Soldarc's page

Wow, Thanks alot! Now i have alot to read and plan when i get back from work tonight.

The merchant Princes of the city that is the "hub" of the adventure has hired "city guards" from a mercenary company.. they are secretly an evil mercenary group who are there for other reasons.. i Dont know if Red Mantis assassins would fit this.. and they would be way to powerfull if they were actual assassins xD

Same with the Hell Knights.. they strike me as to Epic to be where they are here.

The Cult of Mahathallah seems perfect for what i had in mind though, so thanks for that :)

Ghilteras wrote:

Rameth wrote:

Also as I just pointed out in another thread it has to work this way because items no longer have HP. So if the only way to know if an item is damaged or not is if it has a dent then what exactly would the hardness be reducing? Like in the example of a door with 10 hardness using your method.

The door is dealt 11 damage so it takes a dent. So then it reduces the damage by 10 so it takes 1 damage... To what? Where do we add that damage? It has no HP.

The way that I say it makes sense according to the rules presented. It's dealt 11 damage. It reduces that damage by 10 so it TAKES 1. Then you go okay was that equal to its hardness? No? Then no dent. The remaining HP actually matters cause it tells you if it got a dent or not.

The RAW are pretty clear on Bestiary p.12

"Damaging a mechanical trap or another
physical hazard works like damaging objects. An attack
that deals at least as much damage as the hazard’s Hardness
dents it, and an attack that deals twice as much damage as
the Hardness dents it twice (usually breaking it)."

It does not say you must subtract Hardness from the damage or whatever.

It doesn't have to.

ALL items have DR equal to hardness as a general rule.

The hazard specific rule doesn't have to quote the whole item rules, just the relevant ones (how many dents it has)

Actually yes it does.. I had interpited the rules the same way. and i think alot of other ppl has as well.. If ppl missinterpet the rules they need to be clarified..

So I was Running Tomb of Anihalation for 5e but converted over to PF when the playtest launched. I am converting the adventure to PF2 rules and all that is going well and fine.

To explain what i need help with I need to explain the main plot (Spoilers ahead)
The Soulmonger, an artifact from another dimension has been brought to this world by a dimension traveling archlich. It has cursed the entire world and ppl who has been resurected or been brought back to life in anyway during their lifetime slowly starts to rot away. People who die cant be brought back by magical means. if you are dying Deathsaves are hearder to succeede with (Fort saves in PF2 to stop dying). What no one knows is that the soulmonger is actually harvesting the souls and the sould do not go to the afterlife.

What I need from you knowlageable guys is some information about cults/organisations that i can use in the campaign. And if possible in wich PF1 book i can find some info on them.

1:
I want an organisation that sees the Soulmonger as a blessing in disguise, that wants to protect it. they dont have to be evil. I want the organisation to value the prospect of everything being "fair" when you die you die, no matter who you are. they should be fed up that the rich, whom can afford to get resurected every time something happens, gets to live long lives without fearing death while poor ppl only get one chanse.

2:
I need a Town that resembles Baldurs Gate as closely as possible. Preferably as close to Mwangi Expanse as possible.

3:
I need a druidic group that works towards perserving life of the forests and fighting off undead and other things that can curse the wildlife

4:
I need a Shady/evil Mercenary organisation that also can do assassination jobs and such.

5:
I need another Mercenary order that preferably works out of the "Baldurs Gate Clone" and primarily works as hired lawkeepers or special forces in the army, preferably Lawful Neutral

Bonus question:
What can you tell me about Aldori Swordlords? what little information ive found about them has really intrigued me. Ive read about them in the Brevoy chapter of The inner sea world guide and what little ive found online under the Aldori swordlord prestige class and Aldori Defender Fighter option.

Thanks for your help!

I Really disslike the new skill system.. i find it highly ilogical that people of higher level is better att EVERYTHING "Because level". At level 1 the mage falls in the water an nearly drowns. from then on untill level 20 he never sets foot in water again but at level 20 he is an olympic class swimmer. there are 1000s of more examples to pick from. and you can make up exuses of why the mage "Magically" got better at swiming, you can try to wiggle your way around it but that is a sign of a bad game system. If you have to make upp far fetched excuses to justify a system, it just means the system is broke.. I get that its a fantasy rpg and you should be a hero and special and cool and stuff.. but please keep it close to realistic.. allow characters to have flaws and stuff they arent good at. all characters dont need to achive god level in all fields.. sure stuff is gated behind Trained, expert aso. But a +18 is still +18. it means that all normal stuff is an autosuccess for you even if you never done it before. a barbarian who has never played an instrument in his life can take the lute from a level 5 bard and totally outshine him, even if he has never seen an instrument before in his life. I hate it :(

Soldarc wrote:

Does all doors have a hardness of 10? Is there no difference between a castle gate, an outhouse door, a door leading to a study or a door to a shack in the poorer side of town? Seems odd.. I as a GM would give woulden doors a hardness between 3-20 depending on the purpos of the door and the quality.

Nay, there are specific example doors in the Playtest Bestiary (on pg. 7). Including rules for climbing and breaking them open. For example an Iron Door has 18 Hardness and can sustain 4 dents. The Playtest Bestiary is more up-to-date and accurate than the Playtest Rulebook; and it looks like they shoved some stuff into the Bestiary that didn't fit or were ommited from the rulebook.

I meant "All wooden doors" just missed the wooden part.. ofcourse a iron door can take more damage. but there is a difference between a wooden door of a run down shed and the wood door of a castle gate. both having Hardness 10 seems odd.

Does all doors have a hardness of 10? Is there no difference between a castle gate, an outhouse door, a door leading to a study or a door to a shack in the poorer side of town? Seems odd.. I as a GM would give woulden doors a hardness between 3-20 depending on the purpos of the door and the quality.

In PF2 its imposible to mix characters that are more than 2 levels apart (thats why their XP system states that everyone always get the same amount of XP no matther what.) This is because of the +level to everything. the lower level characters can tag along but they wont be able to do anything, all skillchecks will be to hard, they cant hit monsters and they will basicly be auto critted by every monster.

Dont know if its already been answered but all standard equipment exept platemail (level 2) is level 1 loot... a sword or a dagger or a backpack or a rope.. basicly anything xD

The only scenario in which it makes sense for Untrained to only be 5 points away from Legendary is if you gate lock most of activities with ranks, which is pretty hard to do as people can be very creative and you'll never find a way to gate lock everything. Even if they manage to do that imagine how a character that can sport a +20 at Untrained skills would feel frustrated because that large bonus would be effectively useless.

"I have +20 in acrobatics.... but the only thing i can do is cartwheels... :'( "

I expect (or at least hope) there will be a troop template. Which I would expect to help with waves of attackers. And overall have a higher attack bonus than the individuals. I don't know how much higher it should be.

What? You dont find it realistic that a high level character can walk onto a battlefield with thousends of orcs and sit down to drink some tea and have a snack while watching everyone critically miss them? You dont think its ok that you're level 1 bard is sitting and playing at an in and a group of level 5-6 goblin barbarians come in, ask what that sound thing is in your hand and then takes it from you to try to make sounds from it and turning out to be better than you at playing it, all of them.. just "because of level". Seems odd that you wouldent agree with rules like that.. I mean a person of higher level should be better at exactly everything than lower level ppl or?

I kind of like your Idea. It will need some work since it will basicly scew the ratio of natural crits/crit fails by up to 4. and in this kind of system we would "Have to" aply the same rules to combat wich would scew balance even more.

Ive seen ALOT of negative feedback to the skillsystem the last couple of days.. and alot of ppl comming up with their own solutions to fixing it. I hope the devs are reading the forums and taking in the critisism.

I know that there are some loud power gamers here that thinks "My character is awesome at everything? no weakneses? AWESOME!" But the majority of people seem to dislike the new skillsystem that adds your level to everything. Im wondering if any dev has commented on this yet somewhere that I might have missed it.

What about damage LESS than 0 (eg, D4-2)? Logic would certainly imply that the minimum damage is 0 but that should probably be explicitly stated somewhere :-).

Actually you can slap someone back to life.. if someone is dying just hit them, sinsce it's unleathal damage they get the uncunsious state and returns to 1 hitpoint.. no need for heal spells ;) all acording to Rules as writen hehe

Only thing the +level to skills does is make it niegh impossible for a GM to keep the world realitic and still fun, challenging and engaging past level 5. after level 5 either the world "levels up" for some reason or the players start having no challenges other than combat. and if the world "levels up" then players will start complaining about stuff like "But last time i did the exact same thing it was only DC 15, why is it 20 now???" and with all right.

I usually never say "No you cant do that" i just say "Ok Roll X" and set a DC for how challenging i think it should be. In this system i will have to say "no you cant do that" to ALOT of things and if a player asks why, my only answer is "Because level".. Because now i need to take into acount that the DCs go from like 10-50 so the hardest acrobatic feats should have a DC of 50.. the moderate ones should be at 35 and the easy at 10... this means that most moderate things cant be achived untill high level..

The problem is not the crumbling wall vs the smooth wall. The problem is that if a challenge does not scale everybody will succeed because at higher lvl all players will have 20+ in all skills, making every DC less than that an automatic success. I don't like that. I don't want to scale my DCs just because of level. It's an added labor and there is no guidance on how I'm supposed to set it.

In PF 1st edition and D&D 5e untrained character stay behind so if I decide my wall is hard to climb and set DC20 then only the trained ppl will succeed. In PF2e everyone will, forcing me to add vampire bats to the climb and change the DC to 40. I don't see how anyone could like this system to be honest, how are you supposed to pick the new DC? Tables 10-2 and 10-3 would need to be constantly consulted to find a use case close to what you need. It's such a useless overcomplication.

Its easy, the higher level the party gets the more illogical and weird and messed up the world gets.. all important walls all of a sudden secrete slippery oil, grow thorns, have little gnomes living in them that push players with sticks to make them harder to climb. everything the group encounters in the form of none combat encounters works this way and all of a sudden all NPCs level to level 15+ so the party cant just go in to a town and tell the mayor "This is our town now" roll diplomacy and crit succeed on a nat 2. you see in PF2 its not about a party of heroes adjusting and growing in a world but rather a world that grows and evolve around the heroes.

The part where the rules are really letting us down is not telling us how much the difficulty adjustments actually adjust the DC by. It would also do well to have more examples and to explain how a trivial level 20 challenge (DC 20 for climbing a typical dungeon wall) can actually be achieved by someone of a lower level. A trivial challenge for a level 11 character would be a low challenge for level 7 or a high challenge for a level 4 character.

Low level characters cant do anything; because level.

There is no logic, no rime no reason.. ppl are grasping at straws to justify the skill system because they want to play characters that can do anything and everything like true gods and have no flaws... makes me sad.. because this probably means that the skill system wont be changed...

PossibleCabbage wrote:

In theory, if a lock is supposed to be difficult for a 10th level character to pick, it would be nigh impossible for a 3rd level character to pick. A merchant wanting to keep people from looting their warehouse might select security measures based on "who is actually likely to rob this place" (i.e. "what is the maximum level of anybody in the local thieves guild, excepting the PCs.)

Who is going to be constructing these locks that are a challenge for a level 10 character to pick? Certainly not your person who has spent their entire life becoming a level 5 expert locksmith because they don't have the 'levels' to create an appropriate challenge. Means we are going to have to populate the world with level 10 experts to create anything of worth that can't be outdone by level 10 characters who have spent their life smashing things to pieces. Bleh!

Please please please remove this 'higher level beats everything' rubbish!

Basicly you need to break logic or ignore logic to be able to GM and if any player asks "Why?" youre only response is "Because level". if youre a GM that enjoys a game where the RPs can do anything and everything or a player that wants no weaknesses and likes being awesome at everything then this is the game for you. If you like some tidbit of realism in your game and like playing characters with some flaws and balansed group where everyone is needed to succeede even out of combat.. well then move along and find a game with a working skill system or houserule the crap out of this one.

Soldarc wrote:

how about a 90 year old wizard with 8 Strenght outdoing a level 10 barbarian with 20 str in most athletics tasks, without the aid of magic mind you. Is that ok aswell? Same Wizard is outdoing the level 10 rogue in acrobatics and the level 10 bard att singing and playing every single instrument in the world.. Said wizard outdoes the level 10 fighter at swordsplay and is scarier than the halforc barbarian. this wizard outdoes an entire level 10 party at everything they are best at and has dedicated their life to perfect.. and only reason is "Because level 20 and bad ass"

So: 8 STR vs 20 STR, that's a difference of 6 (-1 vs +5). Let's also assume, based on your description, that the wizard is Untrained while the barbarian is a Master, which they can pick up by level 7. That's another difference of 4 (-2 vs + 2). This means that, for tasks that don't require training, they have the same bonus; the two are evenly matched if the task isn't at all proficiency-gated. If proficiency matters, or if the non level 20 char has relevant skill feats, they'll come out ahead.

20th level characters should be... i'm trying to find a word for mythic/epic/legendary that isn't already a loaded game term. That's the story this system seems primed to tell.

I have no problem with that when it comes to the skills that they have focused on. but in every single skill just isent ok.. Not even Elminster, who is a half god at level 30ish, could do well at an obstical course without the aid of his magic.. And it becomes skewed even in a group of equal level characters. The extra actions and things you can do with skillfeats doesent really make "all the difference" so a rogue becomes less unique since any other class can fill her role, just slightly worse. every character is a jack of all trades.. every character can do everything already at around level 5.. we dont have to go to god mode 20. we still have a level 5 character who has never touched a flute in their life, pick it up for the first time and playing as good or better than a level 1 bard who has trained for years in her craft.

What is wrong with a 20th level barbarian being able to sing? Nothing is broken you just don't understand what high levels means. High level pathfinder characters are friggan bad asses. Something that was hard for a 1st level character shouldn't be hard for them, regardless if they specialize in that thing anymore. A 20th level character inst Aragorn, he's batman, or superman, or the hulk. And I can think of one scene in particular from a dc animated film that explains my feelings on your issue. Search for batman sings in the old justice league cartoon.

This fixes way more problems then it caused. Such as for instance a 20th level wizard being more afraid of falling into a pond, then facing down a red dragon.

how about a 90 year old wizard with 8 Strenght outdoing a level 10 barbarian with 20 str in most athletics tasks, without the aid of magic mind you. Is that ok aswell? Same Wizard is outdoing the level 10 rogue in acrobatics and the level 10 bard att singing and playing every single instrument in the world.. Said wizard outdoes the level 10 fighter at swordsplay and is scarier than the halforc barbarian. this wizard outdoes an entire level 10 party at everything they are best at and has dedicated their life to perfect.. and only reason is "Because level 20 and bad ass"

The problem is not really that RPs reach rediculous skill levels.. i can liv with that.. the problem is that they do it in all the skills.. no matter class, background or what the RP actually has done during its adventure. The problem is also for the DM. If you dont raise all the DCs in line with RP level then you will end up with the group getting into a town at level 6-7 and being able to take over the town basicly by just using their diplomicy skills.
I get that stuff that is hard at level 1 should be easier for high level characters.. but i as a DM do not make "realistic" things impossible even for level 1 characters.. i might set a DC for something a character want to do at 19 or 21 or something if i deem it really hard but still possible.. and that is basicly the roof at low level.. at higher levels 19-21 is nothing.. and soon the RP can do whatever they want whenever they want if i dont raise the DC for the same task to still make it hard and get some intensity in to the game. The only other way to fix it is to make cool actions level caped.. but i would feel like an idiot if i told a player "so you want to jump and swing from the chandeler and jump out the window to get into the mote? Well sorry dude, you have to be atleast level 7 to atempt that because thats a DC 29 acrobatics check" Out of combat actions should not scale the same way as combat.

You are not missing anything. and I agree with you.. I made a post "Skill system" about this already and i hope it gets changed or i will have to houserule the system =/

Soldarc wrote:

Castilliano wrote:

ETA: And you ruin any playtesting data coming from your group.

Ofcourse I'm not using any houserules during the playtest.. but if said system is not changed by release i will..

Dont really know what you mean by my math being off? How is it off?

Since you're going to try the system, why not wait until afterward to fix it if it fails to deliver the fantasy experience you crave?

As i said I wont use any houserules while playtesting.. And i belive we are playtesting to find what we like and dislike about the game and give feedback. I for one am not the person to just say "I hate this, chage it" I instead try to be construktive and offer solutions. I do not for a second belive that Paizo will use any of my sugestions but they might draw some inspiration from it. And they might ignore it all together and run with the system as is.. but if I find rules i do not like in the playtest I will post about it and send my feedback. I am just one voice and I do not belive or even want them to make a game just for me but i still want my voice to be heard if others feel the same way. I would get your argument if this was a finished product.

ETA: And you ruin any playtesting data coming from your group.

Ofcourse I'm not using any houserules during the playtest.. but if said system is not changed by release i will..

Dont really know what you mean by my math being off? How is it off?

This is not good though.. cause this means that ALOT of stuff will be imposible for low level characters and auto success for high level characters.. and there will be an interesting sweet spot in the middle.. the game is not fun for players if they cant succeede with anything and its equally boring when they can do whatever they want and always succeed. The main problem is the "+level" in everything. I made a post about alternate skill systems where i try to fix this and make the game fun, interesting and engageing at all levels regarding skills.

I get that you have tried to make a streamlined system that works the same way for everything.. but I think it hurts the gameplay. Adding your level to all skillchecks gives you a dif of 5 between untrained and legendary prof. This makes for some unrealistic scenarios.. for example lets say i play a Fighter from level 1 through 20.. and during my adventures i never once play an instrument. at level 20 i meet a level 10 bard at an inn and he asks if i play anything... i say no and he tells me to give it a shot.. and it turns out that i play better than he does with my +18 to the check. It makes everyone sort of a jack of all trades and the difference between a Fighter and a loremaster trivial, even with prof bonuses and skill feats included.
I have made up 2 solutions to this and i think im gonna houserule and use one of them.

1:
Instead of adding your level to all skill checks you get skillpoints as you level up. you get your Int mod skillpoints and if your mod is 0 you gain 1 skillpoint every odd level and if your int mod is -1 you get one every 3rd level starting at level 1. you cant place more skillpoints in a skill than your level so at level 1 its caped at 1 and at level 2 its caped at 2 aso. all other rules remain the same. This allow players to feel more unique and specialize in what they want their character to be good at. it also makes INT a more apealing stat for none wizards, taking it up in worth to where all the other attributes are acording to me.

2:
This one will take more effort.
Ive made a dificulty scale that is static throughout the game. as seen below.

Trivial: DC6
Easy: DC DC9
Normal: DC12
Challenging: DC15
Hard: DC 18
Extreme: DC 21
Imposible: DC25

You proficiancy level doesent give you any +/- to skill checks. instead they move you up or down the dificulty scale for skill checks. Untrained makes tasks 2 levels harder, Trained is unchanged, Expert, Master and legendary moves you down 1,2 and 3 levels respectfully. So all the GM has to do is decide how hard the task a player wants to perfom is and sett a dificulty "Make a hard check" if the player is Master in that skill it goes down from hard to normal and he has a DC of 12.
Also instead of the DM giving +/- to the players skill roll he just adjust the dificulty acordingly. (Climbing up the castle wall is usually a challenging roll but since it is raining the rocks are slippery and it goes up to hard).
In this variant players never get any new +-/ in skills they remain the same (0+ attribute mod) only thing that changes is your prof-level wich in turn changes the dificulty.. if you are Legendary in a skill, Challenging tests become trivial for you.

I get that these might not suit other gamemasters or players but i find it more realistic and easy to use in my group.