Ancient Solar Dragon

Vlorax's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber. 190 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 190 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Unarmed Attacks are not weapons so they wouldn't work.

srd link

Unarmed Attacks wrote:
However, unarmed attacks aren’t weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Corrik wrote:
K1 wrote:
Corrik wrote:
K1 wrote:

I see no problem in converting a homebrew world.

If we consider a party of 4 players in a world of xx milions of people, the fact that one of the main characters could have or not a shield doesn't change your world at all.

Same goes for wands.
If you use first aid instead of low cost wands with 50 charges, all will remain the same.

All of this stuff doesn't really change a thing. If you had talked about adding space robots, then you would have had issues.

Yes, but the issue isn't whether a party as access to XYZ amount of healing. The issue is that wands used to be sticks with a set 50 charges and are now once per day items(plus a limited overcharge) that last forever. This is a directly observable and measurable in universe change that has no explanation.

You should try to see it in terms of fights.

You have 1 use of treat wounds while in combat. Once the combat is done, you could rest yourself.

If you do it with wands or healing tool doesn't change anything, since players will be overloaded with wands.

They just semplified the resting part.

And given how 3x action system works, it is something which gives a support option to anyone who decides to skill medicine.

I think we just have to wait for an errata regards battle medicine in terms of hands, equipe tool, and so on, but apart from that the rest is ok.

You could argue that a healer kit should have charges. That would be a good call. But I see no purpose in s long term scenario.

Once again, a party having access to XYZ healing isn't the issue. The issue is that wands are fundamentally different items with fundamentally different functions. 10 years ago you could use a wand of fireball 50 times in 1 fight. Now that is physically impossible. What is the in universe explanation for this difference? Everyone in existence just miss remembers wands having 50 charges?

Who is remembering this? The fake NPC's from 10 years ago? Are you still playing the same character from 10 years ago? Why does it matter at all if you're starting a new game? Are you planning on the new PC's investigating the past and noticing things changed?

This is entirely a non-issue unless every game takes place in the same world and is reliant on the previous campaigns from years ago to inform the new one.

GM- we're starting a new game in PF2
PC- I need detailed info on how the world has changed from PF1 or none of it makes sense because my PC is somehow aware of how the world worked in a different campaign that had nothing to do with them.

I feel like this only matters if you make it a big deal and want to complain about it. From the NPC/character viewpoint the world has always followed the PF2 rules. If you want to have one continuous world that every campaign has existed in then just handwave the differences.

"I heard about this dude that made tons of goodberries at once to feed people"
"Yea he was a legend, knew some secret trick or version of the spell that let him do that but never shared it"

Rules difference handwaved and we move on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Corrik wrote:
K1 wrote:

I see no problem in converting a homebrew world.

If we consider a party of 4 players in a world of xx milions of people, the fact that one of the main characters could have or not a shield doesn't change your world at all.

Same goes for wands.
If you use first aid instead of low cost wands with 50 charges, all will remain the same.

All of this stuff doesn't really change a thing. If you had talked about adding space robots, then you would have had issues.

Yes, but the issue isn't whether a party as access to XYZ amount of healing. The issue is that wands used to be sticks with a set 50 charges and are now once per day items(plus a limited overcharge) that last forever. This is a directly observable and measurable in universe change that has no explanation.

Doesn't that only matter if you're converting an existing PF1 game over to PF2 or play every game in the same exact world as the last?

With my table when we start a new campaign we don't really consider anything that happened in the previous one. We're playing Age of Ashes now so what we did in the random PF1 games we played before has no bearing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
SoulknifeFan420 wrote:
From what i understand you dont even have to be a caster.

Correct, the dedication doesn't require that you know how to cast any spells, just be trained in Arcana or Nature


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

No I can't think of anything less important to me other than maybe the change in how Hobgoblins look, that's also meaningless.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Not sure how it wouldn't apply. The monster took an action that directly harmed the pc, the Trigger for glimpse of redemption is "An enemy damages your ally, and both are within 15 feet of you." so it should apply. Not sure where the "spirit of the rules" are detailed.

Monster took action, action damaged pc, other pc activates Glimpse of Redemption.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
SuperBidi wrote:

"Select one type of difficult terrain from the following list: rubble, snow, or underbrush. While undetected by all non-allies in that type of terrain, you can Sneak without attempting a Stealth check as long as you move no more than 5 feet and do not move within 10 feet of an enemy at any point during your movement. This also allows you to automatically approach creatures to within 15 feet while Avoiding Notice during exploration as long as they aren’t actively Searching or on guard."

Well, it's pretty clear that I don't roll anything while Avoiding Notice. I'm automatically hidden, and stay hidden. Hence my problem.

Really not sure what the problem you're manufacturing here is. You're avoiding notice in exploration mode you can approach to within 15ft of something not on guard or Searching, so you remain unnoticed and there is no need to roll initiative as the hostile party hasn't noticed you.

If something else alerts them to the rest of your party, and the GM calls for everyone to roll initiative, you roll stealth for initiative just as you would normally, and remain unnoticed unless your stealth check fails to beat the enemy Perception DC.

You still roll initiative even though you're hiding.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

It says you can Sneak without attempting a check, Sneak is moving not hiding in place, you should roll Stealth for initiative as you would normally when using Avoid Notice. There's no infinite initiative.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Vlorax wrote:

Yes you'd want the returning rune or spend a lot of money getting multiple magical weapons.

That seems to be the case. Do you figure that is a bug or a feature?

I don't know, but it seems intended.

I could also see a relatively simple way around it by creating a magic item like gloves that grant X weapon properties to thrown weapons and overwrites any inherent magic properties of the weapon. That way you could sling javelins etc as long as you had ammo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Yes you'd want the returning rune or spend a lot of money getting multiple magical weapons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
SuperBidi wrote:
Disrupt Prey has so many limitations: Only against prey, not against ranged attacks. If it's only advantage over Attack of Opportunity is that you get it 2 levels earlier and that it disrupts movements, it's not worth taking.

? It's clearly worth taking unless you plan on taking a dedication to get AoO later.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
worg64 wrote:

I would like to know if any of the Lizardfolk subraces has the ability to get darkvision.

Also Intresting to know if they got any good feats for thivery/stealths or combat.

Thanks

No darkvision.

Can get bonuses to stealth, climbing and swimming. One of them is also good at demoralizing.

Ancestry feats give options for claw/fang/tail attacks and other things

There's also this thread


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Taenia wrote:

I really like the idea of this feat but I think it needs to be altered for game play. As it stands right now it let's use treat wounds with Nature instead of Medicine. Unfortunately, the feats that improve treat wounds all depend on Medicine and most require expert and higher.

I suggest errata for the feat to include the ability to take feats that modify treat wounds as if your rank in medicine was equal to your rank in Nature. Otherwise the use of Natural Healing will be limited to the baseline and force people who want to help heal their party to take Medicine rather than offering an interesting alternative.

PS I would love to see a similar feat for Crafting, albeit with some fun caveats.

I made a house rule for the Chirugeon in my group that they can use their Crafting skill rank in place of Medicine to qualify for medicine feats as part of the Research Field. This way the player doesn't have to rank up both skills and it fits with being the healer/medic


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

It's pretty much entirely up to your GM. From the Lost Omens Character Guide

pg 9 wrote:

Access to Rules Elements

Sometimes, a stat block for an uncommon rules element
includes an Access entry that lists specific criteria. A
character who meets the criteria listed in the Access
entry, such as hailing from a particular locale or being
a member of a particular organization, gains access to
the rules element. For instance, a character from Taldor
gains access to the Keep Up Appearances feat (page 12),
even though it’s uncommon.

As always, the GM has the final say on how rare an
option is, who can access uncommon or rarer options, or
whether specific options are allowed in the game at all;
they may decide that a person’s upbringing makes sense
for a specific ancestry feat even if the character doesn’t
automatically qualify for access
, or they may decide that
same ancestry feat cannot be taken by anyone at all.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
FowlJ wrote:
I'll add another voice saying that PFS adventures normally work this way, yes - if you look at any PF1 scenario that can be done at multiple levels you see the same thing.

I had forgotten that (it’s been 7 years since I ran PFS so I had forgotten. Yet another reason to dislike organised play).

Although I am curious what the non PFS adventures are like. So far we have the following answers: sometimes they’re arbitrary, they are never arbitrary and they’re always arbitrary.

I’m definitely curious to hear people’s thoughts who’ve read the (non-PFS) adventures.

Running Age of Ashes currently and so far the DC's have just been presented as a single DC with no tiers etc. PC's found some scraps of cloth and had to make like a DC 16 (i think) Society or Religion check to see if they were important. No adjustments based on level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Nicolas Paradise wrote:
Yah, I feel like this is an oversight and as a GM who started play with a deep understanding of 1E and a decent understanding of playtest and kind of just play by ear and go to the book when needed for 2e so far was surprised when I ran into something calling for a save DC especially since monsters also don't have them listed. And while I assumed what it was quickly I couldn't find the rule in the book and actually found the answer faster googling and finding a post asking the same confused question.

The Rule is in the CRB

pg 445

Quote:
Your DC for a given statistic is 10 + the total modifier for that statistic.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

One of my players had a question about how the damage combines on these abilities.

If the PC hits both attacks, one Slashing and one Piercing, it says to combine the damage for the purposes of resistance/weakness. Do the damage types combine as well?

say they hit for 10 slashing, 2 piercing, combine to 12 slashing and piercing damage.

target has resistance piercing 5, does the 12 become 7?or does it only reduce the 2 piercing to 0?

if it's the former it would have been better to not double slice at all since the 2nd weapon hitting actually lowered the damage from the first hit.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
bobrossw wrote:
Sorry to resurrect this post. My GM seems to still believe it's -0,-0,-5,-10 despite multiple posts to the contrary. Wouldn't bother me much except it's the reason he's houseruling in a fairly punitive fumble system on attacks, arguing that two attacks per round for monks/rangers is plenty. I'm wondering if someone can direct me to an official ruling somewhere?

Why would there need to be an official ruling? the abilities are clear and your GM is wrong, and is using it as an excuse to add a probably terrible "fumble" system

Make two unarmed Strikes. If both hit the same creature, combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses. Apply your multiple attack penalty to the Strikes normally.

It's not even remotely confusing.

0, -5, -10, -10


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
K1 wrote:

However, if it comes out not true, then we could add to champion issues the

"A naked monk has the same armor as me".

Flat bonus = same
Lvl = same
Proficiency = Same
Dex = Monk 5 / Champion +0
Armor = Monk 0 / Champion 6 ( plate )
Bonus Armor = Monk +3 ( bracers ) / Champion +3 ( runes )
Stance = Monk +1 ( crane ) / Champion +0
Shield = Same

Definitely not so good.

Well yea, that's by design, Monk's have equal AC proficiency as the Champion, that's a feature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Seems like a non-issue to me, they're small crazy monkey people, not an analogue for anything.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Darksyde wrote:
Just a quick double check. there isn't any adjustment to weapon stats in 2ed for size just bulk and cost? So the main thing the giant instinct barbarian gets is the reach? I looked for info on changing the damage die for size but didn't find anything.

Reach and the increased Rage Damage. All you get from using a bigger wep normally is Clumsy 1


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Dogan. wrote:

TL;DR

Topic: Breachill and the Six Watertowers
Question: Any big plans for these, or are they open for us to exploit after the opening scene?

-----
** spoiler omitted **
Simple question if anyone knows or has a suspicion...do the water towers play a role in the AP beyond their use in the opening act?

no, at least not so far in book 2 they aren't even mentioned past the opening scene afaik.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
NA Palm wrote:
pjrogers wrote:

OK, I went and changed my mind after doing a Google search - "ground" site:2e.aonprd.com - which is something I should have done earlier.

It's now pretty clear to me that PF2e uses "ground" in the broadest possible way, such as in the following sentence "Most characters and monsters have a speed statistic—also called land Speed—which indicates how quickly they can move across the ground."

Guess we just can't move while on the deck of a ship now...

Wooden stairs also now present an issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

The floor is the ground. A ship's deck is the ground. A cloud you can walk on for some reason on the elemental plane of air is the ground.

The trigger requirement is basically "you are not swimming, climbing, flying, or prone."

100% Agree, and it's just the trigger right? So you could easily fly after entering the stance on the ground


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Do +1weps and the like ignore B/P/S resistances or are the resistances still applied?

ex. +1 Shortbow does 1d6P, Spider Swarm has Resistance 5(P) does the shortbow do -5 dmg or does it ignore the resistance since it's magic?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Thomas Keller wrote:
Thank you for taking the time to answer, but I'm looking for something official here.

Those are the rules quoted from the rulebook and as such are official, there's nothing to rule on.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Wheldrake wrote:
So does that mean Charau-ka can throw their own poo and do lethal damage + deadly(1d6)?

I'd say poo wouldn't count as a weapon but as written I guess they could.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
BellyBeard wrote:
What does the ability do?

I pasted it in the first post, you just have top expand the spoiler tag


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Spoilers for Age of Ashes

text:
The Charau-kas encountered in HellKnight Hill have the ability

Thrown Weapon Mastery - When a charau-ka throws a weapon, the weapon gains the deadly d6 weapon trait. When it throws an improvised weapon, it doesn’t take the –2 penalty for using an improvised weapon, nor does it take the penalty for using that weapon to make a lethal attack instead of a nonlethal attack.

What would be an appropriate level for this to be available to a PC? I'm kinda sad nothing like it exists in the CRB already but was thinking of adding it as a General Feat option as it seems pretty good but not exceptionally strong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:

A2, the temple of Ketephys, is 5 hexes away from A13, the Fortress of Sorrows. Therefore, it is 50 miles away, within the blindness radius.

What is this picture, if not A2 being 5 hexes away from A13?

Each hex is 10 miles, are you under the impression that the Temple and the Fortress of Sorrows both have a 10mile radius and occupy the entire hex?

There is more than enough space for them to not be within 50miles of each other with the map as it is. It's a non-issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Redblade8 wrote:

So is the consensus interpretation that, where it says "ferocious specialization", this is referring to the bonus damage from Weapon Specialization (with possible extra damage from your instinct, like if I'm draconic (red), it gets extra fire damage)?

Thanks,
Ghorrin Redblade

Yes


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Fumarole wrote:
Simply reduce the radius to 40 miles. It's worthwhile that you're pointing out possible errors for other GMs and the authors to look out for, but the way you're going about it is bizarre. This really isn't that difficult.

they're already 50+miles away though!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:
The Ekujae elves are first encountered in the temple of Ketephys, which, as per this hex map, is within 50 miles of the Cinderclaw fortress. As per page 27 of Cult of Cinders, "Any Ekujae (including a half-elf of Ekujae descent) who comes within 50 miles of the Fortress of Sorrow (area A13) is immediately blinded. When a blinded Ekujae leaves the area, their vision returns after 24 hours, but this effectively renders the elves unable to directly oppose the Cinderclaws." So how are the Ekujae elves not blind in the temple of Ketephys?

Per the info on page 27, hexes are 10miles, the fortress of sorrow is 6 hexes away, they're not within 50miles.

But I'm sure you'll find some other issue with the adventure to quibble about.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:

But it is impossible for them to move 2 hexes in a day. There is difficult terrain halving their speed. Thus, a speed 25 party would normally be able to travel 20 miles per day, but halved speed from difficult terrain cuts that down to only 10 miles per day, which means only one hex per day.

If they Investigate or Search, they further go down to 5 miles per day, which means exploring only half a hex per day.

I still cannot see how this is genuinely supposed to work.

Also:

Quote:
The hunt itself takes 3 hours to complete, so any PC involved in the hunt won’t be able to participate in any other events that PCs take part in back in Akrivel. If more than one PC joins the hunt, a PC decides whether to roll or help another PC with their roll. If multiple PCs roll, use the worst roll to determine the result of the activity. Any PC who chooses to help instead rolls against the same DC, using the Aid action.
Why would the players ever have multiple PCs roll if it will simply sabotage the party's efforts? Also, what events in Akrivel are mutually exclusive with the three-hour hunt?

I'm not sure what you're confused about, pg 27 says how many hexes the players can move through, you quoted it?

Maybe the PC's want to compete over who's the better hunter?

Presumably any event that occurs before the feast that the hunt is providing food for.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
thorin001 wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:

I guess I find it kind of odd that needing to the roll the die in a d20 tabletop game is somehow a flaw?

To each their own.

Failing to tie your shoes 5% of the time is a flaw.

Attempting to tie your shoes is a trivial task and would never require a roll in the first place...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:
That would not explain moving through 2 hexes in one day with no exploration activity, then.

Meh, one is probably a mistake, specific > general rules, so I'd use the ones provided in the adventure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
Dear Gods almighty I feel terrible for everyone you play with otherwise.

I actually got a prize for being voted one of the best GMs during a PFS Gameday. So clearly something has been lost in translation for you.

Quote:
I don't usually accuse people of bad-wrong-fun, but dude, what you want is literally against the spirit of the entire genre of tabletop RPGs and should be denounced as toxic.

One of the foundations of process engineering is that when something goes wrong, you examine the process before you start blaming the people. A rules system which heavily relies upon "GM decides" to bail it out, is a process which sets young GMs up for failure. It's easy for an experienced GM or even a confident GM to think "GM decides" is a logical choice, but the fact is, and it is a fact, GMs aren't trained, vetted, or provided with any real guidance in making robust decisions, so the game suffers and players suffer. Then, GMs often go into denial about their poor choices.

IMO, Paizo should have put less burden on the GM and promoted a system which is more democratic in resolving the gaps in the ruleset. Insulate GMs from being the single point of failure, don't isolate them. But if you're experienced with RPGs, it's easy to see how you'd advocate a "GM decides" modus operandi. Most GMs on here think they are 100% qualified and able to make the correct decisions for their campaign.

Nobody cares about your award.

Just so I know what games to avoid, is there one that satisfies your "rules for every possible thing" criteria?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Zman0 wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
Zman0 wrote:

No, you take every result with a heaping pile of salt. The point of my comment is that using the survey results as if they represent all of Paizo's potential market and is the be all end all of useful data is inherently flawed. Given the asinine complexity and frustration factor of Vancian Casting, it isn't too big a leap to say it's likely more off-putting than attractive to new, non-Paizo, players.

Paizo could have say found a couple dozen people interested in playing RPGs and tried and teach them two different casting systems and then asked them for their feedback. In that situation, I'd bet money you get a different result and a 5e style of casting will vastly outperform P2's Vancian.

Of course I could be wrong, but I'll rely on years worth of experience teaching new people both Vancian and non-Vancian styles of casting,and teaching people transitioning form 3.P to 5e. Though to be fair, none of the people I know that disliked Vancian style casting and made the move to 5e are even considering switching back to P2, so there is that.

But they did do focus group testing. They also used statistical models to try to help account for biases in their playtester feedback. Crucially, they had to make a decision, and they made one based on feedback as well as their own experience and intuition. I guarantee you that they took an adequate amount of salt with each playtest survey.

Just because it doesn't align with what you would have done in their shoes, doesn't mean that they blindly followed faulty playtest data.

If you had actual data showing how their decision was wrong, and could show that they had that data back when they made their decision, then your point would make a lot of sense. Since you don't have that kind of info, all you're doing is backseat, hindsight, amateur game developing.

Oh, they focus tested Vancian vs 5e style prepared spellcasting? I must have missed the Devs discussing that. Care to point me to where that was...

Certainly a whole lot of assumptions about how they developed the game and how you feel and no actual data backing up your feelings.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I've been running Age Of Ashes, for 2 sessions so far. I think it's been great overall.

* I think the amount of actions to take a potion out of a pack and drink it is a little punitive but it fits the world and now players have started to put things in more belt pouches etc.

* Persistent damage is strong, almost had a player burn to death after getting caught on fire and rolling a great number of 1's trying to put himself out.

* Players are still adapting to the fact they can move about a lot more freely.

* Monsters have way more unique abilities that can surprise players and makes combat much more varied and interesting. Also the amount of monsters that have Diseases and poison has made the Churgeon very useful to have around.

It's been a lot of fun so far.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
KitsuneWarlock wrote:

Our lodge has two tables both starting the same AP at the same time. They will be split between myself and another GM... But I wonder if there's any advantage to having them all meet at the same time for chapter 1 since the book references other adventurers in the town hall meeting. It'd mean a table of 9, but I'm sure we could adjust it slightly. Maybe have the fire spread a little more in round 2...or let the PCs help form the bucket brigades faster.

Level 1 survival check could probably remind a pc that a bucket brigade exists, if they appear to be clearly trying to consider a solution.

You could probably make it work just by adding more Mephits and villagers, but the AP does mention that the PC's are the only Adventurer's that have shown up this month for the call.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ubertron_X wrote:
Vlorax wrote:
It's amusing how people have problems with GM's making rulings, which is pretty much the entire purpose of the GM. <sigh>
Well why buy a CRB then if the GM can just make up everything on his own?

I'm not sure where you got "just make up everything on his own" from "making rulings".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Donovan Du Bois wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
Which as other people have pointed out, would likely make the sorcerer redundant. In Starfinder there is is only one method of spell preparation, and only two casting classes - one for each spell list.
I disagree, the sorcerer doesn't have to prepare any spells at all, and can choose from any of the spell lists. If you changed the game up so that sorcerers could heighten spells for free, while others had to prepare it at the level they wanted it, I think that would be enough of a difference, just as it is in 5e.

Yes 5e where sorcerers are better for a dip as a paladin or warlock than as an actual class and wild sorc is especially bad.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Wheldrake wrote:


The quoted rule doesn't answer. It's just "the GM determines". <sigh>

It's amusing how people have problems with GM's making rulings, which is pretty much the entire purpose of the GM. <sigh>


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:


In my mind, a coerced Calmont is reasonably cooperative to those who do not mistreat him (I figured that Voz did actually mistreat him), and an intimidated Calmont could very well genuinely fight for the party.

I have Calmont being much more of a cruel idiot. He set fire to a town council and released a Mephit on innocent people who he presumably lived and worked with. If he's helping the party it would only be until he saw an opportunity to escape and/or kill them.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Crodge wrote:

My group of 6 is Thief Rogue, Earth Elemental Sorcerer, Maestro Bard, Crossbow Ranger, Tiger Monk, and Dragon Barbarian.

Overall the Ranger has been performing the worst in combat, but the crossbow build is kinda crap IMO.

The monk has been doing the best in combat. Flurry + Stunning Fist really makes the monk a great Front-liner.

Between those two is everyone else.

The balance feels good overall.

Is the Ranger running Crossbow Ace + precision edge? With a Heavy Crossbow they should be hitting hard. 1d12+2 +1d8


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:
Vlorax wrote:

This is like reading a review of a recipe online "I changed X Y Z and it tastes terrible! Horrible recipe!"

Can't wait for an update.

I think you misunderstand me. The first session was essentially doing everything by-the-book.

It's your game you can DM however you like, I know of your playtest posts as well.

I'm surprised that nobody took any damage, your players must be very experienced, and I'd argue that taking the weapon that you proclaimed as the best choice in a different post(flick-mace) isn't all that generic.

I'm also running Age of Ashes and with 6 players and added 1 mephit to the first encounter, it died in 1 hit from the barb and added little to the fight.

1 of the PC's almost died in the fire and they were unable to put it out. I explained how the fire could be dealt with but did not tell them they could avoid fighting the mephit and it would ignore them.

PC's engaged, two of them got hit by it's aoe, 1 crit failed and caught on fire. He then rolled terribly and almost burned alive from the persistent damage. I forgot that standing near the fire would cause damage, if I hadn't he probably would have fallen unconscious, I also did not have the fire spread directly to any squares they occupied.

After that they headed to the citadel, where one of them got infected with Goblin Pox and others took some dmg from the dogs. They defeated the grualudon after i forgot to increase the encounter difficulty and then talked down Calmont. They currently have him captured and are returning to town as requested after freeing the bumblebrashers as that was their mission.

They haven't met Alak yet and the book mentions you may combine encounters. I'm mostly impressed that your "generic" group has such great defenses to have not taken a single point of dmg.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:

My upcoming session of Age of Ashes 1: Hellknight Hill is looking to prove interesting. During the first (very long) session, the party managed through the entirety of the adventure's 1st-level gameplay while taking not a single point of damage and expending not a single spell slot.

As per the adventure path, the party already has Alak Stagram as a GMPC. I followed the adventure's suggestions to combine encounters together; I had already combined four encounters into two more compressed and difficult encounters, which the PCs still blew through. Thus, the party is heading straight into the lower levels of the dungeon without even dropping by town first. The party has already intimidated Calmont into compliance, and Calmont has been following the party as a pack mule.

I asked the group if they would want Calmont to join in on fights, with me combining encounters even further, as per the adventure. The answer has been "Yes." I also had Helba inform the party of the kobold dragon mages, Pib and Zarf, and if the party is destined to recruit them as additional combat helpers against the Cinderclaws, then I figure that the kobold dragon mages may as well join in on combat directly.

Between Alak (the early game babysitter who scales poorly later on), Calmont, and the two kobold dragon mages all piling together and me having to compress encounters into one giant mess, this is turning into the world's worst Fire Emblem impression. All the more so since I am using anime girl images for everyone as I usually do. And the first upcoming encounter involves two darkvisionless enemies in a pitch-black room whose AoE offensive abilities affect one another, while later encounters have other enemies accidentally affecting their own allies with different AoE offensive abilities. And there is a grizzly bear that can be quasi-recruitable.

This is becoming quite the mess.

Also, after the party ended 1st-level gameplay and hit 2nd level, I ended the session on a cliffhanger of the warg mother. Of course, this encounter...

This is like reading a review of a recipe online "I changed X Y Z and it tastes terrible! Horrible recipe!"

Can't wait for an update.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Justinian9 wrote:
Seisho wrote:
Dragon Styles Dragon Tail attack is also compatible with a Barbarians fury which (damage) benefit is halfved for agile weapons - and backswing is the next best thing

How do you justify (in your mind... not to me) the mix of the barbarian losing control (rage) and the disciplined nature of a monk? A weakness/ mental issue? Which one would be the archetype?

I thought about mixing these 2 classes but I cannot get past that mix in the nature of the class. The only way I would do it would be if I had the Moment of Clarity barbarian feat. This is also my issue with a monk using a tower shield, I think I could see a buckler shield but not a tower. I might try the tower shield to see if I can enjoy this style.

There's nothing saying a Monk has to be a disciplined lawful character. Maybe they're a well trained boxer or wrestler. Could be somebody like Braum from League of Legends.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Fennris wrote:


First, thank you for adding to the conversation. A DEVs input is always appreciated. I do understand what you are saying. Its just a design choice that I really don’t like. I like to feel that my characters ability is due to his competence not my equipment.

Are you sure you understand because his example of PF2 was exactly an example of a characters ability trumping their items...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Debelinho wrote:

magic warrior...just...just no

druid dedication + wild shape is so much better....and anybody can get wis 14 compared to focus spell prereq of magic warrior and it scales better(+2 status to attack)

those anti divination bonuses are silly....c'mon guys, those spells are story spells for GM....if they need to be there, they'll be there.

if your character is resistant, your other party member wont be...so whatever...the BBEG will get his intel one way or the other...

Maybe you don't want to take druid anathema

1 to 50 of 190 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>