Vigliv

The Gleeful Grognard's page

Organized Play Member. 1,879 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,879 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I am just sad that the remaster didn't nerf it. Every single game I have run since launch had PC's default to tier 1 bags of holding and never bothering with anything larger since that much bulk is extremely hard to fill, especially when multiple PC's will buy them (and you can get 4 tier 1 bags for the price of tier 2).

But yeah as stated above, both items are described as sacks in their rules text, I don't think there is intentional nerfing and art is frequently inconsistent. I mean I can point to some elves with normal eyes :p


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The requirement isn't a prerequisite, it has to be fulfilled throughout the entirety of the action. And since what gives cover is conditional to the person targeting this can be true for one and not for another.

To put it another way, raise a shield has a requirement that you are wielding a shield. If you remove your shield or it breaks before the start of your turn you do not benefit from raise a shield until the start of your next turn even though raise a shield states that this is the duration of the effect. This is because you no longer meet the requirements.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally I will be retiring all content from the crb and apg once pc2 releases. Less for a balance reason and more because it makes source tracking simpler and my life easier when it comes to remembering what does what.

I would like for there to be a spell that replaces synaesthesia rather than it just simply disappearing though... and I would rather a more balanced spell than it getting the incap trait slapped on it. It is hard to argue that it isn't one of the best spells in the game currently.

I am kinda sad the remaster didn't make affliction a type of effect with disease and poison being traits on an affliction instead of the types of affliction themselves. That way we could have shifted synaesthesia to a type of affliction instead as a means of helping level out its impact.


Also for folks thinking of recharging wands. Having a heropoint in the back pocket incase the flat check fails is a good idea at higher levels.


TheFinish wrote:

And yet you don't need flat checks to target yourself with Treat Wounds because you're never Concealed from yourself, only other creatures. So you can, in fact, bandage yourself blind with 0 problems.

As for the other points, things that happen to real world people have 0 bearing for Pathfinder rules, where not only can I find a backpack that fits 10 bucklers as easily as it does a single shield, but no matter how much stuff I have in it, retreiving a item from it only takes me 1 action. Which is also how long it takes me to draw a sword. Or to readjust my grip on a staff.

For hidden, if you are in darkness you are blinded and hidden from yourself. Crb 448, CRB 619, CRB 621 for darkness, blinded and hidden respectively. If I have missed a rule or specific rule interacrion please cite it.

Not sure if you decided to read from my post only, or just like ignoring context. My point isn't that I would rule that way because of real world mechanics, it is that this is how I would rule it for a scroll that was withdrawn in the dark and then the real world examples are because someone suggested that following RAW would be ridiculous.

Perpdepog wrote:
Perhaps the reason you've never seen it done has less to do with any perceived difficulty, and more because it's difficult to see anything when it's, you know, dark.

Ha ha... my point was "doable all the time with patience" but hey you and the other person can continue with selective reading. GG.

The point is that even with something as simple as applying a bandage, in a 6 second period that also includes finding it, unwrapping it and being aware of danger... in an environment entirely robbed of your sight... fumbling is not some ridiculous possibility, and again, spellcasting is more complex than applying a bandaid.

Farien wrote:
What does any of that have to do with game mechanics?

Again, because the topic was that game mechanics require the flat checks, and people were saying that it is ridiculous to follow RAW... r_r


SuperBidi wrote:
Unless you want the Oracle to Focus on 1-action Focus Spells, it won't really work as it's already hard to use 3 in a fight.

I have seen plenty of longer fights occur, oracles pick up single action focus spells and focus spells outside of their class and many many scenarios where players haven't had the time to fully refocus.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Ugh. Requiring flat checks to target yourself is the apex of bad use of RAW, IMO.

I have seen people fumble to locate objects on their body (wallets and keys) and buttons on clothes in the dark.

I haven't seen someone apply a bandage in the dark, but I doubt it would be easy. Doable all the time with patience and time, but not easy.

As far as I am concerned there is nothing to indicate that spell casting is less fiddly than bandage application.

So targeting yourself with a spell in the dark while in combat or expecting danger, and doing so as quickly as you can... I don't think the flat checks are that unreasonable.


Imo oracles need

- some sort of freedom with focus points and curse penalties and boon interaction.

- reworked ancestors mystery so it isn't objectively worse than everything else and slows the game down (a single action ancestor change would be a nice step)

- lore Oracle needs a rework too, the curse benefits stop scaling well in the high level bracket, and not being able to communicate anything you do learn makes the whole matter moot imo.

I don't want them to weaken curses and for us to go back to curses being ignorable fluff.

I would love to see oracles and psychics go back to being masters of focus points and maybe being the classes that can innately break the cap.

Focus spitballing for oracles: start with 3 focus points, cap increases to 5 over time, and there is a more gradual progression to the curse.

Focus spitballing for psychics: a psychic stare that let's them cast
a psychic focus spell while in it without needing a focus point. Think of it like panache and finishers or spellstrike. (Obviously keeping their normal focus points as well).


tcm_pathfinder wrote:
I understand a lot of work goes into the VTT module. I have the foundry module for the Abomination Vaults, and it is amazing; in fact, it is so good that I don't see the added value of having the PDF. That is what I am trying to get at; the VTT modules can stand on their own, and I am more than willing to pay 14 to 20 USD for a VTT module without the PDF.

Well no, the pdf is how paizo staff get paid, the other part is for the vtt staff afaik.


No, but if you wait for sales you can buy the pdf at a discount and even combine it with a discount for the vtt module.

But yeah, it is the cost of getting people to put the extra effort into the foundry modules, since all the maps are remade, the music has to be paid for etc.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Kaspyr2077 wrote:
YuriP wrote:
It was I understood about OP. Unless it's complaining about the Paizo decision to not use Drows anymore or something like this.

Yeah, give it another quick read. He's angry that the Golarion setting is going to be disrupted when the WotC IP is stripped out. Which is absolutely understandable. There's a lot of fictional canons I am fiercely protective of, and would be outraged if they were altered due to a years-later change to an IP contract.

The problem is that there is literally no way out. Hasbro is bleeding and desperate, looking for new monetization strategies and making boneheaded mistakes in an effort to stay alive. As a result of one of those, they ruined their relationship with third party publishers via the OGL. Therefore, they have to divide the IP. It's shockingly common in licensing agreements, and getting moreso all the time.

The OP made a statement with colloquial language, you are jumping on their short post because they didn't approach it with more literal appropriate legalistic language.

But that is more arguing semantics with someone rather than just accepting the words that they used were suboptimal but still clear in intent. If not to you, then to pretty much everyone else who has commented on this matter.

Just incase you aren't actually intended to be a debate bro about this and are just having a brain freeze, the OP's intent was to convey:

- WotC took actions that caused Paizo to believe creating ORC was the safest and most sensible action to take.
- In doing so WotC forced a scenario in which Paizo had to purge OGL covered IP from their setting.
- The OP is unhappy that WotCs actions resulted in this, and blames them for the scenario and therefore the effect of Paizo deciding to make a choice.


I would allow activating the scroll if you knew you had it already. I would however require two flat checks for being blind. One for the interact action and one for the cast a spell action to target yourself.

If it were in your backpack however I would flat say no.

The way I picture scrolls is magic being imbued into the scroll and just requiring the PC to know how to activate it, so assuming they store their scrolls sensibly it is reasonable that someone can activate it without actually needing to read it. It isn't the reading alone that does the magic after all.

A scroll is just like preparing magic, but rather than storing the magic in your own body and remembering the activation steps for that stored magic, you are storing it in a scroll instead. I would assume people would know the activation steps aren't hugely extensive if they can be done in under 6s, so anyone who can cast normally should sensibly be able to cast without needing to see the scroll (surely they would memorise what activation steps will be necessary for any scrolls they have)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:
Honestly I think that the spells for a new edition need a pretty good compression (many spell could be turned into some kind of heightening or spellshate). We have a pretty high number of spells that could be optimized in many ways. IMO the kineticist's impulses only proves it.

Agreed, compress spells and use it as justification for multi action differences and heightened options where possible.

But 3e is a long way away still what with the remaster being fresh.


James Jacobs wrote:
It is. We'll have more to say about the stand-alone adventure line later, once we have a better place to talk about it that's not just a store page, but starting with "Prey For Death" all standalone adventures for Pathfinder will be hardcovers and a minimum of 128 pages long. We're hoping to standardize this to 2 hardcover adventures a year.

Good to hear from my perspective, I don't buy soft cover books... So like with the lost omens line replacing the companion line but in hardcover this makes purchasing adventures far more appealing (although like the other person not from the paizo storefront for obvious reasons)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

-shrugs- I will probably be doing that for simplicity sake once PC2 comes out, anything from the crb and apg that wasn't reprinted will be by default be gone.

But I will be allowing any other preremaster books and if a player asked for a spell or feat that hadn't been reprinted I would consider it.

Stop treating GMs as if they can't be talked to.

In my case it is just lowering the burden of source lookup.


Finoan wrote:
I am expecting that Prismatic Wall went the way of the OGL. It wasn't reprinted in Player Core. So while it is still usable, it won't be referenced in any more Pathfinder content.

And as a GM who likes high level play may I say, good riddance. The spells are such mechanical pains in the butt to run with any level expedience.

Loved the thematics and power, groaned every time play crawled to a halt when it was cast.


Taja the Barbarian wrote:

In my personal experience (which is limited to a single AP), you are generally better off just stabilizing a downed comrade rather than actually healing him/her (assuming you don't absolutely need the downed character to win the fight).

Remember that a revived ally will (per the Unconscious condition) start out Prone, likely Wounded, likely at low HP, and having already dropped any weapons/equipment they were wielding, which is particularly bad if you are still within your foes' reach (I remember at least one boss fight where an ally had to deliberately provoke an AoO so my revived rogue could actually grab his weapon without dying).

My experience of running multiple full length campaigns is getting players up is often way better than letting them stay down. Sure wounded is dangerous (especially since I ran it as damaging a dying player increased it's dying value by the wounded as well) and they might need to swap to backup weapons.

But ultimately, if the party had a PC go down, it was rarely because the fight was so easy that 3 other PCs could just polish it off in the next two rounds.

There are exceptions ofc, reactive strike enemies in lower level play before mitigation options become commonplace are a good reason to stabilize, although a solid forced movement option can frequently allow a PC to regroup. Vision blockers are also great.


Imo, get a magnetic initiative tracker or start using cards/tents.

Life is so much faster when you have pre written initiative markers and can just move them in order.

Heck a mini magnetic whiteboard with little magnetic labels from your general office supply store will do the trick. Saving you a minute or so every combat and speeding things up for players who delay or get downed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with the game ideally having NPC advice on the matter. But it is pretty easy to reverse engineer

NPCs trade at 100% profit assumptions and settlements in general limit what is available level wise.

For instance, the party is in a level 6 city and wants to transfer a level 4 striking rune.

I would offer normal and expedited speeds and costs.

- Normal: I assume the crafter has assurance (it is their profession) and they will work for, DC for craft would be 18, assurance for level 6 would be 20. Progress per day is 2gp, 3 days crafting (ready on the third day) (3.25g of progress needed) cost to player 6.5gp

- Expedited: same as above but takes 1 day and the crafter charges 13gp

........

That aside, I think people get too fixated on the necessity of runes arriving at exactly the point players want them and on the items players want them on.
I feel like people need to have better session zeros with their players.

If a party doesn't have crafting, having to struggle through suboptimal periods is fine imo. It isn't like the party won't be able to take on threats or be useful if they are behind on a rune or two. The math is tight and certainly makes a difference, but not THAT tight.

I agree with runestones randomly appearing as loot though. Feels extremely odd, heck runestones as a whole feel like the vestiges of a previous system in design.

........

Agents of Edgewater, yeah they needed to do better with that imo. "Everything does non lethal damage by default and you can rob anyone you beat into submission" is an awful combination.

I changed it to:

- Edgewatch are paid a (low) wage and given a equipment selection privileges from the garrison based on performance as a warped incentive.

- The game starts with training (and the old dwarf cop) and has a diagetic example of harsh punishments for agents who break the law.

- Characters wear the equivalent of magic body cams. (Not actual cameras, but they change state if exposed to death and record where the officers travel and are required to be invested/worn)

So while yes a PC who wants to be a scumbag can work at it... the city of absalom actually has some safeguards against it and they aren't able to do so with impunity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pronate11 wrote:
Its enough for them to be making record profits. Argue about quality, but its clearly popular.

And you believe this is because of the change in presentation, rather than PF2e growing and making record sales before the change, strong book themes as well as shifting movements in the 5e community due to burnout and controversies?

Btw this is not my saying there is no impact, just that I am dubious that Paizo let alone us forumgoers have enough data points to draw any decent conclusion unless sales drastically shot up for those books specifically (and I do mean drastically).

And I would really question the assertion that anyone who does purchase the books because of their mixed PC and GM content, was swayed into doing so because the PC and GM content is mixed throughout the book; rather than segmented into a player and GM section.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
I think the fanbase and Paizo's bottom line both prefer books with mixed player-GM usage, rather than books only a GM would ever buy. You can sell one Bestiary per Pathfinder group... but *everyone* in it might grab a book that also has new classes!

It annoys me and has actively turned players of mine away from buying certain books.

It is at its worse when they do a Dark Archive and stupidly split the GM content up and scatter it through the book.

I also wonder how many players are buying books these days with pathbuilder around. I know some folks like analogue, but they are getting fewer and fewer; collectors were buying everything anyway and can be discounted. I guess there is exploiting PFS players, but I know more than a few players who are annoyed at paying for a full book when only 1/4 to 1/3 is player facing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atalius wrote:
My GM is the worst, he doesn't even allow a wand of longstrider because he says it's "one of the most broken things in pf2e".

It is though? I ran it myself in a campaign that went to 20 where the whole party had them, it was extremely powerful. Disproportionately so.

Try asking your GM about subsequent turn activation... or maybe leave their game if you truely feel like they are "the worst".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Again, the argument "well you can't have breath weapons going off on consecutive rounds" doesn't hold water when dragons have such a high chance of recharging it for every round use anyway.

I am not arguing intent btw, the intent is clear via the comment and the creature builder excerpt.

But people pushing the idea of it being unbelievable that people would gravitate to the duration rules to standardise how round tracking works because there is no other standard... is silly.

Also every GM I have ever played with has run breath weapons as next round on a 1. Including pf1e and 3.5e.

But it is weird to have a standardised round counting system, that always specifies when it is end of round otherwise... and doesn't in this one niche scenario.

Again, happy to run it as intended, just find the insistence that it couldn't sensibly be read any other way is bizarre.


Baarogue wrote:
It's not a duration. It's a ban

colloquially it is both, rules wise "ban" isn't a rule term and there are immunities (or bans) and they use the, duration rules.


Deriven Firelion wrote:
I don't think it is ambiguous at all. Literally been running these things for years and never heard anyone interpret the way some are on here as "For x number rounds" meaning next round if you roll a 1. This is a first I've heard anyone doing that. Not sure why it's being interpreted that way save some player is trying to gain an advantage with their breath weapon companion or what not.

Really? Because that is how every other round based duration works in the game, you cannot fathom that without reading intent guidelines posted online that people would follow the rules of the rest of the game by default?

Also regarding ~"breath weapons shouldn't be able to be used two turns in a row on a lucky roll, that should be the indicator to people"~ argument, dragons the creature that is most famously associated with breath weapons have an ability that let's them recharge after a crit, and given that they are often solo fights... they can frequently use it consecutively if they get lucky (and +3 or +4 enemies often have ballpark 25% crit chance)

For tracking breath weapons it would be useful to have them changed to 1d4+1 rounds, or maybe stating that it lasts until the end of a round like a bunch of effects do since that is what they are going for.


arcady wrote:

When you pay a GM the contract isn't 'social', it's financial. So you expect a certain level of product and you're not there to bond with each other. AI will eventually deliver a better game experience than any human GM can, and that will hurt paid GMing.

It is also performance and creative. I can see Ai GMing taking over from the most supercifical levels, but it is a long way from being able to handle the other aspects any half decent GM has to for a good game.

What it could do is replace paid GMs who run adventures almost verbatim and don't adjust anything for players, but that is bottom of the barrel stuff.

I am not a paid GM, but I:

- make visual assets (maps, images, animated effects, tokens)
- collect and organise sound effects, ambiences and music libraries (changing music play lists and tone for locations and also to keep my players feeling the right emotions, which can often change mid session)
- adjust events and progression over the campaign based on player and character interests and monitor what is resonating with players
- adjust events and progression within a session based on current player energy levels
- learn from how players respond from all of the above and use it to inform how I go about things in the future

I would imagine that most successful paid GMs do that at the very least.


Finoan wrote:

Explain the scenario more, please.

How does Hustle add tension? It either works or it doesn't. You either make it to the location on time or not. And it is pre-known which it will be. The length of time that you can hustle is CON (minimum 1) x 10 minutes of the character with the lowest Constitution.

Also, the Chase variant Beat The Clock is exactly what I would use for this.

You can choose to leave a character behind, it can justify a character arriving earlier with magic while the others hustle behind and it can determine the degree of events that occur before hand based on how fast people get to a location.

The choice point comes in where the party has to decide "will hustling be a resource I will require later, or will I be fine if I spend it all now."

Beating the clock only works if there are obstacles the pc's can overcome, it adds a lot of game time to something mundane like running back towards camp.

It is a way for there to be a simple "running places" mechanic that doesn't require rolls or open the game up to "well I run everywhere at all times" trolling.

As I said before, hustle is for the mundane (relatively speaking).


Finoan wrote:
I have also not come up with a scenario where it would be useful. Anything that I do come up with would be better served as a chase scene

You need to get to a location to warn people or back to a location that is under threat but at a distance away.

Chase doesn't make sense in scenarios like that and extra dice rolls would simply slow things down but hustling can be a decision point for the party to add tension without negatively impacting game pace.

My group used it multiple times in AoA.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BishopMcQ wrote:

Can someone layout an example where that would be feasible?

Other than a double bounce on a trampoline (and even that's not quite there) I am having trouble picturing a scenario where I set you up to help me, and my reaction to help you help me doesn't distract me from the task at hand.

Someone is disarming a trap. An ally is pooling their knowledge on how to disarm traps (aiding them). The person disarming the trap is taking extra effort to be clear and descriptive of what they see and what they are doing to try and help the person who is sharing their knowledge be able to share said knowledge (aiding the person who is aiding them).

Which as a gm i would break down into

Aid the aid (very hard dc adjustment)
Aid
Thievery check

But yeah most scenarios would not allow for this sort of aiding the aider, just wanted to present one where it can work without breaking verisimilitude.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

Since Aid is generally a single action, plus a reaction, is it therefore possible for me to do a short task (one or two actions) while using my remaining action (and reaction) to Aid someone who is Aiding me in my short task?

To spell it out with an example, let's say I am a master in my chosen skill, auto-crit succeed against DC 15, and thus can grant my Aider a +3 bonus on their check to Aid me. Because they too are a master of the skill, they (with the +3 bonus from me) auto-crit succeed to give me a +3 bonus on my skill check to perform the short task. Would that work?

I mean, a key part of the aid action is "You must explain to the GM exactly how you’re trying to help, and they determine whether you can Aid your ally."

So if you can... I guess... but that will be a hard sell.

Maybe for something like bomb diffusing, where you would need to use diplomacy to make sure you can communicate the situation and what you are doing extremely clearly for the person trying to help you. (Anyone who has played keep talking and nobody explodes or overcooked will know what I am talking about)


ElementalofCuteness wrote:

But that is what Untrained Improviser does however, allows you to roll every skill and every lore is simply a skill. If you do not allow this then the feat becomes interesting and sorta weak. Since Lore is a named skill, it just says that every lore your GM will allow is a named skill. Unless you don't want to use the example of lores that Paizo suggests as named skills

But if you do this, that weakens just one of the most OP general feets. Yet leaves, Fleet in it's stupid stat.

Untrained improvisation was useful for both the alchemist and barbarian in my AoA campaign at high levels. Just being able to roll on most of and have a chance can be make or break even if it isn't as good as if they actually had proficiency.

But having one feat give you a functional one lower than master on all recall knowledge checks is a bit much and I would rule an oversight.

Fleet being powerful isn't reason enough for me to have this be THAT powerful under a technicality. It goes against the flavour of what untrained improvisation is and why lores and specific lores get a dc adjustment in the first place.

If you want to get snippy with me and argue technicalities in the language I used when making it clear how I would personally run it at my table. The DC adjustments for recalling knowledge aren't guaranteed and are explicitly at the purview of the GM as specified where they are mentioned.
But that isn't my point, this just feels like trying to exploit a rules loophole to me and an interaction that the devs almost certainly didn't think of.


Specific lores are generally a -5 to DC, lores as a baseline are generally -2 to DC (well, when it comes to recalling knowledge, not so for other uses)

Also if a player was trying to use Untrained Improve to get every lore I would outright tell them no, not a chance. Named skills only.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Extinction curse was a real disappointment for me. The advertising media played up the circus connection, I didn't expect it to be the primary focus but I expected it to be more than "two small sections of two books"

Worst thing is, I did such a good job with fleshing out the circus and performance that my players HATED that it was irrelevant (I started running it when the first volume released, so I didn't know how irrelevant the circus would actually end up being).

It isn't even a bad adventure.

I am still bitter about Gatewalkers being compared to the Xfiles though, it is 100% indiana jones and an okay adventure at that (needs a little villain and npc work, but as a pulp adventure it works)... xfiles it is not.

Still, leagues better than the advertising WotC likes to do. Their marketing team likes to just jump on things they believe will sell, whether it is connected or not. Baldur's Gate Descent into Avernus... is not about baldur's gate and has an unrelated intro to get people up to the level for the main adventure, and it was advertised as madmax in hell, while having next to nothing to do with the hell cars.


pauljathome wrote:
They very much WILL build a character for the campaign, the issue is that the Players Guide essentially totally lied about what the campaign would be. 

It is a minor problem, basically only one if the GM doesn't read the adventure in advance and the players don't give the GM a rundown of their character/motivations prior to the adventure starting.

I mean "Obviously, these background traits won’t work well for new characters brought into the campaign after Gaedren’s been taken care of" makes it pretty clear he isn't sticking around.


Correct, it is a magical effect, not a steely glare :p


Prosperum wrote:
If the monster core is still in development, maybe we could get some more micro-monsters for characters just starting out to fight?

It is not, it releases at the end of march and it will have been content complete months ago unless they have delayed it and not told us. Layout changes do not accommodate for last minute additions and printing times are far from instant; then there is packaging, shipping to warehouse and then shipping to other distributors.

Lead times are longer than many expect :). It is why when paizo sold out of the crb earlier this year soon after a reprint it took them four months to get more print stock even though they already had all the content and layout ready to go.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JBeadle wrote:

Thank you for the responses, I do appreciate them. First, I was incorrect in what he was intending, he explained to me more clearly that his build was for versatility, not to try to milk double slice for a free grab. I misunderstood his intent. Second, I've been running games for 45 years, I know a little bit about DMing, and one thing I also know is not to make modifications to a system until you have essentially mastered it, because you may unintentionally break something if you do. PF2e seems to have had a lot of careful thought put into the system, so I do not plan on changing anything up front, I just want to know what the system is actually built to allow, and so for now I don't wish to house rule anything right away.

He agrees that double slice doesn't allow either a snag or a combat grab (once he has that feat) to be used in conjunction, so all is copasetic.

Good philosophy to have.

As for friends not taking advantage. I still remember an experienced friend of mine laughing about what a new starfinder GM had let him get away with and saying "well, he should have thought about the interactions more, I provided him with all of my sheets". So value those well intentioned friends, some people are just not as well reasoned :)


Mathmuse wrote:
However, giving extra actions to a spellcaster is different from casting Haste on a spellcaster.

It is but I also want to mention that spellcasters are usually one of the best targets for haste in mid/high level play. Not in your example of a party full of bodies (10 characters in play changes movement dynamics / value) but in the standard 4 player set-up, I would generally advise haste going to casters over many martials.


There are two elements at play

Optional- prepare a written spell via learn a spell, this interacts with magical shorthand and takes the relevant period of time

Mandatory- the familiar consumes the scroll or written spell, this takes 1 hour flat. It is not impacted by magical shorthand.

The main advantage of this system is that if a witch has a scroll or doesn't want to risk a failure or crit failure stopping them from learning a spell. They can sidestep the need for a check. But it does mean they will never learn spells like a wizard with magical shorthand will.

On that note in my second AV group the wizard happily spends time mid dungeon learning new spells.


Finoan wrote:
Yes. You can make nonlethal attacks with any weapon.

Oh I knew about the rule but had edited my memory into thinking it was melee weapon strikes only.

A non lethal crossbow strike... baffles the mind lol


The Raven Black wrote:
I end up feeling using a crossbow to deal ranged non-lethal damage with my casters might actually be better than Daze. Is that really so ?

Is there a way to do nonlethal damage with a crossbow (other than as an improvised club that is)?


1. Character Development:

I like it as a spellcheck and grammar tool, but I am not a fan of it for creative purposes. Everything written by chat tends to have a bit of a formulaic chat Ai taint to it. Struggling to creative through lines and using a lot of words for very little depth.
I do use it as an advanced thesaurus at times during prep though.

2. Artistic Endeavors:

It has been great for this, I use sketches and 3D mock-ups with some colour guidance via image to image to get really nice images and I will use image to image as a final pass to add a consistent medium and style to all my player's token images for foundry.

3. Game Mechanics and Rules:

Yeah integrated chatgpt search is really good. Less so for actual rules interpretation but for finding contextual rules and edge cases it can find things way faster than someone looking it up will.
I tend not to search things too much at the table. But I really like consistency so searching afterwards efficiently helps me spend more time putting the ruling in my play document and using concise language instead.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Ehh... one of the things I find a bit disappointing about PF2 is how thematic picks tend not to stack well. Is what it is, though, and we'll see.

I would argue that is good design, it means individual thematic features stand out and don't become an arms race. Multiple routes to a theme rather than a character building search for everything that boosts said theme.

Hyper specialisation through stacking synergistic abilities is a part of what made PF1e such a mess balance wise and made many combats boring and formulaic for the most part.

And if they adjusted the balance for each component to be weaker so it doesn't result in a power glut for hyper specialists, then it becomes a noob trap and feat tax (something I hope to see lessened in the new alchemist).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

School changes are a mixed bag, they should never have had incap spells in them imo.

Free focus spell is nice.

Uncommon spells in then school lists is great, a pc wants guaranteed access to teleporting... well there is a school for that.

But if you didn't get wizards before they will mostly be the same now.

As a GM a change I am considering the following changes:
- The extra spell slots are spontaneous for the spells from the school and all are treated as signature spells.
- A level 2 class feat that allows a prepared spell to be swapped for a school spell with 10 minutes of prep (modelled after the druid summon spell feat)

Decent boosts, but solves the incap issue and makes it competitive with the universalist imo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
But I'm not clear as to why you think Paizo will fix it.
Blave wrote:
Before the Remaster-Errata, there was some evidence that Daze might - at some point - have made its targets off-guard, probably on a regular failed save.

Literally their opening statement.


Blave wrote:

I don't know if nonlethal is a big part of it. The other nonlethal spells (few as they are) don't seem to suffer from so little damage just because they have this trait.

Buffing the damage to 1d6 per heightened +1 might be slightly too much. At least if we stick with the chance to stun. But yeah, the only will targeting cantrip being a more reliable source of actual damage would be great, even if it loses the stuned condition. Or maybe change it to a a lesser debuff like clumy 1 for one round.

I didn't say it had low damage because it was non lethal, I advocated it having more damage. I said being a non lethal cantrip was it's point as a cantrip / why someone would take it.

I don't mean it has to stay at 1d6 either, just that heightened +1 is way nicer to damage scaling than heightened +2 which I see more acceptable on slot based spells that often offer more than "tiny amount of damage, stun 1 on crit"

While I agree divine casters have more options now. Daze having a better scaling would be a big positive given it being a save spell and being the counterbalance to vitality lash in many cases.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The point of daze is that it is a non-lethal spell. Which is fine, but it really needs either heightend+1 scaling or to do persistent mental damage imo.

Off-guard could have been interesting but given the limited divine damage cantrips I would rather it deal more reliable damage.


generaltwig wrote:
The Blinded condition is still confusing, especially to new players. It should mention enemies usually become HIDDEN when you are blind and so you're off-guard, and require a flat check to attack them etc. I even just listened to the latest Glass Cannon 2e actual play and they got it wrong.

Imo that could be even more confusing. I would put a page reference to vision modes and detection section instead of outright mentioning hidden personally.


That said, if you are swallowed while tiny and return to normal size while swallowed.

Realistically I would probably just have the creature disgorge the swallowed target rather than remnant alien (the swallow whole rules are a bit weird anyway, especially when it comes to escaping for many creatures)

1 to 50 of 1,879 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>