Rivani

Threeshades's page

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


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,406 << 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.


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.


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.


A circular definition is a definition that is circular.


Nefreet wrote:
Serisan wrote:

Also 1cp:

Ultimate Equipment wrote:

STREET MEAT

Price 1 cp; Weight 1/2 lb.

Usually sold by vendors on a thin wooden stick, these small chunks of cooked meat often come from many different sorts of creatures—rats and pigeons are the most common.

But you're losing half a pound of skin, bones and gore! It's what pteranodons crave!

That's a fat rat.


dragonhunterq wrote:

Monsters have never followed the same rules as PC's. They have pretended to, but the reality is they simply haven't.

"Oh! this critter needs an extra feat, we can't give it 2 more HD without messing with the planned CR. I know, we'll just give it a bonus feat..."

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)


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.


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:
Threeshades wrote:
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.

That wouldn't really work when you have 4/9, 6/9 and 9/9 Spellcasting; and that further subdivided into Spontaneous (with Spells Known), Prepared (with Spellbooks) and Prepared (but without spellbooks) . Obviously they're not all worth the same as each other and trying to find the balance would be madness.

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:

Playing a classless system is very flexible but makes the characters feel very samey.

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.


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


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.


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)


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
- Sufficient strength could even enable a character to wield REALLY heavy weapons (and no, this doesn't mean Final Fantasy style buster swords, there are still many degrees of separation between that and a traditional greatsword)
- Dex to AC can be offset by providing better protection from heavy armor, which then requires strength to wear effectively
- Strength to hit with composite bows and thrown weapons
- Making combat maneuvers more viable by removing AoOs against them helps strength out quite a bit and makes it the more effective choice for a melee focussed character
- Dex has already been confirmed to no longer be the primary initiative stat


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.


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.


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:

And daggers as represented in Pathfinder don't address how that was the most common way to kill someone in full plate because cutting and piercing basically didn't work. You had to use blunt force trauma or find a gap in the armor.

This is a game, not a simulation.

Half-swording worked perfectly fine.


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.


i wonder, when you use an action to power attack, will that influence all of your attacks you can still make that turn?
So 1 action for power attack and 2 actions of 1 attack each, would both attacks get the extra damage?


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.


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:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Just a note, we will be talking a lot about ancestries soon, but I wanted to make one quick note. The way they are built allows for a wide variety of variation and differentiation between members of the same ancestry. We do not want to mandate anything aside from a few basic characteristics. That is half the reason we made this change, to allow your ancestry to speak to who you are as an individual.
Ohhh, I can't wait to make the Elfiest Elf that ever Elfed!

"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.


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.


Lady Funnyhat wrote:

I think there's a crucial point most people have been missing here.

Being trained, expert, master, legendary, etc, may not JUST give you minor bonuses and extra perks. What if it makes the DCs needed to accomplish a task lower, as well?

So while both MagicPants the level 20 wizard and Climbster the level 10 rogue has +17 to climbing, maybe the DC 15 check MagicPants has to make is a merely DC 5 check for Climbster. This is in line with what we've learned: that having certain levels of proficiency eliminates the need to roll for "basic" tasks at all.

We simply don't know enough to judge, at this point. If it turns out that what I mentioned above is the case (don't quote me on this -- but I do recall it mentioned that it's possible for a high proficiency character to need lower numbers to succeed, than a low proficiency character), then the numbers themselves are really not quite so relevant. They're very likely JUST there for parity with Saves, Attack Bonuses, and AC.

Sounds to me more like your skill has a DC for pthers trying to oppose something you did with your skill. Like your diguise skill has a DC that other people must meet with their Perception.

Adding both a bonus to the check and a penalty to the DC against which you are making it would just be unnecessary extra math that could be avoided by simply doubling the check bonus instead.


I definitely like the notion that skill use can now break the expectations of realism.

Not sure how the world of difference between proficiency ranks will be represented in the rules yet, since proficiency eventually factors far less into the modifier than level, so I guess the difference will be explicit differences in the skill rules. But that would seem to mean that there is all the more rule text to write for each skill.


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.


1of1 wrote:

So I guess they're going to ignore/retcon it, then. Eh, a bit boring, but it could be worse.

"Hey guys, why can't I drink more than one or two potions a day?"
"Because you're ugly, and nobody likes you. Now shut up, Timmy."
"But last year, I drank five in one sitting."
"By the Dawnflower, SHUT UP TIMMY!"
"Don't you want to know why I had fi-"
"NO! STOP TALKING!"
"Ok..."

And so nobody noticed.

Timmy can still chug as many potions as he wants.

Beyond a certain point most of them just won't do anything.

And if you are continuing a campaign from 1e into 2e and you REALLY need to adress this minor detail, that your character drank a few more potions and had effects from them that one time, than he did this time. You can just say he got lucky that time.


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.


I would implement a rule that a character can only spend a limited amount of actions using an item in around if it has been carried or used by another character. If a character spends any actions while holding the item and then drops it or hands it off to another character, the next character who receives picks up the item can only spend as many actions using it as the first hasn't spent with it.
So for example if character A makes an attack with the magic dagger and then drops it. character B can only spend 2 actions with the magic dagger. In that case B picks it up with one action and makes an attack with another. B can not use its third action using the dagger.

Basically this ties the item into the 3 action system and makes sure it doesn't travel back in time every time its passed on, since all characters are supposed to be acting at the same time within the game world.

It needs some cleaning up and perhaps a way to adress for haste, or any effect that might give a character additional actions, but that's about how i'd handle it.


Bloodrealm wrote:
No, the way skills and attacks work is that you always add your character level and ability mod to them. Then there are 5 levels of proficiency that give -1, +0, +1, +2, and +3. You select proficiency increases every few levels.

Are you sure? Can I have a source on that?


ChibiNyan wrote:

Dunno why people say Fighter is easy. They always had to pick the most feats form the biggest least.

Swashbuckler is the easiest, they get no variety.

Yeah, but once that's done they get a lot easier:

What do you want to do --> Move and power attack --> Please make sure you can't just 5-foot step and power attack
|
\/
Stand still and power attack
|
\/
Congratulations, you made the only viable choice.


I actually really like the notion of makign weapon enhancement +X weapon damage dice instead of a flat +X.

That makes different weapons actually matter, and gives a point to you rolling dice in the first place. And it also gives dual wielding a purpose outside of sneak attack.


Volkard Abendroth wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
RedDogMT wrote:
I don't have a problem with this myself. I dislike the cheap cure light wounds happy stick easy game mode.
then don't use wands of CLW. Easy as that. And people who like that sort of play still can enjoy game nevertheless.
Except to not do that is shooting yourself in the foot? It’s playing the game with a hand tied behind your back.
So, instead of placing limitations on yourself, you want to drag everyone else down to your chosen playstyle?

That's not what anyone said. It's about adressing the perceived issue, not just ripping it out.


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.


Kaladin_Stormblessed wrote:

It actually does change things, because books have word count restrictions and Paizo has had to cut down on stuff to meet them in the past.

Not word count restrictions but page limitations. The number of pages in a printed book must normally be a multiple of four and printing a book becomes more expensive the more pages you add, especially if these are full color pages.

You can always scale down an illustration to get some space back for example.

But anyway, yes the space in any given book is limited and its better to make efficient use of it.


Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Easy way to fix CLW wand spam is change them to X/day items rather than 50 charges and done.

I think i'd prefer that. I never liked the whole idea of wands being consumables in the first place.

1 to 50 of 3,406 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>