in the Player's Option book, "Skills & Powers", which I don't make much use of, and especially do not use the character creation rules in it because it needlessly complicates the game, and one of the reasons I stopped running 3rd edition and Pathfinder, was the overly complex rules).

I'm amused. While you have the right (and should) play the way that you enjoy playing the game as long as you're not hurting other people, I can't wrap my head around the idea that you find Skills and Powers overly complex, but don't bat an eye at making new classes.

I've always found 2nd Edition to be more complex than Pathfinder as well.

I guess I should have specified that I meant within the Downtime rules from Ultimate Campaign.

I'm working on an Organization that specializes in information. People are scattered around town keeping tabs on things and selling the info. Sages are available as well.

What would be the best group to represent the people scattered around town? I've used scofflaws, but that didn't make much sense as they aren't doing anything 'illegal' which is a pre-req for scofflaws but laborers didn't seem like a good fit either. Would Buerocrats be a good fit?

Also, which organizational random encounter chart would you roll under? None of them have a good fit. I've used thieve's guild, but that one has events that don't make as much sense as well.

Uwotm8 wrote:

I'm in the mood for Mt. Dew now. Thanks...

don't forget to drink the orange soda too. it triggers similar parts of the imagination in a similar manner to mountian dew.

You know, when I needed to stay awake on the graveyard shift, I used to mix Mountain Dew and Sunkist...Worked pretty well :)

Skyth wrote:

I think the biggest problem with the firearm rules is the reloading. Downgrading time works as full-round->Move->Free when it should be Full-Round->Move->Swift.

That would fix a lot of the issues right there :)

except it makes level 3+ gunslingers absurdly weak. Without free action reloading a gunslinger is stuck at one shot per round, cannot use rapid shot, make an AoO with snap shot, and needs to expend a grit point to use deadshot just to have near the damage a similar level barbarian does with a greatsword on a charge. Free action reloading is one of those things that falls into the same category as weapon cord cheese did, not something gunslingers wanted but something necessary to make a build work. Unless you are also making deadshot free on all attacks or increasing gunslinger grit by a massive amount (2 per level + WIS?) then getting rid of free action reloading cripples the class.

If you want to fire more than once per round you need to pack multiple pistols. I wouldn't be adverse to upping the damage a little bit though (Give gunslingers a bonus to damage based on level?). However, same as I don't complain that a greatsword does more damage than a dagger, I wouldn't have a problem with a black powder weapon firing slower than a bow.

Skyth wrote:

I think the biggest problem with the firearm rules is the reloading. Downgrading time works as full-round->Move->Free when it should be Full-Round->Move->Swift.

That would fix a lot of the issues right there :)

After the first round of attacks, you would only ever be able to make a single attack per round, making it so the only difference between a swift and move action for reloading is the ability to move in the same round.

It would even affect the attacks in the first round, as the bullet spam mentioned requires 20 Free actions (Granted, only 10 of these are reload actions). However, you would be able to get two shots in a round (Reload as a swift, plus reload as a move) or you would have to carry multiple pistols.

Unless you completely changed the way guns did damage, they would become the worse weapon in the game(even more so then they are now) and you would also make crossbow nearly as worthless(at least they don't need to worry about misfires). And then you'd maybe even get people arguing this should apply to bows as well... So if your plan is to make range combat worthless, this would indeed fix all of your issues with it.

Crossbows and firearms should do more damage and penetrate armor easier. Rate of fire should be the bow's forte.

I think the biggest problem with the firearm rules is the reloading. Downgrading time works as full-round->Move->Free when it should be Full-Round->Move->Swift.

That would fix a lot of the issues right there :)

Drizz't and Bruenor versus a Marilith :) Then the whole team went against the Balor. Caderly and company went against a red dragon together.

Dinozzo and McGee tackle a big guy on drugs together in NCIS.

Breetai versus Rick, Max, and Ben. Granted, that's a boss fight the 'heros' lose :)

A lot of those things that would normally give your character a save he denied the save for saying that it was within his character to act close to the way she was directing him to. He was right, really.

That is why you need a group rule that you don't choose to play a character that would want to attack the party. It's something I don't allow in my games.

Saying that 'my character' would do something anti-social to another PC is just a cop-out because they are choosing to play a character that would do that.

For example you can draw a weapon as a part of a move action, you cannot draw multiple weapons with the same action. Unless of course you get multiple move actions via action reducing.

The rules for two weapon fighting specify that you can draw both as part of the same action.

The can is for taking the reload action. Once they decide to take the reload action, they are bound by the rules for it.

No. It doesn't actually make you slower, you just don't use it most of the time.

If they have it, then they are bound by its' rules. It's more specific than the normal rapid reload rules. They don't have the option not to use it.

Yes, but if you have Rapid Reload and use alchemical cartridges, you don't need Lightning reload to reload a one-handed firearm as a free action. (Or a Two-handed one, if you're a Musket Master.)

Frankly, it's a pretty useless deed, as far as I can see.

So a Gunslinger with that Deed actually reloads slower than someone without that Deed. They do at least gain the ability to reload without drawing an attack of opportunity.

A good RAI argument can be made that that was supposed to be the limit for max reload speed.

Still, there is the GM decided limit to the number of free actions you can do in a round. By the rules, the GM is always within their rights to limit the number of reloads you can get in a round. (The 10 shot per round and reload requires 20 free actions. Each double shot requires you to holster your other weapon, reload twice, and then draw again.)

When I designed my campaign world for 2nd edition AD&D I decided that, much like Oerth, the gods decided to not allow smokepowder to work. I haven't seen anything to make me change my mind about that :)

This is quite incorrect thjeff, you can reload as many times as you want as a free action, nowhere nor in the rapid reload rules nor in the firearm reload rules there is limitation such as this on reloading. The only one which hints this way of wroking is only in the Lighting Reload and even there its debatable

Lightning Reload (Ex): At 11th level, as long as the gunslinger has at least 1 grit point, she can reload a single barrel of a one-handed or two-handed firearm as a swift action once per round. If she has the Rapid Reload feat or is using an alchemical cartridge (or both), she can reload a single barrel of the weapon as a free action each round instead. Furthermore, using this deed does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

You are only allowed to do one free action reload with Lightning Reload each round.