concerro's page

I'm mostly sure I read a statement that Paizo was going to make the module maps interactive. They would work backwards towards older modules.

Assuming I'm not imagining things is this still an ongoing project? If so is there an estimated date of completion.

PS: This supposed to included PF 1 modules from what I understood.

Thanks for the replies. Maybe giving both ideas is the best way for me to go about it.

Disclaimer: This might belong in general discussion.

I've noticed over the years that many of the disagreements about the rules come down to whether those debating see the rules as "What the devs intended" vs "These words are used and intent doesn't matter".

When I first got here most people were going by intent, but that was over 10 years ago.

However if I'm helping someone in the forums and they don't specify I'd like to know what PoV I should use.

Lately I've been trying to come up with ideas for things to play in 2e and each time I ask how to build it in the Advice board, I've gotten similar responses: that the character concept I'm thinking of isn't doable with 2e's options unless I do something completely different and "reflavor" it, usually because it's either too MAD or requires too much multiclassing or because of how casters and martials are balanced in this edition, and it's making me very frustrated.

You can multiclass into a caster class as a martial, but your casting will be a joke. You can multiclass into a martial as a caster, but then you'll be so useless with your weapon it might as well be for show. If you want to melee as a Druid, you HAVE to Wild Shape, even if you have a cool sword you want to use instead. You can play a gunslinging mage, but forget being able to use those cool gunblades, the action economy allows air repeaters and bayonets only! The only way to be EFFECTIVE means to play your class in the most straightforward way possible, the same boring ways everyone else has already played them, or else have to ask your GM if you can "reflavor," and that just feels like cheating to me. Like my concept is "too good for the rules everyone else is using," sneer sneer, and if I was treating the rules SERIOUSLY I'd stick to concepts that are actually workable within them.

I want to like this edition, but every time I come up with a new concept I run into this problem: whatever I want to play is something the rules aren't balanced to support, unless I want to water down the concept to its most generic form, or be satisfied with the cognitive dissonance of playing with a square peg in a square hole and insisting it's round in spite of all observable rules. It's making it hard to enjoy the process of character creation at all, which in turn prevents me from, you know ACTUALLY PLAYING THE GAME. What do I do?

The openness of PF 1 gave you more possibilities, but it also meant more things could go wrong.

PF 2 reduced the chance of similar errors, but the freedom to do what you want also suffered.

Greater security will reduce freedom in most situations. It's a delicate balancing act. I'm not saying PF 2 is wrong, but it may be the wrong game for you, just like PF 1 is the wrong game for others.

I should have been more precise: I don't need a rules conversion, but a setting conversion. How can I set those adventures in Golarion?

There are a few discussions on that topic in the forums. You just have to do a search and decide which ones make the most sense to you.

Nobody did anything in great detail that I'm aware of, but there were some good ideas.

I banned the antagonize feat because it makes no sense to me. I also don't allow Disjunction because it basically requires people to remake their characters on the spot. However, those also apply to the NPC's so I guess they may not count.

Unless it was essential to a campaign or mission I don't see myself banning something. As an example if they can easily rescue an important NPC by teleporting into the enemy's HQ and teleporting back out, I'd make it so that teleporting in and/or out wasn't possible.

Another example is that if the campaign involves going against drow I'd be less likely to allow someone to just happen to be the only good drow in the area.

PS: If getting to the NPC easily didn't mess interfere with the plot then I'd let them use teleport.

This is a problem as old as dungeons, and it’s one that every GM has to figure out. How do you justify battling your way through a dungeon without fighting every inhabitant all at once? Why don’t the monsters seem to notice the sounds of slaughter emanating from the next room?

Typical answers include:

-- The monsters are selfish, and don't care about their comrades.
-- Infighting is common in this lair, so a bit of scrapping isn't cause for alarm.
-- Sounds carry strangely in the dungeon.
-- My guys do respond intelligently! I have cascading guard stations here, here, and here. Doesn't everyone?
-- I suspend my disbelief and play the damn game.

I’m betting you all have your own methods for this one. So as an exercise in better dungeon-building, share your rationale! (And, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that “dungeons don’t make sense which is why I don’t use them” is a less-than-useful answer.) All clear? Ready? Go!

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

If they can hear it, they'll show up if I'm GM'ing. This assumes there isn't a reason for them to ignore combat such as them being told to guard an area, or setting up an ambush of their own.

Another thing I don't do is assume bad guys have every buff applied. If a buff is less than 10 minutes per level the bad guy has to have some idea the PC's are coming.

So what class(es) would you change and what about those class(es) would you change?

I'd give the rogue(reflex and will) and fighter(fort and will) two strong saves. I'm going to playtest it the next time I run a game.

Fighter-I think it would benefit from something like the abilities from the 3.5 Book of Nine Swords that gave it options.

Rogue-Maybe allow the rogue to do sneak attack damage for X number of times per day without meeting the normal requirements. This can be useful when another party member just refuses to flank, or there is nobody to flank with.
-----

I'd let a monk using monk weapons do his unarmed strike damage through his weapons. Since they can't wear armor I'd also have a magic item that boost his unarmed attacks, for those who choose to go unarmed. That would free up the neck slot for the amulet of natural armor.

Alternately, I'd let him use his ki points to enhance his unarmed attacks so they can gain the properties of some magical weapons. I don't know the exact mechanics.
-----

I'd probably let rangers choose from the druid companion list.

I'd directly ask them why they aren't <insert thing they should be doing>. For some reason people don't often "get" something until someone ask them why they're not doing it.

Stereotypically, this topic comes up when someone's significant other joins the game. You'll also see it with best friends, longtime partymates vs. newcomers, or old GMs with younger players "ruining" their table. Either someone is getting preferential treatment, or someone else is getting the shaft.

It doesn't have to be heavy-handed "rocks fall and you die" type stuff either. Close rules calls might always go well for one player and not another. Prerequisites might get ignored one way and stringently enforced for someone else. It can even be something as simple as monsters that just happen to attack the disfavored player first.

My question to the board is this: When you encounter GM favoritism out in the wild, how do you deal with it as a player? How do you know if it's "real" or just in your head? And if you're a GM who's been accused of this, what's the best way to respond?

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

I'm pretty good at being objective, and noticing BS when I see it. I've luckily never been the victim of it, however I did leave a game because of it happening to someone else.

The times I saw it, a person was allowed to blatantly ignore the rules.

As an example someone was allowed to climb without making a climb check, and they climbed at their normal walking speed. They didn't have any race or class based special abilities, magic items, or anything else that would have allowed this.

You may ask, "Could the GM have not known the rules?".

Someone else was asked to make several climb checks to do the exact same thing.

As a GM I really enjoyed Carrion Crown other than book 6, which I altered.

I also enjoyed Age of Worms for the first few chapters. If I run this player killing AP again I'd probably add more RP opportunities and tone down the difficulty.

As a player Curse of the Crimson Throne. I didn't get to finish it though I enjoyed it up to book 4.

I only played the first book of Reign of Winter. It was brutal. If I run it I'm starting the players at level 2.

Interesting. I will thus espouse the boards' suggestion that when pinned, one still retains the grappled condition's "-4 dex penalty" then, in regards to skills and Ref saves, and for low Dex characters that don't have an AC bonus i.e. they shouldn't get a better AC when pinned compared to grappled, by virtue of the pinned condition being "a more severe version of grappled". In short, you take -2 on skills and Ref saves when you're grappled, and you shouldn't lose those, at the very least, when you're pinned. Also, a DEX 10 character shouldn't be better off pinned than when grappled and considered DEX 6.

PINNED CONDITION, HOUSERULE:
--> -2 on Dex skills, Ref saves, and:
1. denied Dex bonus to AC with additional -4 penalty to AC if Dex 14 or higher; or
2. denied Dex bonus to AC with additional -5 penalty to AC if Dex 12 or 13; or
3. denied Dex bonus to AC with additional -6 penalty to AC if Dex 10 or 11; or
4. denied Dex bonus to AC with additional -7 penalty to AC if Dex 8 or 9; or
5. denied Dex bonus to AC with additional -8 penalty to AC if Dex 6 or 7; or
6. denied Dex bonus to AC with additional -9 penalty to AC if Dex 4 or 5; or
7. denied Dex bonus to AC with additional -10 penalty to AC if Dex 2 or 3.

It's messy looking, but more accurate and makes for the pinned condition more severe for characters of all Dex scores.

PS: Wraithstrike --> I know low Dex PC's don't have a 'bonus' so to speak but I've added the wording 'denied Dex bonus to AC' above anyway because it is a trigger for certain abilities like Sneak Attack, i.e. "The rogue’s attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not)"

Sneak attack also says "whether they have a bonus or not", which basically means anytime a situation would deny a bonus, and if they don't have one they suffer the results anyway".

Adding the "(whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not)" makes it noticeably different from "lose your dex bonus".

The two situations are very different.

If you want to get into houserules vs the actual rules that changes the entire conversation. The devs have made it clear that the lose of dex only applies to AC.

At this point I'm kinda confused about the topic. Are you asking about the intent of the rules, or do you want to discuss how you wan to handle it in your game?

It's just referring to AC so it wouldn't effect skills, and having a loss of dex by being pinned doesn't raise your AC.

Here is why:

You have ability modifiers. Modifiers can be positive or negative.

A positive modifier is called a bonus, and a negative modifier is called a penalty. The table also shows bonus spells, which you'll need to know about if your character is a spellcaster.

Some rules tell you to add your modifier. Some rules tell you to add your "bonus".

When you're pinned you lose your dex bonus.

However if your dex score is an 9 your modifier is -1. A -1 is not a bonus so the pinned character still applies that to their AC. They don't have a bonus to lose.

If the rule said "Do not apply the dex modifier" that would be different.

wraithstrike wrote:

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

PF2 does not have the FAQ system that PF1 did.

For better or worse.

All we really have at the moment is the official Errata #1 and a hand full of streams.

You mean the twitch streams?

I'd so I haven't checked them in a while.

Do they say which questions were answered?

If you want to go hunting through this thread you'll probably get the best result, but you will probably still be a bit disappointed.

So far the approach to rules clarification has been less than stunning.

They said ages ago that they did not like the FAQ system overall and how disjointed it was, lacking holistic oversight. So, instead of coming up with a better system, they just sort of stopped do it.

Thanks for the info. That's what I thought it would be. For now I'll likely just buy PF2 adventures and convert them to PF1. I've already come up with my own answers for the questions they didn't answer in that system. I feel no desire to play that game again.

To be fair, the person that was working on the new rules errata/faq is no longer working at Paizo. So I imagine there will be a bit more of a delay now.

Who left? I'm not here as much as I used to be so I'm missing a lot of info when it comes to Paizo employees.

If this is with respect to your own home campaign, you don't really need an FAQ/errata. Either decide as a group how something works or your GM will make the call. Either way, play the game in whatever way works for you.

I often play with several groups, but not all at once, and it's also good to know the intent of the rules to know the baseline the games runs on.

Game devs normally also design the games with certain assumptions in mind. Seeing the rules can help figure out what they consider to be "too good to be true" in case there is a typo, or something too powerful gets past editing.

As an example if they say ability X is too powerful at level 11, and they allow something twice as good at level 3, and I can easily find their ruling on the level 11 ability then it helps me rule on the level 3 ability if the wording is ambiguous.

PS: All of the above is in a calm tone of voice. I'm clarifying this because I've definitely taken words of other people out of context online, and I don't want this to come across the wrong way.

Here is your answer in another TWF thread from a guy who was on the dev team at the time. He also wrote the TWF FAQ.

"Off-hand" attack penalties and "off-hand" damage penalties"* only exist in the context of using the two-weapon fighting option (Core Rulebook page 202).

Thus, as the FAQ says,

"Basically, you only incur TWF penalties if you trying to get an extra attack per round."

I deliberately wrote that FAQ entry so it wouldn't mention "off-hand" attacks until the section on using the two-weapon fighting option. That's because the concept of an "off-hand" only applies when you are using the two-weapon fighting option in the Combat chapter.

Thus, if you're not using the twf combat option, there's no attack penalty and no Str bonus reduction, because those are penalties* that only apply when using the two-weapon fighting option to gain an extra attack.

* Using "penalty" in the English sense of the word, meaning, "at a weaker value than normal," such as a reduced Str bonus to damage for off-hand weapons. Not necessarily in the game sense of the word, meaning "a modifier that is not a bonus."

This is sad, especially since this would be an easy one to give a ruling for, along with the blogs that were written for some rules, and never released.

Is there a post with common questions that were never answered?

If so I'm just going to go ahead, and and make official rulings for my own games.

Yes - the 'internet builds' that no GM would allow at a table really are ridiculous.

The real world where people who try to play those get told no, encounters work just fine.

It's funny how the 'internet builds' also show PF2 wizards as sucking - because in the real world they don't. That's exactly my point. The game wasn't balanced around Ravingdork's character emporium, and off the wall examples rarely survive actual group play beyond level 7 when the GM would show up in the forums for advice on how to tone things down.

Similarly - despite being a 'thing' for several editions - I've never once seen or heard of an actual Snocone wish machine, or the 'portable hole/bag of holding' arrowhead - outside of theorycrafting.

Skill bonuses that went wonky too fast... yes that was a real problem - the skill system was totally abusable. Feats and traits picked from a shopping list - yep - but even using the 'guide to guides' to make a character I've yet to pull one that made a broken character (using example builds).

Heck - I'll even go on record as saying personally, many of the complaints I saw *about kineticists* were from GM's that thought they did absurd damage per round - DESPITE THAT DAMAGE BEING "NORMALIZED" based on math DPR - because in the real world few players could ever achieve the 'normalized dpr' that everyone here on the forums assumed were a *given* due to playing the game rather than making a math character - and the fact that in a real battle the GM only has to tweak the battlefield slightly to make half the cheese tactics unfair.

You don't need RD's character's to make these things happen, and you don't need mythic rules, and you don't need 3pp material. You not playing like that doesn't mean that it can't happen, or it doesn't happen.

I've been on the Paizo forums for at least 10 years, and before that I was on the 3.5/Gleemax forums. These things happen in real games. I've also seen them in my own games.

Too many times people assume that the way they play the game is the way the entire world plays the game, and as many times as people have made "broken build" post because a character is doing too much in their real life(not theory based) games I'm kinda surprised you're not aware that this happens.

PS: Yes, I understand that it doesn't happen a lot, but you're coming across as saying it never happens and/or the rules don't allow it, even if it's not your intent.

As for attacks of opportunities based on movement is there no way, not even a feat or class feature, to simulate them?

It doesn't make sense to not be able to do something when someone wants to run by you. Being able to protect something or someone in rear should be possible.

If I like 2E I'll be using Eberron. I do have the pdf, but havent made a character yet.

Hey Mark. Thanks again for continuing to answer questions and provide insight into game development.

I've got another set of rules questions. These are all around the Armor Spikes FAQ, but not related to Armor Spikes. A lot of things got confused in the years after that FAQ was issued that have nothing to do with Armor Spikes or Two-Weapon Fighting.

If a character with BAB+6 is wielding a Two-Handed Weapon and wearing a spiked gauntlet, can they make their +6 attack with the weapon, remove one hand from their weapon as a free action, and then make their +1 attack with the spiked gauntlet?

If the same character makes their full-attack with the Two-Handed Weapon, can they remove one hand from the weapon at the end of their turn, and then threaten and make AoOs with the spiked gauntlet?

Can a character with Improved Unarmed Strike who is wielding a Two-Handed reach weapon threaten at 10 feet with the reach weapon and 5 feet with their Unarmed Strike?

Thanks

Taking your hand off of a weapon is a free action. That's why casters can hold staves and/or two handed weapons and still remove a hand to cast a spell.

So once your hand is off the two handed weapon you can attack with the gauntlet for AoO's, but you can't attack with the two handed weapon.

Two-Handed Weapons: What kind of action is it to remove your hand from a two-handed weapon or re-grab it with both hands?

Both are free actions. For example, a wizard wielding a quarterstaff can let go of the weapon with one hand as a free action, cast a spell as a standard action, and grasp the weapon again with that hand as a free action; this means the wizard is still able to make attacks of opportunity with the weapon (which requires using two hands).

As with any free action, the GM may decide a reasonable limit to how many times per round you can release and re-grasp the weapon (one release and re-grasp per round is fair).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kusarigama

:-)

I wanted to reply with something creative, but I have nothing.

Well played.. :)

It's me again.
How does the Kusarigama work?

Mark I see you answered my question about jumping, however I wrote it very badly.

I was trying to specify can you jump over obstacles or difficult terrain when charging. I seemed to have not mentioned the "charging" part.

I've been waiting forever for that question to be answered, and I didn't even write it correctly. :(

I asked because the charge action talks about certain things in your path blocking/stopping the charge, but there are abilities that allow you to make acrobatics checks while charging.

So I was wondering if those abilities are an oversight, or if they're proof that jumping over difficult terrain or an obstacle is actually against the rules when charging.

So what I heard from JJ ask thread was that they are going for "either both genders or counterpart of opposite gender" with incubus/succubus and satyr/nymph being given example of latter. (medusa and lamias are examples that will be able to be male in future, harpy and dryads are already example of that happening)

I'm kinda wondering what you guys think about latter approach?

I'd prefer both gender. It can just be mentioned in the text. I don't see a need for a whole new statblock for a the opposite sex version of the same creatures.

I also don't want monsters changing to new monsters.

I think this falls into "Do whatever you want for your home games" category.

I've had male succubi before, however it's not something I'd push on Pathfinder as a whole. Just to be clear I have no problem with Paizo saying they may exist. The changing of the default sex is what I'm saying should be decided on a group by group basis.

As for political things such as toxic masculinity I don't want Paizo making it official. It serves no purpose, and there is no reason to single orcs out for this especially since they could potentially be a PC race.

Alright, you guys have convinced me, Arcane Mark: Ask Mark this Saturday at 10 AM PST will be about grappling. But please, no matter what I say and what facts I discovered from Jason, let's try to avoid this spilling a big fight on the messageboards.

I agree. Since these aren't official people should feel free to ignore any rulings they think don't make sense.

I've always felt like the designers have certain ideas of intent, however due to wording other things are technically legal. I'd be fine with rulings that said "this" was how we envisioned the rule working. I say that because it's impossible to think of every possible situation, so some things are "against the rules" as they are "outside the scope of original intent".
I'd personally be fine with rulings that explain things in a solid manner while leaving other things to the GM. I think the pouncing lance issue was one that fell into the realm of "We never considered that".

PS:I personally wouldn't allow it. ⬅️ Just making sure nobody thinks Im advocating for the lance pounce combo.

Thanks for the show. It was interesting to see another view on how to use divination spells.

Many thanks for your topic feedback on this thread. This Saturday at 10 AM PDT, Episode 2 of Arcane Mark's Ask Mark feature will be about all sorts of divinations in your game: We'll have clarifications, tips, answers to your questions, and advice for tough spots that you request!

Here are my first two questions.

1. Since there seem to be abilities that allow you to overcome obstacles and/or difficult terrain is it intended to be able to overcome them by jumping without a feat or class feature?

If the answer is yes then I may post these abilities for next week to find out what their benefits are.

2. If you're a druid, and you shapechange into a creature that has an ability with a save DC such as poison how do you figure out the DC when you're wildshaped into that form?

That is all for this week.

Hey Mark. First I'd like to say, great job on the Twitch/Youtube video.

However, due to my work schedule I won't likely be able to make the live videos most of the time. Will it be possible for me to leave questions somewhere so you can answer them.

I'm not going to be greedy and drop a 50 question list. I don't even think I have 50 questions. Maybe 1 or 2 at a time.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Ferious Thune wrote:

With PF2 on the horizon, the PF1 rules forum has started to get several posts arguing against what have been basic, established rules about how PF1 works. Since FAQs are unlikely in the near future (I hold out hope for at least a last round of cleanup FAQs for PF1 after PF2 settles in), I’m wondering if you might have thoughts on one of those questions to avoid misinterpretation of the rule becoming widespread.

I had an idea sort of related to this general topic but haven't had time to pursue it yet due to grueling hours on PF2. But maybe I'll get a chance eventually.

Alright, following up on this:

I've got my ducks in a row, so this Saturday at 10 AM PST, I'm launching a new stream called Arcane Mark! It'll be on my twitch channel https://www.twitch.tv/markseifter

I'll created a twitch account just for this.

Do they show replays or only the live video?

For those of you who don't want to copy and paste I've linkified the url listed above.

Click here to go to Mark's Twitch channel/chat room.

Hi~ Mark, I have a question about Druid's Wild Shape.

The problem is very simple, that is, what is the DC for wild shape? for example, some animal's poison.

After my search, this question has been asked in the forum many times, starting from 10 years ago, there are many answers, but there has been no official answer.

Thank you!

I thought I had the answer to this, but since I couldn't find it I guess I was wrong.

Great question.

In her first battle of The Lost Star, a player who had missed the first session, wondering about the best strategy after she downed a foe, asked, "Should I coup de grace?" I was too shaky about the dying rules to speak with certainty; nevertheless, I promised, "Even if that goblin stabilizes, he is not going to wake up for an hour."

Because that was what was necessary to keep the game interesting. Dealing with an unconscious foe in the middle of combat is one of the most boring combat actions possible. I don't want it to be a routine part of good tactics.

And if coup de grace is bad tactics for the party, then it will be bad tactics for the enemy, too.

Most parties have healers so letting the downed opponent back in to the fight is a worse tactic than easily killing them.

There is no right or wrong way to do it. It's just a matter of preference. What's really important is that the GM and the players are on the same page.

Some people hate for their characters to die. Some hate for GM's to pull punches. Some don't mind death, but hate spells like charm person or dominate person since they lose control over the character.

Often on the forums people who advocate for a certain way being right haven't played any other way so they are not aware that others play differently.

They think mostly everyone plays the way they're used to playing.

The idea of a someone easily accepting their character dying or conversely, the idea of being saved by the GM, and the players liking it, is foreign to them.

I disagree with these categories. It's not nearly that simple, and yes I understand it wasn't intended to put everyone in only those categories.

The optimizer as an example has levels to it. There are those like myself who know the game very well, and could create what I call "Super Character" who want to be good enough to contribute. However, my goal is to be good enough to contribute to the party, and not die. I also try to minimize defensive weaknesses.

Another person who knows the game equally well, will try to make the very powerful characters, to the point where they are very hard to kill, but at the same time don't step on anyone else's toes.

Someone else may try to hog the spotlight all the time through use of combat prowess.

As for the story based players, not all of them are casual gamers. They may make a "flavor first" character, but they aren't casual in the sense of not knowing the rules well. Many often learn the rules so they can their flavor, and excel in the mechanical side of the game also.

Yes there are some who barely know the rules even after years of playing, but that is a small minority, and even between these two there is room for a lot of different players in between theme.

As for the contrarian I think they are a very small minority. When I hear about them they are the type to agree to an all dwarf campaign, and then show up with an elf character.

Honestly, I don't even them as a player type. It's just a trait some people have, that makes them want to go the opposite of where they are expected to go.

I think they're trying to give the game back to the GM, but I'd prefer some guidance also.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Also the people who are: "If I know that I rolled low on a stealth check then I'll just do something else."

I don't get that argument at all. You rolled the dice. You committed the action.

I know it's not a rule in the book, but the basic rules of make pretend are ancient and universal:

No Takesies Backsies.

Absolutely, but that still leaves the other half of the choice I don't want to force my players into. Now they have to move forward with a bad roll, knowing that they have already failed. And with Stealth or Disguise, it could require some role playing before they even get to the point where that failure is evident. That's not a fun situation to force my players into.

I'm not seeing the difference.

However, since it bothers you I may have a solution.

You can have them move the mini first, and then roll the dice second. If they fail the roll then you move the mini/icon/etc back to a previous position. If they roll well they get to stay where they are.

I do the same thing with acrobatics rolls, but not for the same reason.

That removes the metagame aspect of knowing they failed, and still keeps the suspense.

As for tracking player stats and rolling for them I don't like it either. I don't know how many bonus types PF2 will have, but PF1 could have a variety of conditional modifiers. Even when players tracked their own stuff they'd forget something. If they're not doing it they're more likely to forget. I just think it's more extra work, even if PF2 has scaled back all the modifiers.

I also realize that how you see the game is different than myself and others with regard to seeing players have to take a committed action. As a player it doesn't bother me, and my players just accept the dice rolls also.

For those that would want to take it back, my idea of moving first and then rolling could work.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, it's a lot easier to act as though your character does not know something, when the player in fact does not know what that thing.

So that's my standard for secret rolls- if it's something the character should not know, barring a certain result, (stealth and perception are like this) they don't need to see the dice.

Sure this hurts the players in the sense that they are super-beings who win all the time, but it helps the players be characters.

Absolutely agree, and for me this isn't a PF2 thing, I've been doing it for years. A big one for me is detecting traps. It should always be, "you find a trap" or "you detect no traps", without the player knowing what they rolled.

Besides, I don't get how this is removing agency. Its a random dice roll - what does it matter who rolls the dice? The PCs actions are not in any way controlled or directed. Unless somebody is cheating, how is player agency removed?

I don't think it really removes player agency. I do think it feels like a loss of control for many people including myself. If my character drops the ball I want it to be as much on me as possible, even the rolling of the dice.

There's a connection between "me rolling the dice", and the outcome that gives me ownership of the result, good or bad.

Personally I am okay with a few more secret rolls, because no matter how good a roleplayer you are knowing you've rolled <5 on a d20 makes you act or think differently about a situation.

I find it can also add some suspense not knowing if you're being good at your stealth or not.

Speak for yourself. I've walked into situations that me(player) knew was a terrible idea because as someone who GMs I had a good idea of what might happen, but my character wouldn't know.

The problem is that if you roll a natural 1 on Stealth, the natural inclination is to change your mind about sneaking in the first place.

Player: I'm going to sneak into the campsite!
GM: OK, make a stealth check
Player: I rolled a 1... I guess I just won't go

But you've already decided to sneak, so to change now because you had a bad roll is metagaming, and in my opinion not fun. So to play it right you have to sneak knowing you have absolutely no chance of success, which is a bummer.

Player: I'm going to sneak into the campsite!
GM: OK, make a stealth check
Player: I rolled a 1... but you guys have to be ready to come save me when they see me in like 5 seconds.

Neither option is appealing to me. The GM rolling for Stealth in secret takes away the "metagame or suck" choice, while also keeping an element of risk in sneaking. If the player doesn't know what their Stealth check was, it's much more suspenseful.

If they make the roll they're taking the action. Allowing takebacks is a corner case, such as when a player forgets how a rule works.

If I switch to 2E I'm probably not doing the secret rolls. I don't see what it adds to the game. Do you(character not player) know when you rolled poorly? I think it depends on what you're doing. If you step on a branch while trying to be sneaky you know it. If you take a swing at someone and almost lose control of your weapon I'd think they knew they rolled poorly. For something like a perception check you wouldn't know you rolled poorly if it's an opposed check. If it's something with a static DC then you would know because you'd have an idea of how hard it's supposed to be.

I don't think it's objectively wrong, but I do feel like there is a deeper connection between the players and the characters the more they roll for their characters.

I think a lot of people's opinions on this are going to depend on how much they had to deal with metagaming players. I've almost never had to deal with it, but if someone has run into it a lot I can see them not trusting the player to separate game knowledge from real life knowledge.

The point is that for EVERY scenario where you don't have a hard 10 min cap or are in combat, the lvl 4+ wizard can "spontaneously" prep for the scenario in front of them. Spell rarity helps, but that mostly doesn't apply until spell level 6+. Wizards can still spontaneously heighten their entire spell book better than a sorcerer can. Everybody knows prepared > spontaneous 80+% of the time, but the ability for wizards to spend 10 mins to heighten any and all of their spells at any time puts the wizard MILES ahead of the sorcerer.

Spontaneous casting was nerfed into the ground because of "choice paralysis" yet prepared casting has MANY more choices and wasn't touched at all.

Most scenarios aren't going to require a certain spell, unless PF2 really drop the ball. In PF 1 many times you had spells that would be perfect, and other spells that were good enough.

Players often choose to use the "good enough" spell instead of waiting, even if they had open spell slots or an ability that allowed them to swap spells.

For the sake of argument let's say you must have spell X because something got past editing, and there was no other way to bypass that encounter/problem, would you prefer the party have to rest just to get one spell?

It's not overpowered, and it will almost never get used if the player knows how to choose spells. Arcanist in PF1 have a similar ability that only takes a full round action. Over the course of a 17 level AP i used it 3 times. If I end up using it a lot it just means I'm bad at spell selection, or Ive run into too many situations that can likely only be solved by that specific spell, and that's a bigger problem than the ability to switch spells.

I would like it better if you can attack from stealth like PF1. Since invis no longer gives crazy bonuses to stealth it shouldn't be an issue. I only glanced through the book, but I dont see a lot of modifiers to make you almost impossible to detect either. Unless someone still finds a way to abuse I don't see an issue.

What I'd like to see is for effects that only work on allies be for only allies. If the originator of the effect can also be affected different verbage should be used and codified.

The game, like most games, is made to assume you want to be good at things. It's not going to cover corner cases of wanting to be bad at things.

One reason is because being bad at things can make things more difficult for the party, not just for you.

They may have to save you due to a weakness, and therefore put themselves in danger. If they elect to not save you it could cause OoC issues.

I'd just talk to the GM about allowing you to be bad at ____ if that is what you want.

Dave Justus wrote:

If it has stats, you can kill it.

Okay. Prove it. Take any quasi/demi deity that has been statted, for example, an Archdevil or Empyreal Lord, and make a player character whose level is 20 lower than their CR, since a player’s CR is equal to level.

You are allowed to increase the level by as much as you want, but for every level, the “deity” gets +10 fast healing, +10 SR (until it reaches SR 100, then it instead is immunity to anything that has spell resistance), +10 DR/Epic (until it reaches DR 50/Epic then it becomes DR 50/- and the increase is now +10 DR/-) and +10 to all resistances (except the things it is already immune to of course, and when it becomes resistance 100, it instead becomes immunity), for every 2 levels, it gets 10 more HD, including everything that comes with an increase to HD, and for every 3 levels, it increases every ability score by 5.

Go ahead and make a build that can beat this. Oh, and because technically Mythic is an option to players, you can have up to 10 Tiers in Mythic, but for every two tiers, your CR increases by 1 (mininum increase of 1), which could cause your opponent to become stronger. However, no more Mythic Tiers than half your level, because it doesn’t make sense for, say, a level 5 character to have 10 Mythic Tiers, for example, which I’m sure you can agree to.

I’ll be awaiting your build and the opponent you choose. I’ll stat up the opponent though if they get an increase.

Games tend to have holes in them due to unintended stacking allowances that let you create things like the old 3.5 Pun Pun character, and anything with a statblock has a chance to fall prey to those.

Also if Paizo makes the deity they're not going to try to cover every loophole, and some splat will allow a player to use some unexpected combo.

Of course the GM can just make up something on the fly to say "nope that doesn't work", and that is exactly why no stats are needed. If players want their deities to be defeated they can make their own stats up. Using the most powerful monster as a base can be the start. And if the GM is just going to have moving stats they can do that without Paizo's help.

Another reason why this doesn't need to be done:

Most groups never even think of taking on actual deities, and that was even in 3.5 when gods had stats so it would be a wasted of time, and printed paper. Many also never reached the level of power needed to defeat anything better than a deity with a rank of 1, which was only a minor deity, and still was around a CR25 to 27 range encounter.

edit: There's no point in having stats for the sake of having stats is basically what I'm getting at.

If you do want deities to be able to lose you can just give them whatever stats you want based on your game or even just use some powerful monster and reflavor it while changing a few abilities so the players don't catch on.

What is your list of rules that you may have liked (or hated) in PF1 but were so circumstantial that you never used them (or the GM never remembered to use them)?

Mine are:
The visual effects of multiple nearby abjuration auras.
And the concentration checks for casting spells during violent motion.

I didnt even know about this one until a few months ago, and I just chose to ignore it.