Rivani

Threeshades's page

3,406 posts (6,033 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 41 aliases.


1 to 50 of 523 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Oh wow I completely forgot i posted here. I feel bad for not responding to this for several months.

thistledown wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
Iwende, my 5e Protector Aasimar Druid with Lillend lineage.
Very nice, especially the continuation of color from tail to outfit. I wonder if an aasimar trait of 'lillend azata tail' would work in organized play. Though I'm hardly in a position to be making a 3rd tailed character.

Thanks! I agonized over the colors for quite a while. Tails instead of legs are the best. I don't know why i love them so much but I do.

Rysky wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
Iwende, my 5e Protector Aasimar Druid with Lillend lineage.
Oh she is absolutely lovely!

Thank you! <3

Belabras wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
Iwende, my 5e Protector Aasimar Druid with Lillend lineage.
Great piece!

Thanks! :)

Tim Emrick wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
Iwende, my 5e Protector Aasimar Druid with Lillend lineage.

I made a point of showing this one to my daughter, who is completely infatuated with snakes (she wants to be a herpetologist), D&D (she very recently started DMing her first campaign for some H.S. friends), and hybrid monsters of all kinds (which she draws constantly).

Her response: "Oooooh, pretty!" And she liked that the character was a non-white aasimar.

I'm really glad she liked it. <3


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Iwende, my 5e Protector Aasimar Druid with Lillend lineage.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dante Doom wrote:
What you are looking for is bounded accuracy as 5ed, which is nice, but Pathfinder tells different stories. Like when you reach bigger levels you become a legend.

I dont think the numbers of attack rolls, checks and saves really makes that determination. Just because the attack roll of a level 20 fighter is only 10 higher than that of a level 1 fighter, as opposed to being 35 higher, that doesnt mean the level 20 fighter isn't a nearly unassailable legend of a warrior hero.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know who wrote and designed the character of Estra, but considering your position, they had to probably take it past you. She has Honaire, a phantom of a knight she summons to help her fight bad guys.

Is Honaire in any way an hommage to Solaire from Dark Souls?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Thank you. Not only have i been feeling much happier and more at peace with myself since then, but also healthier. I've stopped overeating and it looks like im in the process of losing weight.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey everyone,

Today I came out to my Significant Other as trans, which is the first time i actually verbalized my identity as female, which I only in the past few weeks fully realized about myself.

My SO themselves being gender nonbinary, was very happy for me and happily accepted calling me their girlfriend from now on (one of my greatest fear with coming out was that they wouldn't)

I wanted to share my journey to finally coming to terms with who I am now at the age of 31, and also how it relates to gaming as well (since this is after all the LGBT Gaming thread). And please forgive me, I find it a bit difficult finding the right words for everything, since I never really actively dealt with what it means to be transgender and the vocabulary attached to it.

I apologize in advance for my habit of constructing long, meandering sentences. And I'm thankful for anyone wiling o suffer through this.

A very long, detailed look at my past and all my mistakes:
In my early teens i noticed for the first time that I didn't always feel entirely comfortable within the male identity. I think at the time the most significant part of this was my desire to wear skirts, which at the time i didnt think too much of, because men's skirts were already a thing and really, wearing a skirt does not a woman make.

As time went on I would always wear one of the skirts i had bought or made myself along with feminizing makeup whenever I would go out to parties or clubs with friends. I also started wearing more traditionally female articles of clothing, really anything that woudn't reveal my all to male body hair. My circle of friends have always been a rainbow coalition of all sorts of identities and sexualities so I fit right in, but at the time i would still refuse to (or perhaps be afraid of) call myself female, I just told anyone who would ask im a guy who likes to look feminine, or a crossdresser.

In my gaming life i had a parallel development. I've been playing videogames since childhood and started TTRPGs (in the form of the German game the Dark Eye) in my early teens, in which at the time i always made male characters. Whereas in videogames I found myself gravitating towards choosing the female options, even in games where this choice made little to no difference, such as in Civilization II. I later started playing D&D a few years later with some of the abovementioned circle of friends, and that was when i made my last male player character before playing almost exclusively female characters. I have made two or three male characters but would always quickly find that i never really feel those characters the way i did any of my female characters, even those that were much less well developed. I didn't realize this for a long time and always thought my preference for female player characters was based in the fact that i found them more visually appealing, and while I do, i only later and in retrospect realized how much more i connect to these characters than male ones.

When I started my relationship with my SO just over 12 years ago now, it didn't take long for us to find that we both were a bit gender nonconforming, and in our conversations, which at the time were purely online, because we lived in different countries at the time, we started using opposite pronouns.

Later as i picked up more about transgender, genderqueer and nonbinary identities more through cultural osmosis than active research, I thought perhaps calling myself nonbinary would be more appropriate. At the time i told myself I didnt really mind about what anyone would call me and what pronouns they used. But really, it always felt right to me when people used "she", or when i used it for myself when chatting with my SO, it made me feel affirmed, even when it was more in jest. The same has always been true when someone called me anything that is linked intrinsically to the female gender. I ignored these feelings however, and never acted on them by asking people to use female pronouns, partly for fear of ridicule, partly because some part of me still denied it.

In between, I sometimes felt a conscious desire that I would rather be a girl and even told some friends, but I kept dismissing these feelings every time.

As I grew older, i gained some weight and started growing rather strong body hair, (I already was slightly overweight before) which only pulled me further away from the image of the girl, or the woman, I would want to be and started me down a path where i almost completely blocked out my feminine side for several years. I told myself its better to be a hairy guy than a hairy girl, and almost completely stopped dressing in feminine clothing and using makeup. I grew a beard (more of a goatee) to hide my fading jaw line and really would only make any effort to dress up for dates with my SO who by the time had moved in with me.

I think in someway i was also afraid to actively claim any sort of trans or genderqueer identity because I felt inadequate claiming a label of a grou of people who have had to suffer so much historically and even now, both with the society around them and their very own bodies, when my life was always quite comfortable and dare I say, privileged.

Another reason may have just been that it was easier to conform to the gendered expectations put on me in daily life.

My SO and I are both currently staying at their parent's home (it's been nearly two weeks now and we're going to stay until the end of the month) and I haven't taken anything with me with which to express my feminine side (for multiple reasons which I feel I shouldn't get into). and it's only since we came here that these thoughts have been building up, and i have been reflecting back on my life so far, that I realized that i'm neither male nor nonbinary, and I wasn't for all this time.

I'm a woman.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm a bit confused. I thought having higher levels of proficiency in a skill would allow you to pull off much more impressive actions with that skill.

After reading about the barbarian's sudden leap feat, i immediately had this idea of a barbarian who just pounces across the field at an opponent, but when I then read the leap action and long and high jump activities I was rather disappointed. You can basically jump the result of your Athletics check - 5 in feet long and up to 8 feet high. So your proficiency alone adds anywhere betwen 2 and 5 feet to your average jump compared to an untrained jumper.

Now if you're expert in Athletics, you can take the powerful leap skill feat. But even with the Powerful leap feat you add a grand total of 5 feet to your length and 2 feet to your height.

I'm a bit underwhelmed right now. Is there something I'm missing, or is it just that there is no legendary leaper feat yet because its just the playtest?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I were a 20th level wizard in the real world i'd probably cave in under the enormous amount of responsibility I should probably take upon myself if I want to continue to see myself as a decent person.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The end of the movie was refreshingly different for such a huge production. Congrats to them for playing it safe.

Now if only thanos's motivation had made a little more sense. There are much better ways to solve galactic overpopulation when you have an omnipotent power glove.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm just here to give my support for playable merfolk.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Are people really so uncreative as to see attack bonuses improving at the same rates for wizards and fighters as clear evidence than martials will go under?

Do you really think this means a wizard with his stick will be as effective at fighting as a fighter with her sword?

Don't you think that weapon proficiencies and plethora of feats and class features available to fighters, paladins, barbarians in the like is going to make any significant difference?

When I hear that legendary proficiency in Survival gives a character the ability to sruvive in a void, I can only imagine what a fighter with legendary proficiency with a weapon will be able to pull off.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
I don't think gandalf was really a wizard (as far as the class goes) he doesn't really cast that many spells. Hes more of a magus... really I would say hes closet to a druid visually.

Gandalf was a native outsider with various spell-like abilities and proficiency with a few martial weapons.

Wizards as a class basically don't exist in LotR


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorignak227 wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
Also yes I fully agree that climbing onto a bigger creature should be a thing. It is in my 5e system and doing so negates the penalties to hit smaller body parts if you can climb to them (moving across a creature's body parts is a matter of moving through difficult terrain and travelling a distance in feet equal to the creature's space, no matter from where you are)

to Threeshades: climb onto them system

Does your system just use a flat difficult terrain move?

I've typically required either an acrobatics or climb check to hang on so to speak.

And once they reach the head or other body part what are your specifics for the bonus they get?

I actually use the base rules for climbing onto a bigger creature that the Dungeon Masters Guide details, I just expanded them to allow a character to climb to a specific body part and to how your reach to other body parts work.

It requires a check to get onto the target, but no check to move around once you did that. The only other time you need to make checks is when the creature uses its action to try to throw you off.

As for specific effects, it depends on what you're attacking. Going for a leg or an arm for example does not impact your attack roll, but makes you automatically deal minimum damage (i.e. all dice are counted as a natural 1; an effect that has more impact in D&D5e than in PF1e) and force a saving throw against being wounded. A wound has an effect such as disadvantage on attacks with the limbs or a movement reduction, depending on what the limb is used for. So climbing onto the specific limb doesnt do much here.
Going for the head on the other hand imposes disadvantage on the attack, deals normal damage and forces a save against being stunned for a round. So once you are hanging on a dragon's head you can attempt this every time with no penalty.
Then theres also hands, eyes and other small parts that both cause disadvantage to the attack roll and deal minimized damage but have a more devastating effect such as blinding the target temporarily or making it unable to hold weapons. Climbing onto the arm of a large creature also means that you can attack that arm's hand without penalty. Or similarly when you're on the head you can go for the eyes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think individual bodyparts should have their own HP gauges. I certainly don't feel up to tracking 6 or more Health bars for every creature I throw at the party. But I do like the idea of providing rules for attacking individual body parts.

The called shot system from Ultimate Combat was a good start. It just needs a bit of tweaking (don't make it a full round commitment to a single attack) and it would greatly improve the game as a whole, especially for martial characters. It allows players to make more choices in combat. Instead of simply attacking each round, a player can choose to sacrifice accuracy, or perhaps damage potential in order to inflict statuses on the opponent.

I'm playtesting a similar system i wrote for 5e currently.

Also yes I fully agree that climbing onto a bigger creature should be a thing. It is in my 5e system and doing so negates the penalties to hit smaller body parts if you can climb to them (moving across a creature's body parts is a matter of moving through difficult terrain and travelling a distance in feet equal to the creature's space, no matter from where you are)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Madclaw wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
Madclaw wrote:
Saldiven wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Right. Because sex appeal and Charisma are synonymous in this game.

Except they're not.

Except they are, to a degree. From the CRB:

"Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."

Yeah, but look at Amiri, she only has a 10 Cha and is very attractive. So, really YMMV.
Sex Appeal and Charisma need not be synonymous, but they can be. It's just as valid to say that a Sorcerer's CHA 20 is from being someone who turns heads wherever they go, even if they're really introverted and shy, as it is to say a very attractive person is CHA 10 because their personality and ability to lead aren't up to par. Because Charisma is a combination of all those traits, not just one.
Precisely what I was trying to drive at. And you did so eloquently.
Hogwash, have you all seen those CHA 21 krakens? Hubba hubba!

There are plenty of creatures that are high charisma but look ugly to put it mildly.

Charisma is one of the mental attributes, looks are purely physical, so when it says appearance, i wouldn't take that to mean simply the way the character or creature looks, but rather how it carries itself and how it interacts with others when it does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spears are supposed to give the wielder a longer reach. That's why they were so successful. Neither the doru nor the shortspear adress that. They are just inferior choices compared to basically any one-handed martial melee weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insight wrote:
Threeshades wrote:

So PF2 seems to go with an approach where you choose from different class abilities each level rather than having a fixed progression, and because that is a marginal similarity on this VERY SUPERFICIAL level that makes it just like 4e?

I don't think that's an apt comparison until we see that literally all of these abilities are active use abilities that you have to choose to use in lieu of other abilities. Because that is how 4e class powers work. You choose one to use and use it very much like a spell, except that you can do some at will, some once per encounter and some once per day.

And I heavily doubt that. I think many of them will have static bonuses, additional reactions, alterations to the character's action economy, effects they can add to other actions like for example attacks (perhaps even multiple ones) and so on.

Add to this that in 4e magic was baked into these class powers while PF2 is retaining its basic casting system.

Building the characters may be similar, but i think playing them will be an entirely different glass of water.

Based on the fighter preview, and assuming that other classes get powers similar but distinct from Sudden Charge, Whirlwind Slice, Double Slice (Twin strike?), Debilitating Shot (which is the exact name of the 4e power that also slows on a hit), then I think that PF2 characters will play very similarly to 4e characters. The fighter even has a special punishment reaction as its level 1 class feature, just like the 4e fighter. Assuming the PF2 fighter gets the option to pick a power that allows him to defend allies (perhaps with his shield), then 4e fans can even build their PF2 fighter to fill the traditional 4e “Defender” role if that is something that they are excited about.

I disagree. These look just like feats the way they work today.

That special punishment is just an Attack of Opportunity. The only change is that fighters are the only class that gets this automatically while others have to buy it.

I still don't see any sign of encounter and daily abilities. And especially no sign of the exact same structure being adopted by all other classes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Not happy with power attack, more dice means less reliable numbers, I don't want to base my damage calcs solely on variables.

I have to say i feel the opposite way. In Pathfinder rolling those 2d6 or 1d12 wor your weapon damage was just a formality, really a farce, because it was a pittance on top of the +45 damage the character got from all other factors. Might as well just change weapon damage to be static, so that players couldsave themselves that near meaningless dieroll.

I'm happy that dice will mean something again in the new edition.

I'm not, it adds two layers of variation to lessen martial reliability whereas in PF1 there was more focus on making sure you hit. Now not only do you have to make sure you hit, but your damage is also swingy. I'm already having visions of snake eyes ruining the fighter player's night over and over again meaning he can't do his one job well at all.

More dice is not good game design, it just attracts people who like simplicity, it's the reason I stay away from 5e still.

In that case we need an optional rule to make all damage dice deal average damage automatically. Super reliable numbers and the unnecessary, purely ceremonial damage roll is out too.

Either way i like the idea that the amount of damage your weapon deals by itself is now actually a meaningful factor in the game, not just "Is it two-handed? Y/N" whether thats dice for people who prefer the randomness or a hard number for those who want more predictable output.


14 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Not happy with power attack, more dice means less reliable numbers, I don't want to base my damage calcs solely on variables.

I have to say i feel the opposite way. In Pathfinder rolling those 2d6 or 1d12 wor your weapon damage was just a formality, really a farce, because it was a pittance on top of the +45 damage the character got from all other factors. Might as well just change weapon damage to be static, so that players couldsave themselves that near meaningless dieroll.

I'm happy that dice will mean something again in the new edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MR. H wrote:
glass wrote:
Lucas Yew wrote:
As long as it does not have floating, treadmill DCs, which make the campaign world UNSTABLE and LACK VERISIMILITUDE, it will be fine. Both 4E and 5E (to a certain extent) suffer from this, making in-game stats have unstable values in interacting with the world.

I am not a 5e expert, but I am pretty sure it does not have that problem. I am something of 1 4e expert, and it definitely doesn't.

An oak tree is still an oak tree in 4e too.

_
glass.

4e has rules.

5e has difficulty DCs. It does not tell you what DC climbing a tree is. It is up to the DM to determine if the tree is of "medium" difficulty to climb.

5e gives no context to this difficulty. "Medium" for the person attempting? Medium for their level? Or just "Medium" in a game/world sense. Regardless, difficulty is not defined in physical in-universe or even in-game terms. It is purely a DM gut check. Your DM's feelings comprises the entirety of Skill DCs outside of opposed rolls.

So I don't understand comparing the 5e skill system to anything. It's function depends entirely on the DM.

The sample DCs given in 5e are not relative to character level. If you have the basic understanding that the untrained person has no proficiency bonus and an ability score around +1, and also that characters naturally progress in their abilities through the levels, via proficiency bonus and ability score increases, these are fairly easily understood as absolute values.

DC 5 "Very Easy" is something that most people succeed at most of the time.
DC 10 "Easy" is a task that untrained people can reliably accomplish as long as they have some aptitude (i.e. a good relevant ability score)
DC 15 "Medium" requires training and aptitude to complete reliably
DC 20 "Hard" is difficult to accomplish even for people who are trained in the task.
DC 25 "Very Hard" will require someone with extensive training to realistically achieve
DC 30 "Nearly Impossible" is a task that few have ever accomplished at all.

I agree that the way the rules are written does not make this clear enough and a short explanation like i have given just now would go a long way though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So PF2 seems to go with an approach where you choose from different class abilities each level rather than having a fixed progression, and because that is a marginal similarity on this VERY SUPERFICIAL level that makes it just like 4e?

I don't think that's an apt comparison until we see that literally all of these abilities are active use abilities that you have to choose to use in lieu of other abilities. Because that is how 4e class powers work. You choose one to use and use it very much like a spell, except that you can do some at will, some once per encounter and some once per day.

And I heavily doubt that. I think many of them will have static bonuses, additional reactions, alterations to the character's action economy, effects they can add to other actions like for example attacks (perhaps even multiple ones) and so on.

Add to this that in 4e magic was baked into these class powers while PF2 is retaining its basic casting system.

Building the characters may be similar, but i think playing them will be an entirely different glass of water.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
This. Exotic weapons should be damned special. A 1 handed weapon that dealt d10 damage instead of d8 isn't.

It certainly wasnt worth an entire feat, just to get that 1 extra average damage. I think these slightly higher damage weapons like bastard swords, dwarven waraxes and such should just have a strength requirement to be wielded effectively in one hand and not be exotic in the first place.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

"Indirect fire" with bows is largely a myth. Arrows that penetrate solely by the power of gravity have very low lethality. The strength of bows is shooting directly at the target, where they can have really a lot of power.

Anyway i think both bows and slings should get the wielder's strength bonus to damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
bookrat wrote:


...While everyone else is just sitting around waiting for you to finish up reading on the rules.
IME, they're listening to you read out the rule, and asking intelligent questions about what it might mean for what they are doing, and that kind of thing, and generally taking the opportunity to become more skilled players.

I'm glad its working for your group (or groups), whenever I get together to play with people, we want to tell a story together and have an adventure, no philosophize about the rules.

And when rules have to be looked up, the most ideal case is that the wording is clear-cut enough to remove any doubts or questions, or the room for interpretation leads to an argument about how to rule it. Either way no one really has had any personal growth from the experience, and all it did was stop us from doing what we met up to do.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:

So the fact that, say, Vikings have a cultural naval tradition is a sign of prejudice. Ok. Whatever.

In a way it is. For one because vikings aren't a culture, but a profession. They were Norse who sailed out to stage overseas raids and trades. Most other Norse people lived the same simple peasant life that people all over Europe did.

But the fact that different cultures have different traditions that could impact their mechanics in different ways remains. That's true. And as long as it doesn't impact base ability scores i think they can be represented without becoming racist.

HOWEVER: These are cultural items and this is exactly why they should be separate from race or ethnicity. A Mwangi child who grew up in cheliax would pick up Chelaxian cultural traditions. They may have a different experience growing up than any other Chelaxian, but they still pick up the culture in some way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think ability scores should be minorly expanded upon. When two creatures make contesting checks and roll the same result, the crature with an uneven score should automatically win the tie. Like they basically have a 0.5 higher modifier.

That at least gives players a small reason not to go for as many even numbered ability scores as possible.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
SheepishEidolon wrote:

Weak options have their points:

1) They make the good options shine more in comparison.

That's just a terrible non-reason to have weak options. Character options dont need to "shine" in comparison to others.

Quote:
2) As a player you can advance by knowing and avoiding the weak choices. Or making even something good of it. What's the point of "learning the game" if you could pick anything and be as successful as your fellow player who does their first session today, probably without caring much?

The point of learning the game is to understand the mechanics, and maybe to figure out how to synergize options to become greater than the sum of their parts if you're into that kind of build optimization.

It's not to figure out which are the garbage options that you should never use so you can finally build a halfway viable character.

Options are there

Quote:
3) They help to keep a NPC / monster mediocre for their CR. That's usually their purpose: Being inferior to the PCs and get beaten. If you only had strong options to design a NPC / monster, it would be tough to achieve that - but weak options help to manage the power level.

There are better ways of curbing enemy powerlevel than to muddy the wealth of options for players. Such as purposely setting CR guidelines at a lower level or denoting these options purposefully as NPC options.

Quote:
4) They are a good target for negative emotions. Hating a feat or class mechanics or whatever with passion is much better than hating a developer, GM, fellow player or even yourself with passion.

They are a target for negative emotions that they themselves created. That reminds me of a comic strip i once saw:

http://static.nichtlustig.de/comics/full/020622.jpg
It says
Woman: "Remind me again, why do we need a machine that keeps insulting us all the time?"
Man: "So we can say 'Stupid machine, keeps insulting us all the time!'"
Machine: "[scrubbed because of forum guidelines]"


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Plot twist: Damiel was a goblin all along, he just used alchemy to look like an elf.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Topics being explored in an AP and being discussed on this forum are two very different subjects.

I think its absolutely fine not wanting your public messageboard becoming the medium for a discussion about the implications and morality of certain acts and still have these acts being a topic within your fiction.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I don't think you need Paizo's permission to play a game without alignment.

But you do need to plead with every single GM for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:
Another alignment issue: the Planes. Would you just remove the planes that are about alignment, leaving only the elemental planes?

No there is no reason to.

Just untie mortals from that part of cosmology the same way they are not tied to the elemental planes, shadowfell, negative energy plane etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
eldrwyrm wrote:
Classes are part of the DNA of pathfinder, as are Armor Class, Hit Points, leveling, and Vancian Magic. Sure, there are other systems out there that don't, but taking any of those strands of DNA out of the game fundamentally changes the game. If you make that fundamental a change in the game, it ceases to be the game people thought it was, and people leave the game to go find something else. (See D&D 4.0)

Hence why I prefaced with acknowledging just how piping my pipe dream id.

Quote:
Speaking of D&D 4, your first point sounds an awful lot like the "per round, per encounter, per day" structure that D&D4 used. I don't think you're going to find many fans of that here.

Not at all. DD4's system does have the desired effect, but it's hardly what I had in mind. I certainly don't want all the classes homogenized like that.

Bardarok wrote:

I like the concept of build your own class but I think you would still need pre-built classes anyways for new players.

I think a robust class-building guide directed for GMs or for players to make explicitly with GM approval would be a good future book but there are too many potentially broken combinations to allow it to be the default.

Also Vancian magic doesn't lend itself well to making new classes.

It could be overwhelming for new players if too many options are presented off the bat. That's why games that approach character building this way tend to have "archetypes" or similar preconstructed packages available for people who'd prefer to just quickly jump in with a generic character rather than kneeling right into it from the get go.

Browman wrote:
I think you will need to build your own system if you basically want pathfinder with those 2 things.

I've been tempted.

Terquem wrote:

I want to play Pathfinder 2nd edition

But I want my character to have skills in driving a car, and fixing machines that target missiles

And I want to be able to drive a car that has armor, machine guns, and missile launchers

and I want the setting to be a dystopian future America where the open roads are filled with desperate people in dangerous cars

I mean I want to play Car Wars

My Car Wars doesn't exist as far as I know, so I vent out my unfulfilled dreams here.

W E Ray wrote:
Threeshades wrote:

2. Classes

This is the big one. Classes exist to balance different types of characters by moving them along a certain predefined path of traits as they level up. Yet at the same time the game has mechanics such as multiclassing and archetypes so that people can build....

.

.
.
.
Yeah, I looked seriously at True 20 for a while when it first came out -- pretty good system.

But I don't really want PF2 to be an new version of True 20.

I don't think i've seen that before, I'll have a look at it. Thanks.

Kerrilyn wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
I used to run very typical dungeon crawling campaigns, but later I shifted toward a less combat-heavy style and it quickly became apparent that some characters could exploit this to generate massive damage output.

Yes, they can, but at the same time, the DM can keep the pressure on and make them regret their short-sighted nova behavior.

Encounter!
*party novas like a dying star*
Bob T. Wizard: Okay, time to sleep!
Jane O'Fighter: What? It was sunrise like.. fifteen minutes ago!
Rita the Ranger: I cast all my spells.
Jane: You only have ONE SPELL.
Rita: that's still all of my spells..
Jane: UGH!
Kerri MacCleric: I used three cantrips, I could sleep too
All: BAD LAZY KERRI! Cantrips aren't expended!
Kerri: *Pout*
Rob von Rogue: It's true. I could keep going, but fine, 15-minute-workday it is.
Jane O'Fighter: Fine, we'll sleep.
DM McDmington: *rolls eyes* Whatever. You set up camp in the dungeon and go to sleep at 6:15 in the morning... when suddenly, the monsters in the very next room, who are also able to make perception checks due to this wonderful new invention called seeing and hearing, come raging in! Roll perception to determine who's surprised, and then.. initiative!
Kerri: My nap is ruined...
Bob: shut up! I'm down to only cantrips! Doomed, DOOMED I SAY!!
Rita: I'm out of spells!
Bob: you only prepare charm animal anyways, so you can have more pets.
Rita: Teehee!
Jane and Rob, who don't have cooldowns, carry most of the fighting. Kerri, who does, but didn't blow them all in the first combat, does too. Rita's cooldown is useless in most situations anyhow, still manages to fill baddies with arrows. Bob T. Wizard, who completely "pwned" the first encounter, now gets to sit at the sideline and miss constantly with acid orb.
Bob: Dog dangit!

Anyways, characters are more about what they can't do than what they can. Buy-your-own-character ends up being bleh in most other systems because balance.

There's actually a good chance that my...

Thanks for the entertaining read. As I said though, i moved away from the dungeon crawling for a large part of my campaign, and i personally don't like to spam fights in a session so i often construct my adventures so that there is one battle. I especially noticed the problem cropping up, when i went for a monster hunting playstyle, where the party would get a contract to either exterminate a monster that is causign problems or hunt a monster for its unique resources, which did result in little more than one climactic battle. And that's where the whole per day balance fell apart.

I don't want to be forced to pepper in tedious filler battles because the game breaks without them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spell resistance is fine, i'd just like to see it rolled into saving throws or something, to reduce the number of dice rolled before the spell is resolved.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Threeshades wrote:


Unfortunately not everyone plays their roleplaying games completely without visualizing the situation at hand.
I'm able to imagine stuff just fine without creating a mental image and ensuring that mental image is accurate down to the cm.

It has nothing to do with going down to the centimeter, but if you have literally 0 concept of what 20 feet means, that adult dragon may as well be the same size as your dog.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:

As a non-American, dealing in feet isn't hard.

5 feet = 1 arbitrary unit of measurement. So long as you just use feet as a counting measure and don't try to relate it to real life there is very little conversions involved. If that's not good enough imagine the height of a short person you know as 5 feet. Now imagine how many lengths of their body something is.

Unfortunately not everyone plays their roleplaying games completely without visualizing the situation at hand.

Sure for measuring on the tabletop it doesn't matter how much 5 feet are as long as you know it's 1 square, but when your DM is describing something you might want to have a good idea how much that would really be if it were in front of you right now.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
And meters and such are precisely as arbitrary as imperial measures.

Except it's not. The metric system uses the most abundant resource on the planet as its base measurement: Water. 1 liter of water is precisely 1 kg, and 1 dm³.

From there all units translate to the next unit by a factor of 10. 1 dm = 10 cm = 0.1 m

Meanwhile in the imperial system 1 foot = 12 inch = 0.3333... yards

1 km is 1,000 m is 100,000 cm
1 mile is 1,760 yards is 63,360 inches

Same goes for units of weight. Metric system may have an arbitrary starting point, but from there it's pure and very simple math. Imperial has an arbitrary starting point and from there its just more arbitrary numbers.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
"Short range might be in the same room"

I really don't like wishy washy range systems like that. Set measurements help identifying the scale of combat in such a way that no one feels disadvantaged.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Here we go from the playtest website:

Quote:
All Pathfinder Playtest products will be released as FREE downloads exclusively at paizo.com on August 2, 2018.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I believe they stated digital rules will be available for free. Im not sure if that extended to pdfs or if that was just a PRD-like site.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I hope PF2 just drops racial/ancestral stat penalties entirely. Ultimately, I don't think they serve any valid purpose to begin with. No point in saying "you are less strong, intelligent, charming, etc. just because of who your parents were."

I don't really agree. Elves, dwarves, orcs etc aren't other humans, so having abilities that are better or worse than the average human is not a problem. To give a more extreme example, a rhinoceros will always be stronger than a human, just because of "who its parents were".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
scary harpy wrote:
Threeshades wrote:

...

I think a big reason why goblins are becoming a player race is because they are an iconic part of Pathfinder's identity

They are?

Well, the Pathfinder wide-mouthed goblin is pictured on the front of the Bestiary. It's certainly up there.

And there's no adventure called "We Be Orcs". (Or maybe there is and I don't know about it?)

I'm just going off the fact that goblins are featured in various pathfinder related merch (plush dolls, t-shirt), the "messageboards are down"-error page, a christmas card paizo sent to customers a couple years ago and their own spin-off comic series, as well as a series of adventures published for Free RPG Day. They are essentially Pathfinder's mascot. I think they'd be Paizo's if that spot wasn't already occupied by the Golem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alignment is my number 1 item on the list of things i'd like to see expunged from Pathfinder and D&D.

Having it in the cosmology is one thing. Having to tether your character to it is another. Characters also don't have to choose an element, energy polarity, or shadow or fey.

Pharasma judges a character when they die, not while they are alive. That's the time when they forge their own fate, not have it frontloaded onto them.

Quantum Steve wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
A sense of self over your character is one of the most fundamental things you have control over - it shouldn't even be an option to take it away.
On the other hand, with the right players, that can feel like having a positive sense of jeopardy and narrative tension in ways mere character death does not generate.
You make a great case why this system should be optional.
All rules are optional.

But unless they are deliberately and explicitly denoted as such, they WILL be used by most gaming groups, and especially when someone plays with groups of strangers or in organized play, it can be anywhere from a headache to completely impossible to opt out of any rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd prefer that instead of blowing feats on it, it would be nice if every race had an automatic progression parallel to its class.

Edition after edition you hear this concept come up of race becoming such a minuscule part of the character that its becomes basically pointless at higher levels. But instead of really adressing the issue, everyone just adds racial feats, which take away from your other character building resources so your character can be... a bit more of their race than anyone else?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:

But, they are still required to use preform, correct?

No they aren't. They are allowed to use perform. That's what the class feature does.

A paladin doesn't have a class feature that allows them to be lawful good instead of something else. They just have a line that tells them they MUST be lawful good or nothing they have works.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BretI wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
If you can show me where it says you have to have ranks in perform in order to use any bard feature i may change my mind.
Versatile Performance is a bard class feature. In order to use it, you need ranks in a perform skill.

Nope. Doesn't require any ranks. Simply allows the bard to make a specific perform check in place of another skill. Perform can be used untrained.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Threeshades wrote:

And a fighter doesnt get his class goodies if he becomes a pacifist. Of course you can't use your abilities if you choose not to use them. Choosing to use the abilities that you took the class for is just what you do, It's not a requirement.

The bard does not pay a price. It gains the ability to turn its performance into special effects.

Saying "you must be lawful good or you don't get any of the following" is a prerequisite.

Funny how you are fine with bard having a prerequisite and not others.

If you can show me where it says you have to have ranks in perform in order to use any bard feature i may change my mind.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And a fighter doesnt get his class goodies if he becomes a pacifist. Of course you can't use your abilities if you choose not to use them. Choosing to use the abilities that you took the class for is just what you do, It's not a requirement.

The bard does not pay a price. It gains the ability to turn its performance into special effects.

Saying "you must be lawful good or you don't get any of the following" is a prerequisite.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

None of your examples are really prerequisites. Wizards don't have some requirement to have an academic background, a teacher or anything, even their spellbook is a class feature, not a requirement. Bards don't have a requirement to using perform, they gain the ability to perform and use it in interesting ways, druids gain the ability use nature based magic and clerics choose a deity or ideal to gain their power from. Paladins are required to go with lawful good alignment and beyond that it doesnt do anything except restrict the way the class can be interpreted fluffwise and take away your abilities should it ever change.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Prerequisites belong in prestige classes. There, I said it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Having monsters and PCs work different means I have to learn twice as much stuff to GM, and can feel like the monsters are "cheating." Class balance was OK, but there were some classes that were just better and it was kinda dull for the most part. I did not like how everything had pounce, that really killed it for me because every fight against a 4-armed monkey was "who wants to make a new character today?"

I had quite a different experience. Running precreated monsters in 5e is incredibly easy because everything you need to know about the monster is right there in its statblock except the specific description of its spells. The only thing that was only implied is its proficiency bonus which is usually easy to determine by subtracting the ability mod from any skill, save or attack bonus it has listed.

In pathfinder monster statblocks neglect to show you the various traits and features intrinsic to the monster's creature type, so you have to either learn those by heart, or look them up.

Making monsters is also very easy in 5e, because the rules are extremely simple: Proficiency bonus is based on total CR, Hit dice are based on size. Go nuts. You get to decide if, how many and which skill and save proficiencies needs and gets, what it is immune and resistant to and whether it should have to eat sleep and breathe.
In Pathfinder again you have to look up the creature types traits and features because they basically function like a class without features beyond first level but a lot of baggage ON that first level. You are tethered to the creature type and how its BAB, save bonuses and skill ranks per HD work the entire way through having to meticulously construct it, rather than just aiming for a rough number laying the groundworks and then just adding what you like.
fianlly the way CR is calculated is fairly easy and function to balance the creature well enough.

I've had play up to level 8 with almost every class now and none gave off the impression of being appreciably better on the whole than others. Meanwhile in PF we have had C/MD discussions all the way through the edition's lifespan.

As for multiattack and "everythign having pounce", this is an issue that I can only see coming up when someone overly relies on CR to balance an encounter, it's alsways good to look at how much damage a monster can realistically deal to one player within one round and make sure that that number is not higher than your average PC's HP max.

I frequently run very high stake monster encounters that tax the players' resources in my games and only once did i unexpectedly kill a PC, and that was not because of "pounce", it was actually a single crit with a really high damage roll, while the player in question was already moderately wounded.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

There is a lot i like about 5e, some things i'd like to stay there because i ALSO want a game to do them differently, but the ones i could happily see carried over are:

1 - Movement is separate from actions unless you want to go beyond your base speed.
2 - No 5-foot step but also no opportunity attacks from anything other than leaving someones reach.
3 - Free movement withoput AoOs within someone's reach.
4 - No distinction between single attacks and full attacks.

All of the above make the game much more dynamic on the battlefield you can move and position yourself without being punished either by an enemy or by your own inability to attack.

5 - Concentration curbing spellcasters without weakening spells and reducing the pre battle buff-routine.
6 - Damage cantrips being a useful default option when you dont want to expend resources. As opposed to being a joke.
7 - Finesse giving dax to both attack and damage and not requiring a feat tax. To someone coming from Pathfinder 1e this might sound terribly unbalanced, because of how much Dex does, but it actually works fine within the 5e system. Stength has its own rewards, one of them being actually a higher AC, because light armor + maximum dexterity doesn't reach as high as a full suit of plate without a dex bonus, better base weapon damage and giving its bonus to things like grapple and trip, which are viable without feats in the system.
8 - Relatively low bonuses at the high end of play and the lack of "trained only" skills make gameplay more interactive, because everyone can take part in an activity that requires skill checks.
9 - Casting in melee can be done freely, only trying to make a ranged spell attack roll while in melee will cause you to have disadvantage. But still a primary caster has good reasons to keep out of melee beyond being relatively squishy, as they will probably have a concentration spell to maintain.
10 - Lower damage output. I wasn't a fan of pathfinder's rocket tag. Fights last a couple of rounds, allowing for players to make tactical decisions and gauge their enemies before the battle is over.
11 - Legendary creatures. Having a set of rules that allows a single monster to compete against a party of adventurers rather than feeling like it just stands around waiting to get killed. Coupled with the previous point, you can actually make a single dragon an interesting boss encounter.
12 - Prepared casters don't prepare each spell slot individually and then forget how to cast the spell once theyve cast it, but instead choose a number of spells to prepare and can then basically use the ones they prepared the same way a spontaneous caster uses their entire spells-known list.
13 - Unified casting progression. No spell level delay on spontaneous casters and when you multiclass between different caster classes, you still have the same max slot level as a single class caster, but you have to fill them with lower level spells (which become stronger as you cast them at higher slot levels, rather than becoming stronger with your caster level)

I think that covers it. Most of the other differences in 5e I consider sidegrades and a few are downgrades in my book but those aren't what this thread is asking for.

1 to 50 of 523 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>