![]()
![]()
![]() Want to share my two cents. A spellbook that contain spells can and should count as part of treasure and follow the same selling rules as any other valuable. Even if no mage would buy you the whole book nothing (afaik) dictates that you can't sell a few spell pages here and there. In my table we tend to use the same reasoning with gold/silver coins. Unless is something like a Dragon's hoard made of mostly gold or something similar every time the party wins the day and collects their well earned reward in loot of, say, 1.000 gps, that number is the numerical amalgamation of actual gold coins, valuables, art pieces, rare components and whatever your imagination can fill in. It eases the game pace, alleviates the bookkeeping, and helps to maintain the suspension of disbelief. YMMV. ![]()
![]() That's why I always do a session 0 as a GM, works wonders and saves a lot of future problems. A few questions to OP, if you please. Are you playing by PF Society rules? Because if I were the GM I'd houserule a class feat to make your class perks work against your most common foe even at the cost of unbalancing it a bit if favor of the party. And I apologize if I sound intruding but, are you reluctant to switch to another character because you really feel like playing it? Can't count how many times I've personally fallen to the sunken cost fallacy with my own characters. There is nothing wrong in putting back a character in the drawer for a future and more fitting campain. One thing is your character struggling to achieve its goals and other is YOU struggling to have... well, fun in playing the game. ![]()
![]() IMO lots of people are "touchy" about this issue not because you're saving yourself the pain of going to your local art webpage to browse for hours and download any picture for private non profitable leisure but for other reasons stated above. I think sir Ravingdork negative experiences derive for the main problem that has been a hot toppic for months now, in this case might be sympathizers of original art creators. Some folks, specially art creators of any kind, now live in true fear because of programs made by other people with no ill intention at all. But as you all know, responsibility lies not on the tool but the hand that holds it. It's not the first time that we've seen bad people hurting others with tools made by good folks. ![]()
![]() If I may join, I think sir Deriven is being a tad misunderstood. He is talking about how you need sound and solid rules for combat mainly because combat is a life threatening situation first, and about player/character contribution second. One can fail forward a social encounter for the sake of the plot or be more lenient with the outcome. But you can't do it with combat when the bad result ends in being mauled by your local monster. ![]()
![]() LOVE the change. The celestial big baddie behind everything is a theme I put in one of my homebrewed campaigns and I was going to do it anyway, BUT now I can do it without the fear of my dear everloving friends releasing the crows of judgement upon me. With the passing of the years I've came to appreciate the richness of the roleplay oportunities the vast lands of grey morality has to offer. ![]()
![]() I only wish for the monk to be renamed as "martial artist" and then start to work from that point. Would be cool then to gain extra flavour options based on their martial school and (why not) dream even further, a future book full of fluff and crunch, just the way I like my ice cream. Your typical shaolin monk good with weapons, a karateka good with parries and counters, a cappoeira dancer that is inmune to prone condition and can even fight better if prone, a more "mystical" focused that can go full nova spending those ki points into a awesome hadouken... just to name a few. ![]()
![]() I play in a house table and we all agreed to allow the last attribute increase end rounded up to avoid unnecesary worriness. I mean, the PCs are at their carrer pinacle at lvl 20 so a little reward is well deserved. Right now the only reason odd values exist is because the rules "slow down" the attribute increase at a certain point. ![]()
![]() Omega Metroid wrote:
Spaniard here, the word you were probably looking for was "embarazoso" (embarrassed), which is a word used as an adjective for a determined situation the subject is in. When I was taught english I was told that when translating from one language to another context usually matters a lot when choosing certain words over anothers, specially the ones that are opened to ambigüity. If that was an intentional pun then sorry for barging in and ignore my post entirely my good sir. ![]()
![]() - Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition for that good old memories flavour. - Pathfinder 1E and D&D 3.X because we have invested in SO many books I'd be a shame not to use all that content. - Tried to make a Starfinder PC once but I had to pass because for some unknown reason it wasn't my cup of tea (and I love space themed games). - In Pathfinder 2E we made only a few tests that can't even count as full sessions (thanks COVID), but we are really looking for what is to come in the future. - D&D 5th felt... bland, to our liking. There are other games out there but I left them out. Special mention to the pc games Baldurs Gate 1 & 2 because I'd never, EVER, get tired of them. ![]()
![]() Aqueous orb wrote: Any creature in the path of the aqueous orb takes 2d6 points of nonlethal damage. Swarm Subtype wrote: A swarm rendered unconscious by means of nonlethal damage becomes disorganized and dispersed, and does not reform until its hit points exceed its nonlethal damage. Make it work as intended, swarms are pretty annoying to begin with and the party should have at least one good 'weapon' against those encounters. Check Archives of Nethys on Aqueous Orb and Swarms to seek more info about how those two interact with each other. ![]()
![]() Scrying + Limited Wish (-7 next save) + Wish (kidnap) If the kidnapping is done for plot reasons then 'anything' that goes along is just fine, as long as it doesn't screw with the party. "A dark book that contains a forbidden ritual that involves doing damnable stuff and it's too dangerous to let it exists blah blah blah, even keeping it turns you into an evil guy etc etc etc..." ![]()
![]() Switch the Squid for a Giant Octopus and you are good to go my good Cthul... I mean, sir. ![]()
![]() Rulewise, you did it well. In fairness, you should let your players know the whole ruling involved in using Dirty Tricks Dirty Trick wrote:
Bolded for emphasis. ![]()
![]() Greetings! Might be a late response but here goes anyway. You got it all correct, just remember a few things. RAW. The Will DC 15 for avoiding effects applies for both injuries and full moon nights. Once the PC becomes aware, the transformation is a willing action BUT, the Werewolf entry here says: Quote: When a PC becomes a lycanthrope, you as the GM have a choice to make. In most cases, you should take control of the PC’s actions whenever he is in hybrid or animal form—lycanthropy shouldn’t be a method to increase a PC’s power, after all, and what an afflicted lycanthrope does while in animal or hybrid form is often at odds with what the character would actually want. Also remember that an aware PC also remembers what did last time she transformed, so Alignment must be in consideration. Wolfsbane is a poison so the Fort 15 save is for both cure the curse and survive the ingestion. ![]()
![]() I am more concerned about how Wulfgar the barbarian survived going NUDE and barehanded underwater in a frozen lake and punched to death a white dragon. Then again, novels and game rules never combined very well. Elminster the Mary Sue ended up fist fighting against a GOD because both ran out of spells. ![]()
![]() gustavo iglesias wrote:
Looking forward to see your ultimate form. ![]()
![]() Forseti wrote:
That kind of dependence has always been present since D&Ds origins. In 3.5/PF1 if a GM steals/sunder/dispel your main weapon you are basically screwed, not to mention the nightmarish times in AdD&D. If I remember correctly, in PF2 what makes magic weapons truly powerful are the runes/gems attached to them, and the quality of the weapon/armor in question affects the maximum level of power you can attach. ![]()
![]() Zardnaar wrote:
I am really confident in the ability of the Paizo dev. team to come up for some cool character options involving INT to attack/damage/AC/Saves As far as I can remember, in PF1 the only 'rogue' who uses INT to AC is the rogue-duelist. "One can fight brutish, others can fight quick and nimble, but I prefer to fight clever". ![]()
![]() thflame wrote:
Both systems have the retraining option, which is nice. I'd love to be corrected if I'm wrong, but I think that thanks to the actual system of multiclassing/archetypes/prestige class in PF2 this kind of combination is doable without the feeling of being underwhelmed in comparison to the overall power level of the game. ![]()
![]() 1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? Yes but not as much as 5~10 years ago. 2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? Troublesome is not the word I'd use, nowadays it feels unpolished. I was in the train among other folks thinking the 1st ed was in need of an overhaul. 3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? 5th Edition, but bear in mind that I've only played a few runs using those rules. And never played 4th Ed. 4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? All of those. Practically asking for the impossible. I want every aspect of the game, from rules to flavor text, to have its own little place. 5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general? Overall, it's a good decision. But as I learned while testing 5th Ed, with accesibility comes easiness that may lead to boredom to more 'experienced' players. 6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4? Yes. 7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system than what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will). If by alternative you mean variant rules, then yes. 8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? a) AC divided into Blunt AC - Slashing AC - Piercing AC - Touch AC b) More consequences for being wounded in combat. Both aesthetically and mechanically. c) Saving throws more organical, using the 6 attributes. d) Combat rules for fighting gigantic enemies, Shadow of the Colossus style. e) 'Cheating' actions for big bosses like the legendary actions in 5th Ed. f) I am pretty sure I can come up with more but my lazy mind stopped working. ![]()
![]() Deadmanwalking wrote:
Interesting. You know my good undead sir, that simple post sparked a home rule idea about 'difficulty settings' for my homebrew campaigns. Some kind of Heroic - Standard - Gritty. ![]()
![]() N N 959 wrote:
Bullseye, good post here. In the LotR movies there're two subtle yet cool scenes in... the second movie I guess, where the hobbits were taken to Isengard. One of them is how Aragorn is able to know the direction, numbers and other stuff about the enemy just listening the earth, and how the tracking party was faster than the fleeing one. The second is probably unrelated, but I love the scene where Legolas says "A red sun rises. Blood has been spilled this night". ![]()
![]() David knott 242 wrote:
I think Unicore refers to more complicated scenarios, like what happens to a creature's body when it dies. I remember a thread in the rules forum a couple months ago, nobody agreed if a dead body was still a creature, an object, or a creature with the dead condition. ![]()
![]() In the game Icewind Dale there is a strong conflict between Law vs Chaos presented. The chaotic barbarian tribes are very angry with the constant invasion of the 'civilized' people. In Planescape setting, AL is the key factor. Armies of fiends and demons at war because one side is Chaos and the other is Law. Entire cities in the planes can switch one plane to another if the people living in it have a strong belief towards that new AL. What I am trying to say with my amazing communication skills is that there can be a value if the setting the PCs play at is adequate for it. ![]()
![]() Ckorik wrote:
For what is worth it. In 1st and 2nd edition those spells were also used to make 'inmortal guardians' whose duty and devotion was bound beyond the grave. The elven Baelnorn lich is a good example. And if I recall correctly there was even the class kit White Necromancer. In 3rd edition the negative energy that sustains any undead form is considered 'evil' because one way or another it lead to unavoidable damnation even for the most pious ones, the book Libris Mortis tries to explain the meaning behind. This new concept for negative is evil and positive is good brought new oddities to the game, and so the Book of Exalted Deeds tried to implement the 'undead life made from positive energy', the Inmortal template. I don't have any knowledge how they deal in 4th or 5th Ed to compare. My intention of this post is not to argue, just sharing some history. ![]()
![]() Deadmanwalking wrote:
On unaware adventurers? Alright alright I know where the door is... ![]()
![]() I don't think the case to be true since what it seems to me it's that they are trying to make almost every magic item relevant/useful. And honestly, some folks have the ability to go and look their chosen 'image avatar' for their PC and ignore the fact that he is now overloaded with magical trinkets and stuff, I am not one of them. That's why I willingly paid overpriced items with combined effects. Weather Report wrote:
Ah yes, good old times. When literally nothing could be done when the fiendish neighbours started to succesfully gate to the infinity and beyond more companions to the battle. ![]()
![]() My only issue with goblins is the +2 CHA, I am really looking forward to see what can they bring to the table, mechanical or lore wise. pjrogers wrote:
"In PFS every PC can only be created under explicit consent of the GM" Problem solved.
|