Chain Mauler

\/\/arlok's page

29 posts. Alias of tuffnoogies.


Interesting. I ordered mine through my FLGS. I wonder if they get them early if they'll let me have one or sit on them until the 2nd.

Holy crap that looks awesome!

Captain Morgan wrote:
...if we stopped measuring movement/distance in feet and switched to squares as our metric.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
John John wrote:
What path does PF 2.0 seem to be following?

From what we've seen monsters absolutely do have the abilities you would expect them to have logically (ie: Fire Elementals are immune to fire), and do not get special abilities for being a 'boss' (some get special abilities that make them better suited to that, like a Marlith getting the ability to attack 6 people in a turn, but as you note, she gets that due to having 6 arms and a legacy of using 6 weapons rather than due to being arbitrarily declared a 'boss').

There's also every evidence of them using their treasure being a viable and reasonable thing to do.

In short, they seem to meet your qualifications pretty much perfectly (despite not technically following PC creation rules).

Apparently it's harder to recover from being downed by a boss than a mook.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
graystone wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
I think you're in the minority there though.
Oh, I've seen plenty of people that loathe bulk, myself included. I don't foresee using the system in any capacity so I'd like an option to use actual weights if a DM wants encumbrance checked.

Without trying to sound dismissive, I think this is a case of a "vocal minority." I honestly think most people don't care enough about item weights to bother tracking them, and are therefore less likely to comment on the subject.

I think the goal of Bulk is to make the system less fiddly so that encumbrance is easier to track, and therefore more people WILL track it. Which I think is good to avoid STR dumping.

I'll probably ignore Bulk just as easily weights.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
I can aim a bow all day of the week. I don't need an enemy to target.
No you can't. You can probably aim a bow for about 30s before your arms and hand start to get fatigued. Same reason you can't just hold Horse stance all day an expect to be fine. In fact that sort of stuff is used as physical punishment.

Nope, lasted three minutes before only noticeable tiredness set in.

Could have gone longer but figured that was long enough.

With the arrow knocked and the bow tense? Wow.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Desferous wrote:
1of1 wrote:

How does one counter a Hidden Paragon stabby man of save or die? I guess fumigating might work. Drop some blightburn covered in inhaled poison and glue the doors shut. But wait, he's a rogue, of course he got out before you. Maybe teleport away and hope the Schrödinger's rogue is actually dead?

Hmmm... as with all things pre test, and before release, we're probably missing something.

Maybe a wish will reveal him? It's always good when Rogues have more powerful magics than casters.

Right. Gotta keep those casters as gods above the non-casters. Otherwise we won't be able to b$~+& about how much more powerful the casters are.

Bardarok wrote:
Any chance of an arcane healing for wizards in PF2? I can see why you would make it worse than cleric healing or something like that but it always seemed odd to me that masters of arcane lore can't figure out arcane healing when the bard can.

Been asking this since 3.0 dropped in 2000. All I ever heard was "If you want arcane healing, play a bard." Totally missing the point.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
I was kinda hoping that magic missile would no longer be an auto hit..

...and not require those damn d4s.

This looks pretty cool. I don't normally play spellcasters, but I may have to give wizards a shot in 2e.

Can we get some tags on this blog post? At least the playtest tag?

Deadmanwalking wrote:
\/\/arlok wrote:
We're not talking about "saving throw" or "hit dice." Murder isn't a game term.
It is, however, a term with vastly different definitions depending on who you ask. Knowing which definition they intended is good and useful information.

Except that it isn't good or useful. What's good or useful is the prevailing definition at the table, like evilgm said.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:
Wait, I thought it was too simple?

Dunno where you got that since I never used that word. How about "Needlessly confining?"

Between dozens of races, classes, feats and archetypes we have thousands of possibilities for characters. Enough to fill the multiverse. And then we cram them all into those 9 little boxes. Needlessly.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:
IDK, 9 options on one single game element sounds like a decent amount of choice. When that choice extrapolates into classes, feats, spells, etc. sounds like something to be proud of. Clearly, YMMV.

I guess that's why there's never any arguments or questions about what exactly each of those 9 boxes mean.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ring_of_Gyges wrote:
VVarlok wrote:
The short answer is use the definition of murder that works for you and your group.

"Invent game elements to suit your group" is always an option.

Paizo should rely on that answer as little as possible because letting customers avoid doing that work is literally the only thing they sell.

We're not talking about "saving throw" or "hit dice." Murder isn't a game term.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to wait until I have the playtest book to decide. Frankly even when they cover a subject in the blog it's very vague and we only get a general idea of how something's going to work.

Melkiador wrote:
Jester David wrote:
I don't think we need special in-game definitions of real world terms, like "murder"

I think we do, when there's no single interpretation of that word.


Definition of murder

1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice
So, who's laws do you even need to reference? What if it's legal by my laws to kill someone, but not under the victim's laws?

I don't think "unlawfully" is needed in that definition. The act of killing someone is probably murder. There is such a thing as justifiable homicide. Self-defense, defense of innocent others, defense of your personal property would all be cases.

I thought you were going to give an example of a pally killing an intelligent monster.

The short answer is use the definition of murder that works for you and your group.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Isn't it strange that a game that prides itself on giving players options then tries to shove the whole multiverse into 9 little pigeon holes?

13 people marked this as a favorite.
Xerres wrote:

Rabble! Rabble rabble!

I'm disappointed in the notion that Lawful Good is the special alignment. Its my favorite alignment, but its no better than any other Good alignment.

And I'll light a match and say that if they do create other alignment Paladins, they'll be intentionally weaker to avoid power creep, furthering my displeasure of of Lawful Good being Best Good.

This will definitely make the people I disagree with happy though. Good day for them. For me, I must continue with:

Rabble! Rabble rabble!

Wouldn't be a problem if they'd finally slaughter the alignment sacred cow. If 5e can do it I'm sure Paizo can figure it out.

Sounds cool. I love paladins.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
1of1 wrote:

So, uhhh... Icons. I can read words instantly by passing my eyes over them, but colorful abstract shapes are confusing and aren't really helpful for me.

[[ICON]] Interact Manipulate sounds like it's going to be a bit of a headache to look at, but I guess it's an efficient use of space. Meh.

Yeah, I'd rather have a word than an icon that I have to keep looking up the meaning.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
So how does proficiency interact with armor exactly? Do we add the same proficiency bonus from being a master of medium armor to our AC that we would to our skill checks if we're a master of that skill?

Probably reduces skill check penalties or movement penalties, but you may be right.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I am sort of confused as to where this "you're going to need to carry more weapons than you did in PF1" notion is coming from.
I'm not sure either, but maybe because the different weapons have cool and useful abilities in various situations? We worked hard to give weapons those various advantages enough to be worth taking the weapon for its advantages but maybe not dramatic enough to be worth the hassle of constantly switching around between weapons, but that's a tightrope walk we'll need to test with the playtest.
For my part, I think you misunderstand: I--and many other--have always WANTED to be a cool boy with 5 different cool weapons. I hope that PF2E is the game where I can be that cool boy.

Really? I'm not interested in needing a caddie to carry around a golf bag full or weapons for every occasion. I don't imagine I'm the only one.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Meophist wrote:
I sorta just feel "Monk weapons" doesn't quite need to be a thing. That said, there's no mention of such a quality in the blog, it seems? For some reason, I thought otherwise.

The bo staff is mentioned to be a monk weapon.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:

Alignment: It saddens me we still have this in the game... :P

Right? The sacred cow that just will not die.

Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Switch to hex grids so we can ditch the 5-10-5-10 diagonals

That doesn't require hex grids.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
We made your number of spells more straightforward by eliminating Pathfinder First Edition's bonus spells granted for having a high ability score.
In much the way an embezzler makes a company’s finances more straightforward by emptying out their pension investment accounts. I respect the audacity of this phrasing even as I have to be amazed at the underlying contempt for your audience.

That's not contempt. It's factually true. Bonus Spells added some complexity to the 'How many spells do I have?' question that I'm happy to see removed (especially since it involved flipping to a whole different chapter to find out). The less often you have to flip between different parts of the book when making or leveling a character the better for new players and the more convenient for everyone.

They also decreased the total number of spells, but that's sort of a separate issue.

My embezzlement as simplification comparison is also factually true, but claiming either as a motivation should get you laughed out of court or this comment thread. If you want to simplify and have no other effect you modestly increase the spell slots by some reasonable approximation of the old ability score increases without requiring the investment. But they did the opposite. Simplification is an effect, but it’s not the reason. Pretending otherwise is hilarious.

Another analogy would be a claim of tax simplification as the motivation for a change. Is it revenue neutral and with the same distribution effects afterwards? If not, you can be assured tax simplification was at the bottom of the list of reasons why the bill was drafted.

I have no opinion on the change itself, merely the second rate politician marketing appended to it.

Both of your analogies compare $s to spells. $s are all equal. Spells are not. Therein lies the "simplification."

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
Meophist wrote:
Blog Post wrote:
Every time you gain an even level, you get one more spell slot per day of your highest level of spells (so at 2nd level, a cleric has three 1st-level spells per day)

I have to admit, I had to reread this a few times. Spell levels are confusing since they don't really line up well with character/class levels.

I do like a lot of what's here though.

Which is why Spell Tier is a better term than Spell Level.

You don't have a player asking "why doesn't my 3rd level character get third level spells?"

I've never had anyone ask that in 40 years of gaming. Characters have levels. Spells have levels. It's a wild leap of logic that they should have the same numbers at the same time.

Not as excited about this as I was the magic article but maybe that's because I've never played an Alchemist.