Kitsune

Zhayne's page

5,694 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,694 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I usually call the blessing deck 'the timer deck'.


adam morin wrote:
Thanks for the replys i just couldn't remember read if there was some wizard school run by dwarfs or a sect of there smiths that are arcane crafters.

There might be. Ask your GM, he's the one who decides.


MidsouthGuy wrote:


If being in the core rules doesn't mean most commonly encountered anymore, then what does it mean?

When did it ever mean that? I've been in games where humans didn't even exist. This is 100% campaign setting dependent, and was never stated, or even implied, to be any kind of rule.

In my game world, you're more likely to encounter a goblin than a half-elf, because half-elves don't exist.

Golarion is not the uber-setting in which all PF games must take place, so saying 'because Golarion' is a nonsense argument.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
NielsenE wrote:
To me, part of the class balance is the alignment restriction.

Roleplaying in no way serves as any kind of balancing effect, because it's purely subjective. Note how many threads come up asking whether or not a paladin should get hosed, and that there's never any real consensus? That's why it doesn't work as a balancer, because you may or may not be able to get away with things depending on the GM's view on things. (See: Baby Goblin Slaughter threat #58392).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:


1.0 may have been more (anyone who says totally I will call a liar) setting neutral, but times are changing and the devs are pretty locked into PF2 being more tied to Golarion.

Hopefully, they'll realize what a colossal mistake this is very soon.


1. Not everybody plays on Golarion, so your cries of 'against the lore' are meaningless.

2. It just means PF needs to get with the times ... and amply demonstrates, yet again, why alignment is frelling stupid.


graystone wrote:
Well, Demons. If you think some creatures ARE pre-set with a behavure, then it's not hypocritical: it's a disagreement on which creatures fall under which categories.

The concept of all creatures coming with pre-set behaviors and personalities is so utterly abhorrent to me, I can't even comprehend the mindset. I do believe, canonically to Golarion, there are a handful of instances of demons ceasing to be evil (and, in individual home-made settings, which are far more important, I'm certain there are). The odds are incredibly slim, yes, but they exist.


Just destrict them racially, so there's just a pool of 'em and you can take whichever one you want, when you want.

Or hell, just make 'em a class customization feature, rather than 'favored class', so if you go a level of class A, you get one from A's list, then you get one from class B's list if you level up in class B, etc. etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

1. Problem players will be problem players, no matter what options there are or aren't. "It's what my character would do" is shorthand for 'you made the wrong character for this game'. This is why you have a 'session zero' before any dice or character sheets are touched, to make sure you don't have a problem character, or player, on your hands.

2. If you don't like 'em in your game, don't allow 'em. Lots of people seem to be looking forward to the little buggers, no reason your likes should impede theirs. You don't like the idea, then ban 'em, or hell, go hog-wild rock the casbah and change the lore so goblins AREN'T illiterate pyromaniacs in your game world.

3. Goblins, like all sentient beings, are individuals, no some hive-mind genetic experiment. If you don't demand/expect all elves to be tree-hugging hippies, dwarves to be drunken craftsmen, or whatever, then expecting all goblins to be insane pyros is just hypocritical.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:
It is much easier for a GM to relax a restriction than to impose one (in general). I'd much rather keep paladins LG.

I have to disagree with this. In the paladin example, it means some fairly significant restructuring of the class. On the other hand, if all-alignment paladins exist, it's easy as pie to just say 'LG only'.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's the thing ... if you put lots of player choice and flavor options in the game, then individual groups can pick the flavor/lore options they want. How this doesn't make everybody happy, I simply cannot fathom.

If there are non-LG Paladins, then people who prefer only LG paladins can say 'Only LG paladins in this world'. It may not be a compromise, per se, but it gives everybody what they want.

This means you can CREATE YOUR OWN world, lore, and flavor more easily.

Some of us don't give two squirts of (urine) about Golarion.

IMHO, the ideal setup would be to create a completely mechanical book,then a 'Golarion Campaign Setting' that narrows the options for 'canonical' Golarion, while leaving things wide open for those of us who make our own worlds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LuZeke wrote:
graystone wrote:
if I want my fireballs to be powered by tiny fire elemental dolls that explode, why force me to stuff it with guano and sulfur?

Because part of identifying a spell as it's being cast is observing the material components.

If you can use anything you want, then that particular mechanic stops working.

And yet, you can ID a silent, stilled, material-eschewed spell ...


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Keeping expensive components (a theoretical balance method) and foci is okay. I'd rather they be balanced some other way, but at least that's something.

Lame, stupid stuff like throwing bat poop or swallowing a live spider? No. Get rid of that idiocy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kimera757 wrote:
DRD1812 wrote:

I tend to use point buy in my games, but random methods have been growing on me lately. What about the rest of you guys? How do you balance the thrill of rolling for stats with the need for balanced gameplay?

Relevant bonus comic.

Point buy only, either as player or DM. This gives everyone a fair chance and makes it easier to balance the game as a DM.

And it means you can build the character you WANT to play, that you envision. I once rolled a character with such stupid high stats (in front of the GM, who said after we were done, he wanted me to buy him a lottery ticket), that I said I was just going to lower some of them, because 'prissy non-adventuring noblewoman who never did anything herself suddenly out of the manorhouse for the first time' wasn't going to have a 14 STR and CON (yes, everything I rolled was 14 or higher).

As far as min-maxing/dump stats/whatever goes, I find characters with distinct strengths and weaknesses more memorable than jack-of-all-trades-no-particular-strengths-or-weaknesses.


DRD1812 wrote:

I tend to use point buy in my games, but random methods have been growing on me lately. What about the rest of you guys? How do you balance the thrill of rolling for stats with the need for balanced gameplay?

Relevant bonus comic.

Point buy. I will never do anything else for my games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oy. I just rolled my eyes so hard, I checked out my own ass.

This is accounted for in the age determination, with wizard being a 'trained' class and thus adding the most years to your pre-adventuring career.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Memo: Me

--Stop playing at 12th level. 'Legendary' proficiency just looks absurd.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Being Small, as written now, already makes you weaker without a STR penalty; you have to use smaller weapons and lighter armor. The STR penalty on top of it is just insult to injury.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
doomman47 wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
The only difference is the casters have the magic baked in, while the non-casters gather the magic from without.

Which is another way of saying they aren't magical, their stuff is. Remove all gear, armor, weapons from the characters, and it becomes obvious who is 'magical' and who is not.

Superman without gear = Superman
Iron Man without gear = Rich alcoholic

Something of a difference there.

rich alcoholic with the ability to call all his gear and surplus gear to him at a moments notice.

... because he has gear that does it. My argument stands.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
If the 'attack bonus equals level' rule is correct, it seems to me a logical extrapolation from that is that Touch Attacks are going away.
What if I told you Touch AC is still a thing, but Flat-Footed is just a condition that gives you -2 AC.

Well, darn.

I was hoping Touch Attacks would go the way of the dodo.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

4E Warlord, with non-magical healing included. With rare exception, Warlords were all I played during 4e. I LOVED them.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I want the game to be equally playable with four fighters as a cleric-fighter-rogue-wizard combo, or any other combo.

I want every player to be able to play what he wants, when he wants, without having to worry about 'plugging holes' or 'filling roles'.

I don't want anybody 'getting stuck' playing something they don't want to because 'the game' makes it necessary.

Does anybody else agree with this?


Planpanther wrote:
Im taking a complete guess here, but I think there is going to be some type of healing surge or short rest shenanigans happening in the near future. Hope im wrong tho.

I hope you're right.

Ideally, IMNSHO, one should be able to play a no-magic game right out of the box.


If the 'attack bonus equals level' rule is correct, it seems to me a logical extrapolation from that is that Touch Attacks are going away.


I agree with Matthew Downie. Just throw the concealment-check-dice at the same time you throw the attack die.


VoodistMonk wrote:
I'm having a hard time visualizing a healthy full of life wizard because I have always figured extensive magic use took a toll on the body. Magic always has its price, sort of thing.

No evidence to support this hypothesis in the PF ruleset (or lore, from what little I know of it).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cardio and endurance training, basically. If you're like a lot of adventurers, you're going to spend huge chunks of your time walking around; that's going to build up your stamina.


Neo2151 wrote:
The only difference is the casters have the magic baked in, while the non-casters gather the magic from without.

Which is another way of saying they aren't magical, their stuff is. Remove all gear, armor, weapons from the characters, and it becomes obvious who is 'magical' and who is not.

Superman without gear = Superman
Iron Man without gear = Rich alcoholic

Something of a difference there.


With my personal definition of high level (8th), yes.


I can't imagine any god would get in a tizzy over something so utterly meaningless as a bit of clothing. It's beneath their dignity.


Okay, that makes it a more understandable mistake. I don't think your GM is bat-crap crazy now. :)


Volkard Abendroth wrote:
VoodistMonk wrote:
Gate was an extreme example. But everyone and their brother can summon beasts. Nice pleasant afternoon going to the market was ruined by some crazy barbarian going on a rampage... Just another Saturday in the city, though. Sure glad we moved out of the countryside where it wasn't safe...

This is an equally valid scenario.

Are you also going to have all weapons checked at the city gate?

Generally, yes. Or peacebonded/tied up/something to render them ineffective.

I'm considering inventing a magic-suppressing material that could be crafted into bracers or neckbands or something to prevent spellcasters from casting. Kind of like Kryptonite for mana.

One country already deals with illegal spellcasting with hand and tongue removal, but that's an outlier/extreme kind of country.


It does sound like your players are just screwing with you.

Maybe try 'the slash stands for 'except from'. DR 5/slashing means 'Damage Reduction 5 except from slashing'


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seconded. It would make things easier for people who run games that take place largely at sea, or in deserts, where armor wearing should be rare.


This is one of those situations where any sane GM would realize how stupidly broken that ability would be, and think 'I must not be reading this right'.


Omnius wrote:
Was there no group discussion about party cohesion before someone brought a paladin?

Obviously not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Making a single attack with the hand (what hand? Some spell, I'm guessing?) is a full round action, using TWF is a different full round action. Since you can't simultaneously take two full-round actions, you can't combine the two.


That'd be pretty cool.


Turambar wrote:
VoodistMonk wrote:
The whole interaction takes two minutes and the city is behind you...

I guess I just like my roleplaying games to have a little, you know, roleplaying.

And absolutely I like roleplaying a crowded marketplace. I always think it's strange when a GM offers a single Magic Big Box with every conceivable item for book cost.

Well said. It's a great way to introduce some flavor and amusing NPCs that could be contacts or friends, to say nothing of larceny the PCs could witness or be victims of (or, if that's your style of game, perpetrate).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
ohako wrote:
1st-level magic can be used to perform assault, arson, and seduction. Cast anything, anything at all out in the open, and it should be well and rightly assumed that you're trying to do one of those three things. There's three ways around this problem:

With that level of fear and paranoia we should also assume it is illegal to walk around wearing magic weapons or armor, carry or display magic items of any sort, be accompanied by any non-equinine animal companions, etc.

In other words, it would be illegal for adventures of any ilk to walk around with their adventuring gear, almost all of which can be assumed is useful for killing and plundering.

You say 'fear and paranoia', I say 'logic and common sense'.

Now, to be fair, a lot of this has to do with the setting. In my game, it's entirely possible for a typical person to go their entire lives and never once see a spell cast, or anything that most people would call 'a monster', or a magic item. There's not magic academies in every major city. The local priests aren't spellcasters, just devoted religious people.

So, yes, the dire wolf stays out of city limits, you check your dangerous gear at the city gates, and if you don't like it, you can turn around and go somewhere else.


The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge wrote:


1. While I entirely agree that characters blowing through all their per day abilities in a single encounter is a problem, resource management is a core part of what makes combat in an RPG interesting. Per day abilities are a good way of creating interesting decision-making opportunities without tons of rules complexity.

Resource management can be made to operate on a per-encounter basis as easily, if not more easily, than on a per-day basis.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

These sacred cows would make for some wonderfully delicious burgers.


Rysky wrote:
So your Aversion to SR... is that it does what its supposed to?

We already have saving throws and/or attack rolls. We don't need ANOTHER resistance mechanic for magic, if they actually make magic balanced.

I'm sure SR came along because the devs at the time realized magic was too powerful, but rather than tone down the magic, they added a 'neener-neener' mechanic.

Don't make magic overpowered, and SR isn't necessary, it's as simple as that.


dragonhunterq wrote:
If you change the canon then they aren't the same Golarion goblins we are familiar with.

Well, yes, that would be the point. The only canon that matters is the canon the GM and his players create.

Let me expressly clarify something that I think might not be well known, in regards to my personal position ...

I don't give two squirts of skunk musk about Society Play or Golarion. I don't find the setting that interesting. I've never used it as a GM. Ideally, to me, the book would be as setting-neutral as possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And I suppose it goes without saying ...

I want multiclassing to actually work, especially since there's no fighter/mage or rogue/mage combo class in the starter book.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The Paladin should basically be a cleric that's less spellcasty and more fighty. If an individual GM wants to limit the Paladin to one alignment, then he can do that. If an individual player thinks the Paladin has to be LG, then he can choose to only play that kind of Paladin.

It's far easier to include things and let individual GMs remove elements they don't like.

That said, IMNSHO, alignment and power-loss mechanics need to go the way of the dodo.


What Fuzzypaws said. Hopefully the Automatic Bonus Progression will be available soon after release (or at the very least, easily extrapolated).


And I suppose at this point I have to bring it up, fluff is mutable, if you don't want the stereotypical goblin to have personality traits X, Y, and Z in your campaign setting, then they don't have those personality traits.

You want to make goblins in your setting a race of peaceful, serene, navel-gazing spiritualists/mystics? Do that. Nobody's going to come to your house to confiscate your books.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
For the record, this is a terrible idea. I've had three goblin PCs, and two of them were a$$&%*$s about it.

So, what you're really saying is, you had two a**hole players, and that was the problem.


LuZeke wrote:
So goblins are officially part of the core races now. I've had goblin characters before. So that in itself isn't a huge deal. But I'm wondering, Pathfinder goblins have a pretty big setback as player characters, their fear of words and books. Is that going to be removed in PF2nd? That would be a bit sad, because the goblins' absurd ideas about words are endearingly silly.

Player characters being unusual specimens by definition, said PC goblins would not have those hang-ups (or at least, not to a crippling degree).

1 to 50 of 5,694 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>