Vigliv

The Gleeful Grognard's page

Organized Play Member. 1,685 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,685 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

breithauptclan wrote:

I have a player that I am playing with that is playing a Paladin and is concerned that they won't be able to use Feint in combat because it uses the Deception skill.

Now, that is not the intent of Anathema, and we have convinced them of that. But I would still like to have the actual rules to back that up. So far all I can see is in Champion Code where it says that the Tenets are listed in order of importance.

I mean it is the intent if their god is against deception in general.

"You must act with honor, never taking advantage of others, lying, or cheating."

I would personally say feinting is borderline but entirely up to the player. It isn't called out in the examples, but it isn't exactly honourable either even if an argument of it being dishonourable could be just as easily rebuked.

I wouldn't if I were running/playing a paladin, but that would be a roleplaying choice. If a player were more interested in the mechanics of the class and not the RP thematics I would be more lenient on them than I would be on myself.


SuperBidi wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Going from the worst alchemist to the most beginner friendly :)
Even if I share your point of view, I'd still not call the Chirurgeon "beginner friendly". Someone still has to explain...

The worst alchemist to the most beginner friendly... for an alchemist. I am not claiming it is the most beginner friendly class.

Also optimization doesn't have to be consideres as baseline. It can do what it says on the tin with relatively less chance of screwing it up as a build compared to the other alchemical paths is my point. That is what makes it beginner friendly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just to save on confusion and encourage consistent language.

PF2e/Paizo defines low level as 1-7, mid level as 8-14 and high level as 15-20.

(Not having a dig, just sharing information incase you or others didn't already know)

As for the post itself. I am just so happy to see the Chirurgeon to not be a dead subclass, and given how strong the alchemist is at supporting (even more so with TV) it is likely to actually have people who choose Chirurgeon be happy with their choice and it is harder to build it wrong than the other options.

Going from the worst alchemist to the most beginner friendly :)


Temperans wrote:
I think people understimate how advanced chat AI have become. The hardest part of making an AI GM is not making them human or having it arbitrate the rules, those are easy. No, the hard part is making sure it remembers everything that has happened so that everything works seamless. Which is something that is already being worked on.

Arbitrating the rules in a way that is consistently enjoyable for the players and GMing based on meta concepts like emotional engagement is going to be extremely difficult for an Ai to manage.

I can imagine it being possible to have an okayish experience with adventures crafted to be run by an ai as long as expectations were set pretty low. And I understand that a lot of GMs are pretty poor, but there are also many good GMs out there.

In the end I think it would be a mistake to look towards Ai GMing over Ai augmented GMing. I am also not convinced WoTC would truely be aiming for Ai gaming any time soon though, it is either an investors wooing stunt or a distractionary tactic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
erpderp32 wrote:
You just changed my life. When I have to wall manually the holding control thing was super painful

Hotkeys for wall types, joining gaps, holding alt to snap to the closest wall point, right click twice to change wall direction, show walls on all layers (amazing for setting up masking layers for perfect vision)

And so much more, fantastic modules.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Leon Aquilla wrote:
I'm importing all the Blood Lord maps and walling them by hand and it doesn't take that long. Maybe 1-2 hours max for the entire book.

May I direct you to the DF architect and Monk's Wall Enhancement modules, you should be able to get maps walled up a lot faster than 1-2 hours using both modules.

Monks I mainly use for the feature that lets you drag two wall points at once if they are connected. DF architect however does a huge amount of heavy lifting.


Disjunction is good for this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:
How do the rules of PF2e inhibit hexcrawling or sandbox style games? Or to flip it on its head - what rules do other systems have that enable hexcrawling?

- characters have scaling modifiers and will outgrow standard challenges. It creates a world that feels like it is either being scaled to you and your exploits or has leveling zone boundaries like a mmo.

- the system doesn't have many options to wear players down over time outside of spell slots. And even then because of wands and scrolls the endurance of PF2e characters is very high.

- combats work better when planned out and a power differential tends to have a greater impact on the game than in many other systems. In 5e for instance you can stumble across an adult green dragon at level 5, not be seen and have a tense experience... or even trade one or two blows and run away. In PF2e they would be slaughtered and fast.

- item progression is important, and beyond the fundamental runes.

- characters tend to be less broad than say a 5e character, so their ability to adapt to unforseen events when they are higher level is more restrictive.

- characters take longer to make and are harder to replace due to the complexity

- combats are more complex and slower, tied with a player directed experience and random encounters this can mean (and I would even say will usually mean) that less progress will be made and pacing will be less than ideal for a sandbox environment.

- very little mechanical focus is placed on travel and survival mechanics, or day to day minutea

Again, I love pf2e, I think the system does very well at what it aims to do. And even small hexploration mini sandboxes can work for portions of an adventure, but large sprawling adentures in open sandboxes feel like trying to fit a square peg into a circular hole.

An example of a good sandbox rpg hexcrawl, Forbidden Lands. Another older one, old school essentials (aka B/X)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Have you used it? What does it damage?

Yes and

- combat encounter difficulty (low number or single enemy fights significantly easier)
- critical threat ranges (+10-10)
- summoned creatures
- proportionate value of buffs when used on non static DCs
- incapacitation effects become more reliably powerful
- nerf to AoE effects with saves in larger battles
- lower value for in higher proficiency tiers
- static DC items become a lot more powerful for their levels

I am on the "I am not a fan of scaling proficiency every level" side and have been since the playtest. But the game is built and balanced around it, and it works best like that atm imo. Rebalance a bunch of rules, feats, spells, items and creatures


Lucerious wrote:
Spread sheets have been done on this and all of them have shown Fortitude saves being the most frequent high save of a creature. Reflex saves are in the middle and Will saves are least in frequency of being the strong save.

To analyse that sort of data in a way that makes it useful we would need:

- level ranges (not just level of the creature but also what level differential the party is likely to fight it at)
- creature family spreads (if a campaign doesn't contain dinosaurs, giants, constructs or undead, or has them in very small numbers, this will skew the result for instance)
- Frequency chance of each creature either in groups or in world building

And even then it would just hit rough whiteroom estimation accuracy. Although maybe useful for pfs play?

Now, something in favour of saying fort is a strong save and it being a worthwhile evaluation is that drained is harder to apply than clumsy or stupefied.

It is like the AoO being rare concept, absolutely true if you give every enemy the same weight in analysis. But depending on the campaign it could be fairly common thanks to humanoid martial types frequently having it and being fought in numbers.


If you find this hard to fathom, don't look into doubling rings ;) :p


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Luke Styer wrote:

I strongly prefer PF2 over 5E, though I admit to much less experience with 5E. But as someone who primarily GMs, if I’m given a chance to play, I’ll play 5E. I’m not all that interested in running 5E, though this comment caught my attention:

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
- bounded accuracy makes sandbox play and hexcrawling fun with minimal rule changes required imo.
I have a major itch to run a hexcrawl sandbox, and I’m just not sure PF2 is the system for that. Though Kingmaker 2E may change my mind and/or scratch that itch if I run int next year. My Pathfinder group is on Book 3 of Strength of Thousands and aren’t likely to jump ship before that finishes.

As was said by another proficiency without level is a must... but it damages a lot of the core balance of PF2e.

Personally I have tried to get in hexcrawling and sandbox play with PF2e but I don't think it is playing to the system's strengths. As a GM I just ended up wishing I was running another system more suited to it like Forbidden Lands, OSE advanced fantasy, Cypher System games or 5e.

Combats work best in PF2e if planned out, as does equipment and character progression imo. Playable ofc, but it is too easy to fall into the trap of lots of 5e players, trying to fit the system they like into every genre of play.

That said I think smaller sandboxes and hexcrawling sections can work. But that doesn't give the full sandbox exploration and development experience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
This has been my experience as well

Amusingly I find PF2e easier to teach to players than 5e. To a point where the players actually know what is going on that is.

Cohesive rule design is nice. For a GM, yeah there is a lot that has to sink in. I read the CRB cover to cover roughly 3 times (skipping some sections on the third read)

Squiggit wrote:
god I want your players. The moment we hit combat I know that's going to be the last thing we do that session, even if it's the first thing we do that session.

I don't like slowdown and will have a chat to players who do slow the game down (not to be nasty, but point them in the righr direction).

I find the more people get onboard the faster the whole group plays. People get a sense of momentum going and don't feel like they are waiting for their turns to occur, so they think about their turn in advance and are more eager to enact their plans. Sadly the inverse is true, some of my fastest players will grind to a halt if other players or the GM isn't maintaining a solid pace.

Something else I encouraged was in character talking during combat. This is a game changer when it comes to actively getting players to use teamwork in my experience.

I have put a counting up timer on display for players in the past. That way people can see how long turns are taking.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I run both systems and play in one 5e game.
- 5e: running weekly on Tuesdays for 2.5-3h sessions
- 5e: playing fortnightly sundays for 5.5h sessions (gm decided he didn't like pf2e, pf2e would have suited it better though)
- PF2e: running fortnightly 5-6h sessions

I don't have any issue splitting my time between them, I would also say the systems aren't particularly similar outside of both having D&D in their heritage and being similar fantasy magic set systems. I would say they are similar to each other in the sense that 4e is broadly similar to 3.5 or even AD&D, they share some terms but the implementations are different and the design goals don't align.

5e:
- runs extremely fast, 6-8 combats in a session with room for lots of RP.
- doesn't require as much planning for encounters, treasures and the like.
- takes very little brainpower to run at the table thanks to adv/dis, concentrarion, lack of floating modifiers, no persistent damage/afflictions like poisons and disease, less character abilities, far less item abilities in play
- bounded accuracy makes sandbox play and hexcrawling fun with minimal rule changes required imo.

PF2e:
- FAR more engaging combat, and fantastic balance
- more engaging player focused rules
- way higher power/magic fantasy (5e breaks easily, but wasn't built for high magic gonzo play in mind)
- better downtime rules
- really suited to long term narrative play and plays well right to level 20
- better expansion content overall


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

It does feel like a bit of a shame. PF2 made efforts to make high levels more playable and to some extent even stretched out the gaming experience so there are more meaningful components to add to your kit in the 10s and 12s and 14s.

Feels like a missed opportunity to then have so many campaigns that end at what's supposed to be mid level.

Agreed, mid and high level play in pf2e is exceptional. Especially jigh level play, players get strong enough to reliably tackle extreme encounters and win without death... but not strong enough to feel like all challenge is trivial. And it feels so natural in play.

James Jacobs wrote:

With Blood Lords and Kingmaker both landing at this time, the 1–20 experience is pretty well represented... especially with Kingmaker, which is the largest Adventure Path we've ever published. You can use a slow XP advancement there and there's still more than enough content to take you all the way through the levels.

And I can guarantee at least one 11–20 Adventure Path between now and two years from now: Stolen Fate, which is the second Adventure Path of 2023, is a 11–20 one, and I'm just now starting to outline an Adventure Path for 2024 which is at this point an 11–20 level one.

My perfect balance for Adventure Paths, personally, is to essentially do a full 1–20 experience twice a year, be it 2 six parters or 4 3 parters split between 1–10 and 11–20, but that won't always happen.

As we publish higher level content though... constructive reviews, player/GM engagement, customer feedback, and of course sales are all a great way for folks to encourage Paizo to continue to support higher level play.

Sadly for me Kingmaker is out, I would say about 1/3rd of all my gaming friends have played the owlcat adaptation and over half of my ttrpg players have played it.

As for stolen fate, I was specifically talking about after it released and had factored in all announced aps, but it is good to hear that at least one might get released for 2024.

Yeah, I really should write reviews for content I have purchased and consumed.


A necro I know, but this is the rules forum and people tend to use it (and google search results) to clarify things.

The beginner box wounded condition also specifically calls out adding the wounded value
"Any time you gain or increase the dying condition while wounded, increase the dying condition’s value by your wounded value" - back inside cover of the players book

The condition cards also state "gain the dying condition or increase it" in regards to wounded's impact on dying values.

So currently it stands:
- 5 references to it being whenever dying is applied/increased (crb damage section, bb rules reference, gm screen, condition cards and mark seifter)
- 2 references to it being on gained (crb and beginner box)

I am going with wounded is intentionally dangerous personally.

Also as stated before wounded 2 and wounded 3 still have a place as the PC will still frequently need to make multiple saves to avoid death if healing can't be applied fast, it is a ticking clock even if healing can, and diehard still exists to get death to be dying 5. (Plus doomed and its impact since wounded 2 and doomed 1 makes going down death for someone without diehard).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
willfromamerica wrote:
Yeah, I was thrown off by the fact that for the past couple years, we've been getting two 3-parters and one 6-parter, and I didn't Highhelm would warrant a whole 6-part adventure. But getting four 3-part APs instead blows the door wide open!

Here's hoping because the first thing a player said when I told him about tomb was "only 10 levels, that sucks" and my first feeling when realising gate walkers was a 1-10 was "oh... damn I wanted high level content in that theme... how will I even connect a story to that theme"

I might feel differently about 1-10 adventures if we ever get a decent number of 11-20 counterparts (2:5 high to low level half size adventures as of september next year) but that will take years, and may be never come since James Jacobs has said they might do APs starting at different levels (such ae 5-15)

Personally I like to:
- plan out my adventure for the players and read up / prep on the topics they will encounter. As well as foreshadow events.
- create a coherent progression of theme and narrative.
- give my players a 1-20 experience

For other experiences I feel like the stand alone adventures and hardcover adventures are better suited. (At least for me)

So it hurts to hear that we won't be getting a 1-20 for at least the next two years. Especially as one 11-20 isn't even a guarantee.

We shall see.

Currently I still have Strength of Thousands to run, I am happy to run outlaws of alkenstar as a short campaign (and maybe it will be able to fit into the upcoming 11-20, but that will have to be seen. Ruby phoenix doesn't)

Blood lords I hope is solid but I avoid reading an adventure path until it is complete (i read the final book and then work backwards from there for expanding on its important plot points or themes)


Meckerdrache wrote:

The Battle is over.

I'm a little bit disappointed because i didn't challenged my group enough.

How did you approach the fight mechanically with dahak, how did they approach it as players?

I am a fan of fully utilizing the 200ft fly speed to get him into the tunnels for healing and possibly to strip a debuff (also big fan of using dispell magic on a holy runed weapon he is hit by, players will have backups, inezra generally makes of that. But is unlikely that they will have holy runes on both weapons)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
That imbalance is intentional, so I think the Q4 release will be another 1-10, like Vaults, Quest, Outlaws, and Gatewalkers.

That may be so, but it doesn't stop it from diminishing my excitement and desire to purchase any of the AP's.

Don't get me wrong, I like that 1-20, 1-10 and 11-20 all exist rather than just having 1-20s or 1-10s... But unlike a certain other RPG PF2e actually runs so well at 11-20 that I want more of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Print a small map onto paper. Use a vinyl battle map and sketch out whatever room they are in on it. Erase it when you are done.

Easy.

Other than that, printing the whole map and gluing it together works (but the maps are big) as does the tv table approach (but that depends on your budget)

Don't go the short throw projector route, it is not as good as making a tv table and almost as expensive while being more fiddly.


Errenor wrote:
You are trying to make an obvious exploit of it. Yes, the designers haven't mentioned that the overall cost is still (cost of one * 4). They probably believed this is obvious. But knowing a little bit how they think and make this game it's impossible they would allow such 'discount' and won't say it explicitly.

It isn't a discount, it is a matter of time the total cost and maximum discount stay the same. But RAW he is right, it is one check and four items being crafted simultaneously, meaning as written atm you gain the benefit of four lots of discounts now don't get me wrong, I am dubious about whether this is an intended interaction or not... but I am not confident that it isn't either given the language used and the fact they are consumables (which limit how much you can "save"/ get ahead of the power curve even with a speed to discount increase like this)

Ravingdork wrote:

I'm a bit skeptical of that claim. I've seen loads of math experts* analyzing Craft over the years and it was often found that Craft usually ties up with Earn Income except for very specific situations.

Now, if you can fast craft, as those in Mathmuse's linked thread are want to call it, then you for sure can get ahead a little bit.

* A club in which I am not included as I'm quite terrible at math. #fulldisclosure

I dunno about that, earn an income is worth while as long as you can get high level jobs and your time to find the job / duration of the job is short and flexible.

I am speaking from experience, the alchemist in my age of ashes game was almost never better off earning an income partially because of location, partially because of the time sink of working high level jobs.
Now in a game where you always have access to a high level metropolis or you stop in or before mid level play... maybe.

It is the issue with whiteroom comparisons when things involve roleplaying and not pure mechanics.

This all said, I don't think crafting's value is getting ahead gold wise. (Although people do need to remember that you don't have to craft items in one go it is fine dropping a day on it here and there until you have your full discount)

The true value of crafting is duplicating magical items imo. Especially for uncommon or rare items, dragonscale amulet for instance, a player who goes out of their way to craft an extra of those in an AoA campaign has given the party a huge advantage in some encounters (although I would enforce getting the scales of 5 ancient dragons, but that is within possibility at the level you can attempt a DC44 crafting check)


Ravingdork wrote:
A successful check after four days gets you the first half. Every day after that begins reducing the second half by an amount determined by the item level and your check result

It is your level, not the items level.

As for crafting a batch, I was going to disagree initially... but on reading it again it literally says you make up to four items in parallel with one check.

So yeah you should get the discount x4. Very very cool find.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good damage is alignment damage, the weakness to good simply never comes up if they are good or neutral aligned. And weakness requires them to take the damage to trigger.

But that is fine.

I could be wrong though and maybe there is an edge case, can you point me to a good damage source that states it bypasses alignment damage restrictions?

If you are worried about weaknesses not being represented for demons turned good or angels turned evil. I personally wouldn't worry about it and muse at the quirk, but you could always just flip the weakness.

Edit: i see the angel example earlier, feels like a super edge case and possibly just an oversight. I am leaning towards it being a mistake.


It is the same gas as with future action based saves, so I would assume 24h just like the failure and crit failure.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
Pathfinder 1st Edition has sizes for weapons. Pathfinder 2nd Edition doesn't.

Quick tell the giant instinct barbarian that :p

Jokes aside, equipment size is a thing in pf2e, it just doesn't have a mechanical difference baked into the item.


I’ve Got Reach wrote:
I'm pretty disappointed in this original release. I can understand errata that clarify rules, but many of the changes ARE the rules, and as crunchy as this PF2e is, it makes first run core rule books ideal to lend to people to learn the game, but after that, they are pretty much garbage.

Uh... the vast majority of the changes are just clarifications and rewrites where people were struggling with RAI but functionality stays the same. A couple of rule changes where things were missed in the final edit... and a very small number of real rule changes or rebalances.

Also PF1e had the benefit of being made on top of 3.5, which had the benefit of being a rather big paid errata of 3.0. And had the detriment of not having enough fixed in it early enough.

So 3.0 to 3.5 to pf1e... all with their own errata. Not a good point of comparison :p

As for versioning, it is printed at the end of the final page near the credits and open gaming license. Reprints being labled as second printing and third printing and the year respectively above the "printed in china" text


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Eoran wrote:
Doing no damage on a successful save puts it in line with other attack roll spells like Produce Flame or Scorching Ray as far as accuracy goes.

I wouldn't say that. They have their own accuracy issues outside of not doing half damage on a success,

Saves can be targeted. So using a flaming sphere against something you know isn't going to be particularly dexterous / agile is always going to be more accurate.

For instance (vs at level foe)~

level 7
- attack: 45% (vs high ac, +10% if flat-footed, often -5% due to light cover from allies)
- save: 35/50/65/75 % (high, moderate, low, terrible)

level 15
- attack: 40% (vs high ac, +10% if flat-footed, often -5% due to light cover from allies)
- save: 35/50/65/80 % (high, moderate, low, terrible)

level 20
- attack: 45% (vs high ac, +10% if flat-footed, often -5% due to light cover from allies)
- save: 45/60/75/90 % (high, moderate, low, terrible)

So as you can see, barely more accurate than tageting a creature's high save... as accurate in most cases as light cover will apply.

Ofc in the mid levels maintaining flatfooted becomes easier, but hitting dex as a high/extreme save is pretty rare, a moderate or lower save being targeted with basic deductive reasoning is much more realistic.

But yeah, a single action sustain with a save will be notably more accurate/useful than most two action attack spells... and even single action attack spells imo.


Captain Morgan wrote:
As someone who has only used the free PDF importer up to this point, I'm curious how this improves the experience in practice. Having to constantly fiddle with music seems distracting, for example, and I'm not sure how layers or unique macros improve things either.

As someone who has run both the pdf2foundry and paid version of AV.

- better quality maps (not just in resolution), lighting and detail
- way better journal work and organisation, often with macros linked where you want them, inline images to share, reminders/references, inline ability checks and saves complete with traits written in.
- high resolution tokens and npc images
- sounds embedded on maps (rather than music, stuff like dripping water, humming of magical equipmemt and the like)

Overall it is a very polished experience, music is very easy to handle either by dumping it onto the hotbar, assigning it to scenes and or using a module like video game music to set generic ambience playlists for scenes, generic combat playlists and specific enemy playlists to actors.

Oh and I have also run it on Fantasygrounds. The foundry implementation is pretty darn comprehensive, may not be things you personally value. But it is certainly not overcharging for the work they have put in.

Wizard Level 1 wrote:
To clarify, as others have said, I just want the module. I'm happy to see a mark up on it so Paizo gets their piece. I don't want the bundle because I'll have no use for the PDF's. I'll only be running the module in Foundry and I'm happy to access the content via the journal entries there.

It would be the same price though? You can just choose not to download the pdf, but nearly everything that makes the pdf have a price is included in the foundry module.


If you wish to save some money demiplane might be a good route, being a digital product it is easy to either use in place of the journal or copy into the journal (especially with v10 page handling).

It gives you images and while you would have to do all the maps up yourself between quick search/insert and monks wall enhancements it is quite easy (even easier if you use simple fog instead of worrying about dynamic lighting, but monks wall enhancements make doing walls yourself pretty easy).

In the near future we will also have bestiary 1-3 tokens as a pack we can purchase (with blank templates for custom tokens) so couple that with grabbing nexus images for npcs not covered by bestiary 1-3 and it would be minimal work and notably cheaper across a whole AP


3 people marked this as a favorite.

While I am also unhappy with the pricing there is more to the comparison than you would think at first glance.

- Foundry maps are all remade in much higher quality for vtt use including tiles and layers set above tokens

- Audio is made/compiled for the adventures

- Unique macros are made for the adventues

- Unique journal art and layout is designed for the adventures

- The core material for foundry is not monetized and as such cannot be used to offset costs

- Paizo subcontracts the adventure work, people have to be willing to do said work and take the above into consideration

So while it is more expensive than fantasygrounds and the pdf, I can understand why. Personally I have more of an issue that Abomination Vaults offered not a cent of discount to people who owned each of the three adventure books (nor made an errata document), something that is going to repeat with the upcoming Ruby Phoenix AP sadly.

But yes, the price of the foundry APs has stopped me from purchasing any more physical APs and the issue with Abomination Vaults and Ruby Phoenix release means I will simply never purchase another AP (in pdf or foundry form) until I am going to run it (when previously I was buying all physical, all pdf and all foundry).

Again though, the foundry modules are above and beyond what the competition offers and have a lot of bespoke elements created for them.


Tarpeius wrote:
Were this the case, then there would be no point to the Aura trait at all. All emanations either resolve immediately or have a duration (some an indefinite duration).

And this sort of redundancy does occasionally occur.


WWHsmackdown wrote:
A believe Micheal Sayre talked about a homebrew method of equivalent gold costs for upgrading set dc items to current PC lvl. A codified subsystem for that in treasure vault would be nice.

Honestly it is pretty simple since the GMG has the 2-3 charts you would need. (Gold, atk bonus, save dc)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

5>6=4>>3>2>>>>1

Everything needed a bit of work except for book 1, which I would heavily rewrite if I were ever to run it again.

Book 5 I would probably rate equal or slightly less than book 4 if in the hands of a GM who doesn't roleplay much or let players explore the city.


Also by level 10 I expect PCs to be able to keep their enemies flat footed in many scenarios.

I bring it up a lot but dust of disappearance is only level 9 and will make most enemies flat footed to you while also being a solid defense option.

Throw on an atk boost since anything that boosts weapon or unarmed attacks will work. Even at level groups of enemies have a solid shot of being chained. Use a reroll on that first attack if it is necessary :p (given that you don't declare heropoint spends in advance).


Milo v3 wrote:
Doesn't help that consumables generally take too much time to use in battle to begin with.

Some advice to help with action cost.

- Talismans usually are free actions or reactions, poisons have no duration and are pre-apply.

- Start combat with items in hand when possible, the aforementioned dust of disappearance is a good example of a suitable item to have in hand.

- Pre dose with longer duration items (10min to 1h unless you know for sure there is an encounter around the corner)

- Independent familiars are godsend (mainly for casters and alchemists), they can hold an item before battle and hand it out on the first round for free, or they can withdrawn one round and give the next for free.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Set DC or atk items suck so I just let PCs upgrade them and use the GMG tables to balance cost, DC and level. Much happier with it as a result (I used to use an excel sheet to make it exact cost translation but now I just get a rough cost estimation and it takes seconds)

Other magic items are fine imo and tend to make a pretty big difference to the players who use them. The gap between a spellcaster who has a bunch of scrolls and a couple of wands and one who doesn't at upper low and mid levels is pretty big.

Other consumables are also big power boosts and let casters do other things, mid level mutagens, potions of greater flight, dust of disappearance; all are fantastic and cheap.

Talismans and other trinkets are situational but often benefit from free action activations. Some are awful, some are not useful to specific parties, many are cheap and just nice to have when you need it.

As for static items that aren't static boosts like backfire mantle, I find the best ones are things that expand your options to other areas rather than what the character already specialises in or enable a different style of play. But I can't give many specific examples other than the standard wand/staff/rune examples because they are very campaign, character and party dependent.

But yeah wrapping it up, I strongly believe non atk/dc magic items are great, and atk/dc magic items are super easy to scale... either with crafting as I do, or simply scaling the stats with level (although I would only do this with permanent items).

Deriven Firelion wrote:
I would say casters using wands or spell items are more useful. But even those often get overlooked for using innate powers and abilities.

A caster not buying or crafting niche scrolls either:

- has a GM that never challenges them
- has made suboptimal choices to prepare niche spells or add them to their repertoire and have less generalist options
- is not contributing solutions that spellcasters normally can

All of the above is fine ofc, different styles of play and preferences.


HumbleGamer wrote:

Is it raw as the other items like staves, runes, bracers, etc...?

For example, let's say the character would like to have a wand of heal or summon undead always with a level equal to the maximizing currently available.

Would they be able to just pay an amount of golds equal to the cost of the new wand minus the wand they already have?

Up to the GM like all non fundamental runes are:

"The GM might allow you to Craft a permanent item from a lower-level version of the same item as an upgrade. For example, you might upgrade a bag of holding from a type I to a type II bag, but you couldn’t upgrade a clear spindle aeon stone into an orange prism aeon stone. The cost for this upgrade is the full difference in Price between the items, and the
Crafting check uses a DC for the item’s new level."


Correct, and fly requires you to spend an action each round to keep aloft or you fall.

It is a solid balance choice imo and gives a meaningful balance reason to choose to be landlocked.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

I'm mostly advocating it because I do like how math in 2e allows non optimal stat to be competitive, but don't like how some bestiary entries feel like monsters don't have real weaknesses.

I just don't like "high AC, High save, two moderate saves" design some monsters have going on x'D

For the record I 100% agree with you at all pc levels prior to level 17ish.

Weaknesses are fun to target.


CorvusMask wrote:

(level 23/24 are almost purely solobosses, so them having moderate or better saves is really painful for casters, but even worse for those who didn't max DCs :D

I'm mostly being facetious here, but yeah I beg mercy for those rare few who get to face enemies of that level xD)

In my experience PCs of that level can meaningfully debuff enemies like that even with successful saves pretty reliably, Meaning at 20+ for enemies it is almost needed to keep the bosses functional as things tend to snowball fast where successful saves mean other PCs debuffs turn into failed saves or possibly just crit effects from strikes and such.

Have you been struggling with it in a real group or is it a general concern looking at the statblock or running test combats?


Luebbi wrote:

I bought the first adventure path for Foundry VTT, and it is GORGEOUS.

I especially like the token artworks. The orange or silver metal rims are very stylish. Is there a chance to get empty templates of these to make our own tokens for PCs or custom encounters? .psd files would be great.

Seconding this, imo every adventure should come with a blank token and mask to allow people to make their own.

Personally I just threw a bunch into photoshop and cobbled together a blank token from the bits of tokens that weren't covered.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Leon Aquilla wrote:

I consider myself the groggiest of the grog and I have like 20 different game systems sitting on my shelf. I just got done playing Alien RPG last night, and two nights prior it was Conan 2d20. The idea of playing, say, Aliens with Starfinder rules or Conan with Pathfinder rules sounds about as appetizing as using a ball-peen hammer to cut 2x4's.

Love alien, people coming into it hoping for aliens will get a rude awakening (although I haven't read the colonial marines supplement). Easily my favourite horror rpg.

Conan 2d20 deserves a 2e, it reads horribly and has some issues with allowing minmaxing to get out of hand. But is super easy to fix with a couple of houserules and plays the best to the sword and sorcery genre of any system I have run while really encouraging group cooperation and improv.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
No, they're medium (5e) and medium-high (PF2) complexity games. A "simple mechanically" game is something like Tales from the Loop or Tails of Equestria.

Also FATE, Cypher System games, Mörk Borg or even Old School Essentials are all good examples of rules lite games. Mörk Borg being the lowest complexity listed.

I would say 5e is medium low rules complexity at its core with poor presentation that makes it medium weight to learn. PF2e I would actually say is pretty high complexity by comparison but with generally clear mechanical presentation that makes it feel medium heavy instead because of how easy it is to absorb the complexities.

PF2e has a lot of moving parts, but it was also put together by people who weren't afraid of the players and game master seeing those moving parts imo.

The difference between a well organised and logical large kitchen, and a perfectly functional but ecclecic house kitchen.


Flexible prepared casters get

"* Your class most likely has a class feature that gives you a single 10th level spell slot that works a bit differently from other slots. If so, flexible spellcaster doesn’t change the way that spell works."

I would assume the intent is the same for spontaneous casters and wellspring.

It is also arguable that you get level 10 spells from a class feature rather than your class. But that is a semantics argument given that technically spellcasting is also a class feature and the class gives both.


pauljathome wrote:
As a player it is hard for me to overstate how much I completely and vehemently disagree. It was very, very, very obvious that we were alive only because the Big bad couldn't be bothered to kill us for absolutely no reason. Totally destroyed my Willing Suspension of Disbelief

The big bad doesn't know the extent of your abiliies, has legitimate fears regarding heroes coming to thwart them and is only slowly regaining their own power/agency.

It is quite explicit that the initial forays are fact finding and testing. I know the GM has meta knowledge, but that doesn't mean the NPCs should.

The book does make all this clear btw, if the players don't have it conveyed to them at all or don't guess at it then yeah I get you. But the idea of that type of enemy that even if the party hits it hard and fast, will still be a problem was extremely exciting imo.


Errenor wrote:
Well, in our current AP at our 8th level one insufferable main campaign boss has grown a habit of appearing every half an hour of game time and casting fun spells. As a result of the last two sessions - two dead characters from Phantasmal Killer. And these are the first deaths in our campaign if I remember correctly.

8th is the first level of the mid level range, also that enemy is so much fun to run as a GM. Hats off to the devs who worte AV, such a great idea.


Captain Morgan wrote:
You're lowering the value of feats like gang up with that, though that might be fine with you.

The main benefit of gang up is flat-footed rather than just the -2ac flat footed provides though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aenigma wrote:
So, the druid cannot benefit from rage while using wild shape? Sigh. I thought a wild order druid with barbarian archetype would be a super powerful build. But turns out it's a seriously flawed build after all? Was it the same in First Edition too?

Correct, this is why the barbarian dragon transformation lists adding rage damage as a specific benefit and their animal transformation sidesteps it by using the barbarian's full unarmed attack instead.

"gaining the effects of 6th-level dragon form except that you use your own AC and attack modifier, you apply your extra damage from Rage, and the Breath Weapon uses your class DC. "

https://pf2easy.com/index.php?id=517&name=Dragon_Transformation

I would allow a barbarian dedication to rage personally, but I would run it RAW in many other scenarios. (The main issue comes with druid multiclasses or scroll/wand usage on full martials and people trying to stack all of their benefits)


Alchemic_Genius wrote:
I give out one hero point to each player per "scene"; which roughly translates to every combat and at the completion of section of skill tests that brings the players to a new part of the game.

How many scenes would you go though in a session, and how long would those sessions be?

Do your players use them much on rerolls and how much of a balance difference have you noticed?

I know some of my players would like 8-10 hero points a session. But I am not sure how that would play out lol.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Harles wrote:

I'm a little fuzzy on the appropriate rate of distributing Hero Points. After giving each character 1 point to start each session, I had been awarding them to one character per hour of play. I've had a couple different groups say this is stingy, and the correct amount is 1 point to ALL characters per hour.

Which is the correct assumed amount?
Given I typically run 2-hour sessions (due to our schedule limitations), it seems way over the top.

The guidance is 1 p/h for a character and not the whole pary... up to you if you want more.

I would have an expectations chat with the group.

I tend to rough guage it on party progress rather than time personally but other parties people speak about online seem to be ungodly slow so it is really dependent.

1 to 50 of 1,685 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>