Shambling Mound

Sporelock's page

24 posts. Alias of J-Spee Lovecraft.


RSS


thenobledrake wrote:
Sporelock wrote:
I really just want to know how much XP each monster is without any unnecessary b.s.

I see you posted while I was posting.

...and while I get where you are coming from on the surface, I think you've mislead yourself.

In the PF1 style, a monster might specifically say "I'm worth 800 experience". That sounds like it is telling you what it is worth to a character, but the reality is that it isn't - because you might face a monster of that listed value at a point that 800 experience is 1/10 of what a 4-person party needs to gain a level, and then face another just a level or two down the road and it's 1/20 of what you need for the next level.

Functionally, it's identical to the PF2 style in that facing the same creature at different levels will provide different amounts of progress toward gaining a level. The only difference is where you put the math.

While it might feel very alien right now, the new system is actually less difficult to memorize. One could commit Table 10-2: Creature XP and Role to memory with less effort than memorizing the XP values possible in PF1.

I constantly mislead myself. I always used to divide the XP up depending on how many party members there were. I guess I was doing that wrong all along but nobody ever noticed because they always died before they ever reached a high level. Doesn't 5e dnd do it the way I mentioned? Can't remember.


Lost In Limbo wrote:

Table 10-8, page 508 of the core rulebook has the information you need, but the most relevant information given your concerns;

--CREATURE--
Party Level -4 = 10xp
Party Level -3 = 15xp
Party Level -2 = 20xp
Party Level -1 = 30xp
Party Level = 40xp
Party Level +1 = 60xp
Party Level +2 = 80xp
Party Level +3 = 120xp
Party Level +4 = 160xp

Okay. Don't know how I missed that. Thanks!


Godsakes. If you have 6 creatures that are all -1, how much XP do 1st level characters get? What if you have multiple creatures of different levels?


I just feel it would've been easier and would've saved pages that could've been used for other things if they just awarded XP from monsters according to their level. The higher level the monster, the more XP you receive. And I guess I must've missed a few pages on the whole XP process. It would've been helpful if they were all located in the same chapter.


I really just want to know how much XP each monster is without any unnecessary b.s.


Using Doomsday Dawn as an example, how much XP would I award for the introductory adventure? I know that was the play test and not the final product, but I want to run that (with some changes) for our first foray into 2e.


Ok, but, like, is there an easier way to explain how it works? Because I just don't understand it. There's so much legalese in this edition and I'm ok with most of it. But I'm having a hard time with this part, I guess.


I mostly love 2e and I'm starting my first session this Friday. But I feel like the XP allowance system kinda sucks and I feel like every creature should just have their XP listed like they did in 1e. Is it just me? Maybe I'm not understanding it correctly and my stupid caveman brain is just confused. HEELP MEE.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
The LOWG Megafauna stuff may be not all you're hoping for thematically, but it seems very good mechanically to me.
Its pretty hard to introduce something unbalanced when it’s just reflavouring existing mechanics (prior to level 7 at least).

Precisely. It feels like Paizo is just sort of farting out a few things that have very little substance. That, combined with all of the errors in the Core Rulebook, is not a good look.


graystone wrote:
Sporelock wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
I think its a very good approach to the option. They could have spent a whole page detailing 5 or 6 such animal companions that for balance reasons wouldn't be much different that what the sidebar achieves anyway. The sidebar gives us a third specialization type that will add options to every animal companion that is printed from this point on that allows many more mount sized companions that don't have to be locked into Savage. That is smart design in my eyes.
I get that, but I guess I don't see why they couldn't have done both. They could've at least included a mammoth, which is pretty much the first animal people think of when the term "megafauna" comes to mind.
I mean it's not like they mention mammoths 27 times in the book including mammoth riders, mammoth lords and mammoth speakers... Oh wait...

EXACTLY.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
I think its a very good approach to the option. They could have spent a whole page detailing 5 or 6 such animal companions that for balance reasons wouldn't be much different that what the sidebar achieves anyway. The sidebar gives us a third specialization type that will add options to every animal companion that is printed from this point on that allows many more mount sized companions that don't have to be locked into Savage. That is smart design in my eyes.

I get that, but I guess I don't see why they couldn't have done both. They could've at least included a mammoth, which is pretty much the first animal people think of when the term "megafauna" comes to mind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Sporelock wrote:
Spamotron wrote:

Archive of Nethys has the rules: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=795

Essentially you take a vanilla animal companion from the core book and just say it's a megafauna version of that. Then when you receive access to an advanced animal companion you have another option to choose from to upgrade it. Just one for all megafauna though.

That's it? That's really lame. I was hoping for an actual mammoth or ground sloth or gigantopithecus.

Welcome to 2nd edition ;)

Seriously: not surprised they took that route. Disappointed, but not surprised. It's easier to reflavour something then provide rules and options. Perhaps they'll revisit it in a later product and do it properly.

I just don't understand why they would even bother making it a point to mention that particular option if it was strictly just to be like "Hey! Re-skin the old animals and pretend they're all prehistoric and crap. BYE." Just seems like a complete waste.


Spamotron wrote:

Archive of Nethys has the rules: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=795

Essentially you take a vanilla animal companion from the core book and just say it's a megafauna version of that. Then when you receive access to an advanced animal companion you have another option to choose from to upgrade it. Just one for all megafauna though.

That's it? That's really lame. I was hoping for an actual mammoth or ground sloth or gigantopithecus.


I saw that Lost Omens has mega fauna companions and all I wanna know is what ones are featured in the book. Thanks!


Ravingdork wrote:

First, that's an amazing thread title. Second, I asked this myself a while ago.

Sadly, it doesn't seem familiars can combat in P2E. Wizards are finally safe from the feral street cat gangs. As are the mice swarms that will, inevitably, be the ones to eat everyone's eyes.

Thanks! It's from an episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia where a bird eats a lawyer's eye.

And that's a bummer, man. One of my players wants an octopus familiar and I was looking forward to him tossing it into people's surprised faces.


I just find it odd that they would bother mentioning that they can attack and then never mention damage or anything else. It's not a big deal, but I guess I'll just add this to the long list of mistakes and puzzling bits in the 2e Rulebook.


Hey, so I know that you generally don't want to put your familiar directly in harm's way, but how much damage do familiars do with melee attacks? The familiar entry mentions that they CAN attack, but I don't see anything about their natural attacks or whatever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Make 'em come back evil and all jacked-up like in Pet Sematary. Or just make it rare or maybe even make them lose their memories. There have to be some sort of stakes or the game will be boring. If you can just get brought back later, there's nothing really to lose and that gets old really fast.


19 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty excited about these dudes being playable soon. Also, I'm impressed that you guys are going out of your way to give the "savage" ancestries a lot more depth. Kudos.


I'm so stoked for this! PLEASE tell me the flytrap leshy is playable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks, folks. I'm still getting used to 2e and there are so many errors in the Core Rulebook, I'm never sure if something is a typo or a feature.


What's the deal with the Dancer Bard? It's in the sample build sidebar for the Bard, but it doesn't have a suggested 1st level Feat. Also, I didn't notice anything in the Bard class description about dancing, but I'll admit I may have missed it because I skimmed through as Bards aren't interesting to me. Even so, I would like to know what's going on with it in case one of my players wanted to be one in the future.