Zapp's page

353 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 353 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Most excellent - thx!


Taking Fall of Plaguestone as an example, the text contains very many stat blocks, many more than you probably expect: Mangy Wolves, Caustic Wolf, Drunken Farmer, Bee Swarm, Giant Lightning Serpent, Hallod (the Town Bully), Mutant Wolves, Stone Horse, Icy Rats, Fiery Leopard, Orc Alchemists, the Sculptor, Lord Nar, Graytusk, Alchemical Drudges, the Amalgam, the Behemoth, and Vilree the Alchemist.

That's eighteen (!) stat blocks. In one product.

So allow me to ask again:

Do you know of any index of every published PF2 stat block? :-)

Best regards


Reckless wrote:

Because each adventure path installment has a short bestiary and that's what the site references.

Okay, that's disappointing.


K1 wrote:

The problem is that sturdy shields are magic shields.

It is not that we are comparing magical shields against not magical shields made to block.

They are both magical.

Well, if sturdy shields *weren't* magical, it would just be a matter of time before people started arguing you could enchant them to gain both the hit points AND the rune effects.

So an argument can be made it's the solution and not the problem.

PS. Please understand I don't have a beef in this fight. I understand the arguments of both sides.


The Gleeful Grognard wrote:


I get that people are confused, i just don't think it makes for good game design / interesting choices to just boost durability.

I hope you saw I don't directly argue against you. I just wanted to know if you could see how this might have been handled more... delicately?

Edit: People clearly expect shields to be enchantable as you level up, even with the new-fangled blocking thing.

That is, if Paizo's intention really is to make people choose they could have said so clearly.

Now there is only disappointment that shields with magical abilities "only" provide +2 AC after all, despite all the hoo-haa involving shield blocks, giving fighters a shield block reaction and so on.

It is not unreasonable to ask that Piazo could and should have foreseen this issue. People clearly expect to be able to keep blocking with their shields even as they gain abilities.

A design where the default is the same as with every other edition of D&D, where shield block is not a thing, but where select shields CAN be used to block with, and then just not offering that ability together with any other enchantment would possible have come across as more direct and more intuitive.

After all, the current design only invites people to block with their expensive magic shields only to see tens of thousands of gold coins go down the drain, and for what? 50 points less damage once?


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Check here and go to 'Sources'. That goes per source one at a time, but it'll do in a pinch.

Thank you!

What you'd do is open that Source tab, then CTRL-click Bestiary (to select every source but the Bestiary), and then search (after selecting any other criteria, of course).

I just did such a search for elementals. The search returned zero hits, telling me there are no new elemental stat blocks out yet.

If nothing else, this saves me the time spent looking for something that simply isn't there.

Quote:
It does leave out creatures from the adventures themselves (rather than supplementary material), but it's still a good starting place.

I'm sorry but I don't understand.

If I select Pathfinder 146 Cult of Cinders will it or won't it give me the unique stat blocks from that scenario?

(If the answer is no, why even have sources??)


The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Personally I would be quite sad if they go back on the hardness choices of shields.

If they did that there would be no real purpose to sturdy shields and it would be better to have shields take runes and make sturdy a fundamental rune.

As it is shield decision is "do you want a durable shield, or a utility shield" with special materials briding the gap.

I hope you can see why people are confounded.

In effect, the game first says "shields in this edition can outright block damage".

Then it appears that's only true for non-magical shields: once you level up, you're effectively asked to choose between a shield with useful abilities that only provides the traditional AC bump, and a shield that blocks damage (but provides little other benefit).

So what the game really is saying is "shields in this edition can outright block damage or provide magical abilities but not both"

Not saying it's outright "wrong".

Saying it's "unintuitive". Possibly even "disappointing".

At least we should be able to agree Paizo could have communicated their intent for PF2 shields better.


Ediwir wrote:


3) Electric Arc nerf.

I do not expect rebalancing, I expect errata. And I expect Electric Arc to be some form of misprint.

Just as a note to people reading this:

If you read our thread on Electric Arc you will find that plenty of people are fine with it as-is, pointing out several mitigating factors (that I won't repeat here since we already have a thread for that). So expecting errata is likely wildly misguided.

(There might be some rebalancing down the line, but even that feels unlikely after reading the thread)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually, when reading the twenty or so replies what strikes me the most is:

There aren't really any showstopping errors, are there?

I mean Wizards having one feat too many or shields having low hit points or some equipment being bulkier than intended (or not bulky enough?) hardly makes the game unplayable.

I've heard the cries for "errata now" but if what's been suggested so far is really it, it makes me understand better Paizo's decision to not make errata their highest priority...

PS. Not trying to dismiss or ridicule anyone's concerns. But take the Alchemist as an example - if it really is as underpowered as some reports make it out to be the stopgap measure is... not to play one. I mean, compare to 5E's Beastmaster Ranger which isn't errataed even five years after publication!

My point is simply that my burning question is "are there any mistakes that truly lowers quality of play?" So far, it doesn't seem there is, in that every "un-errataed" item is either bearable or avoidable.


BellyBeard wrote:
Zapp wrote:
Why do you insist on just discussing the rules when I've repeatedly stated I have no questions regarding the rules?
This is the rules board.

True.

If you read through the thread you'll notice that the first order of business was to ascertain whether the spell actually worked a certain way (despite its unchanged description).

Only when I got confirmation that yes that is correct did the main focus of discussion move over to discussing whether the description accurately matches the mechanics. I can't immediately say which subforum is best for that discussion, but you're entirely correct to suggest that Rules ain't it.

However, I'm sure this thread is not the first one to experience topic drift, and I wouldn't be surprised if forum policy is to leave threads in place once assigned a home. (Feel free to inform me I'm wrong!)

Cheers!


Do you know of any convenient one-stop listing of every stat block that doesn't come from the Bestiary (or the Bestiary 2 once that's released)?

That is, a way to not have to go through every single scenario or module* to find additional monsters and NPCs that isn't in the Bestiary?
*Official modules from Paizo or PFS

For instance, say I'm interesting in finding out if there's official stats for any additional elemental critters besides the Mephits and Elementals of the Bestiary (to provide variety at any given level range). If there isn't a dozen adventures already there will be soon, so having a master index would be very useful and time-saving.

Many Thanks

PS. The listing doesn't need to contain the full stat block.
A reasonably explanatory reference (such as "Hallod, level 3 town bully, Plaguestone page 21") would suffice.


5th Ed has this rather interesting idea that in order to, say, manipulate a magic mirror to show you what you want... or open/activate an unknown portal so you can step through... in several instances this is handled by a Charisma check as your personality and id battle to make the unknown magics do your bidding. (Or something like that).

That is, you'd roll a d20, add your Charisma modifier and try to reach DC 20 or whatever.

Now, what would be your best suggestion for how to "officially" handle this in PF2?

I already know of the principle "only one roll" or "don't pitch an active roll against an active defense", so it's either the item making a roll against the character's DC or the character making a roll against the item's DC.

But what roll?
(A skill? What skill?)
(A save? Can you even make "active" as opposed to reactionary saves?)
(An ability? Do PF2 even use ability checks?)

Against what DC? (Not the number, but what kind of DC? Deception DC? Will DC? Class DC?)

Obviously you could say "make a Charisma check"... but if that's not what a person steeped in PF2 would do, that would make the mechanism feel more 5E than PF2 and that's what I'm seeking advice to avoid... :)

Ideas?

Zapp

Just one caveat: I'm not looking for any solution that gates the attempt behind a class. For instance, Rogues have traditionally owned the "operate unknown devices" niche. But I'm not interested in anything that in practice becomes "if you don't have Class X, you can't proceed". Obviously the 5E solution rewards any party that contains a charisma-based character, but that's not the same as saying "you can't even try without a Rogue". Thank you for understanding.


Vali Nepjarson wrote:
I feel like people are jumping down Zapp's throat a little prematurely here. He explained that his question had more to do with the flavor of the spell and how that flavor interacts with the rules rather than the rules themselves and whether this is congruent with how the spell has previously been depicted.

No worries.

All I wanted was confirmation on "doesn't the spell warrant a description like [provided]" with a couple of posters ignoring this repeatedly and adamantly missing my point, refusing to see any issue.

They're easy enough to ignore. Thanks for your support :)


Thanks everybody for thoughts so far!

I completely get that the main component of any "official" price needs to be based on whether the fire damage stacks with a magic bow.

I mean, since you can achieve a permanent +1d6 damage by simply purchasing a relatively cheap striking rune, the damage itself isn't very highly priced.

I understand the difference to AD&D, say, is the availability of crafting. In AD&D you can hand out as many Fire Arrows as you like, and put a relatively low cost on them.

Here, that would just be an invitation to craft.

So I need to say that Flaming Arrows can't stack with the bow's regular damage, or it must be kep out of reach of every hero except those of the highest level.

Problem is, don't the rules already say this?

Meaning, why do we discuss it as if it was a problem if it really isn't?

(I'm guessing you can shoot a Flame Arrow froma +1 Bow and get the +1 to attacks, but you won't get the double/triple damage dice from the weapon itself)

Since this means a 1d6 Flame Arrow a decidedly low-level treasure it should mean our discussion ends up with a low-level price. Once you can afford a two-dice Striking rune, all the arrow would do is let you switch damage types. (Not useless, but generally not worth it)


Wheldrake wrote:

Reading about Spellstrike ammunition, there doesn't appear to be anything preventing you from preparing multiple arrows well in advance (days or more) and keeping the arrows in your quiver.

If that is the case, you could have a level 1 spellstrike arrow with the spell Burning hands in it, dealing 2d6 fire damage to the target. All for 12gp per arrow (level 3 item). And you could find such arrows in treasure.

The only problem would be if there was some caveat I haven't found stating you have to cast the spell on the round the arrow is shot.

Indeed. Read the rules for activating ammunition (in the beginning of the section on ammunition, a type of consumable)

You will find that once activated the ammo only stays activated a short while (until the end of your turn IIRC) before turning "inactive" again.

And Spellstrike specifically calls out for Cast a Spell as the activation! :)

Edit: ninjas!


Gaterie wrote:


In other words, any level 1-10 character can chose any level 1-10 task if he lives in a metropolis.

And let's be serious: reaching a metropolis isn't a great accomplishment. It's, you know, the perfect exemple of a low-level task: use secured road to attain a secured area. This is why, you know, there are so many low-level people in the metropolis: because it's easy to reach and well-secured.

Quote:
The Society rule of "level-2" seems like a reasonable compromise.

No. Any character should be able to chose any level 1-10 task.

I don't understand you.

You talk as if your character's greatest dream was to craft. (For a character whose greatest dream is to craft, moving to the big city is entirely reasonable)

You seem to forget your character exists to adventure.

Most adventures start in smaller settlements, and many of them never give the heroes any significant time off to visit a metropolis, at least not before leveling up several times.

In fact, I recommend you use the text as your guide: start your level 1 characters off in small level 1 settlements and don't feature a metropolis until level 8.

Quote:
Quote:
The Society rule of "level-2" seems like a reasonable compromise.
No. Any character should be able to chose any level 1-10 task.

No, that's just not reasonable.

Only big cities offer high-level tasks, and low-level characters seldom have the time or the inclination to tourist.

Good luck with your game


albadeon wrote:
Zapp wrote:
I wouldn't consider it unreasonable for a level 4 character to reach a town, a level 6 character to reach a city and a level 10 character to find a metropolis. So in general, I would say these restrictions aren't as harsh as they first appear, at least not until level 10. That is, I would think it reasonable for a character willing and able to move, to be able to find a task of his or her own level.

For comparison, looking at the Age of Ashes adventure path, the biggest settlement in Part 3 is level 7 (with PCs expected to be level 9-12), while the only settlement in part 4 is level 5 (with PCs expected to be level 12-15). For the settlements in parts 1 and 2, no levels are given, but I wouldn't expect them to be much higher.

Sure, the PCs could travel to some metropolis, but getting there takes time as well, which you could otherwise spend crafting. Again, how your GM handles this has a major impact. If he just chooses to let you travel instantly for free, crafting is going to be worth less by comparison. But if you have to make the choice between crafting level 10 items for 28 days or spending 14 days on the road to do 14 days of level 10 earn income, it might be looking more attractive.

Yes, I said "It might dry up sooner if the campaign is set in a fixed place which means the heroes stay put in a smaller settlement."

My comment was made with a home campaign in mind, where there isn't a prewritten story that keeps the heroes to a selected locale.

If the game is a home game nothing prevents the GM from adopting the "level-2" rule even when running an official adventure path.

In this case it would allow level 13 crafting in that part 4 settlement you mention.


Cydeth wrote:
My wife uses it over all the other cantrips for one reason only. Her dice hate her, and she far prefers forcing the GM to roll their saves rather than rolling herself.

If you have a wife that plays rpgs with you, you should definitely consider splurging $20 to gift her some new dice!


Ageron wrote:
I think there's room for a house rule where component on hand subtract from the gp cost. For example, if the PCs come across 30gp worth of lumber it seems fair to subtract 30gp from the cost of crafting wooden items,as the lumber is 'consumed', rather than turning around and selling that lumber later.

Yes, this is reasonable in the same way "you kill an Ogre and find 30 gold" is reasonable.

That is, the key here is: any such findings are Treasure placed by the GM. You can never "game" this to undercut the official Crafting prices in general.

That is, you can't say "okay so if lumber saves me 30 gp on crafting, I spend my days chopping down trees and get a permanent 30 gp discount on my wooden crafting".

You only get the savings because you have a found a Treasure. You can't monetize the world around you, because you're a heroic adventurer, not a NPC crafter.

You CAN say "okay so I'll give up my life as a hero and start crafting full-time".

At which point the GM will say "sure enough. Tim is now a NPC that you can buy crafted woodwork from. Do note that Tim now adds a surcharge to make his items cost the same prices as listed in the CRB"

:)


Ed Reppert wrote:
Joe Supplier gets most of his business selling to Weyland Smith. That sets the price at which he sells his products. Tim Adventurer comes along and wants to buy a relatively small amount of product. If that sale is not going to affect Joe’s dealings with Weyland, do you really think he would gouge Tim? Even if it did put a small temporary dent in his dealings with Weyland, Joe is unlikely to charge more than a small premium to Tim.

It's a game of adventure, not an economic simulator.

The answer "The thing to take into account is that the rules for crafting are made for PCs who adventure, not for simulating "real crafters" is the best you're gonna get.


albadeon wrote:
However, if he restricts the availablity of higher-level earn income tasks (I can't find the quote right now, but seem to recall a limit based on the settlement's level, e.g.), crafting a level 10 item as a level 10 character can be very much worth it compared to doing a level 5 earn income task (because in the small village you're at that's the best work to be had...) instead using the same amount of time..

Page 504:

"The highest-level task available is usually the same as the
level of the settlement where the character is located. If
you don’t know the settlement’s level, it’s usually 0–1 for a
village, 2–4 for a town, or 5–7 for a city. A PC might need
to travel to a metropolis or capital to find tasks of levels
8-10, and to the largest cities in the world or another plane
to routinely find tasks beyond that."

I wouldn't consider it unreasonable for a level 4 character to reach a town, a level 6 character to reach a city and a level 10 character to find a metropolis. So in general, I would say these restrictions aren't as harsh as they first appear, at least not until level 10. That is, I would think it reasonable for a character willing and able to move, to be able to find a task of his or her own level.

This might dry up at double-digit levels depending on the GM's campaign world. It might dry up sooner if the campaign is set in a fixed place which means the heroes stay put in a smaller settlement.

The Society rule of "level-2" seems like a reasonable compromise.


mrspaghetti wrote:
No one asked for a free lunch

Good.

Then you agree that crafting allows you to prepare the lunch you want to eat as opposed to the lunch the school cafeteria offers.

The price is the same, but the variety is greater. Not to mention the little fact there are no cafeterias down in dungeons or out in the wilderness.

If you actually like what the cafeteria offers, then you should totally buy your lunch and not pick up Crafting.

For instance, if your character envisions always adventuring in a large city, where magic shoppes will always sell you the stuff you need, then Crafting is not for you.

Which is entirely okay, since we agree the lunch does not need to be free, just varied. :)

Regards
Zapp


K1 wrote:

You are forcing it too much.

Flaming rune could shot flaming arrows.

You don't have to justify the flavor too much.

I really don't want to rain on your parade, but can I please ask you to read the request.

A flaming rune is permanent. I don't want to hand out infinite flaming arrows. (Plus - knowing my players they'd transfer the rune to a melee weapon right away!)

I want to hand out individual arrows. Such as "you find half a dozen Flaming Arrows".

Please take this as encouragement. I really like that you want to help out.

What do you feel is the appropriate cost of one (1) Flaming Arrow? :)


I'm looking for suggestions as how to price something like a magic arrow that deals +1d6 fire damage, with the intent that there is no added action cost.

(If you normally can shoot three arrows in a round, you can shoot three Flaming Arrows in a round)

Should it be priced as a level 4 consumable? Level 6? Level 8? I would love to hear your best lines of reasoning for the answer you provide! :)


Wheldrake wrote:

Actually, talismans are the *perfect* model for magic arrows. They are affixed to their weapons (like a special arrowhead would be fixed to the arrow shaft) and they can be used only once, like all items with the "consumable" trait.

I don't see any functional difference between ammunition and talismans used as ammunition, aside from their varying powers.

I really don't want to talk about Talismans so I'll just say I strongly disagree - a Talisman is supposed to take 10 minutes to prep, so please don't stare yourself blind on the spurious resemblance, that both are consumable. (Plus Talismans are for the most part horribly overpriced and plain bad, so no thanks)


beowulf99 wrote:

Another option is to use a leaf from the "Special Circumstances" bit on Pg. 492.

In that section a character adds the Fire trait to her sword by dipping her sword in some hot coals.

Take this logic and apply it to an arrow: A character dips an arrow in pitch and lights it. This does not add an appreciable amount of damage to the arrow itself but adds the Fire Trait to it. The cost is that of an arrow. Maybe throw in the pitch or something, but the important thing is you have given the character an option that is "different" but still mechanically viable. If you want to allow them to light things on fire with the arrow, feel free. Maybe give the target a bit of persistent Fire damage on a crit similar to an Acid Flask or something. Just make sure that you require them to light that bad boy before flinging it around and it shouldn't be a balance issue.

So far as cost? Not much? A Fire Arrow would really just be a standard arrow with cloth soaked in oil tied behind the arrow head after all.

Yes... but I've already stated I'm not just looking to set something on fire.

I am specifically talking about your best suggestions as to implementing Fire Arrows, Frost Arrows etc as seen in anything from Baldur's Gate, 5th Ed, Pathfinder 1 etc in PF2 :)


K1 wrote:


If they are from npc then the whole problem is solved. Npc do whatever you want.

You simply say

You take 9 piercing dmg and 7 fire dmg.
Without telling them what you rolled.

Except something like a flaming arrow can be looted. Once a PC tries to use one, I need game stats


Ravingdork wrote:
Seems to me like you'd only be able to manage it in exploration mode, as turn-based initiative would keep a second or third person from entering the area.

Thank you. I thought as much.

Exploration mode it is! :)


Any thoughts? =)


Vlorax wrote:

Gotcha, in that case I'd just theme them as magic "flaming arrows" where they're arrows with the talisman's embedded in them, maybe red crystal arrow heads.

Have them cost an Action to Activate since they're not affixed as normal, and when activated they're +1 +1d6 fire arrow.

Honestly Talismans would not be my choice of a template/model. They are clearly meant to be heavily restricted (mainly because you can only use one every ten minutes*) and Flaming Arrows are clearly stuff the NPC bandits shoot at you two per round :)

*) Sure you could carry backup weaponry and pre-affix them, but the benefit of most Talismans isn't worth giving up your main weapon for


Vlorax wrote:

Could always give them talismans that would attach to a bow, like a Potency Crystal but for fire.

Activate the talisman and instead of the weapon becoming +1 Striking, make it +1 and 1d6 fire dmg.

Yeah I could... but "here's a flaming arrow" feels much more "classic D&D" you know?

Here's a flaming talisman, which you don't shoot, but affix to your bow, and then shoot (a normal arrow). The longer route, you know what I mean?


Varus Wreckpoint wrote:
Probably Spellstrike Ammunition:

Interesting. Thanks!

Edit : Since you activate this particular piece of magical ammunition by casting a spell into it, and activation only lasts your turn, you cannot find "preloaded" spellstrike ammunition.


BellyBeard wrote:
If we did the PF1 thing of 1/50 price

We won't :)

Edit: What I am specifically looking for is PF2-talk like "the Flaming rune is a permanent level 8 rune, so the one-time ammunition should be a level N consumable.

If we go with level 8, that's 40 gold (or thereabouts).

(Then if we want you or I can take this information and go "that feels a wee bit too expensive so let's make it level X instead". At least we have the baseline.)

What I want y'all to do is give me input on what level is appropriate :) Level 8 is just my guess, after all.

There might be precedent in the form of existing items that suggest that "equal level" isn't the intended "formula" after all, what do I know :)


BellyBeard wrote:

I think it was consciously cut from the game. In theory in first edition you could make a Green Arrow character who has many different types for every occasion, but in practice you probably just have one type of go-to arrow, in which case you just enchant the bow instead.

Magic ammo is a thing still, but they are special specific ammo, not just any rune. I think it's to prevent ranged characters from getting double runes, from weapon and from ammo, instead you just get weapon runes.

The expected price should be fairly high, since stacking runes as mentioned above would be a very powerful boon which would be more valuable than simply adding an extra rune to the bow. Compare to the non-damage boosting ammo that exists, or maybe to the alchemical bombs, to try and come up with a number, keeping this in mind.

I think your theory "I think it was consciously cut from the game" is interesting, except I must shoot down your arguments :)

The game already says magic ammo suppresses any property runes on the bow or crossbow (unless the specific ammo says otherwise) so that's not a concern.

And I am not sure the Green Arrow character is relevant to the matter at hand. After all, I'm looking to hand out a few bonus fire d6's. The fact this won't change the life quality of an enchanter shouldn't be held against this desire. :)

The price for stacking effects is fortunately not up for discussion. But you're right such a price would be stratospheric indeed (even a level 20 character would want free bonus damage!)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Do Explosive Ammunition and Storm Arrow not count?

No, they do count, except I was looking for something relevant to the mid single-digit levels. Thank you.

More specifically, what to do when a d20 scenario gives out "three Flaming arrows". Something even a level 1 character could get their hands on without any fuss.

Obviously the answer is "but hand out three Flaming arrows then" :-) ...but what if the party sells them. What is the market price? What is the level?

In PF2 terms, using your best efforts to mimic any offical thinking (that is, following CRB precedent. Am not interested in things like "the price of a consumable is too high, so I'm putting it at 1/50th like before".


K1 wrote:
It you are trying to find an extra font of dmg, there are not.

Thank you (in so much I shouldn't keep looking for what's not there)

Quote:


You can enchant your weapon with the rune you want, but that's it.

You want to set some hay on fire? You can rule it with your DM by using oil on an arrow.

No I want to hand out a Flaming (or Frost or whatev) Rune, except not on a permanent basis.

A happy middle-ground between "yes, you get +1d6 fire damage forever" and "no".

Lots of examples of this in scenarios for previous editions


Items like this, that provide a one-time +1d6 fire damage bonus, is not especially rare to see in D&D adventures.

But it does not seem Pathfinder 2 offers official support for them in the CRB.

I do see the Flaming rune*. But my question is: what about a "consumable"** Flaming rune that a Ranged character can benefit from? Or, in other words, Flaming arrows :-)

Question: have I missed something or is there no magic ammo with bonus damage?

Question: what would be the expected price if there was?
(That is, in your best opinion, following the general frameworks of this edition, at what level should something like a Flaming ammo be pegged? Do note there is SOME precedence: things like "oil of Keen Edges" that pretty much is a consumable Keen rune.)

*) meaning that if you can get bonus damage from a "Flaming Bow" there's no game-play or balance reason not to allow Flaming Arrows as well...
**) not all ammo is consumables but I expect this to be


Claxon wrote:


Oh right, forgot about that.

So give it the uncommon trait instead, as the katana, and maybe deadly and otherwise its a shortsword.

Actually, the devil is in the details, so it's best to offer carefully calibrated advice.

Sorry, but shooting from the hip doesn't get me where I want to be - I looked at the shortsword but quickly found it unsuitable as the basis for the wakisashi - put simply, a shortsword is as good as a katana, and we're trying to create the sidearm to the katana, not a competitor.

In my mind the wakisashi needs to relate to a shortsword in the way a katana relates to a longsword.

In the absence of official wakisashi stats I'd like to select an existing weapon and reskin it. If that's not possible I would like to select the existing weapon that allows me the least number of modifications.

But I concede one point - the katar is simple, and a martial weapon like the wakisashi probably deserves at least one extra property.

Thank you.


Wheldrake wrote:

It seems more to me like a player trying to bluff his way into adding additional cool weapon properties when nothing in the weapons list is cool enough for him.

But hey, if it works for you in your home game, go for it!

That's not the case. The adventure I'm converting features a wakisashi, so I went looking in the CRB and didn't find one. (Since I haven't got very heartening advice I'm probably going to end up making that weapon a katana, so I can avoid homebrew at this early stage, but I'm still interested in a "official adjacent" wakisashi)

Quote:
You could also just make it a katana with a one-step reduction in the damage die.

If you mean you reduce the damage die... and you reduce the deadly die... what makes this easier than starting off with a weapon of the correct damage die from the start?

I mean, the damage die defines the overall nature of a weapon, mainly its size (two-handed, one-handed, sidearm, knife).

But if what you're suggesting is chiefly just another way of getting to the same end result (a martial uncommon d4 deadly d6 pierce versatile S weapon)... then its semantics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:


But the solution remains the same. A player who isnt having fun with a GM/group has to leave the table. Since rarity is a default deny, a player who wants to play the weird uncommon builds and has little access to tables has to stop playing the game.

Well, no, a player that absolutely refuses to play any of the myriad builds that either the rules or the GM allows has to stop play the game.

Sounds less reasonable once you look at it in the proper light, don't you think?

A player that merely *wants* to play a weird uncommon build in a campaign unsuited for it is simply given no for an answer, and will presumably play something else. :)


Artofregicide wrote:
Sounds good to me.

Thanks!

Claxon wrote:

In PF1 it was basically a re-skinned short sword, with an expanded crit range.

I'd make it a shortsword with deadly trait and exotic proficiency

I would like to draw your attention to the fact the katana isn't exotic.

Wheldrake wrote:

Or just make it a shortsword.

Why complicate things?

Can you by any chance see any value in the argument "because a katana isn't a longsword, the wakisashi deserves to be not a shortsword"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Simple question - there is official katana stats in the PF2 rulebook.

What is your recommended PF2 stats for the wakisashi?

Ideally a reskin of an existing weapon rather than a brand new entry.

---

The basics: it's one die-step lower than the katana, so it must be a d4 weapon. Like a katana it's not common, so it must be uncommon. Like the katana, it should probably be "deadly".

All this points to the katar stats, except replacing the "monk" trait with "versatile S"

What do you think?


See page 526 for the specifics and the beginning of the Hazard chapter on page 520 for general rules.

How do you run a patch of Quicksand?

I would like there to be a chance of more than one hero getting caught up by it. In movies and literature it's not uncommon for characters to only realize they're stuck in quicksand after a crucial few seconds, enough for the second or third man in line to also risk getting trapped.

But if I use the interrupt as instructed, a second character will of course never willingly use its actions to Stride into the area.

How would you run the hazard (from exploration mode up until the transitioning into encounter mode and the first round of "combat")?

---

I'm thinking of having a few low-level critters (such as Goblins) trying to bait the heroes to running into a patch of Quicksand.

How would that encounter play out, from the instance the heroes spot the hiding Goblins (or when the Goblins pop up to pelt them with arrows or something).

The goblins only make a few quick attacks and then flee. The heroes reflex is to pursue.

Assuming they don't think of making Seek actions, there is now zero chance of spotting the danger, and if they just throw themselves into a sprint, they will run right into the quicksand.

When exactly can or must I trigger the quicksand's reaction?

I don't want to trigger it as instructed, during the fastest character's turn, since that means only one character is ever at risk.

But if I don't, won't that character simply keep on running, exiting the patch on the other side?

In short, how do I reconcile the reality of people moving simultaneously with the game mechanisms of everybody acting in turn, on an initiative list?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Genocidal Jester wrote:

PC: Oh lord thy god, how I beseech thee: May I prepare protection this morn?

GM: Depends. Hast thou bought thy pizza and chips?

Though I jest, I guarantee you, somewhere this has actually happened or will happen. GMs did not need additional empowerment.

Patent nonsense.

A GM could already shaft or extort his players.

"A Balor attacks!"
"But we're only level four!"
"I guess it could halt its attacks. Hast thou bought thy pizza and chips?"

So no.

The opposite, on the other hand, wasn't true. Not every GM wanted to be the one saying no, and now he can point to the rules saying no instead.

After a decade of Pathfinder 1 I clearly see why Paizo changed things around.

After all, a loss for player entitlement is a win for the game. :)


Luke Styer wrote:
Zapp wrote:
The difference, the key difference that the rules regulate, is that an uncommon spell can't be assumed to exist at all. You can't rely on it existing, because that requires GM buy-in.
That isn’t my understanding of the rarity system. I’ve understood it to be entirely about availability, but unless the GM says otherwise, the options in the CRB, at least, can reasonably be assumed to exist.

Yes and no.

Any item (ability, spell etc) that isn't common is potentially not available at all*.

Sure you can say there's no difference between "not allowed" and "can't find it". And sure enough, there isn't one in practice.

Yet there is a difference, since merely thinking "it's uncommon so I might never find it" misses the point, and the point is that the rules put the decision in the hands of the GM.

If you miss this distinction, you might go "I haven't yet found this uncommon thing, but because its in the rules I must find it sooner or later. After all, sooner or later I get divination magic that will find it for me. Or I'll cast Wish!"

This is PF1 thinking that is no longer valid. It's not common so it might not exist at all, as the rules leaves the decision up to the GM. Even the most potent divining can't find something that isn't there at all!

Once the GM decides it exists in his game world, it can be easy to find or it can be hard to find: often the latter, sure, but not always. For instance, the uncommon items in the equipment chapter. They are readily available to any character that has "unlocked" them. For that character, the item is as common as any other.

tldr: Just looking at rarity as a measure of availability misses a key distinction - the way the rules empower the GM.

*) There exist uncommon choices that can be "unlocked" without GM approval, and that's fine:

Quote:

Items with an uncommon rarity can be purchased only if

you have special access from abilities you selected during
character creation or your GM gives you permission to
purchase them.

CRB page 271


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Jib916 wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
If I want to build an arcane warrior that needs a ring of wizardry to be effective, I am still not able to expect that.

Relying on one item/spell/etc to make your build "effective" , does not seem effective at all.

I am not sure if this a system specific problem, as one could argue the same thing about any system, no matter the "rarity" of item.

This is maybe more pervasive than you seem to think. For instance, throwing weapon builds are essentially useless later without returning runes (which are common but still an item that acts as a cornerstone of your character's powers).

Not sure I get your point?

If you're arguing builds rely on things, then yes. D'oh.

If you're arguing popular builds you see often rely on uncommon things, then no. For instance, the throwing weapon build is reasonably frequent. And it relies on returning rune. And that rune is Common. So...?


Gorbacz wrote:

It's the people who want the baseline assumption of having their Savage Horticulturist/Landsknecht accepted at every table by default vs. the people who want more control over the content in their games without having to vet everything case by case or argue just why exactly is the Landsknecht off the table all over again.

PF1 was clearly in favour of the former, PF2 is clearly in favour of the latter. Different games, different philosophies, play the one you prefer.

Exactly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

That has ALWAYS been the the case.

Player: “I just got Ultimate Combat/Haunted Heroes Handbook so I’m totally playing a Gunslinger/Pact Wizard next game.”

GM: “Those don’t really fit the game so I’m going to have to say no.”

Difference is, now it's enshrined in rules language.

This way, all those that point to the rules to get their way can now be met by pointing to the rules:

"It's not just me saying no, it's the rules saying no!"

For any reasonable group, there is of course no difference in practical play. But not everyone has the luxury of playing with reasonable players...


Luke Styer wrote:
Zapp wrote:
Just because a spell is uncommon doesn't mean it's harder to learn or find.
I don’t think commonality has any impact on the difficulty of learning a spell once you find it, but “harder to . . . find” seems almost the definition of uncommon, because you’ll only “find” it if you make a mechanical choice that gives you access or if the GM makes the intentional decision to let you find it.

I kind of waited for someone to misinterpret me this way ;)

I mean that an uncommon spell either exists or does not exist in the game world.

Once it is determined it exists, it is no harder to use, learn, find than any other.

That is: it might be available everywhere. It might also be incredibly hard to track down.

The difference, the key difference that the rules regulate, is that an uncommon spell can't be assumed to exist at all. You can't rely on it existing, because that requires GM buy-in.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A Harm spell that caused +8 damage when used against living creatures would be overpowered, so it's not that there's no love for Harm Clerics, it's that you can't compare giving a general +8 healing bonus with a general +8 damage bonus.

1 to 50 of 353 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>