Vigliv

The Gleeful Grognard's page

Organized Play Member. 796 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 796 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alchemists tend to be quite flexible as long as they have various alchemical items available to them. Start allowing them stuff from adventure paths (uncommon recipes) and they start being able to provide all sorts of benefits and can actually prebuff.

Bombers are a funny one, they aren't ever going to be damage kings but they can do fun things as they go up in the level.

IMO alchemists mainly suffer because of the low levels of 1-3, but even then they aren't THAT weak. Grabbing a cantrip can be worth it as a backup depending on your stat lineup imo.

At my table the alchemist has saved the day in ways a wizard would have to have sacrificed more to have done. But that is always the case when comparing theory to table and a good GM will try and look the the advantages of classes and give people scenarios for them to shine.

The good old ranger tracking and favoured terrain issue, if a GM handwaves travel and tracking mechanics, then those chosen abilities or granted abilities become pointless.


Chase but on a grander scale.

Always let the player know how far behind the foe is and think of a series of paths that they can take, reward harder paths and DC's with real benefits that are noticeable later or during the chase.


My advice for playing PF2e westmarches style.

- Remove level from proficiency
- Use weapon/armour qualities instead of runes

My advice for running online

- Fantasygrounds, it is the most mature of the major VTT options and while there is a small learning curve it is incredibly light on the players and I have successfully taken someone who has never see the program or played PF2e and had them playing their first session without having any dedicated tutorial time.


grab some resistance and you won't be at risk regardless of the AC


I wouldn't attribute too much care to trying to use PF2e as simulationist rules. Like PF1e it just doesn't work out with a believable world structure.

Which is why we will 100% get a separate battle system in the future.

Taken to extreme silly levels, when a wizard with 8str can stand naked in a field and come out victorious against 2,000 orc brutes easily by level 13 and not use single spell or take a single point of damage... it becomes quite obvious that the system is less about simulation and more about handling normal conflict scenarios a player will actually engage in :)


krobrina wrote:

I don't see how 5E Arcane Lock solves the problem of being allowed multiple tries when there is no time limit. Is that part of their lockpick rules? There is nothing in the spell.

It is because of how 5e handles locks in the first place. There is no critical success factor (even on a 20).

e.g. take a standard lock (equipment), it has a DC of 15 normally, it then becomes a DC of 25. Anyone who wants to pick the lock requires a +5 modifier or it is impossible (and even then that gives a 5% chance, no take 20 and the DMG suggests using the passive value of 10+mod for repeated checks).

So outside of trained individuals arcane lock prevents people who don't have maxed dex from picking it regardless of their level. Especially as gaining new skills is much less common than in PF2e.

Oh and it doesn't require the object to have a latch and also makes the object harder to break.

Ravingdork wrote:
If that isn't a direct attack or insult, then I don't know what would be.

A statement of fact, slightly exasperated but otherwise accepting of it being how it is.

Zapp frequently adds a terms of engagement to their posts and expounds on why they want the discussion to be of a certain type or why people should follow those rules (or sometimes does it in replies to posts of a topic they start for that matter).

The post history is what it is, if you don't believe me or remember I can dig it up to prove I am not engaging in slander.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
It is what zapp does, all the time. You get used to it somewhat.
Reported.

For what?


For me it is the cohesive design elements, as a GM I have found that it lets me teach the game better and retain that knowledge myself more effectively.

In 3.x the core systems were rarely decided with each other in mind which is why skills had different break points and remember what DCs were adjusted by what and by how much. All bespoke systems that had little or no mathematical connectivity or reasoning other than a designer thinking it felt right.

Move over to PF2e and we have the counteract system and it is a thing of beauty. Even the VP system can be seen to have its hooks everywhere in the CRB.


I would make it simple, magazine and reduce the damage and range. (Repeating crossbows sucked traditionally and used poisons on thr bolts to have any real effect)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Marc Radle wrote:


Ah ... ok.
It’s definitely his wife, that’s why I was confused by your comment.

My wife is my partner


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Herolab online may suck for a variety of reasons, but it mostly works and is hardly unusable.

I would direct people elsewhere for now though.


krobrina wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
Reziburno25 wrote:
Yeah grappling needs to be rewritten to allowing dragging or moving a target, should come at cost of reflex save. Flying creature in air grabbing you and moving if both in air should have target given penalty.
I'm very sure this exact kind of thing was intentionally avoided. Being able to move a grappled creature devolves combat to grapple, fly straight up twice, drop, repeat.
I don’t recognise this game anymore. Another fantasy story we lost the ability to run. Sinbad carried off by giant roc. Sacrificed along with Sauron sundering Isildur’s sword and The One Ring reducing player agency and causing extended inter party strife. So many other stories we lost too. I might make a list one day.

Can't run? In what world... a standard character can run a mile in near 7 minutes while laden with gear and in worse conditions than the average sneaker wearing runner dressed only light clothes.

NPCs can still have sundering rules bolted onto them because NPCs don't have to be built with character expectations. It is PCs that cannot do it.

Curses are harder to detect and easier to implement now imo, especially through cursed relics. So the one ring works fine.


Personally I am pretty sure that it is meant to use the vp system from the gmg, that is keep rolling till you get your successes but crit failures drop the successes by 1 (meaning no auto success without assurance).

But asking hoping for a saviour staff member to come down and tell us is just gambling. Highly unlikely, better to just pester for a faq replacement as we still need one.

WotC did better with twitter. :(

The lock spell is fine imo (if it works with the vp system). Having the lock jam when someone gets a critical failure at 0 would be a houserule I would consider though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alyran wrote:
Why are you choosing to ignore an old thread that asks essentially the same question you are asking?

It is what zapp does, all the time. You get used to it somewhat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, 5d4+5 for produce flame, vs 5d6 for flare bolt.

Ignoring that by level 10 it should have multiple gifts.

It isn't particularly worse, both have an average of 17.5 damage. The relic isn't a character gen choice and may be on a character that didn't have a cantrip option.

Yeah produce flame isn't amazing either, but it is a good analogue.

The point of relics isn't "power creep options" but magical items that expand options available to a character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Aside from some niche cases with specific shields that force you to shield block, I don't see an issue with the current shield stats.

Want something for blocking big hits, then use a sturdy shield, want to gain cool abilities and benefit from raise shield? use a different specific shield.

As you can make the specific shields out of special materials as well it gives a lot of wiggle room too as long as you can get the right special materials.

That is to say, I don't want a scenario where any specific magic shield that isn't based around durability can block more than once against a higher level threat.


Truity wrote:

Variant rules - Skill point rules, Table 4-20

rank "trained to expert" minimum level should be level 2, not 3 to allow rogues to function as intended in the CRB.

I doubt this is an error, it is a quirk of the change. Making it level 2 would just shift the expectation for every other class.


Yeah, I would have liked it to be a longer book too, and with certain sections expanded further (a larger npc section for instance, and dual classing that wasn't "balance? what balance... don't worry about it".

Oh and more magical items, I really feel like a wider ranger of magical items would be nice before july this year, ah well. At least there is guidance on creating them.

I would say that the book is the right size to not be so daunting to newer GMs, but then they still have to deal with the CRB behemoth :P


Puna'chong wrote:
There were a lot of domain/bloodline/school/etc. abilities in P1e that had very narrow uses. My players never picked them. I was never enthusiastic about them. They picked things that they could use daily, and reserved powerful but niche abilities for scrolls/wands/potions.

I feel that where it excels over PF1e is that PF1e you were locked into your choice of a domain for all the spells you gained from it and those spells were also locked into competing with your general slots as well as the DC system where many would fall off in usefulness if they had any opposed DC and were low leveled.

This is where domain spells like redact really shine for me, it only gets better as you level up and you are never locked into just one set of choices (even though you have to spend more resources overall to get those choices)


PossibleCabbage wrote:
More of an issue is that there are deities who grant the glyph domain for which "using redact" would probably be anathema.

Asmodeus - suits

Nethis - suits
Gruhastha - correct misinformation, stop the spread of ignorance, expose misdirection (harder to use than for the other two, but not directly against anathema and very thematic).
Sivanah - suits best out of those so far

Because each domain spell is an optional thing I really don't see it as a mechanical issue, if something seems too hard to apply then it is simple enough to just select another option for that feat as everything has a minimum of four domain choices available to them and it doesn't lock you into the domain for later level choices.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
I read that recently, though I don't recall where. GMG maybe?

CRB where it talks about changing attitudes in the skill section (around the make an impression action)


Just chiming in on redact from the Glyph domain.

Sure it is less potent in a hack and slash campaign, but I don't think I have run or been in a campaign that I wouldn't have gotten a decent amount of usage from it in my last 10 years of play.

One of the great things about how domains work is how they grant those focus spells imo, so if it doesn't suit your character then other options are usually more appealing imo.

Redact would be 100% a choice for near any character though and I like that it is a focus spell that can be reliably chosen vs a rare/uncommon spell that cannot.


So... giving them something that a dual classed character gets anyway?

It would help a little, but not by that much imo. The real power of the dual classed characters are their ability to get so many optimal math bonuses and the automatic class features. Class feats are a bonus, but giving a free class feat doesn't go far enough imo.

I would approach it from the other angle and drop the power of the dual class option a bit.

For the record, I really disagree with the book where it says it gives more versatility not power in most cases. In many cases it is a straight and noticeable power upgrade.


Ravingdork wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
I wouldn't have the assassins turn on the players unless there was a real reason for them to.

The PCs are witnesses to the crime. I can't imagine any competent assassins wanting loose ends. What's more, most PCs are unlikely to take kindly to the killing of a young girl.

The only thing I can think of that might change that dynamic is if either party was so beat up at the end that they didn't think they could realistically take out the other.

Generally, why would they care? Are they concerned about their faces being revealed? why weren't they using disguises. Are they worried about the players revealing that someone was killed at all? if so does it matter really and if it does then why not spin a lie to the players about why these people had to die. Make something plausible and let the players come to their own conclusion.

Loose ends for sure, but they have no reason to think that the people the people they were just helped by are worth risking their lives to fight imo.


I love putting players into grey situations like this (just because they are being targeted by assassins doesn't mean they didn't deserve it). I wouldn't have the assassins turn on the players unless there was a real reason for them to.

I would also describe the sounds of battle before the PCs could see anything and allow the party to organically make choices rather than drop them into it directly.

My GMing style is very "as it lays" I dislike overly influencing a party unless I can see that the pacing is going to be decimated by indecision or I have no plans for the direction they are going and cannot think of any way to continue other than stopping the session early (which sometimes I have done, but when it is an hour into a fortnightly game sometimes a bit of hidden railroading is the mark of a good GM vs being rigid)


HammerJack wrote:
You'll see that same critical hit immunity on wall spells. I believe it is appropriate for many stationary objects, but you may make exceptions if an object seems like it should have weak points that a precise enough attack might reasonably have that much extra effect.

This is how I have been running it (and thankfully it is in the GMs purvey).

It has also given strong uses for lore engineering :)


Fumarole wrote:
An example published by Paizo: no. One of my own creation which initially sparked this question: Yes, but it's a creature from late in the Strange Aeons AP.

The Age of Ashes AP might provide some insight here:

** spoiler omitted **
The adventure text states that this NPC has likely gotten ready for a fight.

Although, with this example her level isn't adjusted for this and it would be too small of an adjustment anyway so it isn't really useful for guidance on adjusting the difficulty based on spells precast.

For the record I am on the "no spells are already factored into the creature's strengths" camp.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
LordVanya wrote:


It's no different than listing low-light vision or a clan dagger.
It's pretty radically different when those are general features of the ancestry and the other is a specific quirk of a monster ability.

And it allows a GM to more easily tailor the rules to their setting as well. It is on their end.


Castilliano wrote:

A familiar is about as good at scouting as it is at setting off lethal traps.

Do not recommend.

Justification for this stance?


Personally I wouldn't throw fatigued on, I would simply not allow more than that amount of hustle per day.

Fatigued is incredibly punative and would just result in the party going "well we stop at 29minutes" or not using it imo.

As for long distance runners, they aren't carrying PC like equipment over natural terrain.

It may not seem like it, but even the simple act of jogging in heavy boots and having some light gear strapped to your body would make travel a lot slower/more laborious over uneven natural ground.

So yeah, for a con 18 character it would just represent that they can hustle for 40 minutes out of each day if they wish.


When referencing how it mentions how hard someone is to detect, I am pretty sure that is the rules explaining why you can take certain stealth actions like hide while in cover.

Personally I would and have allowed telekinetic projectile.

Nothing says that the attack roll LoS is determined from your square to the best of my memory.

"When measuring cover against an area effect, draw the line from the effect’s point of origin to the center of the creature’s space."

Not directly related, but from an intention clarification sense it shows that determining cover doesn't have to come from your space.


Garretmander wrote:
I also run fast combats, but I do this by pre-rolling init for every enemy the players can concievably encounter while prepping and noting it next to their stat block.

Ah, I don't run on rails that much and having to preroll and note every enemy per encounter when I don't even know what skill will be used in some cases is just a hassle for me.

I have enough prep to do as it is and never enough time for it.


I used grouped initative and it is 100% an option for the GM in pf2e "the GM could roll once for the group as a whole and have them take their turns within the group in any order."

While it can make group combats dangerous it is just so much faster than rolling 12 times for foes. I have all their modifiers in mind and can rattle through their actions quicker with relevant dice already in hand.

I run very fast combats though.

Party still hasn't needed a cleric, even if a dedicated healer would have made some scenarios easier. Other scenarios were easier becaue of the options the party has available because they have classes other than a healer cleric available.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

One of my parties lacks a cleric, heck their healer is a primal list sorcerer with champion dedication and two other characters with battle medicine and one with continual healing.

Ravingdork wrote:
Narxiso wrote:
If you’re before everyone else and all the enemies are after you but before your allies, don’t rush in. Personally, I wouldn’t waste a spell saving you (though I have a caster who will for me, but I’d change if the group dynamic changed).
I know a few groups that would consider that metagaming, especially on the first round.

The non metagame approach is to use delay to make sure the party acts in tandem.


Both. It is so easy to level up mid session in pf2e that I would do it with any group who is organised and knows where they are going with their characters. Anyone who cannot would be talked to outside of the game ;)


Seisho wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
3. A bit weird since pf1e directly called out weapon finesse interaction, personally I like the change as I don't think it is a particularly finessable weapon.
The spiked chain on the other hand still has finesse - and I would consider them equally finessable

A chain is wayyyyyy easier to wield and manuver than a scarf and has a smaller area to boot making it more suitable for finesse attacks than a scarf.


1. Apsu is also the father of Dahak too? That is irrelevant, it is all about who Apsu decides to give power to.

2. Hmmm, it all depends on how you use it. It doesn't inherrently violate any of those anathema and is quite useful to have.

3. A bit weird since pf1e directly called out weapon finesse interaction, personally I like the change as I don't think it is a particularly finessable weapon.

4. Standard staff suits clerics of sunwukong more imo, he uses a bostaff in most fiction but is inherrently a trickster who likes disguising himself even in pf fiction. It would have been nice for both as an option, or for it to read "staves", as a GM I would allow bo staff as a divine weapon, but mechanically it is better to have it on normal staves.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It deserves errata but the intent is pretty consistent and obvious imo.

Every single time it lists special it also lists "You can select this feat more than once." or "You can select this feat multiple times."

And coupling it with "Usually this section appears in feats you can select more than once, explaining what happens when you do."

Again, it deserves a small errata but anyone reaching for a different conclusion is asking for something that won't happen imo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Amusingly when it comes to rules referencing a certain pirate content 5e website is the best digital tool I have ever seen a community make for a system, I love easy action library/tree but it doesn't hold a candle to how useful this site is.

And pdfs, 5e gets a pdf days or weeks after the product is launched on pirate sites. They aren't as nice as an official pdf would be but people have gotten very good at cutting up books and scanning them with OCR.

I am not condoning piracy, but as someone who owns physical 5e books, fantasygrounds modules and dnd beyond modules. When I run it I will use the afore mentioned piracy reference site and pdfs more than my offical books because it suits my purpose better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Abyssal_Drake88 wrote:

Hi! I'm James. I'm a cis/het male. I like writing characters of all kinds, but I feel a certain reluctance when I write and play a female-presenting character because I'm concerned I may be playing into stereotypes or potentially misrepresenting the experience of female-presenting individuals. I don't want to cause offense or make people uncomfortable. I'm not asking for someone to tell me it's okay, rather I'm asking for advice to avoid the pitfalls of playing into stereotypes or falling into the classic "men writing women" tropes you see in most fantasy and sci-fi.

One thing I've been doing is avoiding gender in the writing process until I'm deciding on appearance, leaving it out of the backstory entirely until I'm finalizing the minor details, but that comes with the concern of erasure and omitting someone's gender identity can be as harmful as misrepresenting it, as gender is a big part of life.

I would love to hear what you folks think and how I can improve my RP in a meaningful way. Is even asking this insensitive? I hope that this can be a productive discussion with as little trolling and namecalling as possible. Thanks so much, and I hope you have a good one!

Gender is social role anyway, that role will shift from society to society let alone another world. Write and act character as people first and foremost and you will do fine imo.

(Being female in india is different from being female in maori culture, being a female bible belt woman is different to being female in a cosmopolitan high income environment. And being male is different in scotland than it is in western australia for many)

I disagree that gender is a big part of life, gender can be a big part of life for individuals but it has no inherrent value other than its informative nature on a wider scale.

It is healthier to have people including a wide variety of characters than not, a man writing a gay woman is only every problematic if they are primarilly leaning on tropes, in the same sense that a man or woman writing a straight man can lead to the same issues when writing the character via stereotypes. Even then there is little wrong as long as things fall into balance.

It is all about intent.

If I write a haberdasher side character with a flamboyant and sterotypical fashion queen personality based off say, rupaul, is that bad? How about a hetronormative woman writing the same character? Or if the flamboyant character was actually female but literally nothing else changed because I thought it was a cool personality, but someone at the table thought it was annoying. Is it then my issue or that players issue?

I fall into the "write characters in a spectrum of personality types with a spectrum of experiences" camp.

(Sorry if this is a little rambly, just woke up)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
steelhead wrote:
Remember, if you do find a rules lawyer at your table, they can actually be your friend as you are all learning the game. Have them look up a rule that you are not certain about while you keep the game moving.

Rules lawyer isn't really a term for people who know the rules well, it is a term for people who know how to work/twist rules as written to their advantage.

It is the lawyer part ;)

I have never met someone deserving of that title who would be happy helping build a balanced and accurate gaming experience :) :p


6 people marked this as a favorite.

My advice for new GMs to PF2e

- Read the rules well, but don't get hung up on rules you don't know while running a game say "I don't know the rule for that, I will rule as --- and check after the session". It is important to be playing as the creators intended while learning a system imo, but the games pacing is important as well.

- Keep houserules out of it until you know the system well and have run it in actual play through a decent number of levels. Too many people think they know best and fail to take into account player expectations/understandings or the knock on effects of their changes.

- Don't go overboard with your early games, keep them simple and familiar so both yourself and the players aren't overburdened while learning a new system of play. So many new GMs want to have a dream game asap, but it doesn't end up working out.

- Don't over compromise for what players want to play vs what you want to run. A GM who is having fun will almost always be more motivated and create a better gaming experience than one that has bent over backwards to make it what the players want. Some compromise and listening to what people want is good, but your fun as a GM HAS to come first as the effort and time you put in is just so much greater and has a much larger impact on whether the game continues or not.

- Use aids to speed up slower parts of the system, digital tools like fantasygrounds make for great in person aids. The magnetic combat tracker is a dream to use as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Have you heard the good word of Rolemaster? with digital tools it is now just as crunchy as ever but now actually runnable without slowing you down too much.

Seems to be more in line with what some folks would ideally enjoy.

Personally I find the object destruction rules are enough, there is a base AC and hardness to give a rough idea of where things will be. Having exact numbers isn't important.

But then again I fall on the side of "knowledge skills are useful" vs the "I cannot say I get exactly this out of it, knowledge skills are useless" argument.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alchemic_Genius wrote:

How many encounters are you guys putting into a session? Most games I've run only use on average 2 encounters, usually some kind of smaller battle of minions and a boss fight. 1/day is still being able to use it in half the battles per session.

I get that the limit makes it look really unsexy, but it's actually really strong.

1/day doesn't mean real world days. It is in game. So even if your group is as slow or non combative as you suggest it doesn't mean the next session will have the ability recharge.

The adventures paizo puts out support this as well. Their timelines don't expect you to take a full month per dungeon ;)


MaxAstro wrote:

I get where you are coming from, Gleeful Grognard. For me the "superhero" feel of 2e is a point in its favor, since if I want a more "down to earth" system I can always run 5e.

I suspect, though, that the GMG will make running 2e with something like bounded accuracy a breeze. It feels like in a lot of places the devs went with "which rule is easiest to house rule into other rules?" as a metric for deciding what rules to go with in the final system, and I think proficiency is one of those places.

It's much easier to build the system around +1/level proficiency and then house rule that to +0/level proficiency than it is to do the other way around.

It is quite difficult to implement bounded accuracy without messing up a lot of mechanics and math sadly. I am not confident that the gmg version will be robust enough outside of a base competency. (I worked extensively on it after launch and went deep down the excel sheet calculation rabbit hole)

I will still be happy with pf2e, it is filling a niche that none of my other fantasy rpgs fill.

I also get why they did it, I just kinda wish it were different -laughs- but maybe that is why the ogl is a good thing and I should just get off my ass and do something about it for myself lol.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
Also goblins are small and light.
Unlike those large and heavy gnomes... :P

It is that combined with a heritage specifically calling you out as a durable goblin and two ancestry feats calling you out as an especially durable goblin mutant thing.


Talonhawke wrote:
I mean is there another feat or rule that allows that because battle medicine on its own won't remove the wounded condition.

This, battle medicine heals and nothing else. It is not a treat wounds check.


I have a spirit barbarian in my group and haven't ruled it as anathema to take gear btw, I have ruled against defacing dead or leaving them as a warning though.


Aratorin wrote:

There's a nearly 200 post thread with people arguing that you should be able to use Battle Medicine, with zero hands and no healer's tools, from across the battlefield, but letting the Barbarian, who already gimped himself by taking the weakest instinct, be given gear by his comrades is rules lawyering?

Look, teabagging a corpse is anathema. Taking gear, in a game which, in its purest form, is about killing things and taking their stuff, is not.

I am not saying it is anathema, i am saying that the rules allow a gm to say no to obvious attempts to sidestep their rulings like "okay I can't lie, so here, you say these lies to that person over there for me"

Or "i have to respect this surrendering foe so I will just walk out of the room while you torture and kill them"

If a gm wants to rule either as breaking anathema in their game the rules are flexible enough that they can thank god. I have had people try and pull this crap with me in public games before and it ruins the fun and sense of world building for a lot of others in the group.

Either you agree with your gm what the anathema boundaries are in advance and decide if you want to play with them, or you accept their limitations because you want to play in their game regardless.


Flexible bones, muscle and tough skin coupled normal goblin mutations and being light small and hardly creatures seems right imo.

Seems no worse than when a charhide can just sit in a small campfire and ignore its flames.

1 to 50 of 796 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>