The Gleeful Grognard's page

Organized Play Member. 321 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 321 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

There isn't a scenario in the crb.

The bestiary is nice imo. Buuutttt you can head over to the 2e archives of nethys and get everything you need monster wise.

(Npcs have to be built with character creation rules or reskinned bestiary creatures atm)

The easy actions tree site will also prove to be invaluable imo.

If you want to run a premade adventure

This is a good oneshot quito-Witch

However if you want something a bit longer running hellknight hill is a good starting point. Some people have complained that it is a bit mundane, but by the time the second volume of the path rolls around that changes (cult of cinders is a fun book imo)

Plaguestone, mechanically it works but I found the story beats irritating, which for me is worse than being vanilla.

I would also buy the gm screen and the combat tracker. The gm screen in particular is surprisingly well made, they focused on making it legible over stylistic and even included page reference numbers.

The combat tracker is a set of printed markable magnets and premarked whiteboard. It is a nice addition

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artofregicide wrote:

I strongly agree. 2e is better casual game (casual isn't a pejorative) and 1e is a better serious (serious =\= better) game. They both have their positives. But casual gamers are more common, and casual games help being potential serious gamers into the community.

Define serious in this context please.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Now, I in no way see this as a problem or anything in need of correction, personally, but it's certainly a true statement.

It is more that it is a very strange interaction and could have weird knock on effects.

In an example i saw elseswhere. Targeting a muspore "even the smallest is over 100ft long"

Or how maxmising bomb effectiveness in mass combat could be to throw them at enlarged allies who have immunities depending on how many foes there are.

Flaws are great but in no way does it have to have some sort of payoff. Personally i feel this is better off in rough advice sections rather than variant rules.

Sort of like how the crb currently handles it (as mentioned above with the rough advice).

Faq candidate

Splash damage scales with creature size, exponentially if an alchemist with yhe right feats.

(A 5ft splash on a gargantuan creature is... odd... a 10ft splash is silly levels)

The rules as written allow the gm to adjudicate as they need. It was one change that I cheered at reading in the crb, the playtest forced it to be +1 and only +1.

GM fiat as some would say, but that is what differentiates a pnp rpg from a board game in many ways.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
I would just like you to try and explain why your reading makes sense.

graystone's position here as far as I understand it is that because the rules for concealment mention that they trigger before you roll for effect, they're irrelevant when dealing with spells that don't contain such a roll.

Essentially, something that happens before you make your attack roll or force a save can't apply to something that never requires an attack roll nor save to begin with.

That isn't mentioned in the condition text and requires the reader to ignore said condition text, the actual rules text meant to be used in play that contain less flavour and more specifics.

As I said, someone may call for it to be an errata topic. But as written it works one way and that way cancels out magic missile.

Furthermore, if we don't use the condition readings there is a clear knock on effect to touch and save spells against concealed, hidden, undeteced and by extension invisible. As the flat check would now be unaffected by any touch that auto hits (most) and any save... because it says before "you" roll.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

- Headers Taroca
- Credits | Index | Sidebar | Tables | Items | Feats | Spells Good OT
- Story Text Sabon LT Std (italic)
- General Text Sabon LT Std
- Sub Header Gin
- General Text Bold CalloutsSabon (bold)

Not a comprehensive list, but a list

Your post was a confusing read thanks to the title. I misread it as "count me unlikely to convert to pf2e" and then I read all the praise and sat there thinking "are these reasons to not play, this is odd"


Nope just me failing to read properly.

graystone wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
I'm just going to agree to disagree here: we clearly aren't on the same page and I don't see either of use changing our minds so I don't see a point going around in a circle. As such, unless someone brings up something new I think I'm done until/unless we get some clarity from something official.

I would just like you to try and explain why your reading makes sense.

How does the auto hit come into play? You make claimes to do with damage not being an effect, I prove it is.

You talk about auto hitting, I point to multiple examples where the flat DC check occurs before that point.

You can argue RAI but there is no wiggle room here RAW.

Malk_Content wrote:
I disagree with a lot of grognards list. I mean if an nox retching or not is GM fiat then so is literally every action a npc could take. And combat rest period? I mean yeah, in so much that literally every story event is because those aren't dictated by the rules, might as well say all of any given game is gm fiat. Unless of course we think, "what happens when" should be rules?

Yup, most of the game is fiat.

Here is another one

* View distances in different conditions is now GM fiat, no longer quantified how much different degrees of weather reduces view distances.

* Perception modification, no longer clear rules for each 10ft step of distance

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:

You roll to see if you can roll the d20: that's a moot point for the magic missile as the spell works without the roll. Magic missile skips the check required for most actions which is what the flat check is rolled for: to see if you can roll your d20 or not.

Say you still say I have to roll the DC5? Ok I failed and can't roll... So no d20 check for effect. Seeing as there is no roll in the spell, I move to the next step, damage...

Area effects aren’t subject to this flat check. If the check fails, the attack, spell, or effect doesn’t affect you.

The bolded text element is talking about the flat DC check. Otherwise concealment wouldn't do anything ever in any circumstance.

Nothing in magic missile says you avoid making this check, the check if it fails means you don't get the effect of the spell. The effect of Magic Missile is its damage.


- Ted the magician cats magic missile at a creature in dim light, the creature is concealed.

- DC5 flat check, rolls a 4 (the check fails)

- Spell Auto hit kicks in

- Spell has no effect, because the damage of the spell is in the effect section of the spell and failing the concealment check negates this entire section.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
p. 91: Terrifying Howl makes you attempt to Demoralize each creature in range, and I don't recall any rule letting you intentionally fail a skill check, so it really screws your allies (and your mount). Presumably it should read "each enemy" or "each non-ally" or "each creature you wish to."

There are a number of abilities that can effect allies. I would imagine this is the intent here as well.

Otherwise it would just be a straight upgrade to intimidating glare (well, except that it has the auditory trait)

Worldmaker wrote:

This was one of the first things I figured out. Turn all the "alternate racial features" into ancestry feats. The problem with doing so is some of them do things like "You gain X feat at 1st level without needing to meet the prerequisites"... and the feat isn't a part of the game anymore (or at least not yet) so now we need to convert the feat... and all the feats it has prerequisites... and all the feats they require...

Lots and lots of work.

In that case is it core to the race's identity? and if so why not just create a similar ability to the feat if so?

I may need an example to fully understand the issue though.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Getting back on topic

* Skillchecks, most of the time the GM sets skill DCs

* Retch checks, it isn't guaranteed that a NPC will make them

* Cover and Greater Cover granted from other creatures, entirely GM fiat

* Recall Knowledge, entirely up to the GM what information you get and how the difficulty of the check is modified.

* Earn an Income, Entirely GM fiat what jobs are available in the world

* Most Uncommon and rare spells, items, options

* Rest between combat

* Improvised Weapons, the damage and properties are GM fiat

* Hero Point Awards, GM fiat outside of the replenishing one per round

* Story EXP awards, GM fiat, no guidance as to how much each accomplishment is worth at each level.

* Carrying excessive amounts of negligible bulk items, GM fiat as they can make them count towards bulk.

* Retraining, GM fiat

* Social impact of slathering yourself in gizzards and subsisting in a pile of horse dung is entirely GM fiat compared to someone who chose to expend for a comfortable living.

* Environmental Damage, gm fiat as to what category a falling tree is

* Inclines are mentioned when it comes to terrain and climb checks but no specific degree based amount before this counts, could be 25degrees for one gm and 70 degrees for another.

*Social interactions

* Minimum Proficiency, some things like thievery vs locks dictate what the minimum proficiency is. But for things like recall knowledge it is entirely in the GMs hands.

* Crafting, it is up to the GM to determine whether the player has enough of a workshop / tools / resources to craft with.

* Tracking, vague DC examples. Doesn't give niche examples, GM fiat

Remember that focus spells also count and are generally single action affairs (to help pad out your bonus damage each fight)

And yup, you have it right. Anything that isn't a cantrip and is cast by you is fair game :)

Oh, another option is to run a PF2e short game set in the same world as yours (maybe homebrew some races / items).

Play it through and see whether the players like it or not.

Races are easy to create in PF2e as long as you accept that they don't NEED all the options that come with base ancestries.

That is to say, making a new ancestry only has to be: core stats, one heritage, four feats (one 1st, one 5th, one 9th, one 11th).

For classes that don't currently exist I would make archetype dedications for their core defining features (look to the Lost Omens World Guide for inspiration). The goal wouldn't be to convert every element of the class but just to make it feel like the same character.

Or, alternatively. Just don't have those same characters or have an in universe reason why they would change.

This all said, I wouldn't in a million years change systems mid campaign unless I wasn't enjoying running the system for said campaign or the players were really wanting to move on from the system.

For NPCs, they aren't built like players making monsters / NPCs is extremely easy in PF2e imo. I don't even have to wait on abilities to exist to match things I have created/used in the past.

graystone wrote:

The Gleeful Grognard: #2 and #3 don't affect the Magic Missile as it skips the check step.

Damage: "On a successful check, you hit and deal damage." Magic Missile specifically alter this norm, the norm that is affected by the flat check: IE the roll to see if you can roll, since there is never a roll for it. It's a more specific rule. It's skipping the check step is the same as skipping the flat check.

On your quotes, damage isn't an effect: the check section covers effects and damage happens in the damage step. There is never a roll for effect on a Magic Missile: hence the flat check is moot [it stops nothing as it would prevent the check you never have to make].

Step 2 occurs before checking to see if something hits or misses, magic missile doesn't skip this step.

You don't roll to hit, then roll the flat DC, you do the flat DC directly after determining a target before hit/miss is determined. Ergo auto hitting is irrelevant.

Damage is an effect as far as spells are considered, I recommend reading the "how to read a spell" section. It is clear, for spells anything in that section is the effect of the spell. You may argue that this section needs a rewrite / errata but as written this is how you read spells.

With magic missile you cannot avoid having to target something, as the spell specifies you need a target, you then must make the DC flat check because you chose a target with concealed. Then you would determine if the attack/spell hits/misses, the save succeeds/fails.. in this case it would auto hit, but that is irrelevant as the next part is covered by concealed saying that the spell doesn't effect the target if that flat DC failed.

I believe you need to purchase the formulae or learn the formulae to craft a scroll of a level. Not the specific spell.

So you get the level 1 scroll crafting formulae and then use the craft a scroll rules from there on in.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Also, "being a human for the bonus feat" is not a new thing by any means, since lots of builds in PF1 did that to get the combination of feats up at the earliest levels.

To be honest, I was under the impression that "humans being bright blue for every possible build because the bonus feat is too strong compared to every other option" was one of the things Paizo was going to fix in this edition.

Cabbage is right, this design imposes a massive penalty on anyone that doesn't want to play a human and it's only going to get worse as more archetypes are printed.

Only for some archetypes, it won't impact anything that doesn't have similar requirements. Nor will it impact as much as different races gain different ancestry feats to obtain similar requirements, nor will it impact class feats in the same way (from what we can read about them currently)

It is an advantage, but I am not willing to say that it is a huge one for humans.

I mean, elves are getting ancient elf heritage, which is a way to get into multiclass dedications early on. Which is also powerful in its niche.

Keep in mind that for rune creation you still need the formula for the runes.

Megistone wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Fumarole wrote:
T'Challa wrote:
Wearing leather armor starts being sub-optimal when your Dex goes to 20 or higher. If you are a rogue with a 22 or 24 Dexterity, should you go back to wearing nothing at all? You get more AC that way, but miss out on Runes.
Runes can be etched onto adventurer's clothing.
Sure, but that has a max DeX cap too, does it not?

It does: +5.

It feels a bit weird to me that a full-dex character (even a Fighter) may arguably have better defenses with no armor, not even explorer clothing, on.

Nah, it is +7 at a heavy cost vs +9 if in heavy plate without nearly the same cost. (plus they can take advantage of things like orichalcum plate and it's extra property runes at that point)

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Step by step how concealment functions RAW

1. A person targets someone who is concealed

2. Then the person makes a DC5 flat check, as concealment says nothing about losing targeting just that if it fails "the attack, spell, or effect doesn’t affect you." and that it happens "before you roll to determine your effect." which in the case of magic missile is before damage as that is what does damage therefore is what the effect of the spell is.

3. If the DC5 check was 5 or higher the spell effects the target, if the DC5 check was 4 or lower the spell doesn't effect the target. It has nothing to do with missing or hitting raw, it simply changes what the spell does. In this case it doesn't matter whether the missiles auto hit or not because the concealment rules don't mention anything to do with misses (partially because they are intentionally there to foil saves and stuff not just hit/miss spells).

pg.467: When you target a creature that’s concealed from you, you must attempt a DC 5 flat check before you roll to determine your effect.

pg.618: A creature that you’re concealed from must succeed at a DC 5 flat check when targeting you with an attack, spell, or other effect.

Area effects aren’t subject to this flat check. If the check fails, the attack, spell, or effect doesn’t affect you.

So. You target, then concealment because you targeted someone with concealment, then if the concealment check fails whatever targeted the concealed creature fails to have any effect.

It doesn't say "you nolonger target this creature", "you miss the target" or anything similar. It says that the "the attack, spell or effect doesn't affect you"

Magic missiles effect are determined by the "reading spells section" on

page 306. "A horizontal line follows saving throws and duration, and the effects of the spell are described after this line."

I don't believe there is any ambiguity in the rules here.

Again, concealment stops a spell's effects, magic missile's effect is it's damage (arguably even it's ability to auto hit the targets). It doesn't happen before the spell goes off, it happens after the target is chosen and the spell is cast, in the same way it happens after an attack is made.

graystone wrote:
I have to say, I didn't see that quote anywhere on the site when I looked. I have no idea where you found that. Or in the pdf I checked.

Page I linked and the pdf :P

Third paragraph just above the "About the author title"

And yeah, as a person who was a professional web developer for 9 years their site is... not great. Could be worse, but could be a lot better.

Ravingdork wrote:

It was like a slap in the face. A sort of "we don't care about you or your feedback" kind of moment. Paizo was (is) different.

So yeah, there's some hostility, but not towards you or anyone else here. I apologize for letting it show through quite so much.

Oh I get that, I have many many many many more gripes with WotC than I do paizo.

Onwards and upwards :)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DireLemming wrote:

So failing the flat check when firing magic at a target in low light results in firing magic missile at the darkness... :)

Hah, reading that with your display picture next to it made it even better -laughs-

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

The sage advice pdf

The errata pdfs linked from the sage advice pdf
Anything stated by JC on twitter as mentioned at the very start of the sage advice pdf.

Which is where exactly? I've not seen it on their site (just the latest product ads every time I visit), and it certainly isn't on the forums. Last I checked, the website didn't say "check JC's personal Twitter account for official errata and clarifications either."

I've been following the roleplaying communities and games for 20 years and this is the first I've heard that there even was a 5E Sage Advice.

I am detecting a mite hostility from you and I am not sure why.

As for what the site says

"If you have a D&D rules question, please reach me on Twitter (@JeremyECrawford), where I answer questions every month. Many of those answers eventually end up in the Sage Advice Compendium."

Again, I am not saying that wotc does it right. I am saying that in my opinion they did it better than the paizo faq for 1e. Twitter being the vector with an intentional commitment to engaging with questions results in more answers.

The link above stays static and is always updated to whatever the most recent document is.

Anyway I will end this discussion thread here as it isn't really relevant to the topic past this point.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Except that there is no centralized location for such information anymore. Roleplayers have to hint down things like your link, and even when they find them, there's no guarantee that its genuine official rulings, or just someone's jaded opinion.

There is though?

The sage advice pdf
The errata pdfs linked from the sage advice pdf
Anything stated by JC on twitter as mentioned at the very start of the sage advice pdf.

And then of course the site that allows people to quickly search/filter through twitter.

Captain Morgan wrote:

To clarify for Mathmuse and Claxon: I'm not saying a new wave of enemies arriving mid combat is a bad thing. It is indeed working as intended and very good to use for any dungeon held by a single organized force.

I'm saying it doesn't really address the topic of the thread: what is a reasonable post fight respite? Because enemies from the adjacent room joining the fight just makes one big fight. Which is all well and good, but eventually the party is going to reach a point where that fight is over and will want to Treat Wounds and such. At which point you gotta figure out how long you let them do it without consequence.

That is what I mean, I would hate to see that codified in mechanical expectations.

Just do what feels natural to the pacing of the story. If there is no reason for the PCs to be stumbled upon then they are never stumbled upon. If the party is camping out in a room after every fight the GM needs to think "how long would it be before someone walks in here".

Codifying it would have a negative impact on the art of GMing imo.


As the good capn' says above. I am so very very very very happy. Legitimately cried out in joy when I read and confirmed it :)

It leads to cool things like the following

Vampire spawn: physical 5 (except silver)
Vampire count: physical 7 (except magical silver)

(hmmm lycanthropes are just outright less durable as they have a weakness and no resistances)

Zenori wrote:

Doesn't specific override general in this version of Pathfinder?

Isn't the spell description for Magic Missile more specific than the general rule for concealment?

Magic Missile says it hits automatically. That sounds like a specific override of needing to consider a spell attack roll or concealment.

Nope, as i said and showed with the quotes, concealment effects the targeting phase of spells/abilities.

Just like being behind total cover or with broken line of sight. Magic missile says nothing about always targeting.

Unless you are also suggesting that auto hit effects (magic missile, most touch spells) can also auto hit undetected foes.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't add it as a known or expected mechanic. I don't play pnp rpgs to have the world bend to my expectations and I believe a big part of the experience is struggling against time restrictions and dangers.

Having the world pause for game mechanics is an issue imo.

That is to say, have npvs react naturally... if npcs would rush in from another room because the players are shouting at the top of their lungs, do so. Having them stand sttic and ready in the next room until triggered sounds way too static to convince any player of a living breathing world.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

The FAQ method provides a searchable archive, and you can serch Designer posts too.

Twitter you have to start at the recent post and just keep scrolling back.

The issue with this is that responses aren't as quick/clear with how Paizo has handled their FAQ method in the past and knowing your question has a response is less direct/clear than if you get a response on twitter directly.

I am not saying WotC is doing it well, I am saying that they are doing it better than Paizo imo.

Sage advice pdfs got quick and frequent updates, errata documents are easily available and linked to from the same sage advice documents. And twitter posts are easily searched via (which while fan created, is easily done)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like we need some idea about what the way official rulings or updates are disseminated to the people before we figure out how to petition for them.

Since on Paizo Fridays that one time they seemed like they weren't going to do things like they did before regarding FAQs.

Which would be nice, because as backwards as wotc's twitter approach is... it and the sage advice pdfs are better than the faq method imo.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The weapon isn't magical but the creature makes magical attacks.

Same with pugwampis.

Remember than npcs aren't built with character rules, it lets designers do different things with creatures.

Concealment applies.

It effects the targeting phase.

A creature that you’re concealed from must succeed at a DC 5 flat check when targeting you with an attack, spell, or other effect. Area effects aren’t subject to this flat check. If the check fails, the attack, spell, or effect doesn’t affect you.

It doesn't affect and is all about the targeting phase not the hit/miss phase so it doesn't matter if the spell says automatically hits.

Some effects require you to choose specific targets. Targeting can be difficult or impossible if your chosen creature is undetected by you, if the creature doesn’t match restrictions on who you can target, or if some other ability prevents it from being targeted.
Disrupted and Lost Spells Some abilities and spells can disrupt a spell, causing it to have no effect and be lost. When you lose a spell, you’ve already expended the spell slot, spent the spell’s costs and actions, and used the Cast a Spell activity. If a spell is disrupted during a Sustain a Spell action, the spell immediately ends. The full rules for disrupting actions appear on page 462.

So the spell goes off but you targeted the wrong thing and it is wasted.

Ubertron_X wrote:
rainzax wrote:
For those who "hate" Bulk there is nothing I can say to make you "un-hate" it. Sorry!

Can I dislike it or is there only hate or love?

And what I dislike is that there is only 1 and 0, respectively 1 and L, which is the 10th part of 1. Why can't some items have reasonable "in-between" values like 3L or 5L?

Because simple math is too difficult?

That takes it away from being math at a glance and makes scale conversions more complex. So yeah it is antithetical to the goals of bulk and would result in the system being widely ignored again.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

What about those of us who dislike (or even hate) the bulk rules but who followed the full encumbrance rules before?

Minority of a minority from what it seems.

I fall into a camp of preferring standard encumberance tracking over bulk generallt, but only if it were just me as a player. As a GM I loath having to force it on players and check over things because only 1/4 people I run for will actually track encumberance / container capacity without constant prompting. Even with digital tools to help.

I also hate encumberance meaning so little everyone is always at light and it is easily avoided as a mechanic. (One reason why I am fine with the alchemist in pf2e requiring lighter gear or to boost strength a little, the flavour is better imo)

But yeah, as a gm bulk has worked for my groups so far. The old encumberance system ended up being a lot of monitoring for me.

ChibiNyan wrote:

The 3.5 average damage it's giving you every couple of turns doesn't even account for 1 levels worth of HP gain. I know it's free, but it does have an opportunity cost of using up one of your valuable class feats - all of them should be putting work since they are an investment.

Where are ypu getting every couple of turns from? Anyone choosing it is likely focusing on weapon attacks and getting 2-3 attacks a turn. So a more likely 2 attacks a turn means that unless you are attacking with awful hit chances it is a reliable boost.

Focus spells mean it won't even chew into normal spell casts to any major degree, especially at later levels when the same character is able to recover more than one focus point.

A character taking this feat will likely pick up and use single action spells more frequently to maximise its effectivenss.

As I said before though, if people believe this isn't useful. Then that brings into question the usefulness of the weapon die runes.

MMCJawa wrote:
I imagine that mythic in some form will return, but there is no need to rush it. Doubt we will get any demon lords until then (and we shouldn't...unique high level outsiders and Kaiju are pretty low on the list of missing monsters needed in PF2E

I am not sure mythic rules really need separate creature design now that creature design is decoupled from standard characters.

All we really need is an adjustment to average level based on the current mythic tier and some more fantastical creatures spattered throughout the books.

That is, a level 3 character taking mythic feats/options/spells might be by default taking on creatures 2-3 levels higher than them.

Who knows though.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
"A free action with no trigger follows the same rules as a single action (except the action cost), and a free action with a trigger follows the same rules as a reaction (except the reaction cost)."

RAW: you can only use it on your turn as the free action doesn't have a listed "trigger", can only be used when you fulfill the prerequisite and when you would normally be able to make a single action (your turn).

Possible interpretation: Prerequisite was meant to be trigger, in which case if you make a reaction spell cast then you would be able to use it between turns. But only when you make a reaction spellcast.

Personally I am fairly sure that the RAW reading is correct in this case and omitting "trigger" is intended. It helps stop fiddly reaction based usages and keeps the feat's impact relatively linear.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Almost certainly a misprint. Or ambiguity in the way bulk is presented.

Torches in packs of ten were mislabeled as L in the playtest and rations were labeled as 1 L each.

In the final game Torches dropped back to L per torch, and rations were increased to packs of 7 but retained their L listing.

This all said, I have a feeling that any item that is purchased with multiples in brackets is actually that bulk per item. Rather than that bulk for the total amount of items listed.

e.g. Sack (5) = 5L, rather than 1L

(possibly supporting this, ammunition isn't labeled as arrows(10) but instead 10 arrows.)

Exploration mode and encounter mode are different, the minion trait has no real impact on exploration mode and as such it is up to the GM as to whether you would need a control animal roll to get your companion to be moving stealthily with you.

Personally I would wager most GMs would just let you determine what mode of action your companion takes during exploration mode.

Other than that, if it enters combat where it's stealth roll beat the perception DC of the foes then it is stealthed and they are flat footed, if not then not.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Just remember to add water to the dehydrated food BEFORE you eat it...

Something I imagine discovered but not understood or learnt from by goblins on a daily basis in Golarion.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Since it triggers off focus spells scaling from spell slot would be a bad move imo.

I think trap or near trap is being used quite liberally here as well. It is a free action, it contributes less to your overall damage as you get more runes for sure. But the same argument can be presented for spending the gold on that 3rd damage die rune.

- Medium and Heavy armours gain the benefits of armour specialisation. Heavy granting higher resistances.

- Medium and Heavy armours are almost always more durable than light armour when it comes to armour destroying effects. (which while not common doesn't seem to be as uncommon as it used to be)

- Medium and Heavy armours have access to powerful special material armours like orichalcum and the like.

- Medium and heavy allow a character to invest those dex increases elsewhere, something that most characters can happily do now that perception is initiative and much harder to increase.

- Medium and Heavy armour might have different specific magical armours that you want. You cannot get a studded leather armour of command for instance.

- Heavy armour is always going to be a max bonus of 6, and will keep it as the highest value AC.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You seem to be looking for a class archetype... we haven't gotten a class archetype yet.

"It may be possible to take a class archetype at 1st level if it alters or replaces some of the class’s initial class features. In that case, you must take that archetype’s dedication feat at 2nd level, and after that you proceed normally. You can never have more than one class archetype."

The archetype you are looking at is closer to a prestige class. And it is entirely focused on golarion lore.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

In the end, it's all about the stories you want to tell. But it makes one more thing to be debated between GM and players before the game starts. Which might end up being a drawback of the rarity system.

You think having a talking with the gm before a game starts to set expectations is a bad thing O.o... okay.

Arachnofiend wrote:
If PF1 was already the "perfect game" then there is no good reason to spend your time ripping on PF2. Just go play PF1 dude

Could be someone who relied on PFS to have others play with them?

Or maybe they have a close knit group that had everyone else happily move. Although I cannot imagine disliking a system that much if I was playing with friends. I mean, I can still play 3.5 with a group of colossal minmaxers (and I prefer gritty games).

It is more of a control spell, if you crit it is debilitating to foes (speed wise) and even if you merely hit if they are trying to move it is still pretty detrimental with a bit of cold damage.

I see it as more of a debuff spell than an attack spell. Depending on range, direction of movement and what your foes are doing I could see it being a functional side grade.

The only thing I would really do to it is increase its range to 60 or 90ft

Anyone approaching PF1e or PF2e as simulationist games is going to have a bad time. They are gamefied games 100%, which is cool I am not meaning it as an insult, but expecting more out of one area raises a lot of questions about the systems overall.

1 to 50 of 321 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>