Also, I would have liked another Unchained book, that maybe offered an optional stunt/challenge system, as per ‘Iron Heroes,’ by unknown developer Mike Mearls.
And - I’m a bit hesitant to say this in a game with an already complicated combat system, but I would have liked some playing around with combat options, maybe to include ideas that resembled ‘Elephant in the Room,’ or some of the interesting options posited on this site.
All for this. I loved the Bestaries; they were all good. #6 was probably one of my favourites. They never ran out of monster ideas, as proven by some of the new monsters showing up in PF2 that weren’t in PF1.
Patrick Curtin wrote:
So I’ve been GMing straight for 11 months, only 90 minutes to 2 hours a week, but long enough that I asked for a brief reprieve to recharge my imagination batteries. We’re going to play ‘Forbidden Lands’ via Foundry for a few weeks, taking us to our annual (albeit delayed by COVID) gaming weekend.
Then I’ll fire up the forges of my imagination again. I’m planning on using a weird mix of ‘Assault on Longshadow’ from ‘Ironfang Invasion,’ ‘Rebel’s Ransom,’ a great ole’ PFS scenario, and some of my own stuff.
End the campaign with a bang at about 10th level by Christmas? We’ll see…Work may get in the way of gaming from late October to mid-December…
However, I’m sure I’m not the only one who values brief breaks from GMing to let the imagination fire up again.
Ha! Yep - time to retcon the entire campaign! However, at the risk of hijacking this thread, I think that hover would still require a move action. It simply says that ‘fly’ is not an action because multiple fly checks may be necessary as part of one move.
Not to say your reasoning isn’t strong also…
Yeah - I think the hover check still has to be made as part of a move action…
So I just made a dumb error that I’m a little embarrassed to admit here on this forum. But for some severely inexcusable reason, I thought an erinyes could hover as a free action, allowing it to attack with its bow as a full attack. There was no excuse for my error as a GM; the reason may have had to do with the four glasses of whisky I’d consumed.
In any event, I’ve apologized profusely to the player I killed (who survived through the use of hero points…), and I will severely retcon this one. My bad, entirely.
This sounds amazing. I tip my hat.
I like how you’ve put so much thought into this, even if don’t agree with all of them.
So your GM is running two totally different games at the same time, from what appears to be mostly homebrew? That’s impressive.
Let me hear about your current PF1 campaign. I’m currently playing via Zoom every week, with actual minis on a variety of actual battle maps. Just hit 7th level after finishing a heavily-modified version of ‘City of Golden Death.’
We’re swinging in and out of the underlying plot to ‘Ironfang Invasion.’ I intend to cleave pretty closely to the plot of ‘Assault on Longshadow’ soon, once they’re the appropriate level. I have a slayer (heavily-amended iconic Zadim); cleric (heavily-amended iconic Kyra); a fighter focused on combat manoeuvres; and a well-rounded party-animal arcanist. It’s a great group of both players and characters, and it makes for a great 90 minutes or 2 hours every Thursday night.
Last night night, the fighter tried to toe-to-toe with an erinyes, and got brought down by a barrage of arrows. The party used a house rule we have whereby players can gift hero points at 2-for-1, and brought him back from the brink…
I guess I'd like a Rules Compendium where they do a last pass on classes, items and rules and which incorporates all the errate over the years. I kinda hate that all my first printing books I got immediately when they came out were basically beta releases to what ended up as the real ruleset.
I’ve said this elsewhere but it merits saying again: I’d have loved to have seen a ‘Rules Compendium.’
There of course won’t be any more books, but if there were, I’d like a ‘Rules Compendium.’ Like the 3.5 version, that contains all the rules minus skills, feats, etc. Could do a great job at clarifying those niggling rules (Do you still flank when you’re grappling? If you’ve got a BAB of +1 or higher can you draw a potion? Etc...).
Ryze Kuja wrote:
I admire that you’re willing and able to play/GM at such a high level. I’m intimidated by it, both as a player and a GM.
This side of the forums has become a lot more open and supportive since PF2 arrived and the overzealous crew moved with them. But I’m still a little hesitant to post on the homebrew forum...I still get the sense there are ambush predators waiting to tear down my scribbles. Sure - I should be tougher - heck, I’m in Airborne Ranger in real life. But if good supportive criticism is not forthcoming, why bother?
We were already fans of all the Paizo Dungeon and Game Mastery products. I remember playing the PF1 playtest in Spring 2008. Moving to PF was completely logical. Have enjoyed PFS, and playing with my original group. The latter crew still gets together for PF1 over Zoom every Thursday night. Absent a TPK, we’ll keep going ad infinitum...
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Yes - I’ve been stealing liberally from ‘Ironfang...’ for my current campaign. My only problem is that the encounters seem to just ‘happen’ to PCs. How good they are in the woods doesn’t seem to matter. There is no discussion, for example, of what happens when the party screws up a Survival roll and gets lost.
So I’m in the midst of running a campaign right now that has had elements of wilderness. And I was recently telling one of the players in that campaign that I have come to the conclusion that PF1 just doesn’t do wilderness well.
But now I’ve got this idea in my head to run a one-shot where the PCs are all rangers (well, actually a mix of a ranger or two, a hunter, maybe a wilderness-centric rogue...) fighting a guerrilla war against an incursion of hobgoblins.
I want to really stress-test the game a bit, and prove myself wrong.
Help me - guide me - inspire me. What products, Paizo or third-party, should I be looking at? What concepts and rules should I be playing with? Are there specific builds that will help tell this story and prove PF1 can do wilderness well?
I want chases through woods, LotR-style. I want fear of dark woods. I want players rewarded for using the terrain well.
PS - Incidentally, I’ve gone through ‘Ultimate Wilderness, and it is of limited utility...
This is really admirable work. A credit to you, sir!
Cole Deschain wrote:
I own PF2 and I’ve tried it twice. They were pretty tentative attempts; I need more exposure. If I weren’t so lacking in energy to learn a new system (IE lazy), I’m sure I’d make the switch as a GM also.
But PF1 it is for now, and for the foreseeable future...
Yeah - I gotta say I was initially very keen on the tightening and clarifying of PF1 rules. But the apparent addition of lots more rules has made me more hesitant...
It’s just me, but I was more hoping for that aforementioned ‘tightening’ of a pre-existing rule set. I’m not sure I have the energy or motivation to learn what looks more and more like a completely new rule set. Again, though - that’s just me. I can understand the desire to tear it down to the studs to build a dream product.
It’s admitted flaw in my character that this annoys me so much, and that I obsess over rule confusion/grey areas/vagueness as much as I do. This question was in my head off and on today. 20 year-old underlying chassis system / 11 years of CMB/CMD. And no answer from on high, as we do our best to struggle through poorly-written text.
That’s actually what I was hoping for in PF2: a rulebook where grey areas and poorly-explained rules were made tighter (not watertight - that’s impossible, I get it), but closer to that Platonic ideal of a perfectly comprehensible rule system.
I’m going to rule that loss of Dex while pinned does NOT affect CMD. But I’m not ruling that way from trying to discern the text; I’m going to rule that way because it favours the PCs, and they get pinned more than any single monster. And where rules are vague I believe ruling in favour of the PCs.
But everything said above is very compelling also. And I remain annoyed that it is so poorly explained in the CRB...