SunKing's page

83 posts. Alias of Alexander Watson.


RSS

1 to 50 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

(And to be clear, I mean ‘resource’ as in effort. Everyone should buy the product regardless of how they approach using it...)


blahpers wrote:
Looks like mostly win with a few things I'd just houserule away. Question is, is it worth switching to versus just applying houserules to Pathfinder RPG?

This is really the key question. There is a resource expenditure issue: switch over, or simply steal great stuff and add to a PF1 game?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for doing this.

Curious what they did to Perception / Stealth...will have to get a copy and see...


Resurrecting an old thread because I want to know about other AP chapters out there that would work well as standalone mods, especially since this thread last saw action...

Apparently there is a ‘Serpent’s Skull’ chapter that does Kingmaker better than ‘Kingmaker,’ for example. I wish I knew what it was...


Perhaps the word we’re all looking for here is that rare but highly-sought after quality: ‘elegance,’ where we get a game (and chargen) of great variety and our choices matter in sophisticated ways, but achieved at a minimum of complexity and hassle....

I’m just saying that SOMETIMES, we don’t get both, and that a complex process used to be (for some) part of the fun....

But just sometimes, and not for everyone all the time...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find the conversation here interesting, because it mostly presupposes that ‘simpler, faster’ must be better, when so many of us spoke about our great fear that character generation would lack the full and and rich character generation from PF1. Any ‘full and rich character generation’ must be by definition ‘slow and complex.’ The process can of course be aided by clearer rules and clearer definition of those rules...

I will say, as a guy who is staying with PF1 but bought the PF2 CRB, I think the latter is clearer, easier to understand, and easier to logically follow.


Will be running this tomorrow, so would appreciate general advice and input from more recent experiences with ‘Masks...’.

I played through it in PFS and enjoyed it thoroughly...


SunKing wrote:
Raging Swan Press has extremely affordable campaign stuff. I know it doesn’t fit your bill of ‘free,’ but it’s seriously often for the price of a cup of coffee. I like the good micro-detail in their ‘Lost Coast’ products...

My error. I meant to say ‘Lonely Coast.’ ‘The Lost Coast’ is of course where Sandpoint can be found in Golarion...


Raging Swan Press has extremely affordable campaign stuff. I know it doesn’t fit your bill of ‘free,’ but it’s seriously often for the price of a cup of coffee. I like the good micro-detail in their ‘Lost Coast’ products...


Yes - sorry - I confused things. PA has been free for non-PoW martials. The warder was played only once, and he didn’t use PA. Notably we’ll keep it away from him.

I mentioned that only to suggest we’ve attempted to increase fighters’ power in campaign generally, and so that perhaps reduces the concern about the warder being OP (a concern shared by the player and by me the GM).

But we’re all keen to see some of the flavour and variety the warder can bring to the table generally...


Okay - so a player of mine is playing a warder amongst a party of casual non-optimized players. He’s an admitted min/maxer, and even HE is saying it’s OP. And I’m the one who pushed him to buy PoW...but the consensus here (albeit dated) is that it is not a problem?

PS - we have no standard fighters, rogues, or monks.

PPS - I allow Power Attack for all for free to try give martials the chance to get more and cooler feats...


I seem to think that ‘Council of Thieves: The Infernal Syndrome,’ has something like that idea as it’s central conceit...but I’m not sure that qualifies as a ‘scenario,’ and I don’t actually know much about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andostre wrote:
The Elephant in the Room Feat Tax Rules are a pretty common house rule that incorporates most of what's talked about in this thread. I've played with them, and they don't really break the game. Mostly they just give melee combatants more options in combat. Rarely is it a flat out bonus.

Yes - one of my players flipped me this a few weeks ago.

Also, I appreciate your observations on how it played out...


Resurrecting a dead thread because I share the OP’s curiosity: what harm would result from just giving Power Attack away for free to everyone?

Who has tried this? What was the result?


Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

I don’t understand why an apposed roll would make sense to anyone

Being scary and being hard to scare are not to factors that correlated. I knew a very scary teacher who literally ran away from wasps in her class room.

Being powerful and understanding your opponent (hit die numbers and wisdom) are.

I don’t think you’re wrong. But I do think it’s an understandable and defensible error by a GM. And it might be cool to make it opposable...

I’d like DungeonmasterCal to fix perception and crossbows while he’s at it...


blahpers wrote:
Gilfalas wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
The Intimidate skill. That vexes me. Aggravates me. Infuriates me.

Yeah my GM never remembers this is not an opposed skill. She constantly asks me what she has to roll to beat my check and I always have to tell her I need to beat a DC of 10+the targets # of HD+the targets Wisdom modifier.

Which drives me crazy since I been using intimidate checks regularly with the same character (demoralize. Cornugon Smash, Dreaful Carnage) for 10 (real life) years and she still does not remember.

Have pity. She has to juggle a lot more stuff than you do.

This. I’m generally in strong support of the ‘Pity the GM’ camp, especially if they a) have worked hard to prepare; and b) are doing their best to create a fun and immersive experience for everyone at the table. And in her further defence, I might even suggest that am opposed check might be more sensible and intuitive...

Not to jump on you - you’re bringing it up in good humour, I know.


Version #3:
Loved: the internal logic of the d20 system, which PF made even better. Prior to Fall 2000, we had to accept some crazy illogical numbers because of caution regarding killing Gygax/Arneson sacred cows. THAC0 is of course the most egregious example. But there were others. Like saving against paralysis, I think, so see if you got knocked down. The fact that a natural 20 is always a crit in PF2 concerns me: you mean the goblin who only hits on a 19 or 20 now crits half the time it hits? This goes against the strong logical foundation of PF1...

Wanted: some stuff to be outside of feats and available to everyone any time: power attack, combat expertise, all the combat manoeuvres (in a way that avoided the AoO...). Sure we’ve houseruled, but the tyranny of the feat (and its nastier cousin, the feat tax) remain something I wanted my version of PF2 to move away from...

Hated: The way the PF1 CRB buries stuff in walls of text, without subparagraphs and subheadings. That rule about a premade higher level PC only being able to put 25% of its money against weapons? Buried in walls of text. The rule that heavy undergrowth provides 30% concealment? Buried also, and not highlighted in any way.

Will miss: PFS using PF1 products. That may continue for a while, but will inevitably decline and die. That squeezes a small and salty drop of moisture from my eye...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I’m embarrassed to say, but conditions. It’s only been 19 years; I have no excuse. Luckily we have the card deck, and I have an assigned player who hands out each card as required. That includes to me, the GM. I always sheepishly accept...


I couldn’t see PF2 there either yet, because that’s how I intend to buy it...


I like this. It has the potential of adding more interesting and useful differentiations between weapons, which are arguably necessary in the 3.5 engine.

Some of the ‘game aims’ here are already achieved via other means: IE: the rogues who need to use weapons with Dex instead of Str have already achieved that through the weapon finesse feat, either by gaining it the old way, or via ‘Unchained.’

But the way you’re looking at doing it (and the PF2 way of doing it) is probably preferable. I’m probably staying with PF1, but for 30 years I’ve quietly wished for more interesting weapon characteristics (and don’t tell me about 1e, which made some choices obviously preferable over others; I’ve never met anyone who used the ‘vs armour type
’ + / -....).


Because he’s a traitor in thrall to the new Emperor’s cabal of assassins, and he’s trying to stop the party fleeing to the free lands of the Southern Corps with the only living heir of the rightful High King...

But that was just a one-shot I ran a few years ago. Using the MERP system, incidentally, to further baffle players and GM alike...should have stuck with our usual PF...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And to stay on subject:

Loved: PFS; all the Occult stuff; when RotRL made goblins loathsome and dangerous again (before they became cute).

Hated: Initially, when 3.0 began, I hated 5 ‘ steps and AoOs. I now see them as a things of beauty. I still hate all the fighter-specific feat taxes, and the limits on in-game choices they impose. I’m not a fan of the game after really 10th or 12th level. But I also don’t expect the game to work well then.

Wanted: More dwarven stuff. I don’t know why they remain so neglected.

Will miss: Bestiary 7! Bestiaries are like National Geographic to me: I could flip through them for years...


^ This, to be sure.

But, I’m still buying PF2. I want to check out the bright and shiny new thing! Paizo still gets my money!

I buy all kinds of games I don’t want to play. But to start at the bottom of the big ole’ gaming mountain again for what I actually play - no.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:

Loved: Archetypes. Best idea Paizo had.

Wanted: A Pf2 that was a natural upgrade from PF1, but depowered the OP core caster classes.
Hated: The bleeding-edge dope published from especially from 2015 onward. (I recall the overpowered 3.5e splats heralding the end of that system as well.)
Will Miss: PF1, warts and all, as it was the d20 system I love.

I too support the ‘natural upgrade’ path PF2 could have taken. I hope this forum remains a great place to support a fan-generated ‘natural upgrade.’


Loved: the inherent logic of the system, and the stories (that came out of play, and the way the game engine allowed us to tell those great stories).*

Wanted: a system that provided more useable choices in combat for martials.

Hated: Feat chains. Fiddly +1s. Fiddly rules, like that rule about being able to draw a weapon on the run, ONLY if you’ve got a BAB over +1. Sloppy perception rules. Cha as a dump stat.

Will miss: Confirmation rolls: they’re logical, make internal sense, and are successful enough to be satisfying.

*But not actually in the past tense, because likely sticking with PF1...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hero Points equal to Cha bonus. Just a tiny way of making Cha a little less of a dump stat; I justify it as the way people of great character and force of personality seem to have luck and the universe on their side...


I still enjoy the premise of RotRL when it first came out, and that was that you were in an isolated coastal town, and adventure beckoned inland. But what that precisely was felt largely ephemeral and vague. That was of course in large part because the writers hadn’t defined it yet. So that was a convenient parallel to the PCs’ own ignorance. But for me it contributed to the wonder and joy of discovering the world as my character did...

So I don’t know that’s a helpful way to deal with your question. Discovery is its own pleasure, and I miss knowing much less about Golarion than I do now.


I think this perhaps adds an unnecessary die roll, where shields are already adequately handled via the existing AC rules. But it’s not my place to judge your proposed change on the basis of ‘badwrongfun.’ If you and your players like the change, then go for it! This would look remarkably similar to the existing concealment rules.

My only shield houserule is that I allow adding the shield bonus to reflex saves where it’s stylistically appropriate: like Caramon on the cover of DL1...


These are cool! Thanks for sharing


You gotta stop in the square you strike your opponent in.

As my astute PFS GM has recently reminded me, you MUST stop in the square where you are first able to strike the opponent. You can’t keep moving to a ‘more optimum’ square, and if your route to the closest square is blocked or hindered by difficult terrain, you can’t charge...


Warriorking9001 wrote:
SunKing wrote:
gnoams wrote:

I could see upping the light xbow to 1d10 and the heavy to 2d6. Leave the crit at 19-20 and range doesn't matter (you could spend a lot of time researching what is realistic, but the fact of the matter is that when playing pathfinder you will almost never have a fight more than 100 ft apart so whatever).

Weapons in pathfinder/d&d were never "realistic." I do think crossbows could use some love, but that just means they need to be altered to something viable to use in game mechanics. Realism doesn't need to play any part in it.
I like a lot of what is being suggested in this thread. But this specifically is simple and easy to implement. I think I’m going to do this.
I'd note one minor problem with the "Up the damage dice" idea, namely that.. I remember most people saying that in general damage dice don't matter that much. 1d10 to 2d6 goes from a 5.5 average to a 7 average (so 1.5) and 1d8 to 1d10 is a 1 damage difference. Although the increased dice DOES make them more useful for Vital Strike builds.

Valid point. I was never so good with the maths. But I guess at the level at which a PC makes a weapon choice, those small numbers matter. And they FEEL like they matter at the lower levels...


gnoams wrote:

I could see upping the light xbow to 1d10 and the heavy to 2d6. Leave the crit at 19-20 and range doesn't matter (you could spend a lot of time researching what is realistic, but the fact of the matter is that when playing pathfinder you will almost never have a fight more than 100 ft apart so whatever).

Weapons in pathfinder/d&d were never "realistic." I do think crossbows could use some love, but that just means they need to be altered to something viable to use in game mechanics. Realism doesn't need to play any part in it.

I like a lot of what is being suggested in this thread. But this specifically is simple and easy to implement. I think I’m going to do this.


Like one of the ‘Elric’ stories, where one island is a fleshy living creature, perhaps the transformed shape of a formerly powerful mage...


Just want to give Mr. Groves props for this whole adventure. I've run it a few times, and it's such a pleasure, each time. Thanks.


Yeah - ‘Command’ has specific language that the target of the spell only takes the commanded action (if it failed the save), on its own turn. ‘Cause fear’ doesn’t have such specific language, but what you’ve both said here makes eminent sense...

Thanks!


Okay - apologies - this is a question I'm sure has been answered in the 18 or so years of the underlying game engine's existence. But I cannot for the life of me find the answer. Does the successful use of 'cause fear' on a target cause that target to flee immediately, and therefore make that the initiative count the frightened target now acts on? Or does use of the spell simply make the target 'frightened,' and then that target flees the subject of his fear on his or her normal initiative count?

Thanks in advance for your patience - like I said, I'm sure this has been answered elsewhere, but I cannot find the answer...


Matthew Downie wrote:
Anguish wrote:

The issue I have is that traps are auto-detected by any party involving experienced players who know maxing out Perception is a mandatory. Traps almost never happen at my table because parties develop Standard Operating Procedure. Before opening a door, drop a detect magic and take 10 on a Perception. That gets virtually all traps, so... boring.

I don't know what I'd do to "fix" that, or even if I should.

Option: Harder Perception DCs. If they need to roll an 11 to find the average trap, they won't take 10.

Option: Make Search a separate skill from Perception. Perception to spot living creatures, Search to spot concealed pressure plates.

Option: Don't put traps in the places they're likely to search. If they check every door, put the trap in the corridor. If they slow down to check everywhere as they explore, put traps in rooms where they're taking missile fire so if they stop to look for traps they can't fight back. If they use Detect Magic, put more magic around; magic lighting, magic items, traps that look like magic items, magic door-opening mechanisms that disable the door if 'disarmed'...

+1 to all, but especially splitting Perception and Search; a rare occasion where 3.5 handled something better than PF1...

However, I don’t have the GMing chutzpah to impose or pull it off in my campaign amongst my group...


I like it. It seems to be ‘vigilance’ would be more advantageous than the rest, because it would come up each and every combat. But conceptually I like this. Will offer to the next one of my PCs who plays a fighter...(which is increasingly rare, for perhaps the same reason you are suggesting an option like this...)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Jhaeman wrote:
If I had my druthers, PF2 would have been more along the lines of Starfinder: keeping the core gameplay of PF1 intact, while streamlining some of the more complicated elements and tinkering a little with the math to avoid extremes. In other words, a true revision as opposed to a whole new game, which is what we're going to get (for better or worse).
Pretty much this. I could go into more details, but unless there's an actual chance of that happening, why bother. :p

Ha! True. But still an amusing if ultimately pointless thought experiment. There are worse ways to waste time...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sort out exactly when you get a Perception check, how ‘active’ the PCs need to be to get one, or whether there is a ‘passive’ system we can adopt that isn’t 10+ your Perception bonus (because then rolling would mean you’d do worse than half the time you relied on your passive score...)

Clean up and use more precise language in the CRB.

Use bulletted and numbered paragraphs in rules texts like the CRB in cases where sequential information is important IE grappling rules.

Ditch prestige classes from the CRB.

And...most controversially, end the game at level 12 or so, and then move to ‘name level’ system where benefits flatten out (an ‘E12’ system, if you will...).

And I like a lot of what is suggested here...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Always wished that there were no dump stats. Like ‘Cha.’ Which is why I tie the Cha bonus to how many Hero Points PCs get...


Excellent and useful advice, all. As I mentioned, I’ve got no shortage of interesting wilderness encounters. What I’m struggling with is avoiding the phenomenon where PCs merely ‘wander’ into a series of wilderness encounters that sit there waiting for them. I want the journey to be interesting and compelling, where player choice and action matter. Thanks all.


1) Sort out Perception. When do you get a check? When is it active, and when is it reactive? And should you get a higher check if you're doing it actively? Why is it a skill if everyone should be maxing it every level?

2) Underwater rules. Right now you can really do too much for too long underwater, IMHO (understanding, of course, that it is a game of heroic action...).

3) End the game at about 12th level or so, and then move to a 'name-level' sort of thing, so the bonuses don't outrun the possibilities on a d20...

Nitpicks, to be sure, about a game I love. But changes I'd make, if I were in a position to do so...


I want to make wilderness (and specifically trackless boreal forest) movement and actions more interesting; I have no problems with finding/making interesting encounters, but I want choices and uses of Survival to be meaningful in between those encounters. Right now, I move them off their desired route by one increment on the hex map for each 5 that they fail a Survival roll. And specific actions, like climbing a tree to see where they can help with that. Whether they use a fire at night may make their Survival check easier, but may also increase the chance of an unwanted encounter. II want choices, actions, and rolls to matter, and the game not simply be a series of linked wilderness encounters that feel like they are just sitting their waiting for the PCs to 'bump' into them, regardless of what they do between those encounters...

Looking for advice or a product in that regard; I've looked through 'Ultimate Wilderness' and it isn't what I'm looking for...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Entirely this. I want D&D 3.8, or PF 1.5. These games are an extremely complex interaction of systems for which it is impossible to predict outcomes without years of play. They only get better iteratively, with experience. My read of the PF2 play test is some great ideas that aren’t going to get sorted out in a few months. I’m curious and interested, but I’ll probably wait for PF2.5 so it can really be worked out...

Anguish wrote:

"Pathfinder" is D&D 3.5, with some very tiny edits.

"Pathfinder 2 Playtest" has some interesting and fun aspects, but beyond some shared names of things like classes and spells and feats, doesn't resemble Pathfinder at all. It's really just some other system: Otherfinder.

So. Where my groups are at:
We don't particularly need or want another system to play. -- This we could "get over" if Otherfinder was sufficiently attractive (to us) or even equivalent, but it's not. The math sensibilities are dramatically different.

If Otherfinder had been a refinement of Pathfinder, we'd shift because who doesn't like better versions of things they like? But instead of better, we mostly see different, which we don't care for.

Really, if we're changing systems, why would anyone assume we'd pick Pathfinder 2 just because it's got the same name? Sorry, "new, improved flavor" just means "this product is no longer what you like... time to taste-test the competition again."

It's not impossible the final product will pull back enough of what we don't like, but so far the scale of what Paizo has been very carefully, very cautiously tweaking tells us we're orders of magnitude off from what we want to play.


Thanks for the input, all. I didn’t realize there was such interest in high level play. So this is interesting food for thought for me.

See? I posed a query, and people responded reasonably and intelligently to it. That’s how I remember the Paizo boards being...


PossibleCabbage wrote:
One of the things we're trying to accomplish with the new edition is "make high level play smooth, fun, and reasonable" since in PF1 it really wasn't (which was why so many games ended right before 7th level spells come into the picture.)

Yeah - I realize that. And here’s an option for solving that problem, especially since there are so few occasions where that sort of high level play seems to occur.

Implicit within your reply, though, is a valid point: you want to play at those levels and you want the game to work there. Fair.


FowlJ wrote:
There has been a thread or two suggesting this already, but the devs have stated that this is not a change they are interested in making - 20 levels of progression are almost definitely here to stay.

Fair. I missed those threads; my bad. No need to bring it up again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, it’s already an explicit part of PF1 PFS, and admitted implicitly in several APs. And maybe there is guidance to be found in old AD&D 1e, that had its ‘name levels’ once you got around 9-12th level. This would take some pressure off the devs to make the game sing at ‘higher levels.’ It would require a game that took a much more measured and leisurely pace up the level scale, which isn’t to everyone’s tastes...

Of course, maybe there is a bigger population of players who play past 12th level, in which case I’ll shut my big yap...

Incidentally, I’m sad the welcoming and civil tone that used to exist here seems to be missing lately...


Dumb question that I'm sure has been asked elsewhere but I'm in a rush and am not looking elsewhere: I'm running this tonight, and does the animated crypt only suffer half damage from energy attacks, as per any 'object,' or are 'animated objects,' the monster, not treated like that?

Many thanks in advance

1 to 50 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>