I played with four players, a wizard, a bard, a druid and a paladin. The druid had a cat animal companion. It will matter later that the bard did not have Soothe because she did not know that it existed. The druid could cast healing, but never would up doing so except on her cat. It is notable that as a dwarf who dumped Charisma, the Druid had 0 resonance points.
The four of them, at least as far as I could tell, did well against the ooze. It seemed to be about the right difficulty to be handled by them. As soon as they entered the second room with the goblins, things went south for them. It was an extremely difficult fight, during which both the wizard and cat were knocked down, but not killed. (The wizard said an hour later that he thought he'd been wrong and actually had died, but as it'd been a while by the time he noticed and he might have been mistaken, I continued the game with him alive.) The goblins were generally managing two attacks per round, and the second attack hit decently often. I will note, though, that the PCs were inhibited by the fact that the dancing light alerted the goblins while everyone was still in the hallway and the party was stuck in a choke point as a result.
They were low on resources and health by the time they were done. They went to continue, and the Druid used burning hands to deal with the centipedes with decent ease. However, they were so drained and damaged after those three encounters that they took the loot they'd gotten so far and left the dungeon. I decided that since they'd been in there such a short time, they could use the rest of the day as downtime. As a result, they were able to sell the gear.
Either there were no listed rules for how much gear sells for, or I wasn't able to find them, so I ruled that it sold at full price, on the basis that was the only value ever technically associated with the loot. This allowed them to restore themselves pretty well by purchasing spell-casting services. (I assumed a level 1 cleric with 18 wisdom was easy to come by.)
They went in the next day. They briefly encountered the fungus but ignored it when they realized there was no reason to deal with it. There were no failed saves before they made this decision. Only because I specifically prompted them to maybe actually use an exploration mode action did they seek and manage to find the hidden loot in the larger chamber.
They never checked the pool for the statue and therefore didn't notice it on their first trip through that room. They signaled the goblins with the armor trap. They caught the statue trap. None of them could disable it, but they avoided passing in front of it.
The next goblin fight was more brutal than the last, and half the party was knocked down. This was likewise hindered by the fact that they were essentially in a single file line in the hallway when initiative was triggered. The cat reached dying three, but no one actually died. The druid again made a big dent in the enemy with burning hands. I awarded her a hero point for being MVP.
This one fight left them so resource deprived that they went to leave again, but because I again prompted them to use an exploration mode action, they found the statue. The bard picked it up without thinking and triggered that encounter, which they actually dealt with without too much trouble.
For the second time, they left the dungeon and sold what they had gotten so far to buy healing and spell-casting services. I believe the paladin was knocked down but didn't die in the fight with the skeletons. From there, they used a grappling hook to scale the cliff and get to Drakus' room.
Once again, they were in a single file line in front of the door because they alerted Drakus and he won initiative. He therefore got into a one on one with the paladin. The cat tried to get through Drakus' space and was knocked down by the attack of opportunity when he failed. The wizard miraculously managed to get through his square, but was cut down not long after. The Paladin fell soon after. The druid and bard fled. They both jumped down the cliff, managing to take only a few points of damage. They left.
Drakus used the other door hoping to cut them off. He passed by the statue trap without problem due to his symbol of pharasma, but the rat activated it when he tried to exit the room. This killed him. Drakus caught up to the Druid and killed her, sucking her blood when she was down and he had no more enemies to deal with. The paladin then rose back up, only to be made quick work of.
Had there been a cleric, they would have been better off, but clericless parties shouldn't be invalid. The core problem was that they didn't have enough healing resources to deal with the damage the enemies were doing, especially since the enemies' second attack meant that they only rarely failed to land at least one successful hit in a round. This wasn't just a matter of them not entering all of their fights at full hp. They straight up couldn't handle more than 2 encounters per day.
I'll end on a positive note. I expected to miss attacks of opportunity and have positioning not matter with them gone. It totally mattered, and I don't wish to see them come back.
Edit: It turns out selling rules are in the equipment section, but not in the game mastering section. I don't know how I ever would have found them without ctrl+f. Why isn't this rule listed along with the "selling" downtime activity?
So the party was in a room which, due to a trap, was covered in burning oil. One of the characters decided to use create water to put themselves out. I checked if they could make a knowledge check, and when they couldn't, I let them do this, and then have the fire explode because that's what happens when you try to put an oil fire out with water. I had it do 4d6 damage with a reflex save for half, as that's what the fire was doing to them every round. This did not put this character (it was Kyra actually) into existential Danger. She had plenty of Channel energies left, and was taking a little enough damage each round with a reflex save that she could have healed herself properly with a concentration check.
This was a high-level sanctioned module. Technically, we were playing in campaign mode, which was necessary because it allowed us to use higher-level versions of the pre generated characters. Most of the players at the table were using their society characters' sheets.
As we were technically playing in campaign mode, I'm pretty sure my word was law, but the player in question got so mad that they stormed away from the table. I just wanted to get other people's opinion about that situation? Was I wrong to have something damage him even though it wasn't technically in the rules? Have this not been a campaign mode table, would I have been allowed to do that?
There's nothing in the rules about how create water affects fire in any circumstance. I suppose the most RAW thing to do would be to have it not do anything. At the time I didn't know the relevant rules off the top of my head, which is probably something I should have looked up before running this. Still, after looking at some footage of water being thrown onto oil fires on YouTube, I feel like I could have Justified treating this like a high-level Fireball or something. Having it just affect him and do his little damage is it did seems merciful compared to what would happen in real life.
1: Yes.2: No.
3: I've never touched either.
4: High level play is the most frustrating to me of Pathfinder's problems.
5: I think it's not only a good idea, but a decently high priority.
6: I'm not sure what this means. To give up on accessibility altogether would mean creating a game that cannot be played. That wouldn't be worth any benefit. Otherwise it's a trade off and there's no simple way to answer this question.
7: I'd probably not want to bother with multiple rules sets for the same game like that.
The "Flipping around" complaint is valid. Too many rules refer to other rules that are pages away. Maybe this happens more than I perceive in other books, but it doesn't seem that way to me.
Creating my first character took about an hour on account of this, when I sense it ought to have taken half that time. Admittedly, I did this from my phone, which makes the scrolling problem as bad as possible, but it would be nice to not have the problem at all.
There's no way to math out whether being good at skills is better than being better at combat.
The guy who upgraded his armor is less likely to be hit and receives a bonus on saving throws. Granted, the latter doesn't matter in a duel between two paladins, but that's an extremely specific situation. In normal play, the increase to saves has a 15% chance of turning one result into the next better one for you.
What other numbers are hard capped?
A store with the resources to acquire or manufacture a +4 sword probably also has the resources to make itself difficult for low level characters to rob.
None of the kingdoms ban high-power weapons, because the ones that did were eaten by the monsters no one could save them from because no one could do enough damage.
That's a very specific campaign concept, and the GM should adjust the difficulty of the enemies he puts the PCs up against if he's going to have them play with a lower amount of gold.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Do you think you can get the website not to melt?
Or wildly inconsistent.
No one has asserted that multi-classing as a whole is simultaneously overpowered and under-powered. Rather, the problem with multi-class builds is that they are wildly off-curve in most cases. Many combinations which sound like cool concepts don't work or are clearly worse than their pure-classed peers, whilst certain combinations, particularly those involving dips, are far ahead of curve because they get the right combinations of abilities, or simply more abilities than their single-classed peers.
Secret Wizard wrote:
I'd say that, fundamentally, a Cavalier is a swordy guy who gets to have a horse animal companion so that he doesn't have to mess with buying horses and having them die instantly to area of effect at higher levels.
Definitely, "get a horse animal companion" is an option that should exist for everyone who could reasonably be a knight. Perhaps one feat for a horse animal companion would be too much, so perhaps the first could grant a first level horse and the second cause it to advance.
While this is somewhat true, preventing this is, I think the reason one's ability to take dedications is limited. Supposing we agree that taking three feats (counting the dedication) in an archetype makes it no longer count as dipping, you can only have one dip on a character at any given time, and only four archetypes total if you take none of your own class feats.
The worst abusers of multi-classing were characters like the four way multiclass I mentioned in another post, who had several skill mods in the 25+ range and several more at 20+ at level eight.
Honestly, compared to that, the fighter dip is tame, as much as it disgusts me on an aesthetic level as someone who values role-playing.
I find it quite easy to say that, actually, as I consider open attempts to create an over-powered character to be illegitimate (unless that's the type of game everyone is out to play).
There will be one in a million cases where a single level of fighter fits your concept, and I imagine I'm about to hear about them from other posters, but virtually always, it will be the player compromising role-playing for a mechanical advantage. This is bad, and it is the fault of both the game and the player for incentivizing and going through with it respectively.
Repairing objects was only a cantrip in PF1. If the same is the case in PF2, that cantrip will simply become more popular.
I don't think you're supposed to rely on interposing your shield like this as a major tactic. It's supposed to be something you do to save yourself when you have no other choice.
You might say that they'll have taken the pirate archetype.Looney Toons exit music
I wasn't really partial to dips either to be honest.
To be clear, the specific sort of thing I have a problem with would be someone taking a feat because they thought it would be useful in the next dungeon and then retraining it away right afterward. I have this horrible image of my head of some of my players making themselves into perfectly honed killers of Undead because they're going to go into one dungeon where they will be prominent, only to become their old selves again soon they leave.
Perhaps I'll implement a house rule that any given feat slot can only have its contents retrained once without special permission.
As a game master, my inclination would be to crack down on players who I believe are taking any option with the explicit attempt to retrain it away, barring specific situations like archetypes where you need to hold off on taking it until you meet a prerequisite but then want to be a little bit into it.
Retraining should be away for players, especially newer players, to undo mistakes so that they aren't screwed over by mistakes that they make early on before they really know how the game works. It also means that experimenting is less punished because you can undo decisions that you make that turn out to be bad ones.
I don't see how "good at swords and magic" is less of a valid flavorspace than "good with swords" is by himself, which is what the fighter boils down to.
The Sideromancer wrote:
Fey occupy a completely different flavorspace, though.
Multiclass ability score prerequisites should be lowered, and level advancement should raise all ability scores
One idea that occurred to me back when SF came out is that it might be better (if more complicated) to spread each packet of ability boosts downward, so that, for instance, instead of getting the first 4 at five, you get one at 2, 3, 4, and 5. There could still be a rule that you couldn't use a boost on the same score twice until you reached level six.
I understand that that's a bit involved, but I wish it were true.
I get what some people are saying about opposed opposites and wanting to have as few spell lists as possible, but I really think that material spiritual would be fitting for the witch.
Now, that's not what I hope they do. I hope that they have Patron dictate spell list for her. I hope that they do that with Oracle Mysteries as well. I hope that they do that as often as possible.
Abyssal Sorcerer/Paladin is probably a really flavorful combination to be honest will make after release.
I feel like the Witch needs to be the "Prepared caster of any tradition" since "who is your patron" can vary from "an angel" (who would teach you divine magic" to "the Green Mother herself" (who would teach you primal magic) and so forth.
I definitely second this. I recall James Jacobs mentioning that he wished they'd built a real sense of a bargain into the witch, and I think that this would be a good idea. I'm not sure how you'd keep this distinct from the cleric, except that witch patrons should be mysterious and eccentric, and it shouldn't be clear what the reasoning is behind their demands and anathemas.
It's in this stream.
Edited to link to the correct moment. The way it's worded, it technically says you can't be "neutral" while worshiping him, but doesn't specify which axis. However, I suspect he means morally, because I've never seen someone refer to the ethical axis as "being neutral" without further specification.
I don't remember exactly, and it is possible that this person cheated. They got their INT absurdly high, then took that one trait that lets you use your INT for cha things. They were an investigator (among other things), and got their inspiration for free on most of their skills via talents. (My estimate of +30 includes the 3.5 from the inspiration die.) I know they were an Evangelist as well, and I think an alchemist. (I know they had bombs.) I'm sure they weren't a spell caster.
Knowing this person, them cheating is on the table.
My "first priorities" would be:
Oracle, with mysteries dictating spell lists like bloodlines.
I think those seven are the ones that are most unique and achievable currently. I believe they said they had no intention of "downgrading" any classes to archetypes, despite the fact that that would probably suit the Vigilante quite well.
Are you suggesting that power-gamers aren't filthy?
I mean what happens when you multiclass fighter/paladin in 1e? It's probably less beneficial than Paladin/Oracle or other pairs of classes that are dissimilar. The flip side of that is that fighter things probably synergize better with paladin things. Indeed, the most popular multi-classes and gestalts I can think of are classes with disparate abilities that happen to work together well, like the Palacle.
There's no telling, but in my mind, Lamashtu ought to allow clerics of many alignments. We're told in ISG that her church likes to recruit outcasts, people who are rejected as monstrous by society. That could be a justification for her allowing even good-aligned or Lawful-aligned clerics, though I don't expect that to be true. If I were designing it, her allowed alignments would be CE, CN, N, NE.
I'm surprised I've not seen an explosion on the forums about the fact that LN Asmodeans are confirmed to be no longer possible. I've honestly considered making a thread linking that interview just so I can sit back with some popcorn and watch the magic.
When I was GMing shattered star, we briefly had a character who, at level eight, had levels in four different classes and roughly a +30 on the majority of skill checks as a result.
The Sideromancer wrote:
The lack of multiclassing for the other classes is just a space saving measure. Unless the explosion on the forums that this is sure to cause dissuades them from doing this, all of them are going to be in the next one, and probably they're going to be releasing multi-class archetypes as they release classes.
I'm going to try to Port my Barbarian from pf1 into the new game. He was an armored Hulk and a devout worshipper of Gorum. In the new game, I'm going to have him multi-class into cleric, as well as take heavy armor proficiency to replicate his former self.
I consider that a bit of a stress test on the customizability of characters in this game. If I can make that build work, I have to conclude that this New Edition is highly customizable, in that I can deviate from my class in two major ways and have it work.
I'm also going to play a goblin Paladin who was taken as a baby from a goblin tribe and raised by my main Paladin and his Husband, who is a silver dragon. I'm also probably going to make pre generated characters for doomsday Dawn, because my situation for running it is going to be such that I'll need them. I came up with the idea of having a packet of 12 pregens who are all goblins raised in an orphanage for Monsters babies run by the Paladin and Silver Dragon.
No bueno on the wise halflings if it's true. That hint is pretty cryptic and I'm not sure that that's actually what he meant to imply, but if it's true it's kind of b*******. Halflings are supposed to be Plucky and charismatic. As much as I can understand wanting one of the small races not to be Charisma boosted, I can certainly think of two better candidates for that.
Captain Morgan wrote:
The best example I can think of of a time that this would interfere with things is Fort Inevitable. There, you're expected to pay a 30% tax on all of your adventuring income.
Meanwhile, the Paladin of Freedom would immediately have to Stage a rebellion against the Hell Knights there.
The main reason I went for the lawful good wizard was that the wizard in question was a ratfolk. I rarely play non good characters, so that was a given. He was lawful because rat-folk are generally supposed to be on account of coming from a large community-oriented warrens and because he's a studious nerdy wizard, and I figure he should be disciplined in his studies.
That's not to say there aren't chaotic researchers, but that's not the kind of researcher I imagine to this guy to be. I imagine him submitting to peer review and speaking cordially to his fellow scientists about various elements of Arcane Artistry of interest only to him and his colleagues.
A Lawful Paladin has serious issues in areas with restrictive laws.
Not the PF2 version. She can disregard a law any time it'd prevent her from saving an innocent. I'd argue that this probably includes cases where those laws would cripple her and keep her from engaging in Paladinry. She also never has to do something suicidal.
Frankly, I don't see situations where 'honor' comes up that much in games either.
Fair point, at least in PF2. PF1 has a concrete example in the form of poison use.
Uh...no. That requires you to go in and save the kid if possible (which the CG one still needs to do, by the way). It in no way forces you to let another innocent endanger their life trying to save them. The CG one generally does require you to allow them to go, or at least err in that direction.
I'm presuming that the person running into the building obviously had no chance and letting them go is letting them die. If that is true, letting them go in is letting them come to immediate harm and violates the code. If not, that is, if they may very well succeed and we all accept that then sure the Chaodin has to allow them and the LG paladin has a choice.
For example, a CG Paladin could not imprison a murderer if they sincerely believed they were reformed. They can imprison to prevent future harm, but not to punish past wrongdoings. The person would not be innocent and they could thus allow others to imprison or coerce them, but could not engage in such behavior personally.
That's actually the kind of thing I am looking for. Something most people wouldn't accept that'd get them on the wrong side of the wrong people, but that wouldn't require them to become an outlaw and derail the campaign instantly. If paired with mechanics that complimented this alignment (Smite Law instead of Evil probably, less emphasis on teamwork/helping allies, etc.) I could get behind this.
Do they though? So I see that this prevents you from playing nice with guards unless you're able to talk them down during the inciting incident, but I can't think of any other situations which aren't just recolors of this one.
It also needs an "unless it would be suicidal" clause to prevent Chaodins from charging headfirst into a guardsman's spear the instant they enter an evil-aligned nation.
Not necessarily. From a LG perspective, forcing people to do things 'for their own good' is potentially valid.
Again, that's too specific. A "force you to do it for your own good" situation is going to come up like once every ten campaigns. It's not a meaningful difference.
For example, physically preventing someone from running into a burning building to save their child violates this tenet, but is certainly not an Evil act most times.
This would count as allowing an innocent to come to harm through inaction.
Enchantment would come into conflict with #3 if the enchanter used it on an innocent, and #4 would mean they couldn't personally use it most of the time, but a party member using it on non-innocents would be fine.
I'll concede this point. It's probably at least no worse than the relationship between a LG paladin and a rogue.
To my eye, three is mostly entailed by two. I can't think of many situations where walking right past a situation where someone was forcing someone else to do something against their will wouldn't also mean allowing an innocent to come to immediate harm.
Likewise, most ways of breaking four also involve breaking one. The only thing I can think of that this prohibits that a LG paladin is allowed is the use of enchantment magic, and if it turns out that the party's enchanter cannot exist peacefully alongside the Chaodin, that's the bad kind of restrictive that pits different players' fun against each other.