Tarik Blackhands's page

1,664 posts. Alias of ItsTheName.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,664 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
ShroudedInLight wrote:
I do dislike the universal "Undead are always Evil" trope that Pathfinder uses. If you can redeem a succubus, why not a Vampire?

Because beauty = goodness.

Interesting thing to note, the one demon lord that appears capable of being redeemed? Not the horrid-looking fish monster. Not the sentient jelly. The one that looks like a hot chick.

Come now, sexy vampire ladies are everywhere and thus should be totally valid redemption fodder.

I'd say it's super lazy from paizo but then again last time I GMed my players went out of their way to redeem a half-succubus kineticist and thus I'm officially part of the problem myself.


GinoA wrote:

As dommman47 hinted, gore attacks are primitive and inelegant. No self-respecting (aka any) dragon would stoop to such barbarism.

You know except Imperial Dragons who are all packing gore attacks in addition to bite attacks as it happens.


To probably quote many a murderhobo:

"True Neutral baby!"


Hard pass on the idea as is. Frankly the last thing the game needs is even more encouragement for stopping for a smoke break after every single encounter. If your rests were limited by some external source (Starfinder Resolve, Darkest Dungeon type firewood blocks) then the idea has more promise, but just as a generic option? No thanks.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Apsu gets brownie points for having the most rock solid paladin code out of the official ones written out. Leave it to the dragon to show those humanoid dinguses how to make a code.


UnArcaneElection wrote:
LittleMissNaga wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Green Smashomancer wrote:
MageHunter wrote:

That's less an issue of Sarenrae and more the murderhobos killing in her name.

She disapproves of those that do not respect redemption, notably the cult of the Dawnflower. Golarion has many real world issues including the perversion of faith to justify violence.

Does the cult of the dawnflower not have clerics? Warpriests? It seems to be that Sarenrae is willing to sponsor them. And you can't just say "oh they're actually being sponsored by something evil they don't know" cause that's straight headcanon. Good headcanon, but headcanon.

As of the PF2 playtest, not anymore. Sarenrae evidently got tired of tapping her foot and looking cross at those yahoos (and other TN divine casters of her) while handing them holy power and cut them all off. Good for her, even if it ruins a bunch of jokes for me and others who like sniggering at cosmological inconsistencies.

Yep. I think it's pretty clear Sarenrae's interested in redemption and goodly goodness, but her paladin code is worded in an unfortunate way that's very easy to interpret as "I will give everyone who disagrees with me one chance to change their minds, and if they don't, I will kill them".

{. . .}

Now I've got this idea to use Sarenrae's poor choice (or that of her divine staff) of wording of her Paladin Code as a story hook . . . .

I question how much of a hook the paladin code misinterpretation could be. As I figure it, most people here consider the whole "my way or DEATH" thing as a pretty bad idea (a lot like the whole 'smite and destroy anything pinging evil no questions asked') and due to code strictness, you'd have an ex-paladin pretty quickly. Unless the hook is said ex-paladin wondering where it all went wrong in which case that's probably a case for not dumping wisdom (stupid divine grace encouraging that).


Val'bryn2 wrote:
It is Greek Fire. Literally is, in earlier editions of D&D it was actually called Greek Fire, they just changed it since none of the campaign settings has a Greece.

Then again most settings don't have a Lucerne Switzerland and yet Lucrene hammers are still wandering around. Then again I doubt most people are going to catch that the hammers are named after the place while everyone and their mother knows about Greece.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just goes to show you, salt is the mightiest emotion of all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
I'm surprised the infamous trivia contest hasn't been brought up yet.
?

Wrath of the Righteous's bit with big Io herself. Evidently the main thrust of the situation is players can get blasted for failing know checks. I hear there's more nuance to it than that but I wouldn't touch anything Mythic with a 30ft pole so I can't say for sure.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Green Smashomancer wrote:
MageHunter wrote:

That's less an issue of Sarenrae and more the murderhobos killing in her name.

She disapproves of those that do not respect redemption, notably the cult of the Dawnflower. Golarion has many real world issues including the perversion of faith to justify violence.

Does the cult of the dawnflower not have clerics? Warpriests? It seems to be that Sarenrae is willing to sponsor them. And you can't just say "oh they're actually being sponsored by something evil they don't know" cause that's straight headcanon. Good headcanon, but headcanon.

As of the PF2 playtest, not anymore. Sarenrae evidently got tired of tapping her foot and looking cross at those yahoos (and other TN divine casters of her) while handing them holy power and cut them all off. Good for her, even if it ruins a bunch of jokes for me and others who like sniggering at cosmological inconsistencies.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Archimedes Mavranos wrote:
The underlying problem here is the +1/level bonus to everything.
I don't think it is.
Quote:
This is especially frustrating when adding +1/level has basically no mechanical benefit.

Because of this.

There's really no difference between adding your level to everything vs never adding your level, it's just that the numbers gradually increase in the case of the former.

The way things scale though, with optimizing only giving you a 50-60%, I believe, chance of success is.

Correction: there's no difference when facing level appropriate challenges. Try to stab a a L1 goblin as a L15 fighter and watch the fireworks as you easily nail all 3 of your swings and more or less autocrit the first 2 thanks to the +15 you're rocking by default.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Alchemaic wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
I don't understand the bullet sponge argument personally. I like longer combats. I felt one of the weaker parts of the 1st edition system is that if you have a boss character take on players there's a very high likelihood that the boss character would get owned in 1 round.
I'd much rather a fight that's done in 1 round because the players planned around the encounter or found the secret macguffin that makes the boss easier to kill as opposed to taking an actual full session to chug through its health pool. Bullet sponges just aren't fun and make the players feel like everything they do is ineffective. That holds true in just about every instance that they appear in.

There's a difference between 1-2 rounding a monster because you did your Batman/Monster Hunter style prep, exploited its weaknesses to the fullest, and did a bunch of outside the box thinking/tactics vs 1-2 rounds because the wizard landed his save/lose or you drowned it in DPR/action economy as was normal back in the day. That's about as much fun as the 10+ round slog, but on the other hand at least the players can move on from the former faster.

Honestly you could get away with larger hp pools if hp was worked in a different way other than "no difference between max and 1." A person can feel progress if a sword swing lops off the bad guy's arm or breaks a rib (and it isn't just GM flavor text) or triggers some stripe of phase transition that sends the boss to one winged angel mode or whatever.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Funnily enough, drinking a potion mid-combat has pretty much never come up, in decades of DMing/Playing this game.
Generally because potions were essentially vendor trash under normal circumstances and at best were something you prebuffed with (ie flight potions or water breathing ones). The fact you get bashed in the face for even trying to drink one didn't help matters.
Yeah, I guess, IME, I am not feeling some of the complaints some people have had for years with D&D/PF. I have some, obviously, no game is perfect, but some stuff I only came to be aware of via the internet (has never existed in my "reality").

I feel the same way in reverse sort of. Like running into people who have evidently made their druid/rogue/fighter/monk quadriplegic the combat mvp of their game despite all my experiences being to the contrary with builds of that sort. People's games are weird.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Funnily enough, drinking a potion mid-combat has pretty much never come up, in decades of DMing/Playing this game.

Generally because potions were essentially vendor trash under normal circumstances and at best were something you prebuffed with (ie flight potions or water breathing ones). The fact you get bashed in the face for even trying to drink one didn't help matters.


The Once and Future Kai wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
So for accuracy alone, we need another term.
If it were Starfinder I'd suggest the Hybrid. But that's not very fantasy.

Fantasy Age just uses "Blooded" for their catchall term for you half whatevers or planar hybrid (equivalents). Works well enough in my mind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Off the top of my head, the biggest reason to dislike the dice bukkit is that combining everything for your sneak attacks and fireballs is a pain (which it is honestly, especially if you're doing it all the time). It's not a problem for stuff like Shadowrun and other pool based core mechanics since largely those are just picking out the explosion number, the success numbers, and maybe 1s which is easy to do at a glance and satisfies the lizard part of the brain that enjoys letting fly 10-20 funny shaped dice.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm sorta amused that people are saying Desna is the author's pet for the Good gods anyway. I would have pinned that one on Shelyn in a heartbeat.

Goddess who's even more granola chewing than the actual goddess of redemption but oh watch out, she also can throw down well enough beat up Pinhead gorged on a near perfect divine artifact weapon and can totally fix that in time! Oh oh, she's also friends with everyone and even the evil gods want to play nice because she's just so gosh darn pretty and nice. Even Rova -"the pretty ones die first" -gug is willing to slow down a bit with her! *eyeroll*

On the vein of author's pets, Asmodeus gets my vote for the Evil side. I swear, everything that happens vaguely relating to Asmodeus is all part of the master plan, including, nay, especially when he gets beaten. It's like Tzeentch only without realizing in the back of your mind that the "Just as planned!" is part of the joke. Absolutetly nothing got my goat more than the ending of Hell's Rebels where after beating up the final boss, the adventure caps with Mephistopholes rolling up to you and saying "Good job heroes, you've totally done what the boss wanted and even if you lost he'd have won anyway! Now go back to being silly sheep losers,"

That's Asmodeus in a nut shell. Nothing but Xanathos gambits without them being gambits. Except that bit with Baphomet (and why Baphomet eternally gets some props from me). It also doesn't help that his fanbase here seems to keep pushing him as the respectable evil god. Oh he'll tell the truth (except when he doesn't) and keep his word (after monumentally screwing you over in the fine print). Truly the best of the evil gods there... *eyeroll 2*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drejk wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Karissel wrote:
Gavmania wrote:
Karissel wrote:

I don't really understand why they thought that critical's time had come again?

I wasn't aware that it had ever gone.

They dropped out of most rpg's a long time ago because of spike issues.

Pathfinder 2 not only embraces them but also in its current form makes them pretty common especially in the tougher encounters due to the +10 rule.

It might have been more sensible to bring in crit's just on natural 1 and 20's rather than going from none to lots?

Virtually every current mainstream RPG has critical hits/exploding dice. D&D 5e, 4e, Star Wars RPG, all the Warhammer RPGs, WoD, they all have damage spike mechanics. I don't see how did crits ever drop out. There are games which don't feature them, but it's mostly smaller/indie RPGs.

FFG's Star Wars has critical hits that generate a random effect that might involve extra damage or just outright cripple the target... Often more lethal than mere damage spike.

I've actually lived the dream of having a Bounty Hunter get enough modifiers to go straight to the instant death critical result with enough Lethal Blows talents and a Disruptor Rifle. Good times...


Johnico wrote:
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Virtually every current mainstream RPG has critical hits/exploding dice. D&D 5e, 4e, Star Wars RPG, all the Warhammer RPGs, WoD, they all have damage spike mechanics. I don't see how did crits ever drop out. There are games which don't feature them, but it's mostly smaller/indie RPGs.
Indeed. Mouseguard is the only published TTRPG I can think of that didn't have sort of critical system. Even Fate Core has Success with Style...which is pretty similar to the Playtest's +10 Critical Success.

Even then, most smaller/indie RPGs I've read may not have something called out as a "Critical Hit" but have something to the effect of "every extra success gives you an extra good thing" or "every two points over the difficulty rolled causes an extra die of damage" or something similar.

Tarik Blackhands wrote:


It's been a while, but did Legend of the Five Rings have exploding dice or a crit system? I'm not sure if it had those in addition to the raise mechanic or just raises.
L5R had exploding dice in addition to the raise mechanic. The raises were basically how they handled crits, making it a wager/gambling mechanic so it goes from "I happened to roll high so I get a bonus effect" to "I'm going to wager that I'm going to roll noticeably over the difficulty to get a bonus effect."

Thanks for that. Been a while since I did L5R but I always did enjoy wager systems. Seventh Sea does the same sort of thing.


It's been a while, but did Legend of the Five Rings have exploding dice or a crit system? I'm not sure if it had those in addition to the raise mechanic or just raises.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Most RPGs? Yeaaaaah I'm slamming the "contest" button there. You're going to need to provide a time frame there along with some examples because some form of critical mechanic have been in nearly every remotely mainstream game from DnD, to Star Wars, to World of Darkness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
I think our favorite part is that it actually feels like a strategy game now (we are avid wargamers). PF1e combat was way too shallow.
What in particular about the PF2 ruleset makes it feel more strategic to you (a strategy game, now), than PF1, and why would you say that PF1 combat is way too shallow?
Because every single martial in PF1e plays the exact same. 5foot step full attack. In PF2e you have a lot more options during your turn, and it's not always obvious what is 100% the best.
Ah, that is not my experience, and it would seem you are referring to tactics, not strategy.
Well that pours over into strategy too. You do feel like you need to plan stuff out. While in PF1e: "eh let's just run in and hopefully kill them in a turn or two of full attacking."
Not really, short term tactics is not strategy, and again, I do not agree with your run in and kill them in two turns of full attacking, assertion (especially if one uses the Unchained RAE).
Never used the unchained RAE but will entirely concur that there wasn't much strategy at work beyond blitzkreiging the bad guy with some permutation of booting in the door or something like dimension door for 95% of engagements.
Well, we have very different experiences with the game (3rd Ed and PF1), and I find yours unfortunate, which is a shame. Also, what you are claiming sounds like classic edition warring rhetoric from 2008 (often from people that didn't even play 3rd Ed).

If I were edition warring I'd actually be propping up my favored edition along the way. And as a guy who dislikes 3.5 far more than PF1 (ultimately for the same reasons funnily enough they're just far more pronounced in 3.5) and hasn't even touched the playtest document I'm not doing that. I'm just relaying my experiences with a system I've played for years primarily because it was easily accessible via SRD and wasn't anything my gaming group needed to collectively learn in order to play.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
I think our favorite part is that it actually feels like a strategy game now (we are avid wargamers). PF1e combat was way too shallow.
What in particular about the PF2 ruleset makes it feel more strategic to you (a strategy game, now), than PF1, and why would you say that PF1 combat is way too shallow?
Because every single martial in PF1e plays the exact same. 5foot step full attack. In PF2e you have a lot more options during your turn, and it's not always obvious what is 100% the best.
Ah, that is not my experience, and it would seem you are referring to tactics, not strategy.
Well that pours over into strategy too. You do feel like you need to plan stuff out. While in PF1e: "eh let's just run in and hopefully kill them in a turn or two of full attacking."
Not really, short term tactics is not strategy, and again, I do not agree with your run in and kill them in two turns of full attacking, assertion (especially if one uses the Unchained RAE).

Never used the unchained RAE but will entirely concur that there wasn't much strategy at work beyond blitzkreiging the bad guy with some permutation of booting in the door or something like dimension door for 95% of engagements. The closest thing to strategy I've come by in my years of playing PF has been how many layers of buffs the wizard and cleric distribute before someone boots the door open and bursting down occurs.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
I think our favorite part is that it actually feels like a strategy game now (we are avid wargamers). PF1e combat was way too shallow.
What in particular about the PF2 ruleset makes it feel more strategic to you (a strategy game, now), than PF1, and why would you say that PF1 combat is way too shallow?

Not speaking for Ursus here but as another guy who finds PF1's combat to have the depth of a puddle I'll speak up.

Simply put there's no meaningful decision making to be had. If you're a martial you plant your feet and full attack till you or the other person is dead or you use that one maneuver/special ability you teched for with most of your features/feats(dirty trick, trip, grapple, etc). Spellcasting ultimately follows the latter paradigm only you're just picking various flavors of "threat neutralized, go mop up sword dudes" due to how poorly the math and spell mechanics were scaled. But hey, if you're a caster maybe you'll also have to throw up a support (de)buff along the way from time to time too, happy times.

I don't mind relatively brainless combat, but the most absolutely irritating part of PF1's combat is that the combat is couched in a litany of corner case rules and fiddly modifiers that make doing the simple positively teeth pulling.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Totally; another aspect of this is monsters, a Fire Giant needs a natural 20 just to hit a 20th-level Fighter in PF2, I don't think that's right, and does not support the genre, for me.
That was pretty much guaranteed in PF1 as well, just through magic items instead. Conversely, in PF1 an unequipped fighter could easily be stabbed by a CR1 goblin, because nothing in those 20 levels taught him how to defend himself.

Hey man, maybe he picked up Dodge for that juicy juicy +1.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

If monsters are somehow aware that "whenever a group has someone waving a holy symbol around, the dead ones are liable to get back up" the logical thing for those monsters to do is not focus fire on "would-be corpses" but to focus on the person who uncorpses those.

But we generally view "focus fire on the squishy caster" to be dirty pool by the GM, so I don't know how "focus fire on the downed ones" isn't exactly.

If the only people that could heal were clerics, then 'dogpile on the cleric' makes sense. But we're in a world where it's 'wave a holy symbol... or an instrument... or your blood... or some twigs... or your hands... or has a potion... or...

The 'healing guy' can be that guy on no armor [sorcerer] or one in light armor [bard], medium armor [cleric/druid] or the one in heavy armor [paladin] carrying a symbol, instrument, twig or nothing at all... SO focus fire on who again?

Shadowrun had it right all along. Geek the mage.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
ereklich wrote:
David Silver - Ponyfinder wrote:
graystone wrote:
What do we want Martial characters to be capable of?: I want them to start an 'anime' and get better from there. I could care less what is realistic. What I want is what would look awesome in a movie/show I was watching. 'move, swing sword, swing sword' isn't exactly nail biting, edge of your seat excitement. Now let me grab a goblin by the neck and beat another goblin to death with the still struggling first goblin and that's something I'd want to watch.

Yes, please. More of this.

I want to kick a door open not just as a means of entry but also a surprise ranged attack on something inside the room that I might not have even known was there until I kicked the door.

I want to sleep with my hand on my sword and bound to my feet in a flurry of attacks if an enemy comes near before they even notice I've spotted them.

I want to suddenly stop in the middle of a tunnel and crouch down, shield raising and my eyes set on a blank spot in space. I can hear it breathing/feel its energy/notice the ripple in the air/whatever.

I want to grab a portal that's disgorging demons and try to brute force it shut. A wizard or cleric is likely a better call for the job, but I'm there, and I'm doing it. It may take ten times the effort and three times as long, but I'm doing it, because I'm a badass martial who will win by his own hands.

Why can't we embrace this?

I gotta be honest, it sounds to me like you should be playing Exalted, not Pathfinder.

Or Earthdawn, but conversely when the high water mark for PF casters is summoning natural disasters of varying sorts, rewriting reality, constructing your own demiplanes, etc it behooves the devs to either go Exalted/Earthdawn for the sword guys or bring the magic guys to the BMX Bandit levels. Nothing feels more rubbish than getting DR 5/- in heavy armor as a 19th level fighter when the wizard was making his own greater demiplanes 4 levels before. One of the two (or more likely both) need adjustment for equivalency unless you want a repeat of 3.x's paradigm which the devs have said they don't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
David Silver - Ponyfinder wrote:

And when the fight is over? When your problems are past 'deal damage to the thing and not die', what then? That is where I point at as a problem.

Narrative power, I repeat.

Combat power, we all have that. It's not the bone of contention, at least for me.

That's why my solution for that pesonally was (non combat focused) Leadeship as an ability.

If you have a keep (fighter), or a tribe (barbarian), or even a thieves guild (rogue, but not sure rogues need help with so many skill points in the edition) that allows you to shape the world through narrative power.

Who cares if your diplomacy isn't high enough when you have a full armed garrison on your back to simply dictate that "nope, this is how it'll happen" to the neighboring city/warlock/tribe

who cares if you're not that good at bypassing a ravine when your troops may have given you already a fully mapped passage of the whole mountain region.

who cares if you can't teleport when... well... ok, Leadership wont help you there, better find a wizard^^ but you get my point.

Kind of reminds me of Rogue Trader in a way. Mind bullets are cute and all, but it feels less a big deal when you can radio your orbiting frigate and tell them you don't want to see that particular continent anymore in addition to the standard perks of having wealth along the lines of merchant combines and a private army on your ship alone.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
modus0 wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
According to the dictionary (and Warhammer for a slightly less authoritative example) the two are indeed both pronounced Dee-mon.
And according to Paizo's James Jacobs, it's pronounced "Day-mon", and given that it's their system...

Yeah, it's their system and they could have "apple" pronounced like "fish" if they really felt like it. Doesn't change the fact a not insignificant amount of people are going to get tripped up over the pronunciation because unlike most fantasy babble, "daemon" is an actual (if archaic) word pronounced a different way than JJ says it is (even if its best intentions at work due to the demons over yonder).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

According to the dictionary (and Warhammer for a slightly less authoritative example) the two are indeed both pronounced Dee-mon.

That said, english language tends to take a backseat when you're stuck with PF's system. Still, making up some fantasyese for them would be better honestly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe in the specific context of rage powers, but I can just as easily say something along the lines of "want dex to damage, roll a rogue" since last I checked, that one isn't covered by Rogue dedication feats. It's not the past, it's still alive and well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
David Silver - Ponyfinder wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Yeah I'm with Lore on this one. If you have a class system where everything is available to everyone else and everyone can do the same things...then frankly you missed the point of a class system.

Barbarians get rage and rage related things because that is what Barbarians do. That is their identity and the reason someone devoted a bunch of man hours into making that class and other classes don't get that (instead they get their own things unique to them). It's the same with Rogues, Wizards, Paladins, and every other class that's been deigned to exist. How wide or narrow the niches are is up to the designer, but if you have a class system, you're going to get constraints and opportunity costs (and conversely unique benefits) for going the way you did. That's the system at work and a feature of it, not a bug.

Sure, a rogue can't rage, by default. They will spend feats to do so. Then they can.

This is not the end of the world.

If my Fist Mage wants to go into fits of rage, they will spend the feats, and then do so.

This is still not the end of the world.

If you want that then don't waste space writing out a class system and just stick with an open one. Open systems are fine just as class systems are fine, but don't take a leak on my leg and tell me it's raining by trying to disguise one as the other.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Using a bow is niche?

In some systems, yeah "Archer" would indeed be a niche and even a class. Just like I've seen systems where "Wizard speccing in ice spells" is its own class. Whether you like that level of specificity in your class system is up to you, but it's a valid way to handle it.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah I'm with Lore on this one. If you have a class system where everything is available to everyone else and everyone can do the same things...then frankly you missed the point of a class system.

Barbarians get rage and rage related things because that is what Barbarians do. That is their identity and the reason someone devoted a bunch of man hours into making that class and other classes don't get that (instead they get their own things unique to them). It's the same with Rogues, Wizards, Paladins, and every other class that's been deigned to exist. How wide or narrow the niches are is up to the designer, but if you have a class system, you're going to get constraints and opportunity costs (and conversely unique benefits) for going the way you did. That's the system at work and a feature of it, not a bug.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm personally of the mind that yes, a lot of people here are very spoiled by PF1.

You hear a lot of folks being frankly insulted that you can't fenagle ways to nail CR+2 monsters on 3+ or breeze by equivalent level skill checks checks on the same d20 roll if not better.

In other words, people unironically enjoyed being Angel Summoner and take exception to Paizo making the adjustments to clarify that the BMX Bandit is meant to be the norm.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

For a non glib response though, I want equivalency which ultimately means Paizo needs to make a clear decision if they want gonzo high power or something more constrained rather than the PF1 model where they do both while expecting both sides to equally contribute as party members and adversaries.

You want to keep magic as eminently reliable and calling down meteors from the sky, dominating the minds of crowds, and summoning angels? Yeah, I thoroughly expect my swordsman to be doing Hulk jumps for fast travel, bouncing fireballs back at people like it's a Ganon fight, and inspiring armies with a single rallying cry.

Constrained magic where just being able to fly is the high water mark? Yeah, you can stick with Captain America for brute capabilities.

Just don't give me a wizard bottling cities and tell me my equivalent level fighter can't do a 10ft vertical jump because of realism.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
David Silver - Ponyfinder wrote:


I want to grab a portal that's disgorging demons and try to brute force it shut. A wizard or cleric is likely a better call for the job, but I'm there, and I'm doing it. It may take ten times the effort and three times as long, but I'm doing it, because I'm a badass martial who will win by his own hands.

Why can't we embrace this?

Because it's not realistic of course. *Carries on backstroking through molten lava and suplexing rhinos*


ryric wrote:
With skills, what I don't understand, and would honestly fix a lot of problems, is why we even have that DCs by level and difficulty table. Just give us the DCs for things outright like in PF1e. The table is awful because as we see, people will misinterpret it and scale everything, and it has no clear mathematical basis so you have to actually reference it every time instead of just knowing a formula. I'd much rather have something like, for climbing, knotted rope with wall, DC0, rope with wall, DC5, tree, DC10, rough rock wall, DC10T (where T means you have to be trained in Athletics), brick wall DC15T, and so forth. Heck, feel free and list things like wall of force at DC35L or something. Once you have a scale it's easy to set other DCs for things not included, and it makes the whole affair seem much less arbitrary.

The reason why the PF1e system isn't used is because it's cumbersome, rigid, and offers absolutely no help to the guy on the other side of the screen. Filling up page after page with a bunch of banalities like "climb rope DC x" "climb knotted rope DC y" and "climb knotted rope braced on wall DC z" is another thing I as a GM need to sift around a rulebook to get right in a rulebook already stuffed to the gills with tiny fiddly things to look up and may the gods help me if the party wants to climb a rope in a manner not covered by the rulebook. Conversely a level appropriate table (probably with a short list of examples to provide a framework for what a Level x challenge is) gives me a single place to look and make snap judgements and is most importantly flexible.


Bring it up in person and discuss it OOC? Leeroy Jenkinsing things IC is only going to lead to grumbling and bad blood at the table. Just hash out with your table that you'd prefer a quicker pace and try to arrive at some level of compromise.


I'd chock the higher level cleric staying at home while the PCs deal with a problem as more an instance of genre convention/poor writing than anything else. By any logical stretch of the imagination Pardeux the Holy Man can take a day off from healing people's booboos to deal with the goblins raiding the village. But if he did do that, the PCs are kinda out of an adventure so we tend to look past that.


The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge wrote:

Golarion (and thus Pathfinder) is a high magic setting, so the sort of changes Kong is proposing will never be truly practical in this case, That’s not to say they’re a bad idea though. One RPG that quite effectively implements the idea of magic having major costs is Dark Heresy. Its casters (called psykers) have access to quite powerful effects with no daily limitations, but they remain fairly balanced. This is because every use of a psychic power requires a successful check to actually work, and even when it does it can have unpredictable and frequently nasty side effects. For example, in the second game of Dark Heresy I ever ran the party’s psyker was possessed by a very angry and very powerful demon, forcing everyone else to frantically flee to avoid being massacred. These factors make magic something that is only used when really necessary

All that to say that there are good systems that use Kong’s ideas, but said ideas are too divergent from Pathfinder’s base assumptions to work in its case.

You forgot the "in theory" part of Dark Heresy psykers being balanced by Perils of the Warp. In practice psykers were preposterously broken even after the worst of their excesses got curbed by errata.

Beyond that, agreed with the general thrust that reliable and ubiquitous magic is part and parcel with Golarion and Perils of the Warp (or Tzeentch's Curse for all you WHFB players) has no place in it. That said you do ideally need to find a sweet spot in what magic is capable so you don't end up with a preposterous Tippyverse (or you embrace that madness and go for an Earthdawn type game where they're up front about wizards [or Adepts in their words] are the only people worth a lick, PCs included)


vestris wrote:

In the infiltration example you assume that every opponent involved is at the same level as the party is. And if that is the case in would be madness to attempt such a thing. Not just because the opponents are very skilled but also because if something goes of the rails the group will certainly die.

However a carefully planned infiltration will look for weak spots, engage the lower level opponents. Find out first who is competent and who is not, scout the opponents in low stake area's, talk to a couple of mooks in a tavern with no possibility to fail. Try to avoid contact with higher ranking lieutenants or potential bosses. And if it is inevitable keep those encounters to a minimum and leave them to the specialist. Or let the non competent characters prepare a distraction for those the lieutenants.

Which I find way more challenging and rewarding than rolling dice on which you cannot fail but to each their own.

I'd honestly say you'd be better off with something like Shadowrun if your jam is those types of heists/infiltrations. Pathfinder is just too...rudimentary I guess is the right word for it in matters beyond staving in people's heads in a fight and is also held back by the implied premise that everyone will be crawling through dungeons as a unit and environmental obstacles are typically solved with a lone dice roll/spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I like "high level characters are not threatened by low level monsters" (and vice versa- no plausible number of commoners pose a real threat to an ancient red dragon). Aesthetically, this is the kind of fantasy game I prefer.
How many commoners pose a real threat to an ancient red dragon in +0/level PF1?

You're looking at a seething horde larger than than what Saruman sent at Helm's Deep in terms of the longbow armed rabble getting double 20s to crit the dragon (400 commoners per crit going off averages), multiply that by 20 (so blocks of 8000) if we want 400 remnants after the dragon frightful presences most of them away. You're probably looking at several hundred thousand longbow commoners if you want to brute force down the dragon especially since even on crits you need fairly good rolls to get past DR 15/Magic.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
High magic doesn't mean high power, it just means magic being fairly ubiquitous.
Ubiquity of magic (spellcasting, only one class does not have access to spells, and even that one comes close) is one of the most common complaints about 5th Ed.

I guess those people don't want a high magic setting then. Or want a different implementation than however 5e does it (disclaimer: I have 0 experience with 5e).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
DataLoreRPG wrote:
This is not a low magic game.

It's not a high magic one either...

Actually it is. Magic is still everywhere and reliable which is basically the benchmark for whether something is high magic or not (slightly smaller consideration in how quickly you can bolt out magic).

High magic doesn't mean high power, it just means magic being fairly ubiquitous.


Rysky wrote:
BPorter wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Another issue with Stamina is that HP is an abstraction, so having one pool that has to be abstracted in one way and another that has to be abstracted in another way is confusing.

GM "Oh you're not actually getting hit if it's Stamina, that's you expending energy to dodge it"
P1 "But that ability [poison, spell, etc] only works if it actually hits them. Do I have to go through all their Stamina before I can use those?"
P2 "Isn't that what AC and Reflex are supposed to represent?"

Except that's not how stamina points work in Starfinder. It's not the difference between getting hit vs. miss, it's bumps-and-bruises that impair for a while vs. more serious injury. Get hit with a poison or disease attack while you still have Stamina and you're still required to make saves. And since it's all abstraction anyway, it's no more or less plausible than hit points themselves.

Ehh, it still feels wierd.

Getting hit for 50 pts of Stamina Damage and then getting 1 pt of Health Damage and the latter is supposed to be more severe?

*scratches head*

Correct. You're no longer getting bumps and flesh wounds at 1hp damage and are starting to get notable wounds. It's a less severe version of something like the old Warhammer RPGs where your Wounds (read: HP) ultimately represent you taking non-debilitating strikes that may look ugly but don't affect your performance, but when start going below that is when you start getting broken bones, sudden amputations, and other silly/deadly things.


Angel Hunter D wrote:

I've run a lot of Dark Heresy, and they have a Fate Point system that's like Hero Points - I really liked how they capped out at a number ( I.think 5 was the highest), automatically refreshed each game, and you gained them my finishing a campaign (like a book in an AP) but lost 1 permanently to avoid death (and you could do that even if you spent all your points, it removed the "slot").

I found it worked pretty good, and wasn't overbearing. PF2 isn't quite as lethal, but it's a lot closer than PF was.

I don't think fate points ever capped, but generally speaking you only ever got bonus fates for acts of lunatic great deeds (Can't exactly call it heroism in the grimdark future) more than just completing campaigns.

Another fun thing about DH fates is that they were a nifty way to (somewhat) keep player damage from doom spiraling too hard in the event the party doesn't have a Biomancer trivializing that particular issue. End of session and you have leftover fates? Sink em into wound recovery so you can carry on with just a bit more security rather than slowly getting whittled down faster than your medicae guy can patch you.


Then again cleric worship blends rules with setting flavor and at that point a certain degree of common sense kicks in saying "You know, a paladin of THE LORD OF HELL really doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the world as we know it, I reckon this is just a silly oversight by the devs," at which point the person's options for wanting to play that are either

1) A lack of common sense
2) Ignorance of the setting in general
3) A desire to be mildly disruptive/an edgelord.


Yeah and that's the sort of blunt drubbing that some people seem to require since either common sense isn't that common or people just love bringing a little Asmodeus to the real world and going "Well technically the rules allow-" and unironically wanting to play it rather than just leaving it as a joke along the lines of saying your dead character keeps fighting since Dead condition doesn't stop you from moving.


Rysky wrote:
graystone wrote:
It's heresy that the god allows and endorses. It's heresy that shows 'but he's EVIL' isn't all there is to the lore.

I'm pretty sure it's called out that those "followers" royally piss him off. He doesn't endorse it but he allows since that means he still gets their souls in the end.

If you've read the book that trait came in it shows the intent was absolutely not to allow "LG followers of Asmodues". That misses the point and intent of that sect and trait by a longshot.

Not that intent has ever stopped people on these boards before. Sometimes you need a +5 Adamantine Greatclub to hammer home that a Asmodean Paladin doesn't make a lick of sense no matter how many super edgy roleplay opportunities it opens.

1 to 50 of 1,664 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>