Search Posts
I have the Foundry module for the Beginner Box in my shopping cart, but the product has a note that indicates it is "unavailable". Is this glitch, or is the product truly unavailable for purchase? Cross-posted here:
Screen clip of the item in my cart:
Heck, with cards you could even deal players a small hand of 5-cards that they must empty before they can draw again so they can have more agency in how the battle flows. This idea intrigues me! Each player receives a pack of 5 d20 rolls of known value. The cards may be spent on attacks, skill checks, etc., or essentially anything that requires a d20. Of course, VTTs would require re-coding, but it's doable. Has anyone tried this?
Within the Pathfinder mythos, is it conceivable that: 1) A pair of metallic dragons remain together as a bonded pair
I'm sure the answers to these questions would vary depending on the type of metallic dragon considered.
Interesting that you mention Reign of Winter as I am considering that AP as well. Have you tried to convert it?
I've been converting Iron Gods in Fantasy Grounds for the last three days, and thus far it's been relatively easy to do. I would be keenly interested in your conversion document(s) and/or notes, if available.
All I can say is: don't knock it until you try it. Our group has been using 1 action + flourish cantrips for a year and it's not as OP as you suggest. I realize my case is only a sample size of one, but we would never consider going back to RAW for cantrips. This houserule is fairly common, so I'm not suggesting anything earth-shattering or innovative. Some tables go as far as houseruling most SPELLS as -1 action, which we have not tried.
The release version of them would be too powerful for one action. So if that's something to consider, you'd need to re-evaluate all cantrips. The raw damage from cantrips drops off pretty quickly relative to martials during the leveling process. Also, The "balance" comes from the fact your enemies will also enjoy 1 action + flourish cantrips. This may allow casters a more dynamic interaction with the action economy.
Many current class specific cantrips are single action and many are barely worth taking even that action. I agree, and all the more reason to make them 1 action + flourish.
I really like the concept of a rune interacting with magical abilities. I would employ this cantrip. Overall, I think cantrips would get a huge buff simply by making them 1 action + flourish. Cantrips are thematically supposed to be lesser magic, or essentially "tricks".
I much prefer to watch actual paizo people playing these games with Jason as GM over "actors." I agree wholeheartedly. Jason is a superb GM with James, Jason, Payton and Maryssa being outstanding RPers. But I understand Paizo's desire to feature "pro" RPers to free up the team for other functions. The Knights of Everflame set the caliber of RP I expect from a Paizo-sponsored live game. Their most recent live series "Troubles in Otari" fell short of that mark for me.
PF1 has a mountain of content in sourcebooks and APs, and I still draw ideas from them for use in PF2. With PF2's vastly improved standardization of rules, lore, publishing practices, polish, etc., the future looks brilliant for this system.
These are great! I like magic items with slight downsides while not unduly punishing the PC for using them. If balanced well, the downsides force the player to think more tactically. Plus, magic items have more mystique, too. I'm also a proponent of having items progress with the PC, so all my homebrew items behave like relics. Have you worked out a way to calculate Item Level and Price?
Thank you for sharing! I welcome an even deeper dive into firearms for PF2, but the game didn't need a "gunslinger" class. I would argue that the current number of classes is already sufficient, but develop additional subclasses, feats, skills, dedications, etc. How cool would it be to have a "guns and gears" sourcebook where ALL classes would benefit? The system-spanning flavor offered by generalized sourcebooks would be invaluable. I understand that additional classes are a moneymaker, but lateral system development is a key way to retain players for the long term.
What's a good campaign excuse to bring a good-aligned dragon(s) and a retinue of Ryphorians from Triaxis to Golarion? Things to think about: Did they arrive accidentally (i.e. experiment went awry), purposely (chasing time-traveling criminals)? Are they trapped on Golarion, or can they come and go to/from Golarion and Triaxus?
The hybrid approach may be more fun than pure gunslinger, IMO. The melee capabilities of a fighter combined with firearms? I think I know what my next character will be...
I assume this would apply only to intelligence-based skills?
The +1 rune is actually the better option in this system. Are you certain of that? Scratch out a quick example on paper and let's see the results. I already have... *wink*
I'm still not seeing an explicit rule stating that a potency rune is a prerequisite for a striking rune to exist on a weapon. Thus, I tend to agree with Taja's interpretation. In my case, I had just enough gold to buy a striking rune, but not enough gold for both striking & potency. It was a no brainer to choose the more effective of the two, so striking it was, thinking I will add the +1 potency when I had the cash.
I'm inclined to agree with the idea that once a piece of equipment has ANY rune, that item becomes magical. That is the interpretation that makes the most sense to me.
Yes, I see now. Thank you for the clarification. The fact that both runes are a "package deal" is not stated upfront.
...you need a potency rune first, which then makes the item magic to begin with. The RAW is a bit hazy regarding this. I don't believe a weapon MUST have potency + striking. Is it not possible to have a weapon with only a striking rune? I see no rule expressly forbidding it.
That being said, a striking rune does not make a weapon 'magic' by itself: Interesting and thank you! This seems like an odd RAW, as I would have surmised that ANY rune etched onto a non-magical weapon would make the weapon "magical" (i.e. my morningstar has only a striking rune and no potency). However, this does not seem to be the case. Only a potency rune makes a weapon or armor magical. Is there some mechanical reason why this rule does not extend to ALL runes?
Regarding potency versus striking runes and what constitutes a magic weapon or armor:(source.): A potency rune is what makes a weapon a magic weapon or armor magic armor. For instance, what if a weapon had only a striking rune? Doesn't that alone make a weapon "magical"?
May I suggest the shield rules proposed by Samurai.
silk is not elastic. Silkworm silk has low elasticity. However, some forms of spider silk are highly elastic and more robust than Kevlar, carbon fiber, and steel: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2658765/
Just about the only reasonable solution in either game is just to take a "monster" (the lion or bear or whatever) and give control of that to the player, leveling it alongside the party. Fascinating... Has anyone tried this?
Out of curiosity, what do the casters in your games typically do with their extra two actions when they cast a cantrip? The casters in my games often don't know what to do with their spare third action as is (usually shield cantrip or an actual shield). The most popular third actions among the casters in my group are Shield, Reach and actions with the Move trait, especially Stride. Caster combat definitely feels more snappy, which was the missing "secret sauce" from my perspective.
Obviously, what I'm thinking of is much more drastic than what Tavaro Evanis suggested their table uses, but I don't think magic is "bad", I'm just curious to see how such a change would impact caster experiences. Spells are a resource expenditure already, so I'm not as concerned as I could be. I play a warpriest/fighter but my primary role is the party healer. I invest heavily into feats which support healing and all my spells are support focused. My only sources of damage are cantrips and weapons. For me, the game is substantially more dynamic with the tweak applied only to cantrips. It took me from being a mostly rooted-in-place healbot, to a highly mobile battle medic.
With all respect, read Tavaro Evanis's post more closely before erupting into reactions. They specifically say that they add the Flourish trait to 1-action attack cantrips, which would prevent more than one such cantrip from being used in a round. We discussed applying this houserule to both cantrips and spells. For now, it applies only to cantrips, and it's a resounding success. The increased utility was our rationale for its inclusion, not nuking. Telekinetic Projectile with a 30' range and damage equal to 1d6+ability modifier is hardly a "nuke". That has the Flourish trait under the houserule, so a two or three-round burst would not be permitted. Our GM routinely overtunes our combat encounters, even before we instituted the cantrip houserule. We have a highly tactical and integrated bunch of players. We wanted more combat fluidity, not more pew-pew.
We houserule exactly that, including the attack cantrips, with the Flourish trait added to them. It's hella liberating, and our martials are not even close to being outdone with respect to damage. Everyone should at least try it for one session at their table. I can virtually guarantee you're group won't go back once they've had a taste of freedom. The 2 action cantrip idea should have never seen print, IMO.
Has anyone worked out stats for brigandine armor? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigandine I surmise brigandine might be between scale and chain in relation to some stats: Medium
Other suggestions?
I'unno, I never really liked having to track the HP and Hardness of absolutely everything in the vicinity just because someone cast Acid Splash. Did anyone really do that, anyway? Here's what I was thinking: lightning bolt vs. rickety wooden door and the door is undamaged. How about no?
Also the fact that now no spell can affect objects unless it says otherwise destroyed a lot of the power that casters had. That ludicrous rule change will never see the light of day at our table. How absurd.
My warpriest of Milani uses lethargy poison on his hand crossbow bolts, but he avoids using damage-based poisons.
Thank you for highlighting this! I gimped myself unknowingly for weeks. Thanks, Roll20...
And the homebrew can't possibly be > RAW, since the RAW doesn't exist yet! Or does that mean it must be better than RAW? Haa yes! That could have been worded more clearly. I intended to emphasize that homebrew in general is often better than published rules.
More kineticist homebrews will always be good in my book. At least until we get the real thing. Good sir, what you've accomplished here is "the real thing" in my book: an exemplary case of homebrew > RAW.
Controversial opinion, but, a "proper" canine ancestry To see what all the fuss was about regarding shoonies, I went to check out the illustrations for myself: https://2e.aonprd.com/Ancestries.aspx?ID=16 Pugs as the canine ancestry for PF2? Any of the canids would have been a more universally appealing choice: fox, jackal, wolf, etc... but pugs?
I'm curious if anyone has tried the house rule "roll twice when incapacitation applies then take the higher result". This seems like a sensible compromise, but I'd like to see if this works in practice.
Just to provide some playtest feedback pertaining to your homebrew rules for attack cantrips. These changes ROCK! The damage increase feels just right without being overpowered at all. Before I implemented the cantrip changes, I always felt quite weak as a warpriest during combat encounters. I would never expect to match the damage output of a dedicated martial, but the vanilla cantrips covered by these changes are too underpowered and unsatisfying.
This is what I think of when I hear "steel whip": https://youtu.be/8LPLFCkUH-Y
My catfolk esthetics are based on the Elder Scrolls khajiit. The Pathfinder catfolk resemble domestic cats a bit too much for me, especially their facial structure. The khajiit project strengh and intelligence with their leopard-like appearance.
I see. Some form of anti-magic could render the weapon "normal", and heightening the spell would only bump its level, but not enhance its damage or attack roll.
So in the case of Magic Weapon, there's no benefit to heightening this spell?
I am correct to assume the spell Magic Weapon (Core p. 349) cannot be heightened? In general, spells that can be heightened will have some accompanying text about the heightened effects. Magic Weapon has no such verbiage, but I'm double-checking. Hero Lab Online permits me to heighten this spell, but I have the feeling this is not correct.
https://bjacobt1.wixsite.com/monstermonday/post/monster-monday-swamp- treehorn Love this one! Well-conceived and challenging! Those page layouts are gorgeous. Is there an InDesign or LaTeX template available for them?
I feel like if they make SF2e too soon, Starfinder 1e wont have anywhere near enough content for longevity which would immensely frustrate me as the chances of me moving over to a PF2e style system written by paizo is near 0. I hear what you're saying, and from your perspective as a current SF player, I get it. It's an unfortunate predicament. As a PF2E player, I am intrigued by the SF setting, but having to recalibrate my familiarity with PF2E core mechanics has dissuaded me from diving in. There's only so much free time in any given week... I know essentially nothing about the RPG publishing business, so what I'm about to say is purely from a "man on the street" perspective. Nevertheless, the timing of the releases SF PF2E does not seem optimal. Their core mechanics differ enough such that each is a separate game, but yet, they share the same universe. As SF was released well ahead of PF2E, there's enough reason on both sides for players to remain in their preferred game system. What if SF shipped with what would become the universal engine for both games? Surely, the devs already had a clear vision for PF2E during the development phase of SF. Why not just integrate the efforts of both teams towards developing a universal core? I'm just speculating here, and I'm sure there are myriad moving parts with publishing these games that I have no clue about.
Throwing my two cents into the pot for this! I would gleefully give Paizo my money for a SF2 with the PF2E core engine. But as others have said in this thread, SF2 is not likely to happen any time soon, and no guarantee that SF2 will be a reality at all. In the meantime, I will continue to monitor the progress of community-based conversion projects for PF2E/SF.
Nicely done regarding the homebrew rules for shields, Samurai! The Fortitude/Will save option is sweet. I will drop that into my sessions ASAP. I wonder if anyone has insider info to share about shields in the upcoming Advanced Player's Guide...
They already exist in the game. Guns exist in some art for the game, yes. They're not in the game as codified rules. Generally speaking, game designers don't put things they don't want in their games. You're missing my point entirely, which was: how does a culture develop a need for firearms where lethal magic already exists and seems rather commonplace?
|
