Feiya

The-Magic-Sword's page

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 1,678 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,678 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Aaron Shanks wrote:

Knights of Last Call will preview the Armor and Armament chapter of Treasure Vault.

The Secrets of Crafting video has been recorded by ReallyDicey. They are hoping to have it edited and released online by this Monday.

WE HAVE YESDACHI!!! I REPEAT, WE HAVE YESDACHI!!!!

(also, a lot of other sick looking stuff, the spark guns look great, the other weapons, and I'm enraptured by some of the new armors thematically... scroll robes are a big win for caster fantasy too, and magic item 'sets' that are meant to be used across multiple party members is perfect, there's so much here we spent a good portion of last night going over it with a fine tooth comb)


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm not sure if there's a correct legal answer to this question, I don't think it's ever been ruled on if sharing a pdf copy of a rulebook for a multiplayer game with someone you're inviting to play the game is fair use or not, in an industry where the default expectation is that it's played by like 6 people sharing a single physical rulebook.

The answer should probably be yes, and it's completely unenforceable regardless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

We also use Foundry VTT, in tandem with Pathbuilder, and reference everything on Nethys during session, though I also buy the books for the sake of collecting them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
SuperBidi wrote:
Unicore wrote:
That second quote was not me!

Sorry, it was the Magic Sword. But you were saying nearly the same thing.

Unicore wrote:
My point is that it is not a mechanical consideration for the vast majority of players to worry about the difference between an 8 and a 10 in charisma.

From a mechanical point of view, the old voluntary flaws rule was giving you a +2 to your third attribute at the cost of a -2 to your fifth and sixth attributes. Mechanically, it was pretty inconsequential, I've never seen the voluntary flaws rule advocated powergaming wise. So I think you're on the hyperbole when you imply that the gain is interesting mechanically.

Unicore wrote:
Especially when that will mean we see more players trying to act out these traits only because they want to get access to an archetype earlier, or get a slightly bigger boost somewhere else in the game.

From my experience, when a player uses the flaws rule only for mechanical reasons, they just don't act out these traits by considering that "8 is not much different than 10".

The people who act out these traits are those who want to play them. They may be bad players or whatever, still, I don't see why you would force them not to play a character with a flaw. That looks like a strong limitation on playable characters if you can only play flawless ones.

Unicore wrote:
Deciding your character is going to act anti-socially, or take risks that other players don’t feel comfortable having to cover for can very easily be disruptive behavior in a collaborative game.

That's a table issue completely unrelated to voluntary flaws. If a player is bothering the table with the way they play their character, whatever the reason, it has to be talked out. And I've known a lot of unflawed characters that were played in a very flawed way.

Unicore wrote:
Personally, I am fine with thoughtful flaws being played out in the games I play.
That's Stormwind Fallacy. Choosing a flaw for mechanical...

Both 8 and 10 are bad charisma in the practical sense of "I should not be making this check if I have a choice" so im still unclear on what roleplaying distinction you're getting from a 5% shift in a numerical abstraction of intangible personal magnetism.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
SuperBidi wrote:
Unicore wrote:
No it doesn't. You can still take an 8 or even 2 in any attribute that you want for roleplaying reasons.

The old flaws system has an actual use. Without it, Humans tend to have all the same builds, if you want an 18 in your main stat you roughly have the choice between 18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 10 and 18, 14, 14, 12, 10, 10. That's 2 stat arrays for an Ancestry. With the old flaws system, you also had 18, 16, 14, 12, 8, 8, and 18, 14, 14, 14, 8, 8 and 18, 16, 14, 10, 10, 8, that's 150% more stat arrays.

It actually has an impact on what you can play.

Unicore wrote:
If players suddenly stop taking any flaws in their characters because their is no mechanical benefit for doing so, that is better for the role playing experience of everyone, because taking a flaw to minimize it or make fun of it is very problematic.
Looks like the Stormwind fallacy. Yes, I do care of both the mechanical part and roleplay part of my characters. And I don't take flaws to minimize them or make fun of it. You may have missed this moment, but Nalah's encounter with the Ekujaes was an excellent roleplay opportunity for me to illustrate her low Charisma.

But like not to put too fine a point on it, her low charisma was an 8, but her low charisma is now a 10 sans flaw for flaw's sake, in a game system where middling charisma is like a 14 and high charisma is 18, I think the granularity that suggests having a 10 instead of an 8 is capable of disqualifying any kind of roleplay portrayal can't really be taken in good faith, at least on meaningful inspection.

If you played the character differently having a 10 instead of an 8, we have bigger fish to fry that has to do with arbitrary conceptions of what the numbers mean and the limits we're imposing on ourselves in a roleplaying context.

In other words, what value is derived by keeping the resolution of our roleplaying so high that a 10 and an 8 are apparently different, in fact, I'd question if the resolution is that high on anyone's roleplaying differentiation in the first place, it seems entirely hypothetical.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote:

You guys misunderstood what I am said. I was not saying its one or the other. I am saying that the there is effectively less diversity because if you do pick two free boosts you are now just using the same stats as everyone else.

Mechanically, from an optimization point of view, two free boosts is now the default stat generation and its the 3/1 ancestries that are breaking the mold.

Idk how I can explain my thinking better than that.

Specifically, I think its that as a trade its a great deal-- you lose some diversity generated from trying to cope with less than ideal stats and from the basic idea of these types of beings as more intrinsically different.

But you gain a lot from validating combinations of ancestry feats and classes, before I didnt have much reason to pick a halfling as a greatsword fighter, but now that the stats are more permissive I can, and thats 'new' and 'diverse' because that fighter with halfling luck is very different than that Orc fighter with Orc Ferocity, which in turn is very different from a greatsword fighter elf with nimble elf for the turbo speed sudden charge.

So in practice, there's a lot more distinct fighters running around now because the stats arent deterring explorations of ancestry feats and heritage that were previously poison pilled by the stat reqs-- in that regard abil scores are very binary while feats and heritage are more nuanced and negotiable as seperators.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Alchemic_Genius wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

stuff about system mastery and alchemist play

Well, in my group, I basically mostly shine when nobody has a solution, and we needed one on the spot.

What I can say though, without some spicier items in the alchemist list, most things I do as an alchemist, I could easily do better as a caster. I buy a lot of consumables for silver bullet style solutions as it is, casters still have the ability to have an potion in hand and use gloves of storing, retrieval prisms, etc. It costs more money, but emergency elixirs are cheap, as are retrieval prisms

That said, if there were cooler and more powerful items, I'd probably sing a different tune. I would actually love spell strength items that need two actions to activate

I appreciate the experienced input, here's hoping treasure vault has exactly that-- id love lubrication for certain direct alch play styles, and items that better suit a variety of different characters you might need to convince to take your stuff.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Also in practice, since you hand people stuff beforehand for them to use before a fight, a lot of alchs that aren't bombers still need to spend their actual time hitting things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Alchemic_Genius wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:

Are people STILL falling into the mind-trap of thinking the Alchemist is a Martial Class? They are SUPPORT and excel in ways that no other class can in flexibility of being able to apply on-demand buffs, debuffs, conditions, remove conditions, hazardous/difficult terrain, and also target basically EVERY type of weakness in the system while also having the second to best bonus to Recall Knowledge of any Class in the system all on demand SEVERAL times a day for free. You need only be smart with your daily prep of Reagents and also save a handful of them for spontaneous use. Sure, they have a hard time actually doing this at level 1 and level 2 but how is that any different than any other class with x/day resources beyond the fact that most of them get Cantrips as well... which, truth be told, is something they can ALSO do VERY easily by way of Ancestry benefits offered to 2/3rds of all printed Ancestry options or 100% of them if you consider Heritages part of that option bucket.

Measuring the Alch based on their to-hit for the primary damage effect of bombs alone is an immense mistake on par with measuring a Ranger based on their Armor Class.

As my handle might imply, I'm an alchemist main; it's my favorite fantasy role, and I have extensive experience playing one in pf 2e; and was very, very active in the playtesting of the class when the system was released.

What I can say is that if you know what you're doing, you'll be really helpful to your team. Quick alchemy has saved my group over and over when an on the spot solution was needed. That said, the power of my items is drastically lower than on level spells, and usually less broad in terms of what I can actually do; theres nothing an alchemical item can do that a spell cant do, and the spell probably does it better. This is probably on purpose, because unlike a spell, anyone can use an alchemical item, and the alchemist gets more reagents than a mage gets spells.

While I disagree that alchemists are weak; they...

This pretty much, and part of it is for me, the system mastery / under powered distinction is touchy, because other classes still benefit from it too so I'm unclear on where that perfectly played alchemist sits relative to the rest of the classes also played perfectly, and I've yet to see someone play an alchemist well enough that they actually convinced me they were providing as much value vs. the exp they add to the encounter as other classes.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:

Are people STILL falling into the mind-trap of thinking the Alchemist is a Martial Class? They are SUPPORT and excel in ways that no other class can in flexibility of being able to apply on-demand buffs, debuffs, conditions, remove conditions, hazardous/difficult terrain, and also target basically EVERY type of weakness in the system while also having the second to best bonus to Recall Knowledge of any Class in the system.

Measuring the Alch based on their to-hit for the primary damage effect of bombs alone is an immense mistake on par with measuring a Ranger based on their Armor Class.

We haven't really seen that bear out in the actual game, is the problem, other classes just do support better as well, and what they gain in versatility doesn't appear to be paying dividends.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Wizard Level 1 wrote:
The ONLY thing humans had going for them was that they had two free boosts. They were the exemplars of flexibility. Of course, they have great feats, but every ancestory has a good set of feats depending on what you want to do.

I think the real issue is that Natural Ambition and Multitalented are two of the strongest ancestry feats in the game (since they convert to class feats, which are normally the strongest kind of feat). It's not great that the mechanical benefit from being human is "you can turn your ancestry feats into non-ancestry feats" but it's also kind of traditional.

Like you already didn't have a non-concept reason other than feats/heritages to choose to be Human instead of Kitsune if one of your boosts was going into Cha.

General Training is also very much competitive for best heritage both by literally enabling certain builds at the lowest possible level due to proficiency and by letting you just take something generically useful like acumen or toughness or so forth, and Skilled is no slouch either-- the increases to expert should be valued at a premium.

Unconventional Weaponry is also in the running in terms of strong feats because it lets you potentially access and martial scale anything with the right class, and there are uncommon weapons that aren't attached to ancestry feats at all that it represents guaranteed access to without your GM having to endorse it specifically.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Xethik wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

So here's the big question:

Are Alchemists now in a good state or are we hoping there's still puzzle pieces to their overall viability (even just in terms of specific playstyles) to be revealed in Treasure Vault?

Like, if Treasure Vault was somehow cancelled and all existing copies were burned, is Alchemist 'fixed' enough to get on with?

I think alchemists can still be in a rough spot in that early game, where you'll really want to have something like an Int-based Electric Arc or you'll be underwhelmed with plinking things with a crossbow, before you have the reagents to make a ton of consumables and before perpetuals come online.

But I think that's an intended consequence to ensure that aren't just as-good martial with alchemical utility.

Yeah, I'm not sure because they're still at -3ish to hit (with some level curve oddities) sans Quicksilver, and I'm not sure their alchemy actually measures up to the missing damage-- like a Mutagenist really has to sell their martial party members (including themselves) on using Quicksilver or Warblood and both of those have really problematic drawbacks, I'm also still concerned about things like the handedness and action econ of trying to play healer as an alchemist in combat.

Part of me is hoping the overall plan is to pair off Alchemical perm tools from Treasure Vault with specific playstyles to lubricate some of it, or simply to have more coverage of similar effects for different drawbacks on some mutagens to make it more consistent that you can find something impactful your party is willing to drink to let you pull your weight.

Like in theory, the flamethrower or similar items could easily become a default direct way of using bombs in combat for certain characters that want a less subtle play style. A perm item for healer might let the alch spending actions to heal someone else, without the additive and quick part of healing bomb which makes it much rougher.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I don't know that I can agree, honestly, for reasons I went into above, but I also have to admit that this was a tangential point for me--I was more pointing out that this update was made not for balance, but for customizability, which it probably was, and that it objectively makes humans a bit weaker, which it probably does. How weak humans are now isn't a huge fixation of mine, since my interest in this update is a lot less in balance and a lot more in the loss of customizability with the removal of the Voluntary Flaw system.

I'm going to back out of the "are humans underpowered now" argument, because I think it's creating a really really big tangent and distracting from the stuff that I actually am a lot more interested in! I find the current argument interesting, but like, it's also the sort of argument that I think could turn into a big debate if we let it, and I don't think it's super responsible of me to derail a thread with an issue I'm not even that passionate about. :P

EDIT: i will say that i really really don't think the number of bonus languages that someone could hypothetically take remotely factors into the balance of these ancestries

Pick a lane, are we debating it or not?

This post has changed like four times to varying degrees of "I don't want to debate this but I also feel the need to win the debate at the same time."


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

So here's the big question:

Are Alchemists now in a good state or are we hoping there's still puzzle pieces to their overall viability (even just in terms of specific playstyles) to be revealed in Treasure Vault?

Like, if Treasure Vault was somehow cancelled and all existing copies were burned, is Alchemist 'fixed' enough to get on with?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Kobold Catgirl wrote:

"Underpowered" is kind of excessive, but it is technically the case that the human core chassis gets less than other ancestries' do. They don't get a sense, they don't get any improvement to movement, they don't have the option of getting three bonuses, and they don't have increased hit points. Their versatility was what balanced that out, and now that's no longer something unique to them.

Honestly, though, I think that them now being a bit more boring is worse than them now being a bit "underpowered". Like, I'm not counting the beans necessarily--I mean, I am, because I'm currently working on designing some ancestry so I have literally been counting the beans of the other ancestries and the math just doesn't add up for humans anymore--but removing the one thing that makes humans special does make them a worse ancestry overall than they were before.

It's immaterial to my point, since I was more pointing out that this update wasn't for balance's sake and the game designers are clearly okay making compromises and balance for the sake of customizability, but I do think we focus a bit too much on words like "underpowered" as if "boring" isn't kind of worse.

Actually as far as I can tell comparing them to the other core ancestries:

- Dwarves have more HP but are 5 feet slower, have darkvision, and get one language fewer.

- Elves have 2 less HP, have low light, and are faster, and get one fewer language.

- Goblins get darkvision, and have 2 less HP.

- Halflings have 2 less HP, one fewer language, but get keen eyes.

- Gnomes have the same HP, but get one fewer language, and have low light.

It seems like there's a point system for each of these traits internally such that humans are supposed to be flush with the others via their HP and language. Its a little underwhelming because most groups practically ignore language and 2 HP is only strong at like, really low level (where it will most likely stop you from going down from a given attack or dying of massive damage from certain crits.)

But honestly, if I have to guess, feats and heritages play at least a small role, in reality, presumably just with a low weight because of the possibility someone could insist on taking no specific feats or heritage whatsoever, but in practice, ancestry feats are not symmetrically powerful for all use cases, and humans have especially splashable ones.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Karmagator wrote:
Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I think it's worth noting that +2/+2 has historically been the one thing humans, well, have. Now that everyone has it, they're an extremely weak ancestry. Maybe that's a sacrifice we have to make, but it's pretty obvious that the game devs were willing to give up some balance in order to improve the overall options of players. And hey, I support that! But that's a big part of why I think the balance concerns brought up about the various Voluntary Flaw alternatives fall a little flat.

I do ask that we try to remember that we're all friends here and try to think about these arguments from the other person's point of view, rather than assuming we can read people's minds. There is really no good reason for being hyperconfrontational about this issue.

Absolutely agree on the issue of some people being too confrontational.

On the point that humans are now a weak ancestry... not so much. They are still one of the strongest with their feat selection alone - Natural Ambition, an almost free advanced weapon with Unconventional Weaponry, General Training, Clever Improviser and the list goes on.

Multitalented as well, for explicitly defying the 'special' line restriction on archetypes.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

It depends very heavily on the kind of information you give on a recall knowledge, my understanding is that the player can choose what they attempt to recall, and that the rules for creature identification only ever apply when they are attempting to identify a creature-- so when the player uses it they might say:

"Hey, I already know this is a young green dragon because I figured that out when we found evidence of its breath weapon earlier, so I want to recall its lowest save."

or

"We fought some of these in the last encounter and I found out they're Brimoraks and they're super weak to water, now I want to Recall what they're immune to"

Then you consult the Recall Knowledge degrees of success and give 'the' information they were attempting to recall based on the result of the check.

Note that the examples discuss using this procedure for the magical defenses of a golem, or its resistance to physical attacks, so this procedure CAN get statblock info, and logically, you'd need to know what the player is trying to recall to determine what stat they would use.

The reason people try and force every use of monster-directed recall to be creature identification, as far as I can tell, is cultural inertia and the lack of a clear procedure outline in the book, but as far as I know this is raw. Note that even though Monster Hunter mentions an extra effect for crit success on a creature, you don't have to use the recall knowledge it provides on identification.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I wonder how big a difference the use of the perm alchemical tools will make to the class, depending on how they were done, they could help with some of the other pain points.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
I think it's good to keep in mind that this isn't really an either/or situation. We can have some version of Voluntary Flaws with the new ability rules. Removing Voluntary Flaws was more a tangential adjustment than a critical step in the overhaul.

I think there is something to be said for it being much too much room to optimize in tandem with the new changes. The old voluntary flaw would mean every ancestry can get boosts to three completely controlled stats at the cost of two penalties, on top of their individual feat support, heritages, etc.

Tri Stat is very much the no-compromise point for a lot of the MAD builds in the game, its a big part of why humans were such a tempting consideration for EVERY character-- Dex/Con/[Caster] instead of Dex/[Caster]is the difference between having toughness and not, but stacks with toughness.

So like, one of the big beneficiaries of this change was the strength penalty ancestries like halfling and gnome, which can now just take strength/dex, dex/strength, or strength/con and lose less for their trouble, or Elves which now don't need to pay to catch up in constitution-- but for those other two, that can easily become strength/con/dex, again no compromise stat.

Now Dex/Con/[Caster], is actually something that's best accessed through Halfling and Gnome's original boosts, which I think is desirable, because it leaves an optimization niche for the initial ancestries.

If anything, I'd want them to errata the likes of Tengu, Kitsune, Orc to give them a tri boost / mono penalty option like all the core ancestries, to help provide coverage for tri stats for certain builds that really want them, and because this change clarifies that the differences can now only be cultural, there's less reason for them to not have penalties, and because this change kind of leaves them with fewer options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think its a good series of changes, I'm optimistic about seeing more Gnome and Halfling martials in my game and I don't think voluntary flaw was too horrific a loss, way more builds are opened by this than closed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Nicolas Paradise wrote:

While we will have to wait for the final rules, the Gardens of wonder seem like they might not be that useful. If the items only last the day and the garden is stationary than the items are effectively useless on any quest or adventure that takes place more than a few hours from the garden.

Think of Kingmaker where players more than most campaigns have a permanent base where they can set one if these up. However even crossing one hex can put you a day away, so if you don't use the consumables right away they are wasted. A 12th level caster with teleport can offset this a bit but that means that caster is always using a slot for tp.

Lots to think about here.

I'm actually already considering the possibility of changing the day rule to a "They last out a voyage" house rule for my west marches for this reason.

They'd certainly be useful in Abomination Vaults though, it might also be possible to move them around, so if you can reestablish a home base for the next 'adventure' that's another possibility.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Alchemic_Genius wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
I have done the hexcrawl full level sandbox thing in pf2e now, it works well so long as you're willing to let your players sense the levels of other creatures and use the chase rules from the GMG as ad hoc retreats.
One thing I do know is that people are also waaaay too apt to think monsters will attack on sight of the PCs, but like, realistically, sharks dont eat every fish they see, humans dont kill every smaller creature than them, etc; so bumping into a a big nasty doesn't have to be a fight

What on Golarion happens if the PCs fail the chase scene, The-Magic-Sword? Are they forced to fight a superior foe while winded.

** spoiler omitted **

Depends on the exact context, but at least one of them gets caught and most likely dies based on what the thing chasing them wants to do to begin with, with the others getting away as a result. Resurrection ain't that hard in this game, we have the many undead facing character options, its pretty reasonable.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I have done the hexcrawl full level sandbox thing in pf2e now, it works well so long as you're willing to let your players sense the levels of other creatures and use the chase rules from the GMG as ad hoc retreats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah, I think you're running into the fact that your brain works on humorous associations, I've had players do things like want to use the language and symbolism of flowers for all the opportunities to invent a weakness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Wooh!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

We performed a hard switch more or less the day PF2e released. Even if we're going to play multiple systems, it would be better to do something that provides a whole different vibe and setting--

Right now for us that's Lancer (Mechs, Space Fleets, Futuristic Modern Warfare stuff!) that we're just getting started up with the intent to run it beside Pathfinder.

We've also got people who want to try Cyberpunk RED

I'm looking forward to some COFD 2e some day (VTR, MTAW, WTF, HTV, etc your Goth Contemporary Fantasy Stuff) as I've been building up a hunky collection of books.

I'd get us to try OSE (literally cleaned up basic DND, with the lethality, troupe play, and old school dungeon crawling) before I did 5e again, even if we burned out on PF2e but wanted to stick to fantasy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
pauljathome wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

Boosted by the challenge of What can you do with Mythic than you cannot with just higher level, as well as the comparison to superheroes, I now wish for the ability to have the mythic powers for a certain amount of time, or certain circumstance. Like donning a metaphorical cloak of mythic abilities that you put down after a while.

Might call it a mythic aspect.

I would absolutely LOATHE that as a player.

GM : Here are the 2 books you need to buy and the herolab modules you need to buy in order to level up your character for the next few sessions. You'll have a few sessions of crazy gonzo play where you get to use all these new abilities but then you'll go back to normal. It will be great. Should only take you a couple of weeks or so to figure out how to level up.

Me : Uh, did I mention I'm going to be unavailable to play for a couple of months for <reasons>. By a wild coincidence, I should be back about when you go back to the normal rule system.

"Cool, George has been waiting for a spot to open up anyway" ; )


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I really like the idea of that, it has the potential to make players consider consumables more if they have a regular source of them, and I know people always loved the fantasy of setting something like that up, I think it's the real source of all those 'spell combination' style posts we used to see where players used to come up with dumb fantasies of extreme automation and stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Personally, I've reworked alignment for my own setting (partially due to how integrated it is to the mechanics in the first place) there's some world building push and pull still, but the general vibe is that since our gods and spirits are constructed from the energies produced by the soul during life before its cleansed and returned to the world in a new life, its more about darkness and light in the 'human' heart, with creatures like fiends and celestials representing concentrations of mortal peoples. I'm less focused on right and wrong actions, and more on the state of the heart-- someone with a dark outlook gets to use cool hellfire and such regardless of their fight for justice, while someone who is very tranquil and open or altruistic might get to use holy light, but be hurting people left and right. It makes a lot of sense with the themes at work in my setting, and most importantly, allows for a lot of cool anti-hero characters. That said 'only' spirits have alignment in my setting, which is everything that isn't mortal or animal, pretty much-- only certain mortals have alignment, mainly the handful of people who make up a god's Divine Household (clerics, champions) and they're actually just infused with their God's alignment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Honestly, the story itself to get rid of him would be much hyper than just keeping him around forever, but they should def take some opportunities before pulling the trigger, I think it would be a great bookend to the way PF2e started for it to end that way.

Then again, I also suspect pf2e has more staying power than pf1e did, partially because of the very different market space (specifically I suspect the increased flow of new players created by that other game will lead to ongoing 'waves' of players who eventually realize pathfinder is better for their tastes, and I think time will prove that this market will be much more tolerant of errata due to the increased emphasis on online tools, thereby making its bloat and the need to correct core issues less of a concern), so that isn't saying much in the grand scheme of things.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'd expect to see the Whipsering Tyrant go down someday, but as a massive narrative event across game lines and society play. There's 3 components I see to tell that story, where his demise is a multi-venue epic saga. There's an optional fourth component, depending on how Paizo wants to do this.

1. Finding Tar Baphon's Soul Cage and retrieving it from wherever Urgathoa put it.

2. Fighting the Armies of the Whispering Tyrant and pushing them back.

3. The final assault on the Tyrant himself, now vulnerable.

4. The product where we get the power to operate on this scale. (Optional, if it hasn't happened before this)

The way I see it, 2 is ideal of society play, featuring a bunch of scenarios where the societies team up with the Knights of Lastwall and various other factions in a coordinated strike on a multitude of different Whispering Tyrant assets.

But 1 and 3, I would actually pitch as being 'potentially different parties' by making one of the two an AP, and the other a Standalone Adventure module.

I could see the Soul Cage part as an Adventure Path where a group step-by-step solves the mystery of Tar Baphon's Soul Cage, it would take players from a reasonably high level to a higher level, potentially Mythic if that's the route the designers want to take with it's final location and if that makes sense for the final design of Mythic.

But the actual assault on Tar Baphon's fortress and body? Mythic, Maximum level, Standalone Adventure that caps off the story line, a really good dungeon assault storyline where the players spear tip the final assault, players are encouraged to bring their favorite maxed out PC from another level 20 ending AP or whatever-- again if that makes sense for what Mythic actually ends up being.

4 would have to be a rulebook line product, ideally one that frames itself as 'the one about Mythic' and gives you a bestiary of Mythic monsters unrelated to the storyline, and sources of mythic power. Maybe written from the perspective of a Knight of Lastwall whose made a study of different ways someone in the world might be able to pack enough of a punch to stand up the Whispering Tyrant directly. Most of the book would be a fully fleshed out system of 'whatever the hell mythic is' and statting up all the foes we expect to fight with it. Obviously, this doesn't apply if Mythic ends up being the focus of a preceding product.

It could be the same party that tracked down the soul cage who puts the sword to Tar Baphon, or that could simply be the event that catalyzes other big damn heroes to come together and end it.

That my friends, is the kind of story I'd want to tell with mythic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
pauljathome wrote:

Let me take a step back, if I might. Its a serious question, I think the answer will help me to understand what you're looking for. And maybe make you define the problem more precisely

I'm unusual (certainly NOT unique, but unusual) in that I've played a whole crapton of different systems over the years. When I'm designing a home campaign I first define what I want the campaign to be and THEN choose the game engine to run it in.

You decide that you want to run a really, really mythic campaign. Pick just about any example from this thread. Jason and the Argonauts, the defeat of Rovagug, whatever.

Why would you decide to run that campaign using modified PF2 rules as opposed to tweaking your favourite rules light and/or high powered game system (Amber, Fudge, Fate, whatever)? In what way is your campaign improved by starting with a system that, at its core, is designed to give you a very structured and balanced game experience where the focus of the system is absolutely on combat (oh, it handles other things but combat is very, very definitely the focus of PF2) and a world where lots and lots of people can already do things that would often by considered mythic by many people (visiting the Gods, saving the world, slaying dragons are all things that high level adventurers can already do)

Most people do not play a bunch of different systems, and are not equally willing to play rules lite and rules dense frameworks-- I have a player who only recently found out the word 'crunchy' could be used pejoratively and feels rules lite systems are boring. Especially any given PF2e player is going to have plenty of system to engage with, without getting bored and wanting something completely different.

So its a moot point.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
keftiu wrote:

While people are making 4e comparisons, I want to praise one of my favorite parts of the system: while a starting character obviously had their Class and subclass, you picked up a Paragon Path at level 11, and an Epic Destiny at level 21, both of which had specific progression alongside what your Class continued to get as you leveled. Some of these were tied to certain Classes (want your Infernal Warlock to get more Hell-y?), but plenty others were tied to things like your Race, or even what god you served or country you hailed from.

That is a vibe for Mythic I could be really happy with, where it's open to a variety of stories: heroes of prophecy, demigods, once-in-a-generation tacticians, thieves who become legends of the streets...

I would die for archetypes you take at high level that just did that exactly, and let you go beyond 20, though I'm not sure if the parallel part is a great fit for this system.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Unicore wrote:
-snip-

I agree, its not just a matter of having or not having, its largely about figuring out what actually fits into the game the best and what it enables vs. disables.

I have the same fears regarding the PF1e mythic being bad because it bites off more than it can chew by doubling up on something that is already represented: your character's power level as a badass hero, it seems to center around saying "I'm a level 2 character with the power of a level 5-or-whatever, character" which ends up just being a weird anomaly in the way the game actually works, in a game where you already do mythical things like beat up Oni, or consort with Angels, or leap between shadows.

So if I seem down on the idea of low level mythic, its not because "you aren't allowed to have it" its because I think its struggling to have a meaningful identity, because the tools in the existing game are being underestimated. its also resource intensive because it then has to cover Low Level AND High Level.

Whereas there really is no existing solution for 'all those things stronger than Treerazor.' Other than giving up on the idea of them being stronger than Treerazor, or just keeping them permanently in special-quest-to-depower style story.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Ill be honest variant rules for low level mythic seems like a pain in the butt without much payoff, our characters can already shoot fire out of their fingers and beat the snot out of dragons and wield magical swords and step between shadows, the game already just works to depict mythic figures at the lower end, it just doesn't do the "deities and demigods" style high end.

Like, you can glitch through time, you can be a deities chosen one, you can be a living vessel for a powerful entity, you can have the blood of a dragon flowing through your veins, you can sacrifice others in a ritual to keep yourself endlessly young, you can slash through dimensions and summon a legion of dragons to fight for you, you can have legenday relics from the past, and a sword of flames, you can kill angels or the father of all Linnorms.

You can largely commit the feats of mythical hero, you just can't go toe to toe with demigods. Thats the only story thats really missing mechanically-- that isn't something along the lines of a 'strongman' archetype that has supernatural strength we just don't happen to have.

Heck, if the lore hadnt been written to set the demis apart, Tar Baphon and co would have already been stattable, just special variants on existing high level creatures. Im more than fine with a few extra levels to have more ranks of power represented, but its a consideration-- what really seperates a Demon Lord from "The Father of All Linnorm" in an objective sense?

I really think Mythic should kick in as a system of epic levels. That would interfere less with the already excellent low level game, without any of the mathematical gore of 1e, level is already power level after all. The kind of things you can't do, are things that are a whole different level of impact on the world around you, the kind of power godlings throw around. Thats what sets the 'mythic tier' apart imnsho.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Thats part of why narratively, super high level works so well, its a lot easier to 'feel' mythical whilst going toe to toe with demigods whose abilities (and yours) have truly over the top hyperbolic flavor (and maybe break the rules in some fun ways) than to do super abstract things, you can blend them to some extent though.

But whats cool is, you can personify or objectify abstract things-- you can have a chamber where atlas holds up the world, and have the world represented by a ball he's holding up, and you're interacting with the symbols-- you have the POWER to hold up the world, but physically its being exerted indirectly through some divine process, while you stand there holding up that ball.

If no one was holding up the world, there would be a commiserate effect on our world (maybe it would fall and break... and so there would be continent shattering earthquakes as the planet itself cracks.) To mix my divine metaphors, maybe you could let molten drops fall from a sword onto that ball, and create japan ala shinto's foundational text, and physically, the islands would burn into molten existence.

Your super high level characters can be operating on a representational level as a fantastical visualization of how their divine power is really being exerted. So the TTRPG action becomes representational.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

It has to do with the fact that right now, it feels like there's a lot of foes that sound like awesome plot hooks for the very long run, but the players objectively can't fight them (barring shenanigans) because of how strong they are.

Entities like Demon Lords aren't fight-able, personally that really bothers me, because being able to take someone like Baphomet or Ragathiel in a straight fight sounds like an amazing capstone for the right campaign. I mean these descriptions are just *chef's kiss*

Quote:
The General of Vengeance appears as a massive giant, standing more than 20 feet tall, clad in golden plate armor that shines with its own light and carrying a sword that burns with holy fire. Five flaming wings stretch from his back, three on his left and two on his right—the sixth was lost, torn out by his father in a fit of fury.

I have players that love the whole 'JRPG that ends with us killing god' type thing, and who love really high tier power scaling in general (like you see in late shonen anime) so for me, it helps accomplish that-- its nice that there's an overlevel to normal power where current top flight entities can be worfed by the players if I want to.

I'm very in favor of a solution where Mythic includes 'get to level 25' with stat-blocks up to like 29 reflecting demigod tier-- other creative stuff is great, but I do want that core of 'pass level 20 and fight the things stronger than Treerazor!' and I like the idea of Archetypes to tell different stories of abilities approaching the godlike, and avoid having it be by class.

Edit: OH and there's a lot of things in mythology where really epic heroes against gods and godlike entities, just get to do things that the story glosses over the how because they're just that good-- like how Heracles holds up the world for Atlas, and I think those kinds of abilities are 'mythic' because when you translate them into a setting with harder magic and such, they just have to be on this whole other level.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:

It's kind of surprising how invested some people are in the idea that Starlit Span Magi aren't good.

The-Magic-Sword wrote:
I doubt its an issue, any Magus Build that relies on True Strike

That's not really a thing. 'Rely' implies the build somehow magically falls apart if you don't have true strike, but that's not really the case. It's just a significant damage multiplier on any round you get to pull it off.

Quote:
Telekinetic Projectile was already a d8

TKP is a d6.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
The whole two step of "I am holding a staff and a bow in each hand, activate the staff, then drop the staff as a free action, cast a spell, then knock an arrow and fire" seems like it might be an issue. I know it's an etiquette thing to let players keep their gear, but I'd be concerned about leaving a 4000 gp staff lying on the ground especially if I'm forced to move off the square where I left it.
Then don't hold a staff.

I mean sure, but the action economy is pretty deterministic, if you can only True Strike Round One and follow it up with a spell strike, then you have to recharge spell strike, which usually costs an action, and then you need to conserve two actions to spellstrike again, if you dont spellstrike in a round to try and massage the economy you lose too much value and are better off just spell striking because True Strike isn't worth it.

To get more Truestrikes off, you would need to use Rapid Recharge, which only becomes an option at 10 and can only be used once per day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I doubt its an issue, any Magus Build that relies on True Strike immediately runs afoul of only having three actions in a turn and still needing to recharge Spellstrike, so it only functions as an opener, and Telekinetic Projectile was already a d8, so you're only gaining about 1 average per die before factoring in the amp, and if you're paying focus points to amp, you aren't getting the efficiency of the conflux recharge (the option to beat is Force Fang) either, which means you have to perform your recharge raw at the start of each turn, which also means you don't have leftover actions for True Strike.

Too much is loaded into the turns the tool can't unevenly acknowledge for the chart posted to be valid, sadly.

I wonder how well it performs against Double Slice Light Pick Assassin Fighters-- which is probably the single strongest build I've seen, provided the player is placed to Mark For Death before combat, which is sometimes a problem, but also frequently isn't.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think we really need to raise our threshold here for evidence that something is broken, right now I'm not really seeing anything that meaningfully outperforms other optimized builds and im not seeing any consequences to the meta, which is still preoccupied with the fighter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Grumpus wrote:
Is there a published adventure that takes place here? Or is one in the works?

Not that we know of, but probably, given that Absalom City of Lost Omens was originally meant to tie into AP and Adventure content around the isle of Kortos.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Honestly, I'd rather have strongly location based adventuring places (dungeons generally) than set piece encounters or proper adventures, with only suggested plot hooks, and strong lore to discover, but not so much actual plot sequence. The game really loves spaces that players can carve their own way through based off their skillsets, rather than canned storylines.

Plus, actual set piece encounters can easily be incorporated into those.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

More multi-action activities for Martials that represent cool specific weapon techniques.

A weapon draw archetype for my Iado fantasies, to incentivize weapon switch and draw slashing.

Ninja and/or Samurai archetypes or class paths would be cool, we have a viking archetype so culturally specific warrior tropes should be on the table. Ninjas with focus spell Ninjutsu could be cool, say as a rogue racket or its own archetype appropriate for rogues.

Dual Wielding Magus Hybrid Study.

More Witch Hexes.

Flying Mounts, especially for Dragon or Drake Riding as like, a fantasy. I wouldnt say no to a high level archetype that enables it, or feats for existing animal companion archetypes.

Mythic Archetypes you take at 20 for five extra levels of progression and demigod tier (Demon Lords, Empyreans, Oni Daimyo) monster statblocks to use them with.

More and higher level humanoid NPC statblocks for more people centric campaigns.

Book of the Dead but on Celestials, Book of the Dead but on Fey.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm looking forward to maybe using the Vanara to bring back a 4e Monk character of mine who was monkey hengyokai-- all of the other components i need are already present, especially ki blast and eventually ki form because he's very much an expy of kid goku from Dragonball. Maybe widen the reference a bit and go for wolf stance, so he can 'Wolf Fang Fist!'


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The value of tripping is the value of flat footed when you can't or can't easily reposition or an ally doesnt have enough speed to get around them, have ranged characters, dont have enough melee to comfortably flank, and so forth, its also the wasted action of standing, which as gravy can provoke OA which is the most consistently available source of reaction damage and represents another attack of full MAP the enemy may not have otherwise been hit by for every PC that has it and a reaction to spend ln it.

If the trip means theyre flat footed when they otherwise wouldnt have been, its a 10% hit increase and a 10% crit increase. As soon as one attack falls within those four die faces, you earn back the value of your turn, potentially more if they do more on a hit than you do. If two or more attacks do, you pull way ahead and if your first hit was a succesful trip, youll make up a portion of your second strike's MAP as well and still contribute to damage.

Since martials like to make at least two attacks a turn and might use reroll effects like hero points, its not crazy unlikely to pull ahead due to your boost. The key to it is that you have to have the expectation that other players can capitalize on it to get hits where they would have missed or get crits where they would have hit.

Occasionally creatures will have Deny Advantage as well, and tripping becomes the easiest way of flat footing them. Some creatures (like Dragons!) are disproportionately more dangerous if they have three actions rather than two due to activities and such- so tripping means a dragon cant move to your healer before unloading frenzy and potentially recharging their breath weapon, instead maybe they have to stay parked near the Champion and their raised shield AC to try and recharge it.

Feats that make trip better, like knockdown are def upgrades for characters that take them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I doubt they'd go two actions, it's class specific, and they know people want to throw blasts around like punches.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The 1e DND player base as well for that matter glances over at Old School Essentials


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

With a cantrip you're a little under a fighter's average for the turn, with a spell slot you're about 30% above it IIRC. So you basically average out over the course of however many rounds. That does mean Magus is straight up a little stronger in the hands of an aggressive player in a 1 or 2 fight adventuring day.

Under less ideal circumstances you feature spikes of burst damage, with a good chance to absolutely rend individual targets you're most likely to use your slot on, while keeping up pretty well the rest of the time. I dont want to give up the damage from strength and weapon dice because you can get some potentially encounter ending crits and they might make the difference.

I do tend to use a Naginata for the deadly dice and full strength though. I tend to reserve my focus points for Force Fang. So I use cantrips in normal encounters and slots for bosses, while applying pressure on my recharge action with FF the whole time.

Incidentally from an optimization perspective rather a baseline expectation perspective, consider a Cavalier Magus for impressive mount's free move, its a hell of a lubricant.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Incidentally, Starlit Span tends to give up damage for ease of use-- it loses both strength modifier damage (partially correvted by propulsive, but then you still need dex and strength for less benefit) and multiple points of average damage off its weapon dice being so much stronger, multiplied by level of striking. You can still leverage that action econ to do nice things with it, but imo, securing kills through those extra points of damage is def competitive.

I also see it as positive in terms of the 3-action econ, because it actually uses it to sell the fantasy of the magus as setting up these massive spellstrikes as a fighting style, you're not just a magicky fighter who plays like a fighter but magic. You're making a tradeoff to use this sick technique that heavily restricts your fighting style, but when it pays off the enemy gets hit much, much harder.

Thats a form of interaction to ne, because the alternative is for every class to use their 3 actions the same ways, the modularity could actually make it homgenous. So a blend of classes that have super freefrom action econ and classes who don't, or have to get it back in other ways is nice.

I feel this way both about Maguses and Reload.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Guntermench wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
Have I mentioned I want an Odachi? I do in fact, want an Odachi
Where do you think they'd go for an odachi that can't just be done with two handing a katana?

Not totally sure, making it advanced to justify a damage bump is def one option. But if they can figure out a mechanical niche for a Katana to be different from a Bastard Sword, and Wakizashi to be different from a Short Sword, and the Naginata different from the Glaive, then I have confidence they could do this too.

The bigger issue, really, is more that the intuitive thing to do is actually just to drop the d12 Greatsword to a d10 to give it deadly, literally in the same way you would a Glaive to make the Naginata, or the Short Sword to make the Wakizashi.

But there's a weird little thing where it would theoretically always be *better* than 2 handing a Katana because a Katana is already a d10, but has a deadly die between its one-handed and two-handed damage values (d6 OR d10, with a deadly d8.) So if you just made it d10 with a deadly d10 it would be better than a Katana in two hands straight up, whereas d8 makes it identical and the Katana is still better due to one-handed.

Whether it's simple depends on how Paizo values being able to wield the Katana in one hand, if it has a positive value then you can trade that value for something like the larger die, but the relationship between the Greatsword and the Bastard Sword almost implies it doesn't, unless they also value versatile damage way more than I do.

One other idea-- that would be apropo for the weapon, you could make it a lot more damaging than a Katana, but then compensate by giving it a trait that makes MAP worse on it, rather than better, literally a version of agile that makes it -6/-12 instead of -5/-10, in the same way agile makes a weapon -4/-8. You *can* still strike twice with it, but it would probably push players toward power attack and such, which isn't actually bad since it's considered worse than striking twice right now.

It would be appropriate both in terms of like, the fantasy of the weapon (big strikes) and in terms of like, they're much harder to whip around. Sweep is another option for something like that too-- just a katana that trades one-handed for Sweep or becomes advanced for Sweep could work, it would be reminiscent of the Long Sword from Monster Hunter which are certainly fantastical Odachi.

1 to 50 of 1,678 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>