S.L.Acker wrote:
...as opposed to ignoring all the player character creation rules to play an NPC class instead? I'm not sure you're really doing a lot more arbitrary adjustment by just not taking a couple feats and ability boosts. And as the Inheritor said, why are you so obsessed with the idea of commoners being completely incompetent. The commoner NPC class exists to make vulnerable NPCs in need of saving. Not to make the hero of the story. Rand killed his first trolloc only moments after getting his hand on a sword, yeah it was more luck than skill, but he managed it. In a game like pathfinder, 1 or 2e that story would have ended right there if he actually was a level 1 all 10s in ability scores NPC class commoner. S.L.Acker wrote:
PF2 literally has a "Signature Spell" feature for spontaneous casters that lets you upcast that spell at any spell level you need. And prepared casters just get to prepare the spell in a higher slot.
I feel like some of the complaints about the math not working here come from people expecting to have their unnmodified bonuses stack up one-to-one against an equal level monster's/NPC's corresponding DCs and vice versa. When I hear someone saying that you can run RNG simulations to prove this, this is the only conclusion I can draw. Your raw numbers are intentionally behind those of enemies. What you get instead is a plethora of options to improve your numbers and try to worsen those of enemies (buffs, flanking, debuffs). Or to specifically target weakpoints in the enemy's stats (by going after a weak saving throw instead of AC for example). NPC and creature stat blocks don't have nearly as vast an array of options to deal with you so they get the raw numbers advantage instead, from proficiency bonuses to hit points. The creature creation guidelines in the GMG actually state this in plain english.
breithauptclan wrote:
Oh yes, that is absolutely possible, it's just unfortunate you don't gain the mechanical benefits of the nagaji tail if you also choose aasimar.
Verzen wrote:
Then maybe that's what they're really there for. Why do casters have level 1 class feat selections when most don't even get a class feat at level 1 (barring maybe a class feature that grants them a specific one)? I'd think its because multiclass archetypes.
Hello everyone. It has been a long time since I've been active on these boards. I only really discovered PF2e's strengths due to recent events. As I am someone who likes homebrewing creatures and NPCs for public use (and does so professionally as well) I decided to build a little spreadsheet tool to help make the process a little easier. You can find the sheet at this link (copy it to your own drive if you want to use it): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1k2UYUK2zWNcLjABknKo1z4cjADUxGHsjb7M 68jpRaBU/edit?usp=sharing
A Quick user guide:
That is all. I hope people will find this useful. :3
Oh wow I completely forgot i posted here. I feel bad for not responding to this for several months.
thistledown wrote:
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:
Thank you! <3 Belabras wrote:
Thanks! :) Tim Emrick wrote:
I'm really glad she liked it. <3
Iwende, my 5e Protector Aasimar Druid with Lillend lineage.
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.
Hi, I've been starving to play 5th Edition D&D from anywhere else but the DM's seat for a while now, and Play by Post or text based RP is just not my speed. So Im looking for a group that meets online and plays preferably over voice chat. I decided to post here because even on some group finder online services I just couldn't find anything at all. So if you happen to be running an online table or are part of one and have maybe room for one more passionate roleplayer, I'd appreciate an invitation. As far as mediums go, I am fine with Discord, Google Hangouts, Skype, Teamspeak or really anything. If you happen to use one of these, I also own Tabletop Simulator and Fantasy Grounds, and am also happy to play on any free virtual tabletop.
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.
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?
Nefreet wrote:
That's a fat rat.
dragonhunterq wrote:
On the flipside there is "This monster still needs 3 feats? Just give it toughness, alertness and weapon focus." I feel the 3rd edition monster creation rules were unnecessarily limiting. For PCs it makes sense to have bonuses and abilities tied into level progression, so that all players build from the same basis and you don't end up with someone (willingly or unwillingly) much more powerful than the others. For NPCs and monsters, all this is entirely unnecessary, they just need to have the necessary statistics to be able to interact with all the rules outside of character creation. But these have no obligation to be tied together in ways that PC abilities do. That NPC over there is a blacksmith. She has 4 ranks in Craft (Blacksmithing), 2 in Diplomacy and 2 in Sense Motive. Her BAB +0 because she has no combat training and she has 10 hit points, because she's still fairly tough. Her ability scores are STR 12, DEX 10, CON 13, INT 10, WIS 11, CHA 11 and her AC is 10 because she has no armor on. Her NPC level (which replaces her number of hit dice for things that interact with that) is 1, based on on her average damage output/hit bonus/hitpoints/AC. I know im using rules elements that arent a part of PF2e, but this is just meant to show that it could be this easy to make a non-player character. This, in essence is how Savage Worlds and 5e handle NPCs and monsters and it makes custom creating them worlds easier (Savage worlds has no levels or CRs though, and in 5e npcs/monsters actually still have Hit Dice probably only because those are used for recovering HP during short rests, and PRoficiency is tied to their CR to maintain bounded accuracy)
Hey everyone, I'm looking for a any webcast format playing Shadowrun, preferrably 5th edition. Particularly one where both GM and players are experienced and take their game seriously enough. After playing for a while with my group i just and us always messing something up. Besically never being able to complete even a basic run without tripping some alarm or garnering some unwanted attention, I just wonder if the game is really supposed to be this hard, we just don't know how to play the game or maybe out GM just overdoes it on the security measures. so I'd be glad if someone could point me some good examples of play.
TheFinish wrote:
Why not? First of all these models of spellcasting progressions would be obsolete. Instead you can just not take a spellcasting level every character level. Secondly, if you really want to hold on to it, give different costs to each progression respectively.
Unicore wrote: A classless system could work in a perfectly modular system design, but the nature of Spell casting in the D20 subsystems make this pretty challenging for the kind of high-fantasy game that is Pathfinder. You could do classless based upon everything being feats and then provide the obvious class templates that people are looking for, but it is very hard to make feats balanced if one is: you get +2 to two skills, and another is: you gain access to an entire level of spells. The solution is not to make everything just feats with equal weight. For example you can give players a number of constructiom points and make a level of spellcasting more expensive than say power attack.
Gorignak227 wrote:
Of all the things said in defense of classes, this is the one thing I can say is objectively untrue. If the options are varied enough, a classless system can make for very distinctive character builds.
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
Crayon wrote: Called Shots have been around since 'Ultimate Combat', but in a game with as many strange and unique creature types as PF, hard rules for attacking specific parts of an enemy will more or less have to be handled by providing the GM with a set of guidelines - Not all tentacles, wings, etc are equal, after all.. It doesn't need to just be guidelines. You can put in a set of solid rules and then add on certain caveats. For example that a limb may functionally be both used as a leg and have a claws which are used to attack, so if that limb is affected by a called shot, it counts as both a wounded leg and a wounded arm.
Gorignak227 wrote:
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.
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)
Dex to damage can work fine if your system balances around it. De-emphasize dexterity and emphasize strength in other areas. - Dex weapons could to have a lower base damage
Tarik Blackhands wrote: That's the joke dude. Unless you think I was actually being serious by saying a giant squid (or Great Cthulhu or a Shoggoth) was physically attractive. I mean seriously, I'm not from Japan you know. I wasn't adressing you directly, i just wanted to add this to the conversation overall. Generally I think it wasn't a good idea from the devs to mention appearance under charisma at all.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
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.
In real life a katana is pretty much equivalent to a longsword (slightly different proportions and properties in cutting and thrusting not withstanding). The thing is that in Pathfinder a longsword is not a longsword. What pathfinder calls a bastard sword is a longsword in real life. The one-handed sword that is referred to as a longsword in the game is really just a sword, or arming sword. So katanas being in the exotic category makes sense as long as bastard swords are also in the exotic category. EDIT: I guess Darius already pointed all this out.
Claxon wrote:
Half-swording worked perfectly fine.
Insight wrote:
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.
master_marshmallow wrote:
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.
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.
Proficiency will not be a binary on/off thing in the new edition anymore (see paizo blog: Are You Proficient?) So you can't make it as simple as you propose. Simple weapons will still need an indication of how proficient someone is with them. Also there are several weapons that defy the damage die categorization, and in fact you mention one, the spiked chain. It's a two-handed weapon with reach. Finally i disagree with the flat damage bonus or penalty for size. I hate to bring up 5e again, but what they do, at least for larger weapons, i think is very good. Simply add the weapon's damage die on one extra time. So a Greataxe is 1d12, Large greataxe 2d12, huge 3d12, gargantuan 4d12 and Colossal 5d12. This is a massive increase in damage which makes sense since these weapons are also a LOT larger and its very easy to keep track of. It doesn't work as smoothly when scaling down of course
Lady Firebird wrote:
"Hey everyone, we made the game so that you can customize your character's ancestry so it is more of an individual rather than just that one archetype!" "Awesome! I'll take this newfound freedom and make the most archetypical elf ever!"Just in case the humor i saw in this was not accidental: I'm sorry if I explained your joke, Firebird.
MR. H wrote:
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.
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.
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.
|