| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I recommend reading why the giraffe is used as an example of evolution over intelligent design. It is a hoot.
Rules that I have as options:
Rules I kept premaster:
I don't really avoid premaster monsters and view them as one big collective. Not really a remaster thing, but I have found lately that when running on foundry I am not allowing things that cannot be automated well that I have seen impact play speed (by hand or by module) and keeping a list. It is a short one, but it has been worth it from a tedium reduction perspective.
Half damage on a miss and it doesn't worry about allies giving light cover by being in the way. Plus it leaves you without MAP which allows for cheeky third action full attack bonus shots with a weapon (ranged or reach) They must really value that range (which can be great, don't get me wrong, but still).
I just wish FAQ had more of the FAQ answered... clarifications if they are sticking points within the community are important too. D&D may have an awful system too, but having a place to ask questions and also a dedicated location for the most common answers is better than what we currently have. Although maybe it will improve over time... we are many years into pf2e now though
On the topic of paizo staff not commenting. I know they don't on rules, which is fair (imo it isn't the place for it, better errata system is what is needed not bespoke answers) But outside of that we have had people commenting on products, in adventure threads and James especially when it comes to lore. Is it every post? No... but it is frequent enough that I am not surprised by it when it happens. These are community forums first and foremost, not a line to Paizo.
I miss Mark Siefter. Everything else aside he just seemed like a fun dude and it was good to see him become more and more comfortable in video interactions. Plus his explanations of why usually resonated well with my autistic mind.
I prefer to run without it. The games balance doesn't hold up well with it in the long run, and breaks down in the worst way where party members have disparate power levels and quickly encroach on each other. If the group is roughly the same level of system mastery and has the same level of mechanical focus... it can be okay (although some classes just benefit more than others) Ultimately I and my group ended up enjoying giving/getting free feats/dedications as a response to events occuring in the game vs a restricted free archetype. And a more enjoyable mid and late level experience because the best gamers of the group didn't relegate the others to supporting character roles or invalidate their fields as often.
"Before applying Hardness" means that you apply the armor's Hardness to the acid damage, so no, the acid damage from a corrosive rune does not ignore Hardness. Yeah, otherwise it would say after hardness or the usual "ignores" language. However it is unclear and redundant language. Still miss that faq button. For what it is extremely broken in humanoid heavy games if run as ignoring hardness. I tend to rule in players favour when things are unclear and ran it that way for AoA when I was first running the game... it was extremely potent on the flurry ranger with a bow.
I let PCs upgrade items using the dcs and costs for level found in the GMG. Simple, fast and does the job of keeping static DCs and bonuses viable. If there are higher level variants that also upgrade DCs they become necessary at that level.
but owlcat's mythic classes were for a single player game and so could be grotesquely overpowered (Zippy magic, anyone?) without much issue. To be fair, the mythic rules for pf1e felt like they were designed for a single player game and were grotesquely overpowered.
The majority of people I know who buy books do so because they are easier to read than a screen and more likely to be picked up. They are also bought primarily by GMs. I am surprised that this is not more common in your experience. I also saw Tian Xian world guide go for a msrp of over $100usd in Australia and then not sell (having to be heavily discounted months later), so how would you approach making the books more palatable if you are suggesting they should be 20% or more expensive than that?
A. Nothing in the rules suggests the damage from the poison combines. Wasp venom and swarming stings are distinct.
I've always be down for the street sharks look. That wedge shaped head is as iconic to me as golarion goblins and skittermanders now And a big issue I have with 90% of leshies in art :(
The reason for this is because aid is heavily restricted. Restrictions to consider:
So I HIGHLY recommend not hindering aid by giving it a higher DC. A meme in PF2e is every +1 matters... but a +1 for a single roll that takes an action and reaction as well as requiring you to be in a dangerous position mid combat... DC20 was better balance across levels than DC15 is, but DC15 allows people to get at it from level 1 in combat. Another reason is you aren't always going to be able to use a maxed out skill, using a tertiary skill without item bonuses or 18+ in the ability should be fair game in mid level and above play. Now bards get some stuff that makes it super powerful, but that is bards and a different discussion. That is how bards modify and use aid, not how aid itself works. Putting it another way, aid is one of the most narratively rewarding actions a player can take. And with a static DC it becomes "how much do I help" or "how can I help" rather than "I would rather just do something I know will work"
I have not seen them yet, but I am interested to see if the Oracle is the new terrible class, surprisingly good, or somewhere between. It isn't a terrible class... it is just a flavourless caster for the most part with a totally optional curse to its playstyle. As long as it keeps 4 slots it will generally be more powerful than before.
Regarding prepared casters and wizards I think two change would make them a lot more appealing to the average player. Prepared casters:
Wizards:
Power creep has been getting increasingly unreal since Howl of the Wild. Seems like the 1e developer mindset has found its way into the proverbial 2e henhouse. I do wonder how much has to do with the design lead change from Mark Siefter. One note, I am kinda disappointed to see that paizo seems to be a bit gun shy when it comes to nerfing things. Synaesthesia for instance stayed the same and while I didn't want it to be bludgeoned into the ground scaling the debuffs on degree of success rather than just duration would have made a big difference.
It bugs me that some folks are cheering for the replacement to dragon claws... it is a two action attack focus spell... with cantrip tier damage. It is almost always beaten out by save cantrips. I don't require something to be optimal, but damn it would be nice to see it useful at all. I see it as even more situational than dragon claws.
Slow down and read "the way I rule" is my being fully aware that it is my ruling and not my saying this is how the system is written. As for your comment vs air walk, yeah? Not sure what your point is. My players prefer stable guidelines and this makes the rules at my table clear for them and angles past 45 degrees are objectively steep. Something being steep is generally considered to be when its vertical axis exceeds its horizontal axis. Why you can't just circle down/up, because if you don't have the space or don't want to be moving through areas of danger (say reactive strike) then it restricts you. It isn't something that always matters, which is why it isn't a problem as a mechanic. And for failure consequences, not moving in combat matters. In scenarios like high winds, chases or with something else going on it matters. My point is out of combat with no risk attached I just assume PCs can take their time and do it. So at my table manoeuver in flight rarely comes up, because PCs and NPCs can do things in other ways most of the time or have large bonuses and or assurance so it can be ignored for those who plan to do it all the time.
Keep in mind most true flight doesn't come into play until level 7 for PCs.
Age of Ashes is an excellent AP with a really really really weak start and like all APs requires a bit of rewriting to tie things together, but since books 3-5 all tackle one enemy group directly, book 6 tackles their originator. And book 2 and 6 tackle the bigger overarching threat that created the reason for villains. Any decent GM can do a lot with it. But boy the first book is just... bad, and the second really falls down a bit with the hexploration (but is an excellent setting). If I was to run it again I would simplify the first book, remove the goblin blood caves and have the party do an old fashioned dungeon delve to save the goblins from what came from below. Also, the keep really needs a better map. Also the next one I may be a bit biased towards because I am running / propping it atm. But if you treat gatewalkers and stolen fates as one big adventure where a motivation of twisting fate is fixing the negative aspects of the end of gatewalkers (and letting the negative aspects actually happen) it can work. But gatewalkers does need a decent amount of fixing imo, firstly it isn't remotely an investigation xfiles adventure, secondly nearly all the villains are best served by removing "they are evil and unhinged" and leaning into nuance. Imo it is the best set piece adventure of the lot though and it has some really fun villains to play with.
I really dislike arguments that revolve around something happening or not that isn't to do with the system as justification as to why something is good/bad Sure a GM might not give the resources required to buy / learn more spells... but if the party is starved for wealth then the martial will be hurting even more without runes. Now you could say the party will give the martial more money and the wizards will go without, but that again isn't a matter of system but rather a matter of how GM is running and how the players are playing OUTSIDE of system expectations. It is like saying consumables are trash because a party has a bunch of people who forget they exist or have phoenix down syndrome. Also, learn a spell is extremely cheap and an exploration activity. If there is more than one caster in the party you won't even have to seek out other spellcasters to learn from to get a massively expanded spell list. Yes there will be niche campaigns where you have no access to other spellcasters at all and are unable to learn new spells, but it is not core to the PF2e experience. As for casters being weak... I have also run a lot of APs. Age of Ashes, Extinction Curse, Agents of Edgewatch, Abomination Vaults (on my third group atm although they are only level 3) and have just started Gatewalkers to lead into Stolen Fate. Casters in my games have universally been extremely valued and often been the MVPs. Even with low level play, my second AV group had a champion, rogue, druid and wizard... and the druid and wizard were not only the answer to many issues but frequently out damaged the rogue and champion where a meme was every time the casters were major contributors it was exclaimed "the casters, so bad, so terrible". And both players were the least experienced; it was their first time playing casters. Then there was Age of Ashes where a player couldn't make it for the last 2 sessions of the campaign and I wasn't willing to delay any further. So his friend who had never played PF2e before but had GMed pf1e and been a player in my 5e group took over his character. Not only did he play the bard exceptionally well, he was by far the most influential force in 6 of the final 8 encounters, which was notable as I ran a chunk of those as a boss rush with no time to rest or recuperate including only two rounds to ready themselves to fight the final boss.
Does this mean spellcasters will always be powerful, hell no... does it mean there is one optimal build. Not even close. One thing I will say though, spell substitution is probably the only wizard thesis I would take. It has more of an impact early game before you can load up on niche scrolls but it is still really useful for whenever the day doesn't proceed as expected.
Just to clarify things, Player B has no problem with D playing what he wants to play. And if what he wants to play fills a niche or completes the party comp, fine. His issue was D mainly coming in with the PF meta mindset instead of just making a character out of the air he wanted to play and just be like "this is what I'm playing." See... B does seem to be stepping into the bad/wrong fun side of discussions. I could see it more if player D was telling other people to choose different options, complaining about having to play support or something similar, but you haven't indicated as such. PF2e is balanced enough that a meta minded player won't upset party balance or play style. Let alone a support character. Not a dig at 5e (I still run 5e) but it isn't 5e. If there are concerns about whether player D will roleplay well or create an interesting character, that is a different kettle of fish. But not really related to filling gaps meta wise (one of my current players loves playing support and is mechanic minded so he looks to that first and then comes up with a compelling character idea tweaking it as he goes. Another player from the past only ever played guide builds with meme personalities that ended up basically being themself... but that was an issue with the player and no amount of forced suboptimal play would make them create interesting characters) As for potions, I wouldn't allow no interact usage. It is a part of how the game works and interactions with flat checks, reactions like reactive strike and turn planning keep it interesting imo. It also becomes pretty boring and powerful as the game continues if it is allowed to spread to other potions and consumables, and immersion breaking if it doesn't.
On the tangent of added damage property runes I find it so weird that paizo specifically forbids doubling or tripling up on the same type. There is almost never a scenario where having 3d6 extra fire damage is worth it over having 3 different damage types (four if you are a blade ally champion) that can each trigger weaknesses and bypass resistances or immunities a creature might have. It also incentivises getting opposing damage types to best cover your bases. It feels super flavourless to me and explicitly denies flavourful options.
Regarding that's odd, I had concerns initially but after running the game for an investigator I am less bothered by it. Is it auto success perception at times... sure... but it is only one thing that strikes the player as odd, often someone sees it anyway so the player gets extra context and it has sparked a number of the interactive player/GM conversions that people above indicated they were concerned about losing. As for my remembering it, I had the player prompt me for a bit and gave them permission to do so Incas they thought I had forgotten something, but honestly just treating them as if they were doing a quick search of a room whenever they entered a location became pretty second nature to me. That said, I had already overcome some of my hesitance to roll free gameplay after I embraced passive perception as functionally a roll floor in 5e. This is not to say the investigator is fine though, devise a stratagem is an awful mechanic in play (at least during low levels) and follow a lead I find to be clunky. They don't exist as a balance tool, but rather as an easy way for GMs to prohibit something without creating too much fuss about it. I don't like that idea because TTRPGs are a hobby that mainly involves talking, and if a GM wants to remove certain options its as easy as that GM saying "This isn't allowed" instead of trying to justify that with the rarity traits. It isn't about prohibiting though, it is about creating a permissive environment where the onus is on the player to ask and not the GM to have to comb through every choice. The core rules themselves say this in regards to uncommon trained stuff.Then there is the psychological difference for people between asking for something, people being told they have to ask for literally everything (the tashas cauldron approach) or being told no out of the blue like in pf1e. Yes there are arbitrary elements, but it creates a structure for a GM to build off of or to lean on. The game is filled with arbitrary design decisions and cut off points. But it very much exists for a purpose; beyond new or inexperienced groups. As someone else said, the issue is what rarity traits cover rather than the trait themselves. As it stands rarity means both how common something is and whether it is restricted for choice or not. But I also get why paizo didn't want to create two traits for the same rough mechanical purpose. And rarity parses better for most than unrestricted, restricted, gm only, gm only unique.
I still want a magus style caster for divine, occult and primal traditions. Infact I am still a little bit miffed that they didn't make the class flexible from the start. Generally I want less classes and more subclasses and class archetypes with feat support though.
Imo I feel almost the reverse on many of the points, which is where personal taste comes in. I like building powerful synergies into PF1e characters on paper... but they are generally very static in play and my choices lock me into future choices fairly early on so I feel way more constrained in practice. Pf1e feats generally feel underwhelming or immediately thrown out for me unless they are specifically enhancing the build I am going for, or are the standard that are always picked to either make the character work at all or reduce in play tedium so much I can't justify not making room for them. For me the fun at character creation took a big dip with PF2e but fun actually at the table went way up, a microcosm of this would be power attack imo. Any player choosing power attack in PF1e will use it almost every single round for the rest of their game, in PF2e I see fighters weighing it up against a third attack, crit increasing buffs, enemies with resistances/hardness and shields, movement options and various skill actions even at low levels. Casters I see grabbing scrolls, wands and staves to expand their spellcasting repetoire. Using a combination of weapons, spells and skill rolls and using a wide range of their spell list as they level rather than being limited to their higher slots. Now a pf2e with isn't shutting down combats like my PF1e witch did, but it isn't repeating the same 4 tactics and choosing from the same small list of always BiS spells that the target isn't immune to. (Closest we have is synaesthesia, which I expect to get errataed/cut) Not to say you have to like this, but I don't think it is a matter of paizo choosing balance over fun.
Firstly, a bunch of those aren't needed to be tracked separately and stuff like "raising a shield" is self tracked for players. Secondly the brain can handle a lot, given that you will have static effects that tend to last all or most of a combat players will just note down what effect is in play and when it expires and ignore the daily ones. E.g. how much mental effort does it take to track a rank 2 longstrider or haste cast on party members, very little. You are seeing a bunch of icons, including subordinate effects, but realistically there is not that much that needs active tracking. It is just that foundry needs to have a way to visualise it because people aren't doing it manually.
I mean, is the issue that heropoints are ruining your game, or you re unhappy at the pacing the players have set? If it is the latter, bring that up directly unrelated to the heropoints, if they bring up heropoints and gaming the system you can always just suggest you can remove heropoints. I am not sure how much of a benefit one point every hour to one player, is worth players dragging a game out over. This is all assuming this is real and not just an elaborate "this would make for a cool what if", because, RD is a very proficient what if'er. (And yes I know the words speculative hypothetical form analysis, I just I like what if'er better)
1. Depends on what you want it to be closer to pf1e with and what differences cause the most strife. But if we are talking about official changes to the system, no. I can on the spot identify a few variant rules and house rules that would push it a lot closer to what I recognise as 3.5e system design though. 2. Highly unlikely, PF2e was partly moved to because PF1e sales had been drying up for a long while. 3. Again depends on what parts of 3e you are referring to. I wager a 3e would swing more towards that design in some areas, if only because pf2e has swung more in that direction in some areas itself. If you mean using 3e as a framework again, not a chance, even before the ogl stuff. 4. You tried playing more pf1e? The redundancy in this question is starting to push the bounds of plausibility. 5. Giving the benefit of the doubt that this isn't a troll post, no for the same reasons Paizo isn't doing it. PF1e/3e isn't fun to run for a large number of GMs on a fundamental level, it takes way too long to prepare for, breaks in a bunch of ways and requires learning/recalling swaths of bespoke rules without coherent mechanics to run it as intended. And anyone wanting to pick up the torch would be competing against PF1e and its 10 years of content, that is mostly free... really really niche market.
Yeah the Oracle needs some love, I cannot disagree with people who want to disconnected the curse and mystery enough though. I also dislike the idea that some have paizo can't use downsides like curses in class design. It reminds me of the discussions surrounding precision damage/sneak attack, immunities/resistances (and wanting bypasses) and the toxicologist (poisoning undead, elementals, constructs, etc) However, ancestors as written is just awful... I like me a wellspring mage/wild magic sorcerer... but the dice rolling each round is clunky, it actively limits what spells you can use and in actual play makes you have to build incredibly broadly as a jack of all trades, who can't actually use chunks of their trades at will so is objectively bad at it. Lore Oracle is worse though, it's curse benefits are actively counteracted by its negatives. That and assurance for automatic knowledge does not scale right in high level play... it is like having flame Oracle but all your enemies get immunity to fire. Honestly though, if I were to redesign the Oracle going down a Psychic route could have been interesting. The other class that requires focus point help :p
I think a big part of that not working is poor execution and trying to keep much of it the same as much as allowing it to change. Plus, way smaller implications than rovagug dying. A better comparison would be warhammer the end times as a transition into age of sigmar lore wise. Not that I am saying I would like this shift btw. Just saying that the only way to tell the story well would be to go big, and the only way to go big in a decent fashion would be to do so with a range refresh (e.g. a new edition) where old products being invalidated is more accepted/understood. Personally I find the gods being in a cold war esq tensions state and golarion being a prison planet to be way more interesting. I also find rovagug narratively to be a more interesting apocalyptic device than eldrich beings or biblical beings.
To put it a different way, the biggest reason I think Rovagug is worth keeping around is the same reason Aroden is dead and prophecy was made unreliable in the setting. It may be a meta reason, but it keeps mortals mattering while allowing the true powers to remain both powerful and well defined (less ineffable).
Logical marking/layout is not their style in general. Only bare minimum like degrees of success and targets are marked. Well, you know it yourself. To be fair, in the playtest they were trying to use simpler, clearer and more rules focused language... and a large enough majority of people really hated it to get them to change to more "natural" language, which is significantly more work to maintain consistency in. Not that it was perfect in the playtest either, but that paizo was actually dissuaded from going further down that route.
I get that this is likely you just "asking" a question to voice your dislike of the idea but I will engage it in good faith. In my groups the party can have two uncommon or rarer characters, one of which can be rare. This is for thematic reasons and to stop the walking menagerie effect and has been extremely effective at doing so. The way we determine who gets what is an effort assumption, in my campaign material I specify that I expect more effort/study/integration regarding uncommon options and even more regarding rare. The group as a whole then decides on who gets the slots. I also reserve the right as GM to allow more if people have worked together or just put in enough effort that I am convinced it won't negatively impact the campaign experience and immersion. And as a final note I tend to alter rarity when it comes to different geographic regions or campaign themes. Honestly though, since implementing the rarity rule it has never come up as an issue. Where as prior I had a few players who would basically try on something "weird" as a costume and either make it a meme or have it be entirely meaningless. Worst case scenario is where one player would choose something and put effort into planning and knowledge, and another would hear about it during character creation go "cool" and not put any effort in and drag the tone of both characters down. Amusingly this was something I came up with for the group in 5e (hence the using of race in my examples), since it had common races, uncommon races and I chose to describe everything post phb as rare.
Speaking of Starfinder, since it's mentioned an Shelyn has been off seeking a cure for ZK all of 1E and earlier, she's a good bet for having changes happen to her, because it's not like it would directly contradict anything established in Starfinder canon; we have "goddess of love and beauty, ZK's sister, looking for a cure" and that's it; maybe she's different to how we know her in Pathfinder, we have no way of knowing. (And yes this works even if the "changes" are that she dies; a god coming back to life isn't really any weirder than a god dying, after all.) Unfortunately paizo have made starfinder an alternate timeline, I say unfortunately because it also means the mystery of the gap is meaningless and in turn so is any lore in starfinder relating to pf2s/pf2e.
I am still holding onto hope that Shelyn "dies" and merges with her brother. But far less. Rovagug I don't want to see, I don't want the gods to be more active in Golarion and I don't want their power hierarchy to break down without the nuclear arms pact that is Rovagug. It is something I could see in a pf3e and setting shake-up, but not with only one book. I just feel like paizo couldn't feasibly do it justice and as such it would just end up being hand waived to keep the status quo and therefore all interesting changes would be moot. I don't get why everyone finds Gozreh to be boring, or why that makes it a good target to kill off the dual natured God of Nature.
Yeah, Paizo's plan is clearly to release mixed GM and Player-Use books like Rage of Elements, Howl of the Wild, Book of the Dead, and Dark Archive than straight up Bestiaries. This makes sense since everybody wants to own the book with a new class, most people are going to want to own the book with the new ancestries, but mostly the GM buys the bestiaries. I just hope they knock it off with scattering GM content through player content... dark archive was the worst for this with literal adventure content in nearly every chapter. In general it just devalues the books for me as a GM though, I have a couple of players who buy the books and they read through them because they have paid for them... which means if a piece of monster art stands out they will generally geek about it and read it out of curiosity. So I have learnt anything from a bestiary is safe as a rule, but anything from one of the mixed books gets a "oh I remember this" or similar when I bring it out.
Is having 2 Attack lower then my main character too low? I have had many instances of an animal companion missing because it's roll was -1 or -2 lower then the enemy's AC. has anyone else felt Animal Companion Attack is far too low? I mean, it is only 5-10% less accurate (than a master prof martial), suggesting it is "far too low" is a bit hyperbolic... the whole point is to avoid it being a cheap martial since it doesn't share MAP with the main character. Not to say animal companions are problem free, but accuracy isn't something I would say is an issue.
RAW shield hardness would trigger off both attacks and then you would combine what is left. RAI I am almost certain you are meant to treat it like a resistance in a scenario like this.
Weird niche case regarding instances of damage, if you are able to use two splash traited attacks that are combined, say with dual slash via dual thrower. Targets around the initial target will take two instances of splash damage even though the main target will take combined splash damage as a part of a single instance, due to how the damage is dealt/trait is worded Now I 100% don't expect the devs intended that interraction and I would combine for simplicity and to stop shenanigans vs enemies with weaknesses. After all it is already dumb that the splash trait means that if your enemy is stronger than you and has a weakness it is often better to target an ally with a backfire mantle and minor alchemical bombs than to target the enemy directly. But still a fun exception.
Larian paid Hasbro to be able to make BG3, they did not come to Larian. It was apparently not a short task to convince them to allow, Larian to make it either. BG3 is a game that I enjoy inspite of itself, and I don't think all of it's rule changes were for the better (not having delay actions made me pull out my hair). Thankfully it wasn't too easy for me as I held back on playing until after Honor mode released for my blind playthrough.
The requirement isn't a prerequisite, it has to be fulfilled throughout the entirety of the action. And since what gives cover is conditional to the person targeting this can be true for one and not for another. To put it another way, raise a shield has a requirement that you are wielding a shield. If you remove your shield or it breaks before the start of your turn you do not benefit from raise a shield until the start of your next turn even though raise a shield states that this is the duration of the effect. This is because you no longer meet the requirements.
Personally I will be retiring all content from the crb and apg once pc2 releases. Less for a balance reason and more because it makes source tracking simpler and my life easier when it comes to remembering what does what. I would like for there to be a spell that replaces synaesthesia rather than it just simply disappearing though... and I would rather a more balanced spell than it getting the incap trait slapped on it. It is hard to argue that it isn't one of the best spells in the game currently. I am kinda sad the remaster didn't make affliction a type of effect with disease and poison being traits on an affliction instead of the types of affliction themselves. That way we could have shifted synaesthesia to a type of affliction instead as a means of helping level out its impact.
It was I understood about OP. Unless it's complaining about the Paizo decision to not use Drows anymore or something like this. The OP made a statement with colloquial language, you are jumping on their short post because they didn't approach it with more literal appropriate legalistic language. But that is more arguing semantics with someone rather than just accepting the words that they used were suboptimal but still clear in intent. If not to you, then to pretty much everyone else who has commented on this matter. Just incase you aren't actually intended to be a debate bro about this and are just having a brain freeze, the OP's intent was to convey: - WotC took actions that caused Paizo to believe creating ORC was the safest and most sensible action to take.
Honestly I think that the spells for a new edition need a pretty good compression (many spell could be turned into some kind of heightening or spellshate). We have a pretty high number of spells that could be optimized in many ways. IMO the kineticist's impulses only proves it. Agreed, compress spells and use it as justification for multi action differences and heightened options where possible. But 3e is a long way away still what with the remaster being fresh.
-shrugs- I will probably be doing that for simplicity sake once PC2 comes out, anything from the crb and apg that wasn't reprinted will be by default be gone. But I will be allowing any other preremaster books and if a player asked for a spell or feat that hadn't been reprinted I would consider it. Stop treating GMs as if they can't be talked to. In my case it is just lowering the burden of source lookup.
I agree with the game ideally having NPC advice on the matter. But it is pretty easy to reverse engineer NPCs trade at 100% profit assumptions and settlements in general limit what is available level wise. For instance, the party is in a level 6 city and wants to transfer a level 4 striking rune. I would offer normal and expedited speeds and costs. - Normal: I assume the crafter has assurance (it is their profession) and they will work for, DC for craft would be 18, assurance for level 6 would be 20. Progress per day is 2gp, 3 days crafting (ready on the third day) (3.25g of progress needed) cost to player 6.5gp - Expedited: same as above but takes 1 day and the crafter charges 13gp ........ That aside, I think people get too fixated on the necessity of runes arriving at exactly the point players want them and on the items players want them on.
If a party doesn't have crafting, having to struggle through suboptimal periods is fine imo. It isn't like the party won't be able to take on threats or be useful if they are behind on a rune or two. The math is tight and certainly makes a difference, but not THAT tight. I agree with runestones randomly appearing as loot though. Feels extremely odd, heck runestones as a whole feel like the vestiges of a previous system in design. ........ Agents of Edgewater, yeah they needed to do better with that imo. "Everything does non lethal damage by default and you can rob anyone you beat into submission" is an awful combination. I changed it to: - Edgewatch are paid a (low) wage and given a equipment selection privileges from the garrison based on performance as a warped incentive. - The game starts with training (and the old dwarf cop) and has a diagetic example of harsh punishments for agents who break the law. - Characters wear the equivalent of magic body cams. (Not actual cameras, but they change state if exposed to death and record where the officers travel and are required to be invested/worn) So while yes a PC who wants to be a scumbag can work at it... the city of absalom actually has some safeguards against it and they aren't able to do so with impunity.
Its enough for them to be making record profits. Argue about quality, but its clearly popular. And you believe this is because of the change in presentation, rather than PF2e growing and making record sales before the change, strong book themes as well as shifting movements in the 5e community due to burnout and controversies? Btw this is not my saying there is no impact, just that I am dubious that Paizo let alone us forumgoers have enough data points to draw any decent conclusion unless sales drastically shot up for those books specifically (and I do mean drastically). And I would really question the assertion that anyone who does purchase the books because of their mixed PC and GM content, was swayed into doing so because the PC and GM content is mixed throughout the book; rather than segmented into a player and GM section.
I think the fanbase and Paizo's bottom line both prefer books with mixed player-GM usage, rather than books only a GM would ever buy. You can sell one Bestiary per Pathfinder group... but *everyone* in it might grab a book that also has new classes! It annoys me and has actively turned players of mine away from buying certain books. It is at its worse when they do a Dark Archive and stupidly split the GM content up and scatter it through the book. I also wonder how many players are buying books these days with pathbuilder around. I know some folks like analogue, but they are getting fewer and fewer; collectors were buying everything anyway and can be discounted. I guess there is exploiting PFS players, but I know more than a few players who are annoyed at paying for a full book when only 1/4 to 1/3 is player facing.
My GM is the worst, he doesn't even allow a wand of longstrider because he says it's "one of the most broken things in pf2e". It is though? I ran it myself in a campaign that went to 20 where the whole party had them, it was extremely powerful. Disproportionately so. Try asking your GM about subsequent turn activation... or maybe leave their game if you truely feel like they are "the worst".
Again, the argument "well you can't have breath weapons going off on consecutive rounds" doesn't hold water when dragons have such a high chance of recharging it for every round use anyway. I am not arguing intent btw, the intent is clear via the comment and the creature builder excerpt. But people pushing the idea of it being unbelievable that people would gravitate to the duration rules to standardise how round tracking works because there is no other standard... is silly. Also every GM I have ever played with has run breath weapons as next round on a 1. Including pf1e and 3.5e. But it is weird to have a standardised round counting system, that always specifies when it is end of round otherwise... and doesn't in this one niche scenario. Again, happy to run it as intended, just find the insistence that it couldn't sensibly be read any other way is bizarre.
Someone is disarming a trap. An ally is pooling their knowledge on how to disarm traps (aiding them). The person disarming the trap is taking extra effort to be clear and descriptive of what they see and what they are doing to try and help the person who is sharing their knowledge be able to share said knowledge (aiding the person who is aiding them). Which as a gm i would break down into Aid the aid (very hard dc adjustment)
But yeah most scenarios would not allow for this sort of aiding the aider, just wanted to present one where it can work without breaking verisimilitude.
I mean, a key part of the aid action is "You must explain to the GM exactly how you’re trying to help, and they determine whether you can Aid your ally." So if you can... I guess... but that will be a hard sell. Maybe for something like bomb diffusing, where you would need to use diplomacy to make sure you can communicate the situation and what you are doing extremely clearly for the person trying to help you. (Anyone who has played keep talking and nobody explodes or overcooked will know what I am talking about) |