Tordek

Technotrooper's page

222 posts. 1 review. 2 lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 222 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

During the Paizo Friday Twitch stream, the devs promised an update addressing key critical issues (not every little error/typo) in the first printing of the CRB "soon."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It would really help if one of the devs explained this a bit better and provided some examples of how to apply the relevant rules (which are scattered all over the CRB).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
For avoiding notice on the move versus ambush, there is this action:
Quote:

TAKE COVER [one-action]

Requirements You are benefiting from cover, are near a feature that allows you to take cover, or are prone.

You press yourself against a wall or duck behind an obstacle to take better advantage of cover (page 477). If you would have standard cover, you instead gain greater cover, which provides a +4 circumstance bonus to AC; to Reflex saves against area effects; and to Stealth checks to Hide, Sneak, or otherwise avoid detection. Otherwise, you gain the benefits of standard cover (a +2 circumstance bonus instead). This lasts until you move from your current space, use an attack action, become unconscious, or end this effect as a free action.

I think it’s fair to say Wait in Ambush is an exploration activity which grants a +2 or +4 circumstance bonus to stealth rolls. This is available to both PCs and NPCs and means using your terrain creatively gives you substantial bonuses which I think is a good thing to encourage in my games (others may disagree for their games).

Good idea. I think there should be a difference when you are not moving and have taken up excellent cover/position.


Good discussion. I don't believe the "I have a bad feeling" is RAW (at least I couldn't find anything in the CRB along these lines), but I do think it is a cool and valid way to approach this situation.


Liegence wrote:

The rules don’t specify Avoid Notice is what a creature is doing when it ambushes, but it does expressly give the GM flexibility to interpret actions in Exploration Mode. That’s how I run it, absent any other rule in the book to the contrary.

How I do Complex Hazards, too, which btw is amazing. This is the best system to start a trap room I’ve ever seen in a tabletop RPG because it can have so many various starting triggers and by a single unified system.

It is a pretty amazing and flexible system. There is a lot more leeway for GMs to just make a call on how they are going to interpret/handle stuff like this at their table.


Liegence wrote:

In Exploration Mode, the Kobolds are attempting the avoid notice action. When the encounter starts (GMs discretion), kobolds roll Stealth for initiative - that roll determines both their initiative (result) and their degree of stealth (result vs. PCs perception DC regardless of initiative result). See page 479 under Avoid Notice.

This can lead to all kind of various results. It’s possible the Kobolds bomb the stealth roll but actually win initiative, in which case they attack first but their target isn’t flat foot (unless they have the Rogue class ability). They could best the perception DC but a PC could absolutely school then on an initiative roll - it’s the PCs turn, but the Kobolds are still hidden and undetected, so that PC would need to take a Seek action to pinpoint his ambushers, but based on his Perception roll he knows something is up.

This is generally correct based on my understanding. The only thing I question is, if the goblins are in hiding in a fixed position, it doesn't seem like Avoid Notice (which always seems to entail "traveling at half speed" according to p. 479). Avoiding Notice seems more like "hiding on the move" than "fixed ambush." If the goblins can see the PCs and are preparing to imminently jump them but the PCs can't yet see the goblins, I believe you are probably in Encounter Mode at that point.


Bandw2 wrote:

@techno

imagine everyone in the party has a perception DC of 14

the kobolds roll 15 for stealth, and the party all rolls 16 or above.

it's pretty strange. the party goes first but are completely unaware they're in combat even though they just rolled initiative.

Agreed, although it is a somewhat unlikely scenario. It means the PCs "act" first (do their current exploration activity first) but, because they are unaware of the hidden enemy, they can't act on that knowledge. That's my understanding of how the rules work whether that seems strange or not.

Most people seem to want to make this some kind of contested roll and that concept has been completely removed from the game, for better or worse. For those who don't believe me, show me any contested skill rolls in the CRB. I don't have a problem with people house ruling this if they don't like the RAW.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The roll is the same, but it's not a stealth vs. perception "contested roll." It's stealth vs. a static perception DC for each PC.


See the "Point Out" action (p. 472) for rules on how those who are aware of an ambush (undetected creatures) can help those who are not yet aware to become aware. Once a battle is joined, it won't take the unaware PCs very long to figure out the party has been ambushed (although they still may not know where the hidden attackers are located). The party members may need to use Point Out and/or Seek actions to help everyone understand where the attack is coming from.

The thing you have to remember about PF2 is that there are no "contested skill rolls," which is what you seem to be describing. That concept no longer exists at all. Everything is a skill roll vs. a static DC. This is a big change from PF1. For those in that older mindset, it makes understanding the new rules more challenging.

I am fairly certain I have these rules right, but I am open to correction if someone has a better understanding. Just trying to be helpful.


When two potentially hostile groups encounter each other and one side is hidden, you roll stealth vs. perception DC to see who can see whom (particularly on the unaware side because those waiting in ambush can see everyone on the other side unless they are also trying to use stealth). You also use this same roll for initiative for those who are trying to use stealth to hide (so you are only rolling once).

If the goblins decide to hold back in hiding and wait until the (unaware) PC group reaches a certain spot, they are essentially repeatedly taking the Ready action. If the unaware group turns around and leaves before reaching that spot (not because they noticed the ambushers) and comes back later on (and the goblins are still waiting in hiding), it would be another (new) initiative roll and stealth vs. perception DC check (use the same stealth roll for both) because it is essentially a new battle. I hope this makes sense. This seems like a really rare and unlikely case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I pieced this understanding together after reading all the material in the CRB on stealth, hidden, visible, perception, initiative, etc. This info is scattered everywhere. What finally put things into place for me was the PF2 designers explaining how this works during the Paizo Friday Q&A stream on Twitch. They discussed a similar scenario (sorry I don't have the time codes). What is important to remember is that rolling stealth for initiative and comparing this stealth roll against perception DCs are two different things. One is to see who acts first and the other is to see who can see whom when the action begins.

The only exploration activity that seems to affect this type of scenario is scouting. If someone in the party is scouting, all PCs get a +1 to their initiative roll--which could definitely help in an ambush situation. It's actually a fairly simple and elegant system; it's just not explained very clearly in the CRB.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My understanding is that that everyone would roll for initiative when the encounter occurs. Goblins would likely use stealth to roll if they are trying to hide. The goblins would also use their stealth roll vs. the PC's perception DC (not their perception roll for initiative). If a goblin wins initiative and beats a PC's perception DC, he is hidden to that character (and the PC would be flatfooted to him). The PC could use a Seek action to try and find that hidden goblin. If a goblin wins initiative but fails to be beat a PC's perception DC, the goblin goes first but isn't hidden to that character.

I don't think it's that hard once you understand it, but it isn't presented in a simple-to-understand way in the CRB and the information to put it all together is scattered in several sections. Could have been written more clearly and examples (such as this scenario) would have been useful.


Hope to see some errata from Paizo on this issue soon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I created this quick reference sheet summarizing all of the PF2 weapon and armor traits and thought others may also get some value from it. This information is not on the Paizo GM's Screen but comes up frequently in play.

Pathfinder 2 Weapon and Armor Traits Quick Reference


It would also be really helpful to have feat cards so you don't have to try and memorize the details of each feat.


Bardarok wrote:

No it means after 10 minutes when you succeed the check you can A. Heal the listed amount or B. Spend another 50 min and heal double.

If you have plenty of time go with option A it's less healing/minute but less chance of a nat 1 preventing further healing.

Many thanks for the explanation!


I am unclear how to apply the following sentence from the Treat Wounds skill action:

If you succeed at your check, you can continue treating the target to grant additional healing. If you treat them for a total of 1 hour, double the Hit Points they regain from Treat Wounds.

Does this mean after 6 successful Treat Wounds checks (10 minutes each = 1 total hour of treatment), additional Treat Wounds checks are twice as effective at restoring HP?

For some reason, this sentence isn't clear to me. Thanks to anyone who can help clarify the intent of this rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Will Paizo issue errata/FAQ in a timely manner on these release issues/questions? Or will they follow their policy of not issuing corrections until the next printing of a book? What did they do with the first printing of the PF1 CRB? Just curious.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

I too am a bit disappointed with the first printing regarding errors and typos.

To a degree that I am tempted to cancel my second CRB preorder and just let my players trash the first one I buy like the heinous book ruining scum that they are, buying a second one after the 2nd or 3rd revision (hoping it sells enough to get one tbh)

Me too. Just canceled my 2nd (backup) CRB from Amazon. I will order a future printing with errata.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The color version hurts the eyes and is difficult to read due to color contrast. The printer-friendly version looks much better.


Nightwhisper wrote:
The action descriptions are in the general section for the queens.

Ah, yes, that makes sense. Thanks.


Jürgen Hubert wrote:
....is it just me, or are the naiad and dryad queens missing some text in their action descriptions?

It does appear like key action information is missing. If this is true, let's hope this is not the final copy (in the book) we are seeing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Based on my experience, Amazon tries to provide release date delivery.


17 people marked this as a favorite.

The guy's overall opinion on PF2 was:

"A super huge shout-out to Paizo and all its employees. You guys rock. 2E looks fkn awesome. I hope people got hyped from this thread and some pre-orders went down, because these books are pretty damn awesome, and 2E looks great."


That was mentioned on Reddit and the guy said he understood and would try to avoid doing anything like that because he wanted to support Paizo. Anyhow, I'm sure they have their reasons but, with the books now arriving in people's hands, they won't be able to contain this kind of information much longer.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know. Companies pay people to create online buzz and this guy was doing it for free and being very careful. It was mentioned that several CRB pre-orders had already resulted from what had been posted so far. I am sure Paizo knows what they are doing, however, even if I don't understand it.


I'm not sure why they asked him to stop. He was doing a pretty good job of creating hype and excitement without giving away too much.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

CRB Table of Contents can be found here.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

...on Reddit.

Link


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The biggest positive of PF2 is that is it SO MUCH easier to prep and run. This is a huge deal to me personally because I found GMing PF1 to be a chore (even though my players liked it).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Loved: Many cool character options and fun Adventure Paths.

Hated: Complexity of prepping and GMing a game, trap options, optimization and power gaming, rocket tag, and linear fighters/quadratic wizards.

Wanted: Nothing, it already has more options than a person could ever use in a lifetime.

Will Miss: Flexibility. It looks like PF2, while much easier to run, will not quite have the flexibility of PF1 (such as with multiclassing).


Your videos are fantastically done. I have a Ph.D. in instructional design and you are a master at creating easy-to-understand tutorials. Do you have formal training in this?


11 people marked this as a favorite.

For those of us on the fence about PF2 after playtesting, a blog post highlighting or summarizing the key rules changes between the playtest and the final version would be extremely helpful in assisting us to decide whether or not to remain excited about the launch of PF2.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

+1/level became our group's primary reason for abandoning the PF2 playtest and returning to 5E. It doesn't look like Paizo is willing to change this and is determined to have bloated numbers at higher levels, a steep power curve, and narrow bands of level-appropriate opponents. The effect on skill progression creates strange and unbelievable situations. I will take a look at PF2 if they address this, but also will happily continue to play 5E if not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree that the definition of hit points isn't (and has never been) just physical damage. This is why I really don't like the concept of having to "bandage everyone up" with a healer's kit after a fight. If they are real "injuries" or "wounds," just bandaging them up isn't going to somehow heal them instantly the way magic can. For me, the concept of Stamina and Health make so much more sense. I also like the simple 5e "short rest" approach.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I find PF2 *much* faster to prep and *much* easier to run than PF1. This greatly reduces the burden of GMing--which is one of the primary reasons I switched our groups to 5E.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks. Something like this should be in the core book to help speed up character creation.


Paizo is in a tough spot because, once they announce (or even hint) that they are working on PF2, it most likely significantly impacts the sale of PF1 products. I have personally stopped buying PF1 products as a result. If they had sent out surveys about what was desired in a new edition 2 years ago, their sales may have been impacted negatively for an unacceptable amount of time in terms of the company's financials. Not an easy problem to solve, but I don't think they were deliberately trying to ignore people's opinions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree that +.5 per level would be greatly preferable. It would keep monsters usable for longer, lower the bloated high-level modifiers, prevent level from being such a huge factor compared to other things (such as armor), and mitigate the current problem of everyone becoming a master of every skill so quickly. +1 per level is just too steep. Those who prefer to rapidly have their characters "become gods" and not be threatened by lower-level foes seem to prefer the steeper power curve. Seems like two very different play-style preferences and Paizo likely won't be able to please both camps. 5E went with a flatter power curve for similar reasons. One could argue that 5E clearly did something right based on its popularity or that we already have 5E and need something steeper to differentiate PF.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

We almost had a TPK in part 2 but the PCs barely survived. One thing we did have was a lot of camping in the dungeon to recover from the previous one or two rooms in order to press on--even though the party had a cleric. It seems like spells kept running out and no one wanted to press forward without enough spells.


I would add: Please provide summary descriptions of feats so we can see what they do at a glance rather than having to read them all.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

What makes PF2 "special" or at least different than 5e and PF1 in my mind is:

1. Richer character, monster, trap, and tactical combat options than 5e.
2. More clearly defined skill system than 5e.
3. Better supplement and adventure support than 5e.
4. You have to make up fewer rules as a GM than you do with 5e.
5. Allows high-fantasy/gonzo play, unlike 5e.
6. Takes place in Golarion rather than the Forgotten Realms.
7. Encounter mode is a cool innovation and stealth rules are better than 5e or PF1.
8. Has 4 degrees of success rather than a binary approach like 5e and PF1.
9. Much tighter/cleaner rules/math and *significantly* easier to run than PF1.
10. GM prep time is reasonable, unlike PF1.
11. Significantly improved and less-confusing action economy than PF1.
12. Magic item spamming and craziness from PF1 is reigned in via resonance.
13. Doesn't (theoretically) break down in high-level play like PF1.
14. Much better balance between casters and martials than PF1.

I believe the game still needs a lot of work but also has a lot of promise. For me, a PF1.1 wasn't going to bring me back from 5e.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
On the other side of the equation, it's now a lot easier to just destroy the doors! Much easier than trying to lockpick them imo.

My players decided it was much easier just to smash all the chests open rather than bothering to deal with their locks.


Tried to look up the "sweep" trait and couldn't find anything.

PCs got a "minor healing potion." Tried looking up that phrase, nothing. Tried looking up "potions" (which I thought for sure would be in the index) but nada.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

One of the best parts of 5e is the starting equipment packages for each class. It really helps speed up character creation. Would love to see something like this in PF2.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

IMO, it makes level far too important and limits the number of challenges that can be used to a narrow level-appropriate band. It makes things like armor differences become mostly insignificant. It also bloats the numbers at high level and diminishes the importance of the d20 roll. I am hoping they will dial it back to something like level/2 to widen the band of appropriate challenges, monsters, etc. and reduce the modifier bloat.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Surprising or ambushing unaware opponents could use some additional explanation and examples in the rules. It's not very clear.


Action system and unified proficiency system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some of us like the nerfs to magic and the reduction of C/M disparity. Don't know how Paizo is going to please everyone on this issue.

I agree with the criticisms of the proficiency system. Adding your level as a bonus to everything is just too much and results in some strange outcomes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Technotrooper wrote:
This is the first blog post that made me feel like PF2 is not for me. I'm happy for those who seem to be getting what they wanted (high-level martials just as ridiculous as high-level spellcasters) but, for our table, the legendary skills seem like they would turn the game into a cartoon, parody, or joke. I would have preferred to see the power level of casters reduced rather than boosting martials to "ridiculous," but 5E gives me something closer to the power curve and experience I desire, so it will be simple to just continue playing that. Even though PF2 isn't for me, I'm glad there is such an option for those who prefer it.
Maybe you could try the playtest but enact the No Legendary rule that Mark Seifter mentioned. I think the devs would be greatly interested to know whether it works well for those people who do not want their high-level game too far from realism for martials

Thanks for the suggestion. I thought about that but concluded that I don't want to have to "fight the default system" and rebalance the villains accordingly. What I really want is more balanced but less god-like high-level martials *and* spellcasters. I want something easy to play and run. It occurred to me that 5E gives me exactly this, without having to modify or rebalance anything. I like bounded accuracy, the smaller mod numbers, less magic items, and reigned in spellcasters (with mechanics like concentration). For those who want D&D to be more like Exalted at the higher-levels, PF2 sounds like exactly what they are hoping for. Fortunately, there are great options for all tastes!

1 to 50 of 222 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>