Poor Eledia

Ven's page

188 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 188 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

egindar wrote:

Personally, as someone who also likes much simpler systems with much smaller systems, yeah, you're right, it would be a massive pain to keep track of all of a character's features on paper and have to erase and rewrite several dozen different numbers on it every time I leveled up. If someone absolutely can't use electronic tools while playing the game, then yeah, I'd be less likely to recommend it to them.

But I play on Foundry and the automation there makes it run pretty smoothly (although IME picking options when leveling up is easier if you do it on Pathbuilder first before moving over to the VTT's sheets). And it sounds like access to Pathbuilder isn't a barrier for you either. So it sounds like it's a question of whether it and other largely aesthetic issues override the draw of the action system and the tighter balance for you.

Nobody here can force you to play it, but at some point I think you need to just try it and see whether you prefer it, ideally using the tools people are suggesting that are aimed at making the experience smoother.

Yeah this is the core of it I think.

Just gotta jump in and see if I can get past that aesthetic issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:

I can share what convinced me: the setting is much more considered now thanks to the diversity of staff, without losing any of the old Pathfinder theme park fun. You couldn’t pay me to engage with the Darkest Africa “cannibals and headhunters everywhere” 1e approach to the Mwangi, while the 2e book on it is one of the finest setting supplements in the d20 sphere.

The old Dragon Empires books have aged like milk in places. I’m excited to see how a bunch of awesome Asian talent tackles Tian Xia for 2e soon.

Definitely, I had no desire to visit Mgwani before beyond, I'm pretty sure it's the last place the Tarrasque was seen? And there was a floating city there once? Is there an adventure path that explores those ruins that would be awesome.

But in 2e: that magic school AP looks really, really fun. I'm not even a Harry Potter fan.


breithauptclan wrote:

You keep changing what the complaint is.

The numbers are so high we need a calculator to play.
PF1 numbers are also really high.
Well, PF2 numbers are slightly higher.

The official character sheet doesn't look good and doesn't help to build a character.
There are 3rd party sheets that look better, and apps that help build characters.
Well, I shouldn't have to use 3rd party stuff.

There are so many options to choose from and the skill feat choices are not interesting.
PF1 has more options to sift through at most levels.
Well, there are some levels in PF1 where you don't have to make choices.

I'm agreeing with keftiu. I don't think you are actually wanting to be convinced.

I don't really see any moving of the goalpost in any of these examples, since the last lines in every section is the reasoning behind the first line in the section. Supporting arguments as it were.

But also, I've already agreed to give it a shot as a player to see if it helps so, don't know what else to say about you not thinking I want to be convinced.

I do appreciate you continuing to come back and discuss it with me even though it's clear we don't agree, I appreciate the discourse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CaptainRelyk wrote:

Here are my arguements for 2e over 1e

1: More freedom. There are less restrictions on things compared to 1e

Did you know you can play a lawful barbarian to a chaotic monk? While limiting alignment makes sense on champions it doesn’t make any sense at all for monks and barbarians. The alignment restrictions for monk and barbarians were unneeded, limited flavor and character, and overall just plain stupid. A barbarian chieftain who is an honorable warrior would be lawful good yet 1e doesn’t allow that. A young monk who is energetic and seeks to make themselves stronger and is free spirited would be chaotic… yet 1e doesn’t let you play a chaotic monk. 1e placing alignment restrictions on these classes alone is why I will never play 1e. Why can’t I reflavor monk to be a chaotic neutral drunken tavern brawler?

2: Racial/Ancestry ability scores

Thanks to a recent errata, any ancestry and class combo can work. Instead of being forced to take +str +Wis +free -int on lizardfolk you can instead choose free free like a human. Meaning you can play as a divination wizard iruxi who is constellation and star divination themed with “ancestry” abilities being int and con
This way, you can play lots of character concepts without being unfairly put at a disadvantage. I have an iruxi Eldritch trickster (wizard) who’s backstory involves not being allowed into magic schools because everyone thought she was less intelligent due to her ancestry, when in reality she is very very intelligent (16 int), leading to her stealing books from magic schools and teaching herself. This wouldn’t be possible if I was forced to take that intelligence flaw.

3: more people playing it

While there are, unfortunately, more 1e westmarches than 2e ones, overall people are playing 2e more and you’ll be more likely to find games online to play for 2e, especially with the recent surge of people coming over from 5e

Yeah I'm sorta getting a lot of "The good more than makes up for the bad." vibes.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Ven wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
Ven wrote:

Fighter is one class which, in particular is defined by the number of extra feats and static bonuses it gets. Hardly a fair comparison.

Take the Monk, which is rather feature heavy, there are no dead levels but there are plenty of levels where you get a thing without having to flip through a ton of choices you need to make.

You still haven't answered my question. Perhaps Fighter isn't the right class to ask about. But I am not sure Monk is either.

How about Rogue, where every other level you need to pick one of these and every third level you need to pick one of these.

And yet somehow you think that PF2 is the bloated one...

Every other and every third is less than every level there is something and a lot of it is superfluous. And a Rogue at level 18 is going to have something like a +23 to hit? Does that sound about right? Whereas in 2e it's going to be something more like 34? I've seen people get up to +20 at level 5 in 2e (under very specific circumstances, admittedly).

@Darksol That is extremely thorough, I was expecting most to just pick at 4 or 5 of them at their leisure. Most of what you said I can't argue with, except that I still wish I didn't have to dig through all the crunch a lot of the time. PF1 was crunchy, this is a jawbreaker.

On the topic of Cantrip vs Shortbow you it should also be noted that the archer is going to be getting 1d6/8 precision damage probably as well.

And Focus spells are just the worst. One of my players is a Sorcerer and they would have like 4 different kinds of magic. You got your spell slots, and they don't deal more damage per level unless you upcast them but that is essentially no different than learning a new spell. Except there are also signature spells, those can always upcast

...

Well, I'm gunna give it a shot. With a different group I think. If I play with others who already know it I'm bound to have a better experience. I'll start as a player and go from there.

On Focus spells though, it's my understanding that you only gain 1 point at a rest, and you only gain that point if you've used one since your last rest. That's a bit more complicated, and Signature spells may not be different spells but they follow different rules. It's just one example of the way PF2 asks you to remember just 1 more thing about this system or that. Focus spells are just the non-spell bloodline abilities from PF1 with an extra complicated method for tracking them. I can mechanically see why they phrased the Refocus activity the way they did, because they don't want casters holding up the whole group for a half hour so they can get all 3 of their points back. But if it's been an hour since your last short rest I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to regain a Focus point during the next short rest.
I don't know how to word that beyond doing something 4e like such as "once per short rest."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
keftiu wrote:

Starting to think OP never wanted to be convinced here, folks.

I will echo others and say that Pathbuilder is a lovely free resource that's well worth tinkering with.

Pretty much the same story every time there's a "Convince me!" thread. It's borderline trolling.

I'm really not T_T


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As I said above, I *know* I'm being pedantic. I dunno, I guess I just wanted some of my complaints to be validated and to be told "you're not wrong; but just play it." which I think largely I have been.

Maybe you're right Deriven and I just need to make 20 characters over 10 years and it'll seem like nothing. Sounds silly saying that out loud of course it will be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:

Starting to think OP never wanted to be convinced here, folks.

I will echo others and say that Pathbuilder is a lovely free resource that's well worth tinkering with.

Okay but, is it not fair to critique that one shouldn't *need* 3rd party tools to be able to play?

I'm sorry you feel I was disingenuous about wanting to be convinced, I'm enjoying the conversation and feedback.

It really does seem like it would be really fun to play, its just everything that happens away from the table that's holding me back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@YuriP

1) Someone else posted a character generator that had images of these class specific sheets but no way to download blank ones without actually going through the process of building one it looked like. Do you happen to have a link? I've looked through some others and none really "fit" me.

2) Ohh Deep Backgrounds is what I want. Pity that's not default because it's a lot less to dig through but in an ABC kind of way it's a hand-holdy way to do it which you would think helps new players. Personally I literally had a player break down and say "we'll have to come back to this I need to read all of these and agonize over this decision for a week."
I'm not kidding.

3) Yeah I didn't love the weights to the point-buy either and I don't mind getting +2 to "this and that" but unless you're assigning the boosts as you go it was hard to track as a newb. Like if you're targeting a certain stat distribution it's best to wait until the end to assign anything and then its "I get a free boost from this, and this, or was it this? And this gives me a free boost but only to X or Y and am I missing one?" which is way harder than just getting ancestral boosts and boost to your classes main stat and then "here are an extra X boosts to put wherever, don't go over (16? 18? whatever is normal).
Don't get me wrong I *love* rolling stats but it's sweet and sour so we usually take the "standard array" option where they give you the exact stats and you assign them and then apply racial bonuses.

4) It seems I need more table experience at mid-levels to judge fairly.

5) What was wrong with "Use magic device" from PF1?

6) Yeah, I get it from a mechanical viewpoint. Feels silly still.

7) Yeah but if you had choses to attempt to be less helpful you would have healed them. That doesn't make sense. Your roll should determine how well you help them you shouldn't have this all or nothing thing it's got going. Still the best implementation of non-magical healing in an RPG to date, and I want wounds to be impactful not something you shrug off. That's a hard mark to hit, but I don't think Paizo hit it in this case.

(8-10 I've discussed with others, and like, I get it - just don't love it)

11) In the case of casters, your bonus was 1/2 your level plus your stat. Now it's your full level, plus your stat, and plus your prof beyond that. This is substantially more, less "more" for the "tanks" but still more.

12) I didn't explicitly say it, but I do include ancestry feats in with this point. I like the concept but I would really prefer to let my ancestry stuff be set and forget. Or have general feats I could use for skill feats or extra ancestry feats, which, in PF1 would be one of these two things every 3 levels. I've seen some others talk about how much bigger the feat list is in PF1 especially after 10 years of content. But PF2 will get there eventually too if you continue to let every player use every option from every book. And PF1 was a lot more "get +2 to this thing" and less "Here's a new thing you can do in this very specific circumstance" which is more interesting sure, but harder to pick between.

13) That's a fair take, but our table rarely dives that far away from Core/Adv/ultimate magic it's really not all that many classes and archetypes to go through.

15) Honestly yeah. I feel like this combat system is SO crunchy (in the good way) that you can get away with only having half a dozen options at level 20 combined with a potentially infinite number of circumstances. The simple act of kicking over a table (admittedly a low level example) is enough to make your action interesting and add a lot of enjoyment to your next attack based on any number of effects that could create - candles lighting a tapestry on fire, drinks splashing on your enemies just enough for even like -1 to their AC. A lot less effective than these new actions you're getting but more flavorful to begin with. This along with the skill feats, a lot of it could just be handled with the fact that you can roll up to a 50 on any of your main skills by the end. You don't need a feat to run across the surface of water for a square or two you rolled a FIFTY whatever you did with that was a feat by the definition of the word if not by definition of the game term.

On your last note, you're not wrong. 5e is far too simple. I wanted PF1 but balanced and streamlined got PF1 but balanced and *un*streamlined. I'm just disappointed is all and sad about it because I'm such a Paizo fan. And I'm not *totally* against using your cell phone to look up a thing real quick but it's the seeming *requirement* to use it in all aspects of the game. Most people tell me "this isn't an issue if you use X character creator" and "This isn't an issue if you use Foundry" and like I said, I kinda do think its neat we're able to have this crunchy a game because we have such easy to use tech these days. But when I DM I like to describe things with my hands a lot, I'll stand up and demonstrate and I guess I'm showing my age in that I don't want to *rely* on the tech.

I really appreciate you and everyone taking the time to respond to my wall of text of admittedly pedantic complaints!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For the record, one of my players has come back at me with
"Shutup and enjoy your three action economy you ungrateful swine" haha.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
Ven wrote:

Fighter is one class which, in particular is defined by the number of extra feats and static bonuses it gets. Hardly a fair comparison.

Take the Monk, which is rather feature heavy, there are no dead levels but there are plenty of levels where you get a thing without having to flip through a ton of choices you need to make.

You still haven't answered my question. Perhaps Fighter isn't the right class to ask about. But I am not sure Monk is either.

How about Rogue, where every other level you need to pick one of these and every third level you need to pick one of these.

And yet somehow you think that PF2 is the bloated one...

Every other and every third is less than every level there is something and a lot of it is superfluous. And a Rogue at level 18 is going to have something like a +23 to hit? Does that sound about right? Whereas in 2e it's going to be something more like 34? I've seen people get up to +20 at level 5 in 2e (under very specific circumstances, admittedly).

@Darksol That is extremely thorough, I was expecting most to just pick at 4 or 5 of them at their leisure. Most of what you said I can't argue with, except that I still wish I didn't have to dig through all the crunch a lot of the time. PF1 was crunchy, this is a jawbreaker.

On the topic of Cantrip vs Shortbow you it should also be noted that the archer is going to be getting 1d6/8 precision damage probably as well.

And Focus spells are just the worst. One of my players is a Sorcerer and they would have like 4 different kinds of magic. You got your spell slots, and they don't deal more damage per level unless you upcast them but that is essentially no different than learning a new spell. Except there are also signature spells, those can always upcast even if you don't learn it at that slot. And then you've got cantrips, those you can cast and they don't take a slot and they're always upcast to the highest you qualify for. And then there's Focus spells, which also don't take spell slots but you also can't cast them all the time you cast them with Focus points which come back once per rest but only if you've used one since your last rest which is kindof like you have ONE focus point that always gets used first and it comes back when you rest and you have these focus points which you can fall back on if you used your regening one but those don't come back when you rest.
That's a lot. Even if a some of that is from the added complication of the Sorcerer over the wizard who wouldn't need to deal with the Signature spell portion - Focus spells are complex to explain. They're fine in practice I suppose, but I feel like I'd want to color code them on my character sheet (this one comes back) haha.

In 1e, he's an elemental sorcerer and its "here are your spell slots, here are your infinite use spells, and here is your non-spell elemental blast you can use 7 times a day" That's a lot simpler. Even simpler when you consider that the cantrips are all so worthless in combat you may as well not learn them, but that's hardly a point in 1e's favor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
Ven wrote:

We've been playing PF1 for over a decade now.

Most of your responses are "Pathbuilder2e" which is making my point for me.

I don't like that the game is so complex that you need external apps to play it.

Things like Backgrounds contribute to this, yes, they're free but they do COST something. They cost the energy it takes to go through them when previously, PF1 lets you put your stats where you want and skills where you want and then just say where you learned those things to come up with your background.

You can poke fun that I didn't listen to my math teacher about needing to use math but the point stands that I need a calculator to play this and don't want to, and don't so much in PF1.

All of this just makes me think that you haven't actually played PF1.

In PF1:
What is the normal attack bonus of a Fighter at level 18?
How many general feats do they have? How many are available?
How many combat feats do they have? How many are available?

Ven wrote:
I don't want the rogue twiddling their thumbs obviously. But I want them to shine as bright with *martial* prowess not magical.
Well sure, you could take things like Minor Magic and Loaner Spell. But Rogue also could stick to things like Bullseye and Stay Down if you don't want something that feels magical.

Fighter is one class which, in particular is defined by the number of extra feats and static bonuses it gets. Hardly a fair comparison.

Take the Monk, which is rather feature heavy, there are no dead levels but there are plenty of levels where you get a thing without having to flip through a ton of choices you need to make.

You want to play a fighter you get fighter but not every class does that.

"If you don't want your martial to be magical don't take the magic-like options" is fair. I think I'm just sour about 4e on that one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dancing Wind wrote:
Ven wrote:
so yes, every player needs a rulebook - digital or otherwise.

I'm not understanding your point. Why can't your players share the PF2 rulebook just like they share the PF1 rulebook?

I think you're saying that PF2 is so much more complicated than PF2 that your players can't understand their character's attributes without a rulebook handy to consult before every round?

Yeah that's pretty much what I'm saying.

Double sided knife that - I don't want "Vital Strike" or "Power attack" to be the only thing a martial can do, but PF2 feels like they have a *lot* and we may not be memorizing every attack - we certainly couldn't in 4th edition. You find it easy to track in PF2 once you get used to it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We've been playing PF1 for over a decade now.
Most of your responses are "Pathbuilder2e" which is making my point for me.

I don't like that the game is so complex that you need external apps to play it.

Things like Backgrounds contribute to this, yes, they're free but they do COST something. They cost the energy it takes to go through them when previously, PF1 lets you put your stats where you want and skills where you want and then just say where you learned those things to come up with your background.

You can poke fun that I didn't listen to my math teacher about needing to use math but the point stands that I need a calculator to play this and don't want to, and don't so much in PF1.

I don't want the rogue twiddling their thumbs obviously. But I want them to shine as bright with *martial* prowess not magical.

My complaints with PF1 is the disparity between Martials and Casters, but my complaints about PF2 are piling up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dancing Wind wrote:
If you don't want people to have to buy a copy of the rulebook, and you don't have access to the internet while you're playing, then it's going to be very difficult for both the GM and the players to follow the rules.

My point exactly.

We don't need more than 1 rulebook at our PF1 table because every character doesn't have an expansive list of abilities with very specific mechanics for each, so yes, every player needs a rulebook - digital or otherwise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah it kinda feels like you get a lot more juice for less squeeze in PF1.
I DM so I'd look forward to the tight encounter balance I keep hearing about, but not all my players are as nerdy as I am so I have to get involved with character building a lot. It's a lot to go through and feels like "Yeah none of this matters" so its actually really hard to offer meaningful advice. (we made characters and played 1 or 2 sessions last year)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
3-Body Problem wrote:

I don't think I can convince you that all of those things aren't issues but I can mention a couple of positive points and see if they sway you.

1) Balance.

The game is objectively more balanced than previous D20 fantasy games even if some classes are objectively a bit weak and some of the post-core classes are fiddly for no real gain in power compared to just being a fighter.

2) Tactical combat.

The balance and 3-action system makes for combats that aren't move-strike, full-attack, full-attack, victory and spells can't just end fights before they've even begun.

3) Ease of GMing.

The above means that the CR system actually works and that can make encounter design far easier for the GM which means less work and fewer campaigns that end due to GM burn-out.

All extremely good points.

I just wish we could have that without the whole thing being bloated and superfluous.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

2) What's wrong with it is that it makes character creation more difficult. I get the impression they were going for the opposite effect but that's the effect it has for me.
4) Reliance on technology at the table is a barrier for entry to me.
5) I understand not giving people access my gripe is entirely based on not liking it's name.
7) One hour immunity isn't the issue so much as attempting to heal at a more competent skill level results in an increased chance to heal anything at all.
11) You described my problem with it. Adding your full level to *everything* and then +8 and then bonuses leads to adding huge numbers for everything. Plus it's like, "well I leveled up again time to erase literally every number on my character sheet."

I appreciate you popping in before your game!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been reading and rereading the rules to 2e for years now. Every so often I start watching a ton of 2e content creators on YouTube and generally I'm of the opinion that its probably the most well designed system to date, but I have a growing list of oddities, barriers to entry, or general silliness that make me hesitate.
I'd love feedback on any or all of the following issues:

1) Default character sheet is baaaaad.
2) Backgrounds are neat but just seem "extra" and unnecessary. Just get a stat boost and skill+lore of your choice. They're so unimportant why make me go through a list of "none of this is what I want"
3) Stat generation is neat, but hard to track in practice. I'd rather take the "standard array"
4) Every player needs a rulebook. Real DnD 4e energy on this one.
5) Trick Magic Item is a silly name, it's like your class doesn't actually let you know how to activate an item, the item just has a rule against letting you use it unless you pull a fast one on it.
6) Stronger enemies are more vulnerable to damage than weaker ones. Makes some sense mechanically, the vulnerability needs to scale with attacks at their challenge level to stay relevant, but seriously big bag dragon is so weak to cold that 3 damage becomes almost 30? That's SOME vulnerability.
7) I thought we were tryna go away from Save or Suck mechanics in modern TT? Why would Treat Wounds be save or suck? I got stuck by a goblin so a trained medic stitched me up. I got stabbed by two goblins and an master medic was like "I may have doubled the roll of the last medic but I'm sorry, I've completely forgotten how medicine works and can offer you no benefit. Like I get that you're trying to heal twice as much in the same amount of time but a medic isn't going to go "I can either try to stitch one of these stab wounds in 10 minutes, or try to rush through 2 in the same time." They're going to go "I have 10 minutes, lets see how many of these stab wounds I can sew." No fail forward at all?
8) Direct Damage cantrips are just terrible early on. Sure better than 1d3 ray of frost from 3.5 but still.
9) Cantrips quickly become more powerful than 1st level spells in terms of blasters. What are those slots for after that?
10) Focus spells add a needless layer of complexity and could have been wrapped into cantrip rules.
11) Math is far too high. Everybody is full base and also gets up to +8 beyond that before bonuses. It feels like 2e was made with VTTs that roll everything for you as the standard.
12) I get decision paralysis when choosing skill feats because none of them really seem all that good. Trying to theorycraft a rogue is particularly bad in this area. Did they really need so many of these?
13) Leveling is too complex in general.
13) Character creation is too complex in general. There's just so much going on both of these points, use of character generation and leveling apps is almost mandatory to play. Don't get me wrong I appreciate the customization level here but it would have been nice to do more with less. I don't think 1e struggled in the customization department and I found that much easier to follow.
14) Every class is a sorcerer. There are no "martial" classes. Everyone is a super hero at high levels and not because of feats of strength or skill, the rogue is literally so sneaky that they create illusory decoys? That's not skill that's magic. That's not a rogue that's an arcane trickster. DnD 4e energy again.
15) Martial classes should be simpler to play. The most 4e of all, and don't get me wrong I like that martials don't just stand there and trade blows until dead, and it's implemented worlds better than 4e in that they're not a lot of "once per day/once per encounter" martial skills because that made no sense. But they do keep gaining more and more abilities until their action list is big enough that you need a rulebook nearby or you can't really track it all. Do Fighters feel like wizards? No, but at my table we probably get into combat 25-50% as often as standard. We run pre-fabs and do a lot of "just the plot" fighting. Storming Hook Mountain plays a lot more like a movie than a video game (and not like, the Avengers). I feel like half as many strike options would be more than enough and this issue contributes to some other points like "leveling up is complicated"

I really *want* to like 2e, I had really high hopes, and DnD 5e was a disappointment, watered down and too simple, but 2e feels like a pretty wide swing the other way. I was hoping for a streamlined Pathfinder but ended up with this overwhelming system that begs to be run with Apps and browser based rulebooks to be playable. Which, on the one hand it's really neat that we have such powerful tools that we can play a system so complex with relative ease. I've seen YouTubers play really *fast* sessions on Foundry. And they obviously know exactly what to do and exactly what to click to get that to happen but I would 100% play a 1hr combat in 4hrs here with all the time my players would take thinking over their turn and constantly having to reference one of the *forty two* different conditions. But I don't want to play on my laptop I want to play on my notebook.

Please help. Talk me into it!


Dread Lords are perfect.
She's seeking an artifact to break her curse, uses the mist to go from rando party starting place that happens to have an old cursed item nearby, to Nidal, Geb, Ravenloft and other undead themed places. Her goals don't need to be 20-level spanning or anything I'm getting them used to long distance travel then plane hopping to a similar themed place and then eventually they'll start going all over the damn place in a laid back Sliders style monster of the week planar campaign.


I'm writing a story about this mist that rolls in at night and if you go into the mist the terrain there is different, always a pine forest and not the area that surrounds the town. What's happening here is the main enemy is using an artifact to cause some planar mumbo jumbo.
Plot point 2 is that those who go into the mist will be quickly attacked by undead or other gothic creatures. I want them to think that the mist is completely filled with monsters and give the town an Attack on Titan vibe for a session. Eventually they should notice they always see the same person in the treeline during battle and I'm hoping to steer them towards the idea that there aren't unlimited monsters, but that this one person senses life entering the mist and quickly finds and attacks them.

I can easily enough say the artifact does that too but the less I rely on that the stronger the story. So I was hoping to workshop some ideas about other ways she could accomplish this. My first thought was that there may be creatures with lifesense around who could quickly report to her? Maybe a spell of some kind? An existing item?
Any and all thoughts welcome.


I missed that those exist! I'm still trying to learn 2e, thank you!


What about their stats though? They don't seem to apply their ability flaw.

Merisiel is an Elf Criminal Rogue.

Her stats begin at
str 10
dex 12
con 8
int 12
wis 10
cha 10

From Criminal she gains Dexterity and, lets say Strength

str 12
dex 14
con 8
int 12
wis 10
cha 10

From Rogue she gains Dexterity

str 12
dex 16
con 8
int 12
wis 10
cha 10

Now she applies four freebies, one each in Str, Dex, Con, and Wis.
Final:

str 14
dex 18
con 10
int 12
wis 12
cha 10

But her actual stats are:
str 14
dex 18
con 12
int 12
wis 12
cha 10

This seems to be the case for all non-humans. Am I missing something?


Some of the monk stances say "trigger you are unarmored," I think this should say "requirement" no?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've walked new players through character creation many times, I think that this playtest character went as smooth as any, having a narrower feat selection at first level really helped. Choosing a background is more grounded in reality than choosing a feat from the general feat list in PF classic, she was easily able to say "I think scout fits my back story."

Where she got hung up at a dead stop was skill proficiency. The check mark gives you your level, extra check marks give you extra, but no check mark gives you your level minus two, which at level one is minus one altogether. So you get a plus 1 if its checked and minus 1 if its not, which is simple enough but trying to explain that the minus 1 was actual plus one minus two went over her head.

If I could go back to yesterday I could explain it better, but PF classic was a lot easier to explain, you get a plus one if you put a plus one in it. Otherwise you don't. If its checked you get +3 more.

As a veteran player I like the current system, but if you increase all the numbers by one it would be simpler to explain, especially at first level.
Unchecked is 0, checked is your level plus one, two checks is level plus two.
You can easily hold up your fingers and say, I'm third level, and I have two check marks, that's five.
Just my .02


Is there a place where I can read the rules with the updates doc changes included? Like a wiki or something. Its difficult to keep track of which things have changes and thus I'm likely to miss them.


I have a player who wants to have a backstory where he came up with a good idea, but it ended up "stepping on the Prince's toes."

I need help coming up with an idea.
I plan to have the next part of the campaign involve a Mage who is looking to flush out some vampires to solicit their aid. She's a time/fate specialist so it would be great for him to have had a plan that could only possibly fail if some series of bad coinsidences happend at once and they did, also leading to a breach of the masquerade, and the prince wondering who's side the player is really on.

The city will be based in Ireland with pleanty of changelings who could feasably be reaistant to dominate and may die if fed vitea in some attempt to blood bond them. There could be a thread there if the prince needed something and an npc was captured and ended up dying when he very much needed to survive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm running a game, actually the story is based off of Chrono Trigger but with twists to make it Golarian-y, and coming up soon is a section where they travel to the age of darkness.

Anyone have any idea what the world is like? I figure I might cover the world in ash (mimicking the snow of 12,000 bc) and have the party beset by surface dwelling Drow. But other than that I can't really think of interesting environments for them to traverse.

I do intend on moving the kingdom of Shory into this age (the humans using it to get above the clouds of ash and soot). Anyone feel like shotgunning me some brainstorm? These forums never disappoint on creativity.


Interesting, thank you.


Oh I see, so it's divided then. But, if its used to adjust the difficulty, but not the XP. Wouldn't that mean you just made as challenging as a CR 6 but only rewarded CR 4? (random numbers).


The DMG says you now add a multiplier to the xp values of an encounter if it has multiple monsters. that seems like a bit of crucial information for the PHB or MM to have had... It also says if you have more or less players there are multipliers (or dividers) for that too. Do these multipliers replace the old "total up the xp and divide by number of players" rule? Or does a party of 4 player's still recieve 1/4 of the experience per player?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've read that the character's pretty much steam roll the campaign. But I plan on making a Monk and wanted to know if there are any obvious problems with that choice. Also, could it help up the challenge to not bring a healer at all?


Thanks


Does a Dullahan's CR account for his Heavy War Horse already? Or should that be factored in to the XP/general challenge of the encounter?

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/undead/dullahan


That's a great point EvilPaladin. As for Big CR monsters, they aren't taking on CR20+ critters yet, but they have beaten some pretty tough Solo monsters out with a few lucky crits.

@Mojorat, I intended to include it being solo in my analysis, but I forgot to mention it. The point is not lost on me though.


3 Players are Magus, Paladin, Fighter. So definitely no lv 9 spells. In fact, no lvl 6 spells. They are also not veterans, this will be their 3rd pathfinder game. 4th roleplaying game. They don't want to out think the Tarrasque, they want to melee it to death. You know, beat it at its own game to show their worth type of thing.

I was also interesting on a purely academic level, from which I gathered "No, it's pretty impossible for any CR to be accurate at 25, let alone a -1 Template."

I might simply supply them a 4th character, an ancient mythic being or some such.


I was going to send a 3 player party of lvl 15/10 mythic tiers at it. I was worried APL+5 would be overkill. In mid levels CR-1 has been appropriate for most encounters. In other words, I send them against a CR 12 Battle when I would normally use CR 13 for 4 characters.

Even CR 24 against an APL 19(15+5 -1 for 3/4) scares me.


I need to lower the Tarrasque's CR by 1. Does applying the Young template even come close to being accurate?


No problem! I'm just glad somebody noticed this.


I made this years ago because I like to make spells on the fly quickly using this spell system. Nobody really plays this but eh, thought I'd throw it up now that google drive is a thing and I can have it hosted easily.

LINK!

Just go to "file-> make a copy" to start making spells for yourself.


LazarX wrote:

That's it'... I'm not going to be sucked into another idiotic thread started by some wannabe rules lawyer.

I would not sit with a judge who thinks this way nor as a PFS judge would I permit a player to be this disruptive at a table. If you did bring this up at a table where you were playing, I'd have to be extremely sorry for the judge that had to put up with your time wasting rules lawyery.

The rules are not perfect, they can't be built to address every single niddly bit corner case someone will bring up. If they could, we'd wouldn't need judges because adding machines would be able to do our judging for us.

We rely on our Judges, people who give a good deal of effort, time, and resources to provide players with tables. In return players should give thier Judges deference and respect the fact that it takes human judgement to cover the places that rules don't address.

You guys missed the point entirely. The point I'm making is exactly as you said. You can't take the rules literally -> you must go with realism in many cases. People like to go on and on about how something works because the rules say one thing or another and hash out word choices in the writing but ultimately, if the rules can't even adequately describe in game terms what happens when someone falls "unconscious" then you can't expect them to be 100% accurate 100% of the time.


Because there is nothing that says your fall prone when you are unconscious.

My point being people shouldn't interpret the rules so strictly. They are loose enough to allow people to hold on to their weapon if thats the way the group imagines it. (perhaps since you drop it right next to your hand you can simply grab it with little effort).


Hah, I see the problem here. I fixed the title :D


Find me the rule that states this happens.

After that we can talk about any other RaW concern.


at least if your relying on true strike the tarrasque will easily reverse the grapple on his turn.


TGMaxMaxer wrote:

If he did say that, then it -would- work on cleave, but only on the first attack not the cleave attacks.

I'm afraid not. You need to use your standard action to attempt to cleave at all. You are making a cleave attack, not using the attack action.

Neither Overhand Chop nor Vital strike say "as a standard action, do X," they both say "when using the attack action, [add X effect]"
And cleave does not say "when using the attack action" it says "as a standard action."

One more time, the first attack roll of cleave is not the attack action, it is a specific standard action that imparts a -2 to your Armor Class and then allows you to roll against a 2nd foe if the first hit is a success.


"So, when you disarm someone, you get the ability to pick up."

is referencing the Disarm rules:

"If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped."

"However, to pick up a weapon, you get an Attack of Opportunity"

is saying that after disarming, I can pickup the weapon, but it provokes an AoO, and:

"If you wanted to use said AoO, could you use it to instead attempt to pick up your weapon as well?"

is asking if you may instead pickup the weapon that was just disarmed from you rather than attack.

But, "Automatically" means "No attack of opportunity." And even if it did, you would not be able to use your ATTACK of opportunity for something that is not an ATTACK.


When you went from Editor in Chief to Creative director, was that a change in position, or just in title?


Would you give me some advice? I have recently found myself on the development staff for an upcoming game. I like to follow game devs on various social media, myself, and always wondered if they had more personal accounts separate from public face as game developers.

My question is, do you think I should have a personal e-mail/twitter et cetera? Or, do you find it to be unnecessary?


Dryder wrote:

"There can be only one!" Rules for absorbing Mythic powers!

This rule exists actually. Or at least, this setting exists in the playtest, I don't remember how fleshed out it was.

1 to 50 of 188 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>