Zyphus

The King In Yellow's page

106 posts. Alias of William H Watson.


RSS

1 to 50 of 106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

I believe the Devs meant to differentiate between 'object' and 'item' a little more, but never did.

It seems like items (a subclass of objects) are meant to be treated as per CRB pg 272 (as stated by Aratorin.)

Objects, which seems to mean 'unattended objects' do take damage.
Items, however, would not.

While I'll admit this is NOT clear, it seems to be at least one logical reading of the rules, and it makes sense.

Sovereign Court

FedoraFerret wrote:

...Even if you're concerned about MAP, I would consider Assurance->Athletics for a maneuver on the third action first.

One problem with that is you have to have a weapon that allows the maneuver, since almost all maneuvers require a free hand (or a weapon trait.)

Sovereign Court

Another little tidbit...

"...Fun side note, you’re the only class that gets more than one Focus Point without having to spend feats on it."

Both Leaf and Storm order druids get more than one focus point... at 1st level, even.

Sovereign Court

Is there a way I can get my order 10774305 shipped out ASAP?

I'm going to be running it soon, and would like to have my hardcopy available.

Sovereign Court

Not all options are meant to be used in all parties. As mentioned above, that's why it's important to discuss these things with the other players and GM beforehand, if you are playing a character that has specific RP codes.

(And yeah, liberator is just ... a problem the way it is written.)

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
...stuff...

If your choice of progressing in a discussion turns to insults and attempts to pad your word count in an effort to seem more educated, it generally, though not always, means you have realized you are backing a losing position.

So I, at least, am done here. Arguing with someone who tries to argue using as many words as possible to obfuscate his circular logic just isn't worth it.

Sovereign Court

Nefreet wrote:

Once a month isn't "radio silence".

Once a week will delay things further, since there's more that goes into planning a blog than just the text on the page.

Not going to argue with you about what constitutes 'radio silence' but also, my post wasn't meant to be asking for a blog. Just a dev that already knows the approx answer to drop in once a week on these forums, and put a reply somewhere. This topic, a new topic, another topic. We'll find it.

Just an honest answer along the likes of:

"We still hope to make it by the end of the month for LOWG (or LOCC, or AoA, or Cheeve points, or whatever) sanctioning being posted for use!"

or:

"We don't think we will make it, but we are currently pushing hard for first week of Feb."

or even:

"Delays have piled up more than we wished for, it is unfortunately looking like end of Feb now, for sanctioning."

Will there be people who scream at any of those answers? Of course. /sigh.

Is it still the better way? Probably.

Sovereign Court

Nefreet wrote:
Olav Cleemann wrote:
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Olav Cleemann wrote:
When can we expect to have "Pathfinder Lost Omens World Guide" appear on the "Character Options" page - http://www.organizedplayfoundation.org/encyclopedia/pathfinder-2-0-characte r-options/ ?
It's still undergoing review. Expect it to take at the very least a couple more weeks. Things are unfortunately a bit hectic.
Theese weeks have come and gone several times over now. Does anyone have any further insights into this matter?

In January's Blog they announced it will likely still be another several weeks.

They obviously want this finished as well. Things just keep getting in the way.

The blog mentioned 'by the end of the month.'

While I understand thing happen, stuff gets delayed, etc, all I (and many others, I presume) would like is an update on if they think they are going to make that deadline, or if it'll be after that.

It's not like all of us do not understand there are issues. But a once-a-week declaration of 'on schedule' or 'not sure' or 'not going to make it' would help with a lot of the people wondering about these things.

Will there always be people who complain about delays? Yes. But there are far more of us who understand that delays happen, and just would like updates.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
caps wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

The Hellknight is not required to be a Champion.

But if we don't have Champions of all alignments by the time Lost Omens Gods and Magic comes out, something would be seriously wrong.

Welp...

I stand by what I said -- we have a serious hole in regard to playing a typical lawful neutral Hellknight Champion.

That's... a lot of hyperbole.

If you consider that a 'seriously wrong' and a 'serious hole' ... then every class / archtype combination that isn't out yet, but people want to mimic or cobble together from 1st ed is also the same.

Which puts your particular desire really, really low on the list.

Also, since there are no lawful neutral hellknight champions... you cannot really claim to want to play a 'typical' one.

Sovereign Court

Quandary wrote:

But you're just assuming it is "the wrong slot".

Despite it being perfectly compatible with chosen wording ("appropriate") and grammar ("an" not "the").
2 opportunities for precise exclusivity were not used, in favor of wording congruent with Permissive function.

...

Except... it's not perfectly compatible with the chosen wording.

I'd like to think that most people would think a 40' U-Haul isn't an 'appropriate' truck to rent to haul a dishwasher home from the store.

You get the truck that is an appropriate size. Meaning one that fits as closely as possible, and doesn't waste extra gas, etc.

It really seems like you are trying to stretch the meanings to suit a carryover from 1st ed.

As an aside, people who argue about adding versatility vs power...

Versatility IS power, people.

Sovereign Court

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I won't allow players to use social skills on other characters. If the other player is inclined to believe you're lying, nothing written on any character sheet or die should force them to change their mind.

While it's true that a player should be the final arbiter of what their character believes, one has to also keep an eye out for metagaming (sometimes unconsciously) by the player as well.

If, for example, the ONLY reason the other PCs have for thinking a particular PC is lying is because of what the players (not PCs) witnessed... sometimes a bit of questioning attitude is called for. Not accusatory, just a simple question of making sure the player isn't jumping to conclusions based on OoC knowledge.

Sovereign Court

Gish builds were about melee, though. (It was originally part of the entire concept.)

I realize ‘ranged Gish’ has become a thing, but it’s not really the default.

Having said that, there is nothing wrong with comparing the ranged damage output of multiple character types. I just wouldn’t really call them Gish.

Sovereign Court

Xethik wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

At 10 your to hit will be about -3 behind a Max str barbarian (-2 if you started with 18 dex but I think you'd have to take a flaw for that)

Just as a point on this particular comment, that won't work. You cannot gain more than a +2 at each step and - without a key ability score of Dex from your class - you will only be able to boost Dex 3 times to a 16.

This is not... technically completely correct.

Using voluntary flaws, you can add +4 to one ability score at the ancestries step, however, it has to be in the same stat that your ancestry had the original -2 flaw in.

So, you can get an 18 in a stat, even if it is flawed from ancestry, but you cannot get two 18s

Sovereign Court

GM Doug H wrote:

Attacking a downed PC almost never makes tactical sense, nor does it represent how animals/people behave in the real world.

So what you ultimately end up with is a combative GM-vs-PC environment where players know that if they ever hit Dying 1, the GM will outright try to kill them even if it makes no narrative or tactical sense because they want to "challenge" their players. It's a good way to end up with a party focused only on defense, and afraid to play the game or take even small risks.

This isn't to say that attacking a Dying PC never makes sense, just that you should have good a reason to do so.

Also, if you think Wounded is the only way to threaten players, it might be a better idea to examine your tactics as a GM before trying to outright murder your players with immersion-breaking tactics. That ain't fun for anyone at the table.

Attacking a downed PC almost -always- makes tactical sense, though you are correct in that it doesn't represent the real world. The real world doesn't have magical healing that turns the unconscious PC back into a fully capable threat in just a few seconds. If anything is 'immersion-breaking' it's the NPC ignoring the fact that the opponents keep just standing back up to attack it again.

As GMs, we rarely do it because players often consider it a GM vs Player attack (even when it's not, and is clearly the most tactical option.)

Now, obviously, there are times when it doesn't make tactical sense. Such as when there no obvious healers in the party.

But if I am taking MAP, and are choosing between a 3rd attack that will likely miss an active opponent or hitting a downed one? Hit the downed one. Did I just drop a spellcaster who couldn't care less about being prone, if I use my last action to move away. Hit them again instead.

Now, this doesn't mean I'm advocating hitting the PCs when they are down. It's almost always the proper -tactical- decision, but it's rarely the most 'fun' decision, or the healthiest decision for the GM-Player relationship. Used sparingly and thematically, however, it can be a great tension building option for those 'final fight of the level' encounters.

Also, having a party focused on defense isn't a bad thing. It's just a thing. Some players and groups prefer to play that way, others care more about how much damage they do.

Sovereign Court

graystone wrote:
The King In Yellow wrote:
Intent is always questionable

Don't really care about intent, I'm talking about the words that were written in the rules. I've pointed out these issues to devs already in other threads and from the sound of it it's not working currently as intended but we'll see what it actually ends up looking like.

The King In Yellow wrote:

As far as the written rules, goes, the alchimist is -not- making a medicine check. Thus healer's tools actually provide him no benefit. This causes a small glitch in the rules.

Remember. Healer's tools say they are used for MEDICINE checks. The alc isn't making a medicine check. The alch is making a craft check.

I'm not arguing that using medicine does not requires the healer's kit. But the healer's kit is -only- used for medicine skill checks. Not for craft skill checks.

Irrelevant as you're using the medicine action [treat wounds] and that action has requirements. Medicine itself has NO requirement: for example you can Recall Knowledge without a kit so it's not the skill but the action that has it's own requirements no matter if you're using the action with craft or medicine.

Treat Wounds action:
"Requirements You have healer’s tools."
"If you’re an expert in Medicine, you can instead attempt a DC 20 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 10; if you’re a master of Medicine, you can instead attempt a DC 30 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 30; and if you’re legendary, you can instead attempt a DC 40 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 50."

Nothing alters the action's requirements for tools or DC increase.

Except somethings -does- alter the action's requirement. The fact that, as written, healer's tool -cannot- be used for craft skill checks.

This means, as I said before, there is a glitch. (Which the devs are aware of.)

This also means that -any- interpretation you or I make about how it is supposed to work is just a guess at the intent of the rules. NOT just "the words that are written in the rules."

Now, if, because of the glitches, you feel the mechanic simply doesn't work at all, and is meaningless, that's fine, in your games. Nothing is wrong with waiting to see what the devs decide to do about it.

However, Intent MUST be considered. You have stated that a healer's kit requires two hands. Period. This means that when attempting a first aid check (according to you) one cannot roll the patient over, straighten a finger, hold a wound closed to stitch it, or ANY of the common actions one does when applying aid.

I'm under the belief that their intent is to allow that. Even though that is not, according to you, what the rules allow.

The rules, while rules, almost always require a guess about the intent behind them. A strict following of every iota of the rules simply does not work.

Sovereign Court

Isthisnametaken? wrote:

Someone wrote a rogue handbook that I wanted to pass along the link to. It’s a bit rough, but it’s the first attempt I have seen that tackles rogue.

https://rpgbot.net/p2/characters/classes/rogue/

Reading the first sentence of the Intro:

"The rogue is the unchallenged master of skills"

Until APG comes out. Then the Investigator not only challenges, but completely surpasses. Woot, for power creep already. (Barring changes to the APG playtest characters, of course.)

/sigh

Sovereign Court

RexAliquid wrote:
... despite the name social encounters are run in exploration.

To be clear, page 494 'Social Encounters' is specifically addressed as Encounter mode.

Sovereign Court

Intent is always questionable, by my thoughts is the intent is to allow the chirugeon to use his alchemy knowledge, skills, and tools (whipping up poultices, etc, to make those checks using craft.

As far as the written rules, goes, the alchimist is -not- making a medicine check. Thus healer's tools actually provide him no benefit. This causes a small glitch in the rules.

Remember. Healer's tools say they are used for MEDICINE checks. The alc isn't making a medicine check. The alch is making a craft check.

I'm not arguing that using medicine does not requires the healer's kit. But the healer's kit is -only- used for medicine skill checks. Not for craft skill checks.

Sovereign Court

graystone wrote:
The King In Yellow wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Garretmander wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Founder of Wolfburg wrote:

I am specifically asking about using Crafting for an Expert level health check (DC 20, you heal an additional 10 health points) assuming I am a Chirurgeon and I have expert level medicine (more specifically, that the chirurgeon ability only counts towards untrained and trained checks.

Why wouldn't you just use Medicine?
Probably a higher bonus in crafting because alchemist.
In the example given though, Medicine seems to have the higher level of training (Expert in Medicine vs Trained in Crafting). For the final modifiers to tie, you'd have to have an Intelligence score 4 points higher than your Wisdom score. You'd need it at least 6 points higher to break the tie. And that's only if the training differs by one step. If it's a wider gap, Crafting might never catch up.
Correct, but it's not uncommon to see (at least to me, so far) an alchemist with a WIS of 10 or 12, and an INT of 18.
It evens out with tools: you can't ever gain a tool bonus using craft as the rolls require using healers tools and those require 2 hands. So if you get Healer's Tools (Expanded) and you have a 12 wis you're only 2 behind craft. Then as you level up, that 12 can raise up quicker than the 18 so the gap just lessens even if you keep up both skills.

I'm not so sure you are correct on this... regardless of having healer's tools, an Artisan's Craft - 'Alchemy' set of tools would also provide a bonus.

Also, your specialty crafting - Alchemy bonus could very well apply, as well.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Honestly, it sounds from what you have said like the Warpriest is doing fine because there are 3 healers in the party. As if he is spending most of his healing on himself and letting everyone else act as the party healer.

Just because he is a cleric doesn't mean he ever intended on player the party healer, though.

If he stands in the front lines, and uses his spells and heals to keep himself there, that's a perfectly valid way of being a front liner.

Now, if he told the party 'I'll cover party heals' - and then didn't (which I'm not saying is what happened) ... then you can complain.

But warpriests do just fine as a frontliner, by doing it their way.

Sovereign Court

GM OfAnything wrote:
Elorebaen wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

What did the Barbarian expect to get from charging like this? Maybe catching people unaware?

Deception check for Initiative then.

Or did he expect them to be shocked by his dominating behavior? Intimidate check for Initiative it is then.

My default roll for Initiative is Perception. If a character wants to use a skill check instead, they have to declare it and act appropriately.

That’s basically how I would approach the Barbarian’s initiative. I agree with the folks in the thread that keep it simple - simple initiative roll.

Depending how surprised or unready the other people are, I would maybe offer a +2 to the barbarian’s roll, but either way, it is an initiative roll.

Yeah, when transitioning to encounter mode, roll initiative.

Again, though... you should most likely already be in encounter mode (social encounter, using initiative) [note - it's part of the rules] if you are doing what seems to be tense negotiations.

Neither initiative nor encounter mode mean combat. It just means timing is tracked.

Sovereign Court

Temperans wrote:

His point is that vendors do have a large effect on balance. Enjoyment of it is a tangent related to some characters being out right unfun if there arent enough vendors and/or downtime to support them, mostly do to lack of player agency.

@Fumarole, not all casters make scrolls, that's a stereotype (mostly for Wizards).

Again, though, as to balance... Vendors have little to do with that. It's about the GM dropping/rewarding enough of the appropriate loot to make sure things are balanced. (Which is a far different goal than letting players get whatever they can afford.)

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:

Page 498 states to roll initiative "when a creature on one side decides to take action against the other." So the barbarian player declaring hostile intent is by RAW when you roll initiative. That the barbarian regretted after the fact doesn't change anything.

Now it does lead to some grey area if someone was trying to prove who the aggressor was (such as maybe a legal proceeding after?) but that isn't really a downside of the rules. We see many such cases in real life, especially with things like law enforcement, where shooting first can be justified in the expectation of dangerous escalation from the other party.

You are absolutely correct in your quote... however, you are incorrect in your assumption of initiative meaning that combat has broken out.

Again, initiative doesn't mean combat. And action can mean skill action, such as Society. (Which is actually listed as an example of an action that might be taken under initiative during social encounters.)

The fact is, if you, as GM (or you, as player) are having the character you are controlling act based on OOC information, then you are (generally) cheating. Yes, GMs can cheat.

*note - I say generally because between magic, legendary skills, unique monsters, etc, sometimes the GM is forced to alter the rules to make things works. This isn't what I am referring to here.

As a side note, to the above...

A lot of people feel that the GM has final say in everything, but that's almost never been the case in any of the long term groups I have gamed with. A game may be a 6 players and a GM, but that also means that it's 7 -people- who come together to have fun together. In almost every campaign I have played in, or ran, many of which were hundreds of sessions, the players total contribution and work put into the game and overall story is considerably more than the GMs. By this I mean between backstories, stuff written about what happens during downtime, etc.

For us, it's a 'GM makes the immediate call' to keep the game rolling, but then the entire group talk about it later, with everyone's input mattering. And yes, if it doesn't violate the 'core principles' of the campaign, the decision can go against the GM. Which is fine. Because it doesn't matter. They are just niche little rules decisions. What matters is that everyone has fun.

Sovereign Court

I'm generally a fan of new players come in at party level, but if you change characters (either because of death or just wanting to change) your new character comes in one level below, and will catch up over the course of a few sessions. It makes death an actual penalty.

(Note, this only applies once the group gets into at least the 5-7 level range, and I generally give new players a grace period to alter their chars as well.)

Sovereign Court

Malk_Content wrote:
The King In Yellow wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
The King In Yellow wrote:

The simpler solution is just for one party to ask, "Can we roll for initiative?"

Remembering that initiative does -NOT- mean combat is taking place. Just that timing is important.

Then people take their turns, doing whatever they would be doing, properly, with no foreknowledge on either side of what will happen when.

And remember that people are not 'delaying' generally... they are talking, or actually 'passing' their turns.

Even guards aren't going to be 'readied' in the game sense of readying actions. They will be alert, etc... but that's all.

Which then gets us back to the meta game of we wait until the most advantageous players initiative is up and have him attack, so everyone who rolled higher actually loses their turn. Now the GM can do this too (but that would probably be considered a d*ck move) so we've not really gained anything apart from devaluing the entire point of the initiative roll.
That is a problem with players metagaming, not a problem with how it works out. If your players metagame that much, work with them to stop it.
I have, by using the rules as written.

You commented "The barbarian can untense and try to de-escalate but combat has begun."

Which means, you are -not- using the rules as written. Combat was not begun by the barbarian. In the above examples of the barbarian, when the king's guards beat him in initiative and attack, THEY, not him, are the aggressors. By RAW, the party has done absolutely nothing wrong until they actually get to act.

Is doing it your way wrong? Right or wrong isn't really the issue here. But it's not using the rules as written. The rules have flaws and gaps. Which is why forums like this exist, where people discuss suggestions of what to do in those gaps.

Sovereign Court

Saedar wrote:
The King In Yellow wrote:
Saedar wrote:
GM Stargin wrote:
Really it's solid. Even the alchemist might not be underpowered, just a general utility/support character with some combat capability rather than the good at everything character that the 1e alchemist was. Though that might be a controversial opinion.

This kind of breaks down, though, considering that (imaginary number) 80% of the rules are directly combat-related. That signals to the players that contribution in combat is the largest part of the game. Being less able to contribute in that realm is a serious detriment.

It would be similarly weird for the barbarian to exist in a game that was 80% social encounter rules.

This.. isn't quite true.

Even if 80% of the rules are for combat, it doesn't actually follow that combat is the largest part of the game. It's just the part that the designers felt required the most rules. Non-combat times are more free-form, often. It doesn't make them less important. What makes the various rulesets more or less important is simply your style of play. (Both on a micro and macro scale.)

The only part of a game you can honestly evaluate are its mechanics. Everything else is something you and yours bring to the table. If you aren't engaging the mechanics, you aren't engaging the game itself. You are doing something tangential and related.

None of that is to say that other stuff isn't important to the experience of a game or the source of significant enjoyment. Just that it isn't actually the system you are engaging.

Except those rules -are- in the system that you are engaging. They tend to require fewer rules to adjudicate, but they are there and part of the system. Combat isn't everything in pathfinder, it simply has more mechanics to it, at the moment.

Sovereign Court

Ravingdork wrote:
Garretmander wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Founder of Wolfburg wrote:

I am specifically asking about using Crafting for an Expert level health check (DC 20, you heal an additional 10 health points) assuming I am a Chirurgeon and I have expert level medicine (more specifically, that the chirurgeon ability only counts towards untrained and trained checks.

Why wouldn't you just use Medicine?
Probably a higher bonus in crafting because alchemist.
In the example given though, Medicine seems to have the higher level of training (Expert in Medicine vs Trained in Crafting). For the final modifiers to tie, you'd have to have an Intelligence score 4 points higher than your Wisdom score. You'd need it at least 6 points higher to break the tie. And that's only if the training differs by one step. If it's a wider gap, Crafting might never catch up.

Correct, but it's not uncommon to see (at least to me, so far) an alchemist with a WIS of 10 or 12, and an INT of 18.

Sovereign Court

Malk_Content wrote:
The King In Yellow wrote:

The simpler solution is just for one party to ask, "Can we roll for initiative?"

Remembering that initiative does -NOT- mean combat is taking place. Just that timing is important.

Then people take their turns, doing whatever they would be doing, properly, with no foreknowledge on either side of what will happen when.

And remember that people are not 'delaying' generally... they are talking, or actually 'passing' their turns.

Even guards aren't going to be 'readied' in the game sense of readying actions. They will be alert, etc... but that's all.

Which then gets us back to the meta game of we wait until the most advantageous players initiative is up and have him attack, so everyone who rolled higher actually loses their turn. Now the GM can do this too (but that would probably be considered a d*ck move) so we've not really gained anything apart from devaluing the entire point of the initiative roll.

That is a problem with players metagaming, not a problem with how it works out. If your players metagame that much, work with them to stop it.

Sovereign Court

The simpler solution is just for one party to ask, "Can we roll for initiative?"

Remembering that initiative does -NOT- mean combat is taking place. Just that timing is important.

Then people take their turns, doing whatever they would be doing, properly, with no foreknowledge on either side of what will happen when.

And remember that people are not 'delaying' generally... they are talking, or actually 'passing' their turns.

Even guards aren't going to be 'readied' in the game sense of readying actions. They will be alert, etc... but that's all.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Saedar wrote:
GM Stargin wrote:
Really it's solid. Even the alchemist might not be underpowered, just a general utility/support character with some combat capability rather than the good at everything character that the 1e alchemist was. Though that might be a controversial opinion.

This kind of breaks down, though, considering that (imaginary number) 80% of the rules are directly combat-related. That signals to the players that contribution in combat is the largest part of the game. Being less able to contribute in that realm is a serious detriment.

It would be similarly weird for the barbarian to exist in a game that was 80% social encounter rules.

This.. isn't quite true.

Even if 80% of the rules are for combat, it doesn't actually follow that combat is the largest part of the game. It's just the part that the designers felt required the most rules. Non-combat times are more free-form, often. It doesn't make them less important. What makes the various rulesets more or less important is simply your style of play. (Both on a micro and macro scale.)

Sovereign Court

What level was your group when you had the final fight?

Sovereign Court

I could very well be wrong in this, but doesn't Bluestacks have an android emulator that works on iOS? So you can Bluestacks pathbuilder2 on your iphone / ipad?

(I think that's what one of the players said they were doing last week, but not certain... I'm still almost a fully pen-and-paper player.)

Sovereign Court

As an aside, I have played PFS consistently in multiple areas around the US. In none of them do people generally consider CHA to be a secondary stat for Paladins. It's almost always CHA > STR > CON, with the occasional CHA > DEX > STR for the paladin archers.

In the 'main' two areas I have played PFS in, it's not uncommon to have one or two characters at the table who barely contribute to combat. Mind you, in most cases, they do not hinder combat, either, though.

In the non-PFS games I play, things like diplomacy are often handled by the appropriate character to the interaction. NOT the highest diplo character. If we are being introduced to some noble as a group, sure, we assign a 'face.' But if we are trying to talk an NPC wizard into helping us, it's going to be the party wizard doing the talking, because he is the person who -would- be doing the talking. The rest of the group will just do their best to toss out assists. And yes, we -will- all be talking, as appropriate. As always, groups vary, but generally, the groups I play with spend a lot less time in combat than they do in social / downtime modes. Mind you, the people I generally play with know what they are doing. And by that, I don't mean they make 'combat-optimized' characters. I mean when their turn comes up, they know what they are going to be doing, how it works, what they need to roll, and have paid attention to everything else that has happened, so they know their bonuses, etc. Heck, we get descriptive about what we are doing. It still just doesn't take all that long.

We also tend to make sure new players to the game understand their characters, as well. But then, we talk out of game -about- the game, and our characters, and tactics, and such. And nobody complains when someone makes a sub-optimal choice in combat. It's combat. It's supposed to be hectic. Someone blocks a charge lane? We'll make a joke later about having to get that dent in their helmet fixed so their vision isn't obscured. Someone misjudges the centering of a fireball and catches a friend? Oops. It happens.

I realize there are tables out there where people will get out templates and spend 3 minutes trying to find the perfect spot to drop a spell at... that they only have a couple seconds in game to actually decide on. And if people want to allow players 5 minutes to decide something their character has 5 seconds to decide, that's ok as well. But long combats aren't the norm. At least not with the groups I tend to play with (PFS or otherwise.) Not because people are optimized for combat (let us be honest here... no combat optimization is really needed to beat CR-appropriate encounters.) But because we try to make sure people know what they are doing. And then just do it.

All that being said, there are many different playstyles. The only important question is, "Did the group have fun."

Optimized means different things to different people. Are you optimized for combat? For skills? Or, more importantly, for having fun.

Oh, and @Goblin_Priest:

You make the comment about "Bards are not super fun to play. Very buff-centered, which is the most tedious style of character..."

You don't seem to realize that not everyone is of the same opinion. I know a considerable number of people who love playing bards. Who love being buffers. Who do not find it tedious in the least. Being able to 'shine' in combat doesn't require being the person who hit the hardest, or got the most crits. It just requires not presupposing (as you seem to be doing, though I admit I could be wrong) that 'shining' means being up front, dishing out damage.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
dirtypool wrote:
Gaulin wrote:

I mean in fairness basically that same quote comes out earlier in the movie between elastigirl and dash, driving home from school in the car.

That is all, carry on with discussion

Both iterations of that line in The Incredibles are quoting Ayn Rand, which is I'm sure what Artificial 20 was directly referencing as well.

... That quote is older than Ayn Rand. (At the very least, It's used in The Gondoliers, by Gilbert and Sullivan - before she was born.)

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:

In PF1, where any fight that challenges the PCs has a good chance of killing them due to -Con being too small a buffer, I routinely had death counts in the low double digits in an AP, though much much higher if you count it as a death even after someone uses a breath of life or two.

In PF2 with the same group, we nearly had our first death last session, and they haven't even really used that many hero points to stave off death. The difference comes in the ability to knock someone out at mid to high levels without a massive chance of killing them unless they fall into a tiny HP band.

I've seen the comment about the buffer being too small stated before, and never really understood it. Your -entire- hit point pool is your buffer. Not just the part below zero. Now, not everyone plays the same way, but we play on a grid for -tactical- purposes. If you are getting low in HPs, back off, withdraw, fight defensively... while you get some healing. A lot of people comment about healing not keeping up with damage, but that is only partially true. It doesn't keep up with damage if the players just try to zerg everything. If the table wants to play that way, it's perfectly fine. But the system has those defensive abilities, and spells, and feats for a reason.

As for healing, I've played with many a long term group since I started. And every time, someone at the table has wanted to play the healer. Including groups where people played the actual 'healer' class from 3.5, which has almost zero offense.

It's not a problem with the buffer. It's a choice made by some tables to play the game in a certain way, ignoring all those nifty defensive abilities that are also invented by the game designers, like yourself!

It's not wrong, no. But it's also not right. It's just a playstyle choice. (And, in my opinion, a consequence of the rise of MMOs.)

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd still like to see a return of the Paladin class. In the tradition of AD&D. As opposed to the... class that is called Paladin, but really has almost nothing to do with its historical game roots.

Sovereign Court

GM Oriklad wrote:

Does this act like ol 1-7s, where 16s cant play with the 12-13 teir, and bottom and top tiers dont mix?

There are quite a few questions about that on the Passing the Torch pt.1 page. At the very least, however, everyone can play in the 14-15 subtier, if you have a suitable mix.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.

If you are wanting an obvious superhero... go play a superhero RPG. (And yes, I have played many superhero RPGs.) Almost none of the players I have played with have any interest in seeing martials turned into superheros, and that is what a lot of you seem to be asking for, or think 'needs' to be done. Back in 1st / 2nd edition D&D, it was actually fairly well balanced. Yes, a high level wizard was more powerful than a high level martial, but they spent a -long- time working up to that power level. 3rd edition started a trend of seeing D&D as an exercise in powergaming for, in my opinion, to many people. This continued into pathfinder 1st edition, and people are trying to push it into 2nd edition as well. Even the playtest character creation rules push people towards not building a good, viable character... but building an optimal one.

Now, the game is all about having fun. And everyone has fun in different ways. But at least, in my (decently wide) experience of D&D / Pathfinder, people wanting martials powered up is an extremely small minority. We'd rather see spellcasters pulled back in power. So most of the people I've spoken to are happy with the reduction in spellcasting power.

As a side note, I play both martials, and casters. And hybrids. And multiclassed. I've also played (as in long term played) dozens of other games, as well.

You want that guy who can do superheroics? Play Champions. Or GURPS. or any of a dozen decent superhero games. Not D&D and derivatives.

Sovereign Court

All you have given us is a pile of stats, without meaning behind them. Almost ANY pile of stats from a 20 point buy are going to work, the question is what are you wanting the Paladin to do, and more importantly, what kind of person is he?

The comment about wis 7 because he never sense motives people, btw, is somewhat backwards. If you don’t sense motive people, then you don’t put ranks in the sense motive skill. The fact that said skill is adjusted by wis doesn’t mean you have a low wisdom because you don’t work on said skill.

Also, don’t forget... Wisdom is a measure of your willpower first and foremost. Regardless of any magical effects you have to shore up the dice, if you have a low wisdom, it means you are lacking in willpower. (And common sense, and yes, intuition as well.)

Think about it. Do you really want to be the one who always backs down in confrontations? Again, we are not talking getting magical enhancements to shore up weaknesses. But the basic nature of a human with wisdom 7 is the guy who doesn’t interfere when he sees wrongdoing. The one who, when he comes upon the mugging in the alley turns and walks away.

Mind you... there is nothing wrong with playing said character. Not a thing. But abilities scores are not just numbers on a sheet. They are the basic building blocks of who your character is, stripped of levels, magic, and items to hide your deficiencies behind.

Sovereign Court

Except, in the case of a pregen, it is acceptable. Someone may be trying a new class, etc. And that is fine. There is no expectation of them knowing the class.

GM credit chars, however, do not get a pass. GM credit or not, if you have not taken the time to understand the character’s basic mechanics, you should not be inflicting it on the table.

Sovereign Court

Personally, I wish 6 xp per level was the default, and then you could slow track on top of that.

(And do not even get me started on modules for quick leveling.)

I would like to think I am a nice person, in general. But when people show up to play 7+ and have no clue how their character actually works, because they have emerald spire’d it, it makes me want to beat them with a rule book.

Please note; I am not referring to optimizing, tactical play, or the like. I’m talking about the simple fundamentals of their character. Like reloading. Or opportune parry and riposte. Or power attack.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The biggest problem with allowing or disallowing any particular alignment is that it seems many people do not understand the alignment system in general, and even fewer seem to actually understand the differences between moral norms and social norms. And it gets even worse when people try to add real world religious beliefs into the mix, to justify their definitions one way or the other.

As a reminder to all those neutral characters out there, if you are casting good spells and performing good acts “on-screen” during scenarios... what evil acts are you doing the rest of the time, to stay neutral?

Sovereign Court

The way to fix a problem in games is not to power up the weaker side. It is to tone down the more powerful one. Otherwise the inevitable power creep just happens even sooner and ends up being worse.

Sovereign Court

Matthew Downie wrote:
Quote:
Paralyzed: A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act.

Nothing in "aware and breathes normally but cannot take any actions" adds anything to the standard paralyzed condition. "Cannot take any actions" and "unable to act" are the same thing. Why would they add a second effect of Hold Person that's identical to the first?

Because paralysis allows for purely mental actions, whereas hold person does not.

Hold person is... poorly worded. It is an enchantment (compulsion) spell that compels you to choose to do nothing. (And are thus, for game mechanics purposes treated as having the paralyzed condition.)

As opposed to a transmutation spell that locks all your muscles in place, preventing you from accomplishing the physical actions you are attempting to do. (And thus allows for purely mental actions, including many supernatural abilities, psychic spellcasting, etc...)

Sovereign Court

There is no need for clarification here. Slashing Grace does not get around the Blue Scarf’s piercing weapon restriction.

What people want is a change to the existing rules to increase the power of their characters. Admit that is what you are after, and ask for the rules change. Trying to claim it is not clear, etc... just adds to the noise.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would love for xp to be slowed down. Even something as simple as requiring 2+current level to get to next level. (So going from 1 to 2 still takes 3 xp, but going from 7 to 8 takes 9.) Perhaps even 3,3 then current level xp. (Which would be 3,3,3,4,5,6, etc...) Or whatever formula desired, but let us -play- the characters for a while. Not just churn through them.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It has been mentioned already, but really nothing compares to a brown fur transmuter arcanist.

Nothing.

(And since high level play has been mentioned...)

“Why yes, yes I did just drop an extended shapechange on the fighter.”

Sovereign Court

Mark Seifter wrote:

Actually, Cuup is correct from an even deeper dive into the class's history. The alpha medium, which never saw the light of day, had a stable of prepared spirits with one active (two at later levels) and many faces to switch between them on the fly whenever you wanted during the day, eventually as a swift action (same as the beta's trance action progression) based on whatever you were doing that round. I wanted it to be a jack-of-all-trades that switches spirits to handle various situations. When Jason requested the spirits be locked in on a daily basis, I upped the number of active spirits to go from 1 to 4 and adjusted a bit to handle. Many of the newer beta spirits wouldn't even work back with the alpha version at this point.

The spirit dancer brings back some of that flexibility, but it needed to have the rounds per day limitation to make up for the fact that each individual spirit legend in the modern medium is balanced as a singleton that doesn't swap.

Now.. we just need a magic item (or possibly feat) to get extra dance rounds... It is far to few as it stands.

Sovereign Court

Derklord wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Derklord wrote:
Unless the casters realize that they're fighting against a large number of weak enemies and start using damage over time spells. Seriously, I do not want to play a martial in a 10 round combat where I have to fight through hordes of enemies while the Summoner sets up a Dazing Wall of Fire, have his Eidolon pounce the boss, and relaxes on a deck chair the rest of the fight.
If the campaign is high enough level for the summoner to be casting a Wall of Fire, much less a Dazing Wall of Fire, it is high enough level to have opponents that routinely fly, dimension door, and/or teleport.

Summoner can cast Wall of Fire at 7th level, that's not high. A Lesser Rod of Dazing costs 14k, affordable (or craftable) soon after. The "dazing" should be in parantheses though, fixed that.

If the enemy mooks (!!!) are able to fly, dimension door, and/or teleport at single digit levels, martials will be even more outclassed.

Um... using a class with a spell access list that they have admitted they screwed up on as your example doesn’t really help your case.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Malik Gyan Daumantas wrote:
Kaouse wrote:

Generally combat lasts an average of 4 rounds, and there are generally 4 combats per day. Thus, a Barbarian only needs 16 rounds of rage in order to rage effectively every round.

Even with a CON of 10 and no enhancement/level boosts, the Barbarian gets to this number by level 7 at the latest. Beyond that point, you generally start having more rage rounds than you could ever really need.

Then maybe I'm doing something wrong, Cause in my time playing both this and 3.5 combats usually range from 5-10 rounds at the least.

No, it means your DM is doing something right.

For all that people argue otherwise, the game is not supposed to be rocket tag. Sure, people can play that way, and plenty have fun doing so, but it not how the game is designed.

Take a look at a wizard. Even completely unoptimized, at mid level (say 11) they are going to have 32 or so spells per day. Many duplicate party buffs will be pearl’d. They are not supposed to simply allowed to go nova every combat, and unless you are using the system as designed (you know, for non-optimized characters) they will go nova every fight.

Fun for some? Sure. Nothing wrong with it, if everyone is having fun. The problem comes when people constantly give advice with the belief that the system was intended to be played that way (it wasn’t) and try to enforce the thought in people that it is the correct way (it’s not.). It is A way. Not the ‘correct’ way.

Rage is something you use when it is needed. Not something you should expect to have every round of every fight every day.

1 to 50 of 106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>