Talsharien's page

keep an eye out for TRG on Drive Thru RPG as something along these lines is forthcoming I believe.

I think the boys over at D20 Pro need a mention here. I previously ran campaigns using R20 and have also used Fantasy Grounds.

D20 Pro can very much be used straight of the box, and is superb for importing maps and characters/creatures on the fly.

I have been using D20 Pro for about 8 years now and would recommend.

So how would you counterspell a cantrip?

I would be interested in participating as a player. I am on GMT but also work from home and would be available through the week at the required times.

Pathfinder 2 would also interest me, I am GM'ing two PF2 campaigns at the moment and it would be nice to have a crack as a player.

My group use d20 pro, discord and HLO but I am happy to engage on any platform and have used both roll 20 and fantasy grounds in the past.

How long do you play for and which Saturday? I currently GM a game on alternate Saturdays on UTC at 3:00 (9:00 on you time I believe).

If the times fit I would love to join as a player.

I don't think this is broken at all. My game has just moved into chapter 6 of giantslayer (converted across to PF2) and each party member takes on average 30 damage from most attacks.

At 15th level, that would only be reducing the damage by 7 and both warriors in the group are often buffed with a 6th level stoneskin (DR 10 adamantine).

Once GM guide lands, I am sure Stoneskin magic items will be a thing to be constructed by crafting characters so really no inbalance here at all.

Nice work btw.

A major issue with the Initiative system is the numbers. If you are creeping up on a creature of roughly equal level. It's perception will usually be within 1 of the skill that you are using. On a D20 roll this makes so little difference in the grand scheme of things.

Example -

Halfling Rogue creeping up on a Storm Giant rolls Initiative on his +24 stealth (Dex +5, Master in Stealth).

Storm Giant (level 13 monster) has +24 Perception so this will always be down to a straight d20 roll, despite the fact that the halfling is actively sneaking up.

This seems wrong to me.

Excellent work Ediwir, this is a fine document, thanks.

Clearly stated by BJ in this post.

https://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=63405

Zapp you are a legend. That has just made that a lot clearer for me. The core rule stuff hasn't been an issue. It is when I am trying to incorporate the critical deck that I have stumbled slightly, as suddently you need the class DC for all characters.

It makes sense than non-casters would have a higher class DC in this context.

Thanks, you have just saved me numerous hours of ponderous thought and reflection :)

Thanks for the input, that makes things a little clearer. As you suggested Baarogue, I think I would incorporate this into my existing cheat sheet for quick reference.

I am a little confused by the whole class DC thing. There are over 60 references to class DC in the core rulebook and it is also used by the critical deck.

I understand how it works as a 1st level character as this is explained on page 29 of the core rulebook, but how does it increase as your character goes up levels.

Do you automatically become expert, master etc at certain levels, and if so is this linked to your class abilities such as casting?

Any thoughts?

Thanks Charon, I shall take a look.

Does anybody use a good digital sheet that would allow me to use (or input myself), the playtest classes.

Hero lab Online are not supporting this which prevents my groups from participating as it stands. My games are largely web based which makes paper sheets a little difficult.

I am currently using the earnings table to determine how much the Crafter charges to transfer the rune (expert column), CRB 236.

All good points so far

I'd personally let a caster with the magic crafting feat learn a spell from a wand or stave as they would a scroll or book. seems cool to reverse engineer the magic

I like this and think that it would make an excellent house rule, thankyou ofMars :)

Since the introduction of the Leshy Ancestry, we now have a race with an unusual anatomy. I have issues with the Medicine skill uses being applied to a race which is a plant. I appreciate that the rules do not prevent it, but the same issue popped up in my Age of Ashes campaign last night, when one of the party used Battle Medicine on an Anadi NPC.

I, as yet have not prevented any such healing activities in my campaigns, but it strikes me as soemthing that is indeed worth a discussion

Thoughts.....

After all, if Battle Medicine could kill your friend, why not wait until after combat to try the heal check anyway and not take the chance? Or carry around a few potions to use in those circumstances? Much safer option.

Because you may not have those options and if it is the difference between dropping or not you would have to take the chance. It heals as Treat Wounds, which IMO means that it suffers from any critical failure results as well (i suspect that you would allow the effects of a critical success after all).

Yes Doc CC, you have argued and continue to argue about it being non-functional, I hear you, loud and clear on multiple occasions. I am simply trying to make a point that is more positive than yours. If you feel the need to pick holes in my examples then fine, go ahead. But ultimately, my experience has been very good and I have experienced very few of the issues that you have.

I would greatly appreciate my opportunity to express my opinion without my thoughts being analyzed and insulted.

You have made your point, well done and I will respond to you no further as I have now made mine.

I would recommend HLO to anyone who wishes to use the best PF2 character generator out there at the moment, is it flawless?, NO, but it is pretty good and will get a lot better.

I have been using HLC for about ten years and signed up to HLO for Starfinder when it first released. I love HLC but despite it being a great product, it had a number of flaws which were primarily caused by its initial construction.

HLO is the future and although not a finished product yet, is already very functional as a character builder.

I am not disputing that people have had issues with HLO and everybody has their own experiences but as Claxon pointed out above, it is good for people in this community to understand that each persons experience is different.

My bug reports (and those of my PC group) have been addressed promptly and communication (Gen Con aside) very swift.

It is also important to note that Lone Wolf have not charged any subscription fees yet, as they still view the product to be in Beta.

Subscription fees for services are unfortunately a way of life, but a necessary evil for companies to survive. I mean I pay over three times the HLO subscription fee to Netflix each month, and certainly spend more time on HLO.....

Of course, I am UK and sometimes forget the time difference

The P1 to P2 Conversion Guide is scheduled to go up Monday in a brief blog. Thanks for your enthusiasm and patience.

Any update on this?

Makes Sense, sneak attack has been lowered considerably from 1st edition (where it didn't increase on a critical), so that it makes perfect sense than it does.

I think that is too narrow of a reading. For example we know for a fact that sneak attack is doubled, yet still uses the "deal extra damage" wording. And the only exception mentioned is that effects from a crit are not doubled due to a crit.

Is sneak attack damage doubled, could you point me to the reference in the CRB for this as I cannot find it, Thanks

I built a monster conversion spreadsheet during the playtest but have not had time to check the numbers using the Bestiary as yet.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1C6POBHukEezHfLKiENWpHUZLW6aobrIu

Feel free to have a play with this.

Here are mine, currently being run in two campaigns, Rise of the Runelords and Giant Slayer.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1doNkhmT31mHUd4b_6sBM8-Cj48V8pxiB

Indeed, will such a thing exist?

I think that the system needs vancian, with a spell point option for those that don't want to play it. I have gm'd with both and prefer a spell point system, but also understand why some prefer vancian. Give us the option is what I say.

Take 10 and its ilk is much better than the current rule, but it suffers from the metagame problem that if you match the DC you automatically succeed, but if the DC is 1 higher you automatically fail. So it all comes down to knowing the DC.

So I would change it to: you roll the die as normal but the minimum die roll result is taken as:
Trained - 4
Expert - 6
Master - 8
Legendary - 10

So you can still attempt difficult things that would auto-fail the Take N variants, but you'll never screw up the easy stuff and it's extremely unlikely that you'll critfail.

I think that you are onto something here, but I would only allow the ability to be used when making Easy Difficulty checks. This fits with the original basis of being a master of simple tasks.

1. Yes i believe it should be separate as it deals with different concepts.

2. Yes again

There are a number of posts about this subject in the forums and each one goes off into some interesting sub ideas and concepts. Getting back to the core question however I would like to start a post of simple yes or no's towards the following points.

1. Should Sense Motive be an individual skill, separate from Perception.

2. Should Initiative be separate from Perception.

Please don't draw this thread off into a tangent as their are plenty of threads that are already discussing this. Can you you please cast your votes with one line answers.

I get that you should have a reaction time and that Perception can make that easier, but when very slow and lumbering creatures begin to act quicker in combat than faster and more reactive creatures simply because they are higher level this concept begins to fall apart. I do believe that Initiative should have some kind of Dex/Wis mix rather than being based solely upon DEX, but skill based for me does not do it with the current +1 per level to everything.

And as for Sense Motive and Perception being the same in fiction, well when you break that down into Detectives then fine, I get you. But not all perceptive characters are detectives.

I am pretty sure Holmes, Poirot etc spent time training and honing their detective skills (however naturally raw they may be).

It also breaks when applied to monsters. A Sea Serpent for example that in effect has a +22 Sense Motive bonus. Even Ogres get +5.

I prefer the concept of perception not being developed as a skill and for the most part I think it works very well. Most characters will develop ranks in perception regardless.

What worries me a little is that it also encompasses Sense Motive and Initiative.

I would like to believe that spotting a hidden door or noting that dragon in the distance is a little different to picking up on somebody lying to you.

Initiative is also a stumbling block for me. More perceptive people react quicker?

That may be true in certain situations but not in all. I have known many people in my lifetime who can react very quickly but are not particularly perceptive, and vice versa.

I think that you are on the right lines with this Ediwir. Like you say, it needs a little tweaking but is moving in the right direction. I shall consider this more over the next couple of days.

My take on the problem (to me it is by far the biggest problem of the edition, worse than all other added together)

Rearrange weapon proficiencies around to "balance"(my take should be 6, 11, 16 lv to make on par with PF1 extra attacks)

Untrained: reduce weapon die by 1 step(d8 to d6)
Trained: 1 x WD
Expert: 2 x WD
Master: 3 x WD
Legendary: 4 x WD

WD = Weapon Damage = The base die of the weapon PLUS the bonus from the character Strength modifier plus item modifier.

Item modifier = The "plus" of the weapon.

In this version weapons go from +1 to +3 only (+5 is a HUGE modifier... they reduced all spell bonus to +1 cause "the edition changed, every +1 matter" then left the weapon with +5, wich make absolute no sense)

Generic weapons can only be +1

Named rare weapons can be +1 or +2: Flame tongue, Icebrand, Sword of Sharpness, Trident of the Tides, Dagger of Venom, Dueling Rapier, Shield of the Lion, Any named weapon used in all this 40 years of DnD.

Named Legendary top tier weapons are +3: Holy Avenger, Vorpal Sword, Dwarven Thrower, Oathbow, Bow of Thunderbolts, Lifestealer, All other top tier weapons.

The plus of the weapon add on the hit roll and on each dice of the damage roll (like the strength bonus)

Now you have a system were magic weapon matter, but the adventurer wielding than is the most important thing.

This should be the way forward I believe

I am approaching the end of chapter 2 of Mummy's Mask using the playtest rules. I have encountered a number of the issues that you have mentioned, although thus far the balance seems to have swung in the favour of the players.

The new healing rules have really helped them to move through the encounters quite quickly, and having cantrip attack spells which scale up has allowed the casters to manage spell resources a little better.

Detect Magic has proved to be a real annoyance (far to easy to find hidden things if they are magical).

I have encountered a couple of monsters which I had difficulty converting. I eventually changed them to equal level similar monsters from the playtest bestiary.

I will say however, that I am running the official play-test adventure in my other session and finding this less entertaining (although I understand why it has been written how it has).

Maybe have Sorcerers interact with metamagic in unique ways?

Third to that.

I have run PF1 with a spell point system and it can work. I quite like the idea of their being more of a divide between educated magic and instinctive.

Sorcerers should be instinctive IMO and therefore should use a different system to other casters.

The muulti-class issue could be a stumbling block however

Yeah that is an interesting point with the multi-classing options as they are.

There have been a number of bold steps in the play-test so far, and I really like the concept of the variant spell domain sorcerer. I do think however that to really make this class different from the Cleric, Druid and Wizard in relation to spell-casting, they should follow the spell point system for all casting of sorcerer spells and move them away from the vancian system.

Leave the system in place for the other casters, but make sorcerers based truly upon raw power.

We know healing doesn't work this way.

Yeah I am pretty sure that last time i checked out of my window there were no Goblins, flying dragons and undead wandering around the neighbourhood either. I find it curious that in a world where such things exist your one problem is a ten minute healing action. Not fire breathing-flying lizards or invisible demons......

So how exactly does healing work then?

This is after all a "Fantasy RPG" not reality. If you want reality you should really look for an RPG that enjoys one hit death because it is highly unlikely that somebody wearing leather armour could really walk away from a well placed blow from an axe or sword either.

We have fed back that we needed an alternative healing option, something that stopped the party from having a ten minute adventuring day and here it is.

I for one much prefer the idea of a trained healer sitting with medical supplies (salves and lotions) patching the party up for ten minutes, than a party being forced to buy multiple wands, potions and scrolls. Lets not forget, that such items can also be used in combat, thus making combat a little easier and unbalanced.

This is what you are looking for.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs42a5d?Massive-GM-Sheet#10

It is handy sometimes to be able to see which character has the highest bonus in a skill at a glance. If I prompt a check, I generally ask the character with the highest (or sometimes lowest) bonus to roll first to avoid roll blockage :)

Great stuff though, really useful tool, it is getting run out again for my 2nd campaign tomorrow.

Every multi-class option which a player wishes to select must always be supported by a strong background and reason for selection. Gm's who simply allow their players to have 4 levels of Monk and then with no training or campaign specific details allow them to progress Paladin should stick to playing board games.

Put the ball in the Players court and ask why? Don't be afraid to enforce your players into imagining that their characters are more than a set of numbers.

In my opinion, the multi-class rules in PF2 allow interesting character concepts, most of which will be planned from level 1 with a background from your player as to how and why.

The fighter amendment works, as it keeps the whole thing balanced and prevents a Wizard from heavy armour straight away without the expenditure of more (very valuable) feat picks.

This also makes the age-old dilemma of 1000 orcs vs one high level fighter even sillier, especially considering that you add your "proficiency" to your AC now, which effectively translates to adding your level to your AC. Even in Pathfinder 1, the fighter would win, but now the fighter's going to win without getting hit at all even if she's only wearing padded armour. Heck, now a high level bard with no spells prepared and wielding a sharpened stick could wade through that many orcs, just because her level gives her such a high bonus to _everything_.

Lets be fair here, if your fighter gets attacked by 1000 orcs, he is going to get hit by 50 of them for about 5 damage each and there will always be a Mob Boss to deal with (maybe 20 or so in army that large).

Besides, what GM has the time or inclination to build an encounter with 1000 enemies, think that might crash my online battle map ;)

Used the sheet in my session on Saturday (runs for 9 hours this one so can get a little fatiguing with bookkeeping) and it is a great help.

I love the party language boxes which allow the GM to have a quick glance to see languages spoken by the party, nice. I did notice however that Acrobatics and Performance were missing from the skill list on the party sheet.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

And my argument is, basically, that I'm pretty sure that's not correct by the RAW. It'd need to either Swim or Jump to get to the wall.

What is the width necessary for a strand of water to be considered an obstacle that forces swimming or jumping? The distance between the island and the wall is, at most, one foot.

Could this debate perhaps be taken to another post as it is really moving away from "Twitch 9-21: Preview of Rules Update 1.3"?

Once the 12 appear (sounds a bit dramatic), you might consider building Investigator as an Archetype. That way it can bolt onto different classes rather than being restricted to a set mold.

You know I like the idea of heavy armor adding a bit of DR medium would add about half as much. light would have the higher TAC. Would be a ok way I think to differentiate them.

That makes a lot off sense, even if you are adding resistance 1 to physical damage on Medium and 2 on Heavy it would give it an edge.