Phantasmal Octopus

doc the grey's page

Organized Play Member. 3,415 posts (3,440 including aliases). 15 reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 11 Organized Play characters. 5 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,415 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

blahpers wrote:

Greetings!

Here's almost everything you really need to know about how wands work.

And here's everything to know about using magic items that you normally shouldn't be able to.

Wands are spell-trigger items. That means that if you have that spell on your spell list, even if you couldn't normally cast the spell, you can easily cast it from a wand. So a wizard can use a wand of fireball even if they aren't high enough level to cast fireball, but they can't use a wand of cure light wounds normally because cure light wounds is not on the wizard's spell list.

A character who is trained in the Use Magic Device skill, however, can attempt to activate magic items they normally could not. Use Magic Device is a Charisma-based skill because it models activating magic items through sheer force of will. Using the skill essentially involves "convincing" the item that you're allowed to use it when you really aren't. The skill doesn't care whether you're a wizard, a cleric, a fighter, or a bard, so your casting stat doesn't even come into play.

That said, if that model of fooling magic devices doesn't suit you, a character with the Pragmatic Activator trait can use Intelligence instead of Charisma when attempting to activate an off-class wand.

Hope this helps!

But, does one have to identify the spell within a wand before they can use UMD on it, or can they just UMD it and see what happens?

I say you don't, because the only thing UMD really cares about is what the item is and if the player calls it right.

Ex. player finds a wand and knows it's a wand but not what spell's in it, he UMDs at DC 20. If he finds a wand but doesn't know it's a wand but thinks it's magical, it's a blind activate at DC 25. If he finds a flaming darkwood club but "thinks" it's a wand, he rolls UMD, I set the DC as 25 cause he's blindly activating, and if he rolls a 20 I tell him it fails and he can use that as a clue to suss out the answer.

My friend says that none of that is possible because, without explicitly ID'ing the spell inside with Spellcraft or some other means, the item cannot work, and that you cannot ever use activate blindly on wands because they posses an existing entry.

Ex. So, if I see someone use a curing wand on someone, but don't ID what cure spell is in it, I cannot and never will, be able to activate it until it is explicitly clear to my character whether it's a cure light wounds or a cure mod.

I've been in a long running argument w/a friend over this and am looking for clarity, if we've got any quotes from the devs too that would help a lot.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cade Herrig wrote:
Sounds like the team needs a union and fast.

One of many in the creative industry, and one of many that will be markedly improved by having people who's sole job is to fight managerial overstepping and assure that more positive and effective management is required in order to succeed.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
FallenDabus wrote:

I feel very much the same. I've held on to my subscription despite a financial crunch. Hell, I was contemplating adding a Starfinder subscription. Now, I see little reason to keep either.

doc the grey wrote:
This is a problem I have worried about for a long time, since phrenology was somehow added as an occult skill back in 1st and no one seemed to think that needed the axe, and continued through the firings and departures of some of the strongest talent in their offices. It is horrifying to hear what I was worried about for so long was true, and a cold relief that I hadn't bought 1st party stuff since the flip to 2nd. I feel this hurting like others do, and hope that something is done soon to correct this and begin the process of repair needed to make this better, something that will take a long time and a lot of work, but will be worth it if they plan to attract talent and foster real positive growth.
I remember bringing that up on the forums at the time and people telling me it wasn't a big issue. Enlightening to see how it is part of the bigger picture, and not in a good way.

Feel you my dude. I grew up and continue to interact with a large POC group, and it always kills me that every time I look over one of my favorite books from 1st it has that big stupid stain in it, especially considering both what it says through its mechanics, and how phren is effectively mechanically redundant once you look at read aura which doesn't have the same baggage. It screamed to me that their either wasn't any diversity in the room or that training & empathy to spot it, or that management didn't listen when they spoke up, and it has soured me for a long time.

Happy to see I'm not the only one who felt it was gross and off. Thanks for the pipe up.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a problem I have worried about for a long time, since phrenology was somehow added as an occult skill back in 1st and no one seemed to think that needed the axe, and continued through the firings and departures of some of the strongest talent in their offices. It is horrifying to hear what I was worried about for so long was true, and a cold relief that I hadn't bought 1st party stuff since the flip to 2nd. I feel this hurting like others do, and hope that something is done soon to correct this and begin the process of repair needed to make this better, something that will take a long time and a lot of work, but will be worth it if they plan to attract talent and foster real positive growth.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GinoA wrote:
I'm confused because the target isn't limited.

Agreed. The wording in the text makes it sound like the damage is selective, but the crunchy text seems does not specify. I feel like their might have been some content either cut from the text, or that it was written when the occult classes were still under development and something changed about them while the spell wasn't updated.

Like, by the wording, it sounds like the spell can target a medium spirit or a phantom even though the former isn't really targettable and the latter is the same if it's inhabiting the user. Second, it sounds like a spell that could purge a medium of their spirit somehow, as it also effects haunts. So the whole thing sounds, to me, like it was meant to cast out ghosts, haunts, and other spirits by way of throwing them in the spirit paper shredder, but all the mechanics aren't there to do that with some of these (like the medium's spirit).

It also calls out directly that it targets spirits, and the description sounds as if it tears apart soulstuff, so it sounds like it wouldn't work on constructs or other creatures that might lack spirits.

So, what I think it means is that, it works on anything with a spirit, and potentially that you can use it to target spiritual creatures even when they are not usually targetable, so like you can target a ghost or demon possessing someone and have it only harm them or a phantom hiding in its spiritualist. That's at least the way I'd play it until I hear from the dev team.

Hopefully this 6 years late discourse helps lol.

Shadow Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

*Comes into make observation about cover dude looking like Gaston.*

It appears my work here is done.

Shadow Lodge

Feros wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:

Any chance we can get a bestiary listing JUST because I like more stuff.

Also can said bestiary listing have CR, type, and alignment?

** spoiler omitted **

What is the Pallid Angel like anyways?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

lol I just want to see the writeup for Phlegyas, Consoler of Athiests and Saloc, Minder of Immortals.

I pray for a Phlegyas who is just a psychologist with glasses who spends most of eternity bent over a desk, his brow knitted as he rubs his temples beside a massive couch, where the newest soul lays as he tries to explain that the afterlife is real and so are the gods for the eighteen trillion, nine billion, four hundred and twelve million, six hundred twenty seven thousand, and eight time this month.

Give me the exasperated followers of the conselor.

Shadow Lodge

Rysky wrote:
doc the grey wrote:
Does anyone know of a way to get the Sphinx Bloodline through an Eldritch Heiritage feat chain? As it stands you don't really get a skill with which to take skill focus with which locks you out of taking it with either EH or the Bloodrager bloodline feats from ACG as far as I know.
You've never been able to take Bloodrager bloodlines through Eldritch Heritage?

Not as far as I am aware. The bloodrager abilities often require a rage state to activate and so need that to trigger. Otherwise it would be more powerful than the class ability the feat is aping. Second, there is a feat to let you get those abilities in ACG, but it requires skill focus in the skill the bloodline would need for EH, and since Sphinx doesn't have one it's kind of useless. On top of that, said feat doesn't have any progressions as far as I know.

That said, if anyone knows some work arounds or other methods I would be all ears. I've got some faction rewards for my home game that could use this.

Shadow Lodge

Does anyone know of a way to get the Sphinx Bloodline through an Eldritch Heiritage feat chain? As it stands you don't really get a skill with which to take skill focus with which locks you out of taking it with either EH or the Bloodrager bloodline feats from ACG as far as I know.

Shadow Lodge

David knott 242 wrote:
doc the grey wrote:
Kvantum wrote:

I've gotten my PDF. The bloodlines are, sadly, only for either Bloodragers (Medusa, Sphinx), or Sorcerers (Phoenix, Unicorn).

4 pages of Mythic options for Occult, though the Kineticist options are specifically for Champions and Guardians.

New archetype and aspect for Shifters from Vudra. Vigilante talents from the Mwangi Expanse.

What are the new Shifter options and are there new magical beast animal companion options and if so how do they work?

There is the Holy Beast archetype, which specializes in hunting down outsider foes of the Shifter's patron deity.

New Shifter aspects include the Peafowl (boosts Charisma) for Vudra and the Elephant, Horse, Lion, Giant Wasp, and Snapping Turtle (boosts Wisdom) for Garund.

The Beast Speaker feat and its associated mastery feat work very much like the Monstrous Mount feat, except that you are not necessarily supposed to ride your magical beast companion.

Excellent, but how the hell do we still not have a shark option for the shifter?

Shadow Lodge

Hey, sorry I'm late to the party but does anyone know if there are any plans to release the Bestiary that is hinted at in the finished product? The work as it stands is really good and super solid mechanically and I'm wondering if we will ever get to see the creatures hinted at in the text? This book goes a long way to presenting some really amazing options that can be good for nearly any table and I'd love to see what that mindset brought to a bestiary.

Shadow Lodge

Kvantum wrote:

I've gotten my PDF. The bloodlines are, sadly, only for either Bloodragers (Medusa, Sphinx), or Sorcerers (Phoenix, Unicorn).

4 pages of Mythic options for Occult, though the Kineticist options are specifically for Champions and Guardians.

New archetype and aspect for Shifters from Vudra. Vigilante talents from the Mwangi Expanse.

What are the new Shifter options and are there new magical beast animal companion options and if so how do they work?

Shadow Lodge

There any bestiary in this one?

Shadow Lodge

Dave Justus wrote:

Ideally, one thinks these things through ahead of time, and decide that perhaps some flaws won't work with some items, so you make sure that they don't exist in the first place. That you have to reroll things that don't fix is part of the system.

I would probably just have them go through withdrawal/detox until cured since the thing doesn't exist anymore.

Eh but that feels like a cop out. The interesting part is this opportunity for narrative. Like, what happens when a PC is addicted to a life saving substance and must about it if at all possible? It feels like an interesting narrative that is rife with opportunity to tell not only interesting stories, but very current stories. It feels like something my group can get a lot out of if done well.

Has anyone here ever run a game where addiction is an issue at the table?

Shadow Lodge

So, during our last game my players tried to brew a potion of remove disease to help cure the many sick friends inside their camp. We used the Dynamic Item Creation rules and though they succeeded, the potion was flawed and had the Addictive flaw. After handling, the Witch and the Medium immediately became addicted like Golum to the 1 ring and are now going through withdraw effects.

Now, my question is, does this addiction extend to ALL potions of Remove Disease now, or is it meant to just apply to the single potion they generated and have now expended?

I know by the base rules the dynamic item creation rules are not meant to be applied to items like scrolls & potions, but examples of single use consumable items exist throughout the many other categories of magic items that can be made under the Dynamic Magic Item Creation System such as feather tokens or even wands make this point a little moot mechanically.

But here I am at a bit of a loss for how to proceed. With many of the above items having an addiction there feels like it is singular, attached to that specific item even if it is consumable. But on potions it feels more narratively correct to have it be an issue that's spread out across all of the potions that share its type (barring some special exemption) that the PCs will have to struggle with.

So what do you people think? Does it "feel" correct to have the addiction extend to the rest of the potions that match it or is it something that should stay singular? If singular, how do you keep up the impact and narrative punch that is addiction while mechanically knowing it can never come back up?

Interested to hear your thoughts and get some feedback, I have my own thoughts but for now I'm going to hold them back a bit and see what others might have to say.

Shadow Lodge

As a long time 3.5/PF player I have always been a big fan of encumbrance and the system it represents but like many have always found the system of tabulating it out to be a royal pain. So I am super happy to see the bulk system transferred over to 2e, it makes encumbrance quicker to calculate and easier to adjudicate as time goes on.

That said, is there a way we can get a bulk to pounds conversion put in the core rulebook right alongside the explanation of the system? As it stands, there's not really any reference point to tell the reader how much 1 bulk really weighs and it makes it difficult to contextualize unless the reader has either a familiarity with the weight of say, your average greatsword or has been playing these games for years. Even rough estimates like, "1 Bulk is equivalent to 5-10 pounds)" would go a long way to helping get every reader on the same page and help add literal and figurative "weight" to the actions in play, and avoid too much dissent as time goes on and more weird and uncommon items start floating around the game.

And as a GM, it'll also help me figure out how much bulk say, 2,000 lbs. of Ankheg takes up when our fighter tries to haul it back to camp to butcher into crafting parts XD.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd be down with Orcs and Kobolds making it into the core assumption, at the very least Orcs. It seems weird that we have half-elves and elves and half-orcs but not true orcs as an option. Maybe it'd convince them to add more to the ancestry as a whole and make them a more interesting choice mechanically.

I'd also be down to see lizardfolk become playable in 2e. I've been in 3.5/PF for over a decade now and the fact that we still don't really have a 0-HD lizardfolk choice continues to sadden me. We got the Vesk in SF, gimme that but with high fantasy and cool lizardy powers like talking to dinosaurs, limb regeneration, or super disease resistance.

Seriously, I just want to play a croxigor something fierce or a skink priest lol.

Also, dope Orcs.

Shadow Lodge

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Warped Savant wrote:

At first I thought it was really impressive that Paizo has the statement of "Your character might challenge binary gender notions..." but then later, on page 164, there's the skill feat called 'Close Match' which says "You’re androgynous, look a bit older or younger than you are, or look like you might have an ancestry other than your own. Choose a different gender, an age other than your own, or an ancestry the same size as yours..." which makes it sound like you can challenge binary gender notions but you still have to appear as either male or female unless you take a feat.

You may want to change the wording on the feat, Paizo. And probably the name of it. May I suggest:
"You look a bit older or younger than you are, or look like you might have an ancestry other than your own. Choose a different age other than your own, or an ancestry the same size as yours..." (Basically, remove the gender detail from the feat so that you're not contradicting yourselves.)

That still doesn't really solve it, as the feat is essentially "Passing" as a pickup. I get the want to remove the gender portion, but the racial connotations are still there, and if we're looking to remove the whole complicated and nasty problem that is the cultural currency of "passing as an ethnicity, sex, etc. you weren't "born" as" from the mechanics list, they should probably remove the whole thing save in the most fantastical or pseudo absurd instances.

In other words, a feat that says you "pass" as a cis woman or a Spaniard more easily is not going to look good if you want to attract people who are ya know, people of color who have to deal with needing to pass to survive or trans people who are quite tired of the comparison. Feats like childlike, that lets halflings pass as a human child though, that might work.

Maybe make the feat something like "Nondescript" or "Doppelganger descended" and just expand it. Say something like, "Your features are so androgynous and/or nondescript that you have far greater ease disguising yourself as others." then just give the bonus to all other ones in the same size category. So like, a human with the feat could be really good at making themselves look convincingly male, female, orc, elf, maybe dwarf when they squat, black, SE Asian...

Basically change it from the "Passing" feat, to the "he's basically play dough, he can look like whoever". Makes it more fantastical, more interesting, helps decouple from both problems.

Shadow Lodge

So, part of me likes the idea of a decoupled Craft, but after a certain point, it totally breaks versimilitude. Like, I know that in most of history sans modern times humans were crafting generalists. You made your clothes, built your house, brewed your own beer, etc. and I like the idea of being able to do that to a certain point, but being able to identify the alchemical bomb based on my mad cobbling skills just feels rife for problems.

My best suggestion would be to just put a certain category of items like simple weapons or things with a certain DC and below behind a wall that says "anyone can craft these with any craft because everyone needs them and they are so ubiquitous they are common knowledge" and then put the rest behind specific crafts, but with the variable Skill DCs thing 2e is doing that doesn't seem a possibility.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to identify this castles architectural style, don't worry, I'm a cobbler ;).

(This will be every gnome or goblin I play for PFS XD.)

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I actually like the volley trait on the longbow. As it stands the vast majority of players use the longbow because it not only has name recognition but is just flat out better than EVERY OTHER RANGED OPTION IN THE GAME. Giving it a bit of a nerf helps make it less of an all around, anytime superior option and gives it more of a specialized niche, allowing other weapons the room necessary to start filling those roles and not have to have every ranged weapon play the game of "but is it a better longbow?"

Maybe we'll get lucky and even things like javelins, guns, and CROSSBOWS might become good enough that they don't just feel like punishment choices for new players and a 3 week excursion into the depths of the splat to find a way to make work XD.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
GLD wrote:

I feel like the cracks in the 3.X engine were becoming pretty prevalent and I was actually glad to see a lot of its relics be written out.

Honestly, if it's not a complete overhaul, what's the point? If you're just tweaking the existing mechanics then don't bother with a new edition. Just release a book of variant rules and be done with it. And they already did that with Unchained and sprinkled throughout a myriad of other books over the last decade.

If you have criticisms about the new game, go for it. But the fact that it's distancing itself from 3.X isn't a valid one in my mind.

If you just want more Pathfinder 1, well you're set. Between Pathfinder's ridiculous amount of official material, all the 3rd party stuff and all the fully compatible 3.5 books put out by Wizards (and that is well into the hundreds) you are set. There is more content than you could ever hope to absorb and the system is weathered enough that you and tens of thousands of other fans have produced a nearly infinite number of variations, house rules, extra content and so forth, to tweak the game into exactly what you want.

Except next year at GenCon there aren't going to be Pathfinder 1 tables for me to play my characters I've spent the past two years building at.

I'm going to either have to switch to PF2 (haven't seen anything to make me want to yet), switch to another system (or more of another system- this year I did 4 slots 5E, 4 slots Pathfinder, but I've played Shadowrun before and if I'm trying a game that's completely new, which PF2 is there are many other options out there), or just not go.

I agree- they could have done another Unchained ruleset, then they could have even made those rules the baseline for PFS going forward if that's what they wanted to fix.

But they wanted to toss everything out, babies and bathwater, and start fresh. So here we are.

To expand on this, just adding an expansion of rules options in an unchained line doesn't change the core rules assumption. Players & GMs can still ignore rules overhauls that you do in an Unchained because they aren't core and new players won't be exposed to them and therefore will be unlikely to add them in in the future. This gets worse when you factor in things like modules & aps where devs have to figure out which to use or deal with customers who suddenly discover that all their rules are potentially years out of date and no one said anything.

I do agree on doing an incremental increase rather than a total overhaul similar to what Chaosium just did with the new CoC edition, but any major rules changes need to be added to a Core Rulebook and made part of the core assumption that comes with the next printing. Update the PDFs and give buyers the option to download old versions if they like from the purchase but make those new assumptions core to the products going forward. This also has the business benefit of allowing them to reprint old modules into the new core assumption after enough time has passed like RotRL or CotCT and resell them again like new, or more reasons to get those old APs when they repackage them as 1 hardback. And while you're doing that, customers might just be like, "ehh, guess I should grab up the new printing of the CRB. It's been like 4-5 years, and its changed enough I want the new physical to go with my updated digital."

Spending $40 every few years to reup my CRB copy because we had a nice update and keep parity with my digital sounds fine and with a bit of a slowdown on new products so I'm not breaking the bank to buy paizo's new hotness every 4 months would still make it cheaper than feeding my pseudo dormant videogame habit.

Shadow Lodge

Beefriedrice 2 wrote:

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e?

It is good at what it seems to want to be: a number crunching, min/max friendly game, with extensive variety in how it can be played. There are ways to play it that I enjoy, I rarely find other players who want from it what I want from it.

Simple answer: not really

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

I love pathfinder with just the core book. It's the slow accumulation of optimal choices that make it dull.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)
Both are great at what they want to be. 4th isn't really for me, but its better than people give it credit for. 5th edition is a game I like.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

Less class balance, and more game balance. A game where the rewards for making the optimal choices in character creation aren't strongly felt, thereby enabling more options (if the optimal choices aren't game breaking, the sub-optimal choices are acceptable to take).
Sub-optimal choices being acceptable means more character variety, and more variety in game play. There is nothing worse than one-trick pony characters who solve every problem with their hammer because the other tools just aren't worth even considering. It's boring no matter what side of the table you're on.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?
Easier to understand rules means more players, more players means more success for paizo, more success for paizo means more products. Win-Win.

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?
I think accessibility leads to what I want from the game.

Great work and I echo a lot of these, especially #4 (which often is described as "The crossbow problem" in my neck of the woods) but I think 2 is kind of inevitable. Paizo isn't WotC, who has other business ventures to fall back on to make money (i.e. Magic the Gathering) and therefore have to keep publishing to keep the lights on and pay their writers. Most of these books are one time purchases so it's not like you can keep selling a core rulebook to the same customers over and over again, so they have to generate new content. That said, I think with a tighter focus on making sure new options let you do new things and approach obstacles in different ways rather than just vast improvements that over optimize already strong options that make "suboptimal" options worse.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Phantasmist wrote:

A series of questions for people who like the new game and general direction paizo's team is taking it. But, before that I want people to give an honest answer without interference, so no judgement please. Likewise I'm mainly going to be viewing peoples responses, so I'm not going commenting on anything unless people need clarification on a question. Also, the reason I'm asking is because I don't like the direction the new game is going. Despite that I'm just curious as to what people like about and where they might be coming from. I want less drama and more understanding, so here we go.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

So, my answers got a little long, and in order to make them both easier to follow and sort through and avoid TLDR I've put them behind some spoiler tags. Enjoy, and I hope they help answer your question man.

1.) Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.):
Yes, but see 2.

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.):
Though I still love 1e, I do have things I look at as troublesome or problematic. There are still a lot of things left over from 3.5 that now after 10 years feel archatic like the design of clerics (who are powerful but don't feel like a left hand of god), the overbloat of power that druids have compared to nearly all other classes, the underpowered nature of the rogue even after changes that leaves them kind of unable to do the things new and old players think a rogue should do, or the skills system not always scaling into the late game.

I also have issues with a lot of problematic parsing that comes up in the way certain plot points or narrative pieces are written for Pathfinder in particular their regards to race and narrative about native peoples or as the books often refer to them "primitive". Both of these make it difficult for me to recommend these products to friends of mine of color or certain other disenfranchised ethnic groups, since we run into issues where their cultural history has been co-opted but they, their ethnicity has been replaced. The halfling underground railroad is often my go to example of the latter, and often leads to uncomfortable and long discussions about how awkward it is that for me to write a Django Unchained, Nat Turner, or Hatian Revolution narrative in Golarion for that audience when the game makes that piece of history something that is told with someone who's more often represented by Elijah Wood than Jamie Fox. And though Garund exists, that does not represent their experiences or their history, and having it co-opted is something that many in those communities often take umbrage with and with good reason.

This also appears in things like the bestiaries in more abbreviated forms like how the Blights call out "primitive peoples" as being more easily duped into believing they are gods than "civilized" folk, but the same colonialist sentiment is there, and it makes looking at some of this problematic in ways I'm not a fan of and difficult to share with the more diverse audience I often surround myself with.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments):
Was not a fan of 4e since it kind of boiled all the classes down into very samy mechanically with what felt like a thin veneer of narrative to try and conceal it. I have not played or looked into 5e much, but I do like some of the mechanics I've seen pop up. Weapons just having finesse and dumping the feat makes a stronger game, I like how dragons of sufficient age warp the terrain they live in, and I like advantage/disadvantage as it is easily implemented and intuitive to players new and old.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.):
Class balance I think is a misnomer, so to be clear there, I'd rather see more dynamic and interesting classes who each do something unique with the mechanics of the game or unique with the narrative. I want rogues who can actually split from the party and drop explosive sneaks when they sneak, I want clerics who feel like they work for a god and wield his power (with great hesitation) rather than are just "the buffer", I want fighters who feel like a pit where the enemies hopes of martial victory go to die when played right and like a 20th level fighter is the guy who will have military schools for generations popping up teaching his style (like, your combat feat chain is literally thought of as "Insert PCs name here"). Right now, the system doesn't really do that for every class, and some, like those above, really get the short end of the stick.

I do want higher level play to actually work, but that's an issue for if/when any of my home games ever reach that state and since few do, I'd be fine with light fixes there or even maybe removing some of it altogether, but I do see that it needs a fix for any of it to really work.

I do love more options, but right now I want tighter focus an tune up on what's already here to improve the feeling of play for both new players and old. The CRB is in desperate need of a layout overhaul and NEEDS to have whole chapters restructured to make information that is KEY to the game where it is easily findable and sorted with like terms and ideas to cut the amount of time EVERYONE has to do looking around for anything. I shouldn't have a Core Rulebook where I have to search 3 different parts of the book over 400 pages to find out how low-light vision interacts with dim light, and that interaction should be consistent across the whole book. This also goes for things like feats & spells, which both need more trimming and focus. We have too many of both that are just not flavorful, interesting, or rewarding and as such they get buried and make it harder to find interesting stuff we like or balance the game. Cut spells that cause bottlenecks, combine like spells to give more utility (which buff spont casters), dump feats that don't add anything and/or incorporate them into the core mechanics. Like, make the vigilante talent Nothing Can Stop Me should be something anyone can do, not just something batman can pull off.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?:
I love accessibility, adding more of it, both in mechanical cleanliness, inclusive narrative, and better layout of rules are at the heart of most of my complaints. Make my clerics feel more like they wield the great and terrible power of god but are always flirting with disaster as they try to please them, give me a campaign setting where African Americans can play out their own power fantasy where they can fight the chattel slavery of Cheliax and take over like I can take over and rewrite the history of the french revolution insert in Galt, and give me a rules system and a CRB that doesn't feel like it takes 4 years of study to start finally understanding that has a single unified design theory that helps prevent every gaming group from having a fundamentally different understanding of the rules and by extension the design and balance of the game.

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?:
Not really. I feel like a lot of the accessibility issues in 1e come from the nature of it's initial birth, as an expansion/revision of a previous system, and that there were always multiple writers/developers involved but not necessarily working collaboratively to make it. Some of the rules were already 5 years old from 3.5 and written by people that were never on Paizo's staff when PF came out and with the limited window to put it out a lot of stuff feels like it's "in the CRB" but not necessarily in the place it's supposed to be. This, is where a lot of the issues with 1e in my experience tend to start with new players, and with Paizo's system of replies and interactions with players the problems only compound. From here, rules get found to be problematic but once they are in a bound book they are rarely changed, just worked around, and then those work arounds don't get shared with all the dev team and the system starts to buckle under the strain.

Make book layout a priority and think about the way we as players will read it both when we are starting and when we have logged hundreds of hours and design the book for that, and accessibility will increase. Be willing to change the rules, even core ones that have been out for years, if a much better solution comes along and MODIFY THE PDFS WHEN YOU DROP THE CHANGES, and keep older versions of the pdfs on file so we can cycle back if we want to and we will have a more cohesive game. Take a page out of games like DotA or LoL and think of the game as something that has new things added but also cleans up and refines the old as time goes on. Note, that large fundamental changes are not something I want all the time, but if its a choice between continuing to use rules that no one likes for 10 years until 3rd comes along or rewriting them to give all of us clarity now, I'd take the latter. Just let me have access to older versions of the pdfs too when I buy it lol.

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).:
Yes! 5e Starfinder feels too much like a beast chasing trends rather than making them. I LOVE the new weapon rules, I think the 3 action economy is compelling, and I love the idea of ancestries having stuff that is gathered over time but good god, all of it feels like it's buried in moves that are steps back. Everything is called a feat and that waters down the uniqueness of each category and hides in each option and overwhelms new players with a big list that is actually a bunch of tiny lists they will have to pick through with a shared name. Ancestries feel like they are giant nerfs to old options and punish a lot of racial choices (particularly half-orcs). Backgrounds feel so much like 5e that it makes me wonder what's the difference and the whole no point buy/background thing feels like it's rife for exploits that will lead to just 4-5 choices being used and the rest just being page filler like how PFS sees a TON of PCs who are either Reactionary or Bullied as their traits.

I'm also not digging how skills are essentially the d100 system from Call of Cthulhu but with all the ease of use and understanding pulled out. Weapons have a ton of cool new abilities but the lack of high crits, crit ranges, and some clarity on how some of the abilities work (like, if a weapon has Charge and does a d8, do I add +1 or +1d8) really kills them. Also, having the Starfinder layout of all melee together and all ranged together is also a pain since if I'm running a character who say, only has simple proficiency, I'm going to be flipping all over the book. Keep it sorted by how the classes naturally sort them, rather than devising a whole new organization method from the way I as a player am taught to sort them in my mind. Along with this, the two tier system of monsters and PCs being built in mutually exclusive ways feels like something that will inevitably lead to problems with design, as monsters feel more like mobs and PCs more like powered up super gods. Like, I'm still confused on how PC vs. evil NPC design is supposed to work, and though I get some of the conceits here, I think that the disconnect that will happen when say I use a weapon and do X dmg but a bandit with the same gear and similar strength does Y "because reasons" will cause problems. Also, I hope that the new better design of stat block does not mean we will get the cramped, headache inducing bunch of math we currently have in the playtest bestiary.

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground):
Ohh lord, so much. Beyond the things I mentioned as liking above (with rewrites for things like ancestry feats) I'd love to see tighter and more severe combat. As it stands, combat can drag on in 1e and even more so at higher levels because it's basically just two bags of hp hitting each other until one of them hits -1+ with nothing really changing over that time. What's worse is it that problem plays into all the gameplay, to the point that you learn quick it's better to just dmg a guy than do anything else (dmg in this instance includes summoning things to kill them or magic to say drop them down a hole. Other benefits might happen, but they are ancillary to the dmg). Give me more things that happen along side dmg that make them as valuable if not sometimes better so that I don't have to just bash everything to pulp in combat to be useful.

2nd, make turning people to pulp in combat easier. I know this seems counter intuitive, but hear me out. Making combat deadlier allows it to move more quickly and shortens or removes the amount of time we as players and particularly as martials, spend just hitting each other waiting for something to drop and the game state to change. By making combat more deadly, we also make it both less optimal a decision or response to problems we face in game and as such encourage more interesting gameplay like stealth, intrigue, or subterfuge, while simultaneously rewarding those who do get it down. When done well and with intent this is how games like Dark Souls or Call of Cthulhu work, where you feel really smart for solving a problem without having to draw your swords (which makes classes like Bard or Rogue more valuable and more fun to play) and makes combat more fun when you feel like you really had to think out a fight to solve it. In my home games I have been using rules that model this from Skirmisher's excellent insults & injuries book for bone breaking and I have to say it has done this, and I'd love to see Paizo take a similar route. It feels too good to be able to play a fighter and be able to stop a wizard by breaking his wrist with a baseball bat and then capturing him or watching players think twice about just picking a fight with the giant cause he's mean and instead actually tricking him or outsmarting him to gain an advantage to not be a good thing.

3rd MORE DICE. One of my biggest complaints mechanically about 3.5 and PF is that, after a certain point, the dice really stop mattering. If you're a martial character by 3-5 you usually have more damage coming off of your mods than the dice you roll, which removes a lot of the fun that comes from the actual game and makes it feel more like accounting. Players roll a d8 and somehow do 35 dmg and everyone just kind of stares. The first few times it's fun, but without any sort of visual or sensory feedback it makes a disconnect to the audience and blunts the appeal of that big hit. And, it means that you are constantly running the risk of having to back check a ton of math because of how incredulous that "roll 1d8, do 86 dmg" incident feels. Like, we all know one of the funnest feelings in this game is that moment when you throw a fireball and have that handful of d6's or when you see the rogue crit with a pick, or the terror of the GM saying, "The dragon unleashes his breath weapon" and you see him pick up so many dice he needs two hands. The game needs that, and I feel like their are places we can put more of that in. Let every class use more dice more often and I think we can all have some serious fun.

Those are the starts, I have more and more details, but those are things I'd rather not discuss here and this post has already gotten a little long. Hope that helps!

Shadow Lodge

So I know these are the beta versions of these books but could we please get some more blank space and visual breathing room in the bestiary?

As it stands, I loved the idea of the cleaned up stat block with a more organic flow, placing abilities and statistics that are often used in tandem close together and allowing for easy reference and more concise writing, but as it stands it seems to be that the layout team has taken that to mean that all that new free space on the page should be PACKED TO THE BRIM WITH EVERY POSSIBLE THING THEY CAN FIT.

Now, I get the urge to add more stuff, but it negates the advantage of the streamlined and ergonomic stat block. With how packed these pages are I'm losing my place on whatever I'm looking at every time I look at something and skimming through to find whatever angel, dragon, or angry dessert I want to throw at my party is freaking impossible. It's like a hurricane soup of words and it's giving me a headache to look at, and I can only imagine what this is like for new people looking to participate in the playtest or what it might be like in a year if this setup continues. And though I know there will be art in the final product to break up the word wall for the moment it's migraine inducing and if not brought up now I fear too much of this style will stay.

So, can we get some breaks on these pages? Maybe leave half of a page empty after you finish a section on say dragons or when we cycle from A monsters to B monsters? My eyes will thank you for it.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A bit. Right now I'm really annoyed with it for those creatures that can also take PC levels or be played like Orcs. The playtest gives me ancestry options for Orcs and I'd really like to fiddle around with building a few.

Shadow Lodge

bookrat wrote:
Voss wrote:

Because at that point you've moved past the peasant economy.

I think it nicely underlines that you're dealing with treasures and rarities, not everyday goods.

Why is a level 20 Formula or a Level 9 spell a part of peasant economy, but a level 1 alchemical item (such as tanglefoot) or a level 1 snare (such as a caltrop snare) not?

This. To a long term player, this distinction and the exchange rate will be easy, but to new players it will be a massive turn off. 1st time players will look at this and get confused about which currency you are talking about and we'll get money flubbing problems and new GM's will get annoyed trying to remember and cross reference the currency in the very first game meeting when their players are building things.

Standardize the writing to 1 option and move from there. I like the Silver option since it puts things in a more normal person perspective in the world and helps keep everyone constantly aware of both what a gp means to the bulk of the world and the PCs usual place of economic privilege to everyone else.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
WhiteMagus2000 wrote:
I was going to mention this myself. I think it would be better to call ancestral and background feats, traits. And call class feats, talents. I would prefer that "feats" be reserved for non-class specific options, like in 3.x and PF1. Currently it feels very cumbersome and confusing when you are using feats as a blanket term for at least 4 different things.

Agreed. I can see people being annoyed with using the old system but switching from a dozen different terms to 1 specific term maintains the same problem of overwhelming the player. It just means now you have to get to the feats section and then remember what each separate subheading means.

I'm down for classes having "talents", ancestries having "lineages", and feats being "feats" or "training" or whatever they want to call it.

Just for the love of god, don't stick us with a book with a feat section as big as the spell section and then having to explain the difference to every new player while trying to also convince them, "No, this is not as complicated as it sounds". It's super complicated, because it front loads a bunch of nuanced distinction behind a giant umbrella term.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

So, I've been moving my way through the playtest and though I have things I both like and dislike about this book, one of the things I really want to see changed is the over reliance on the distinction of "feat" for everything. As it stands now you have feats, class feats, ancestry feats, heritage feats... it feels like the list goes on and on and is a chore for long term players like myself to keep straight.

For new players, this level of overuse is more likely to be overwhelming than it is to be helpful, and I know that handing players a core rulebook with 3-4+ sections of options called "feats" that's nearly as big as the old spell section is likely to turn them off from the game through sheer concussive force of selection than it is to get them to join in.

I suggest 2nd ed goes back to what was used in the previous system. Call Alchemist feats discoveries, rogue feats talents, Oracle revelations, etc. I know they are essentially balanced like feats and that many of us figure that out eventually, but keeping them discrete and separated as such helps new players keep them separate in their mind and doesn't run the risk of overwhelming them as much when they go to look up "class feats" or "ancestry feats" for the first few times.

Keep the naming separate and lessen the risk of losing new players to a raised skill floor of memorization and learned distinction. And help long term players avoid having to pick through ever expanding "feat" chapters looking for that one ancestry feat that could just be separated into it's own space with ancestral options or alchemist class feat we could just stick in the section with all the other alchemist options like we currently have in 1st ed.

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
For half-elves and half-orcs, we have a similar problem if, for example, we decide that a half-elf has a parent who is a drow or a Varisian human. Forget about gaining something from both parents -- you currently have to wait until 5th level to get anything from the distinctive culture of either parent. At 1st level, you are just a generic half-elf/half-human.
Another big slice of my problem. My personal character is, essentially, a tattooed sorcerer. When a Varisian Tattoo feat rolls around, she won't be able to get it (without Ancestral Paragon) because of the half-elf blood price.

Hell you think that's bad, a Half-Orc can't get darkvision till 5th at the earliest and god forbid you're trying to grab up some proficiencies too. I'm still gobsmacked that if I want to make a Half-Orc Barbarian with an orc double axe & darkvision that they are going to have to be 9th!

Seriously, why the hell can't I just get darkvision at 1st with the trait? Dwarves get it, Goblins get it, just give it to the half-orcs as one of the options.

Shadow Lodge

Kk I'm interested now. Did you guys do anything to increase the number of mount options for the medium cavalier going forward? As it stands, medium cavaliers are kind of screwed into just rolling horse or camel and though 4 Winds Fantasy book adds a lot of horse options to the table it still doesn't help people looking for more exotic options for their characters or GMs looking to make a statement on what their new specialized group of mounted lords rides. Combine that with the long delay that happens to get access to the more interesting and exotic stuff and you can see how the pre 7th options fall really short.

So, does this book add rules to say, get a hindu cavalier on elephant back before 7th, a caveman on a T-Rex, or the infamous bear cavalry from Eberron at least started before we are well into the mid game of our build and potentially months if not years into playing our character?

Shadow Lodge

Bump.

Shadow Lodge

Hey everyone! I'm working on the new expansion for the Ultimate Relationships rules for Legendary Games that is meant to expand the rules already presented within the previous book, streamline some of the explanations of the system for both players and GMs, and present new and exciting paths for people to take. I've just started my outline and laying out all that I wanted to cover, but I thought it might be best to ask you guys, the community what you'd be interested in seeing in a new expansion to the Relationship system?

What did you like about the old system, what rules/concepts do you want expanded and further explored, what rules do you want more explained?

Please feel free to let me know your thoughts here so that I can continue to build upon the already amazing work that Mark put into the system, and we can make our favorite relationship building machine even better to play with.

Shadow Lodge

John Lynch 106 wrote:
doc the grey wrote:
So, shields don't get magical upgrades

Having AC vary between +0 and +9 (depending on whether you use a shield or not) makes it really hard to balance between characters. Given they're removing 3/4 BAB because they need to make the game's math tighter (and 3/4 BAB only has a difference of +5 at 20th level which is substantially less than +9 which can be achieved as early as 14th level), I'm not surprised to see the removal of enhancement bonuses on shields. My group doesn't actually use shields very often so I doubt they'll have a strong reaction to this.

I know that's the problem. If paizo is writing an entire line of gear that won't really matter in the game because it's so uninteresting and not useful mechanically than why make it at all? If it's for those people who want to play shielded characters than they aren't doing anyone any favors since mechanically the shield will either provide so little as to be unnecessary or be such a detriment to dmg output that it would be better to just increase armor and grab a stronger weapon. We've already done this dance with the last edition, and I hope that we don't have to see that dance repeated again here. If options are written for PF 2.0 that we are meant to use they need to be stuff that offers the users mechanics they want to play with. I think we've seen some versions of this with the shield style feats paizo themselves did or the excellent work out of Fat Goblin that retooled shields into these tank essentials. I want to see us get something that lets the shield be more like that and fills a specific gameplay niche that synergizes with their historical role on the battlefield and gets its own unique mechanics to play with.

Shadow Lodge

So, shields don't get magical upgrades, armor works more like it does in Starfinder, and also gives save buffs? The latter feels like something that just leads to more algorithm creep than we previously had since offensive powers are likely to just buff themselves up to match the new defense curve. Also, does raising a shield as an action mean that to use a shield each round I have to have less actions per round? If so, how does this encourage the use of shields more than we already have and not just reinforce the paradigm of ditching them in favor of an open hand or two-handed weapon use?

Shadow Lodge

GM Rednal wrote:

Mm. And a fair bit depends on how many encounters you want people to face, of course. If you're only going to have them fight 1-2 foes, it's easier to pick two encounters that seem fun and just do those. XD If you want to have an encounter chance table and randomized foes along the way, though, with quite a few battles, the tables definitely help.

(Borderland Provinces, from Frog God Games, is a nice resource if you expect to want a lot of random encounter tables. It has quite a few of them, plus low, medium, high, and extreme risk versions of each type of encounter to showcase how dangerous the region is. So, areas immediately around cities tend to only have low-risk stuff, while going far off-road could lead to some genuinely dangerous situations.)

I might have to check that out. Right now I'm using the Discovery System from Ultimate Wilderness. The day is broken into 4 cycles and there's a 20% chance of one in each quarter of the day. With this on top of the actual buffalo encounter they're already gunning for, there's likely to be an encounter each day, but potentially none at all if they roll well(?) enough and don't find their quarry.

Shadow Lodge

GM Rednal wrote:
d20 and d100 are the most common choices for random encounter tables. It's normal for "common" threats to occupy a much larger percent, and the deadliest threats may only be the smallest possible percent (5% or 1%, respectively). So, you're much more likely to encounter snakes and deer than you are chimeras or ettins. The exact distribution should be based on how dangerous you want the region to be, but a 20% chance of the rare, dangerous foes is probably appropriate.

So you net out with the dangerous encounters being around 20% altogether then? That sounds solid, I've also realized that I can increase the likelihood by putting an encounter across both tables, netting it out with a higher likelihood overall.

Shadow Lodge

So I'm working on a 2 part random encounter table for a party of adventurers out hunting buffalo in a fantastic great plains and I'm having a bit of trouble.

Like I've said, I've broken the list into two lists. The first is for encounters that can occur while they are looking for buffalo that they have a chance to take down and meant to delay, distract, or otherwise obstruct them from reaching their goal that day. Group 2 are meant to be encounters that can occur after they have felled their buffalo target and potentially want to steal or otherwise push them off their prize.

Now, I know what creatures and hazards are on both of these lists, but I'm having trouble distributing the percentages equally in a way that makes most of these interesting encounters possible but also reflects a living world (think more nonpredatory hazards in list 1 that are either unfortunate run ins or other possible hunts rather than active predators). The current encounter lists are in the spoilers below and I'll include a link to the current tables if people are interested in aiding. I've built lists before but I always find myself making them bigger and more complex which gives me a lot of interesting options but makes the rolling part take forever.

List 1:
Ankhegs, Nomads (Native Hunters), Peryton, Pachycephalosaurus, Deer, Pronghorn (antelope stats), Skunk, Snake, Allosaurus, Juvenile Seps, Owlbear, Ettin, Chimera, Mustangs, Stinging Grasses, Poison Ivy, Diseased Mosquitoes, Diseased Ticks

List 2:
Wolves, Dire Weasel, Deinoychus, Grizzly Bear, Ankhegs, Peryton, Giant Vulture, Pteranodon, Quetzacoatlus, Allosaurus, Owlbear, Ettin, Chimera, Griffon, Hippogriff, Dimetrodon, Diseased Mosquitoes, Diseased Ticks

Current Table

So, anyone have any suggestions? Ideas on how to make these lists fit into a d% chart, questions about how or what these encounters are supposed to do/play out like? Any questions or advice would be appreciated.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh s### you are posting these here now?! I've been using the Dyslexic sheets for years and they're awesome. Really solid for new players, since it cuts back on book cross referencing and helps learn the class quicker.

Shadow Lodge

So are we getting more feats at different levels and they are just feat locked, or are we getting more feat options that have to compete with a similar number of slots like we did before? Has Paizo piped up much about any of this?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
If enough of the player base both want and don't want mutagen in the alchemist class it seems like a good argument for making it modular (and if it falls on the same line for people who do and don't want bombs that's even better). It doesn't seem like a good argument for delaying it to level 5.

Agreed. What could be cool is getting to choose at 1st when you make the character whether you want bombs or mutagens, and then it scales out accordingly and you can get the other option when you hit 5th. That way you can have the Hulk/Mr.Hyde characters at 1st alongside the Mad Bombers and they can both just get the other option later.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So... What exactly do you get level to level beyond either damage increases or the ability to qualify for more feats? As it stands it sounds more and more like a lot of the options that used to be features of the class you'd take as part of your leveling progression are just becoming feats you take instead when you qualify.

Now, don't get me wrong, it's an.. "interesting"? idea, but it feels like it's falling back into the dead level trap of 3.5, with more levels that are just devoid of anything save BAB & Save increases. Those were crap back then, and I'd hate to have another game where we've got levels where nothing unique is happening at that level.

Also, if a lot of these powers are being moved to feats, what are archetypes going to be modifying?

Shadow Lodge

So does this mean that the bulk of racial abilities from P1 are relegated to feat selection that might be locked at 1st? Do you get a free feat to pick these up with or does the same feat restriction paradigm we have in P1 carry over to 2nd edition?

Shadow Lodge

K, so my question is about this line in the combat discussion,

"The choices you make when building your character greatly influence what you can do during combat. You can build a simpler character with a narrow field of powerful choices, just as easily as a more complex character with a vast array of options in a fight. As with the other modes of play, it's all up to you!"

How are you going to balance diversity of choice with power of specialization inside this system? We've already seen how this maxim doesn't tend to work even in current systems as much of the printed content requires things like feat taxes, level minimums, class specificity, and not to mention time to just get to do basic stuff in your build you wanted to play with in the first place while other classes and in particular spellcasting can overcome these issues with a deft flick of the wrist. This is in part why things like combat maneuvers in my experience always seem to be something that doesn't get played with as DPR optimizes them out and the dev time it has taken to give us options to make them viable in more than just one specific build in specific instances has left many not thinking about them when those options come into existence.

How does this new edition help counter that problem? What are we doing to make sure that things like Combat Maneuvers become actually viable and fun to play without having to play a specific class to do them this time? How are does this system present options that don't just create hard counters so great that no one will use them? How will the system present enough diversity of play with these invested options to help get players thinking outside the box with their use?

I'm excited, but when I see this counter system, but then not a lot of discussion of how said shaken fighter might counter that fear shaking barbarian while simultaneously stating you can specialize or go diverse I get nervous. It sounds like that fighter is screwed and if that barbarian power is common then why would I ever use that fighter build? This is an issue in the current edition, and one I hope we can avoid in the second edition.

Shadow Lodge

J. A. wrote:

In our last session, two party members were slashed unconscious and spent some quality time with a mi-go. The rest of the party was occupied elsewhere, so the interlude with the mi-go was offscreen, and no one knows exactly what transpired.

I would love to find something thematic and Lovecraftian which the mi-go could have implanted in the party members. I’m looking for something to represent either a larval mi-go or a symbiont, or even a parasite which might have transferred from the mi-go to the unconscious PCs.

I’m open to all official Paizo content, and I’m especially interested in suggestions that are from the Lovecraft mythos or in the same vein. Does Pathfinder have anything that would fit?

Could go with the xenomorph creatures from horror adventures, one of the corruptions is based on the xenomorph. The other option is infestations. Again, horror adventures version of the Xenomorphs causes an infestation that's pretty gnarly and can turn you into one, but you could really look up any of them and use them as built with only some thematic changes and still be good.

Other option is to throw some fleshgrafts on them. These are also in Horror Adventures, so those could work as well. Nothing's quite as terrifying as waking up with a pincer for an arm or antenna for eyes.

Those are good places to start, hope that helps man.

Ohh, Carrion Crown also has some rules for living Brains in a Jar. Check that out if you want to have someone wake up with their gray matter in a glass tube and a tape recorder and video camera for eyes and a mouth.

Shadow Lodge

nerdamus wrote:
doc the grey wrote:

So, I finished my 1st pass at a Shifter update and I'm looking for input. If anyone is interested and wants to throw in some editing or critique advice feel free! Comments should be enabled and I will also be checking in here if you are interested.

Changes are highlighted in orange and some of my own editing notes should be visible on the right if you're interested in trying to crack some of my own problems.

Updated Shifter 1st Pass

Simple, but good! The big and absolutely necessary (at minimum) change is making the wild shape last 2 hours per level. It is ridiculous that the Shifter gets less variety than a druid, no spells, and can only shape the same amount of time. Honestly, it should just be at will once you hit fourth level. Maybe even sooner. But this seems like a very easy compromise that most GM's would be cool with.

Thank you! Any thoughts on the changes to the Snake and Mouse aspects? What about thoughts on any of the notes thrown in there?

Shadow Lodge

So, I finished my 1st pass at a Shifter update and I'm looking for input. If anyone is interested and wants to throw in some editing or critique advice feel free! Comments should be enabled and I will also be checking in here if you are interested.

Changes are highlighted in orange and some of my own editing notes should be visible on the right if you're interested in trying to crack some of my own problems.

Updated Shifter 1st Pass

Shadow Lodge

DRD1812 wrote:
doc the grey wrote:
Yes. My game uses the caravan rules out of Jade Regent so they end up being lightly surrounded by a cadre of NPCs who help keep their mobile business afloat.
That's an interesting model for comparison. I have a sort of mental distinction between "the GM's NPCs" and "the players' NPCs." I guess I look at hirelings as characters that the players choose to introduce to the campaign rather than the GM. Jade Regent anticipates that move, throwing a bit of player agency ("Dudes, I'm sick of encumbrance. Let's just hire some porters.") and giving it back to the GM ("If you wish to take a caravan, you'll need to hire guards. Here's a mini game to help you do that.") I'm probably splitting hairs here, but hirelings and "NPCs that the adventure expects you to take with you" seem like different animals to me.

I've never really had that distinction. For me, NPCs have always been something that the GM has purview over even when the Players introduces them since at the end of the day, I as the GM end up playing most of them. The player might get to sit down and sculpt the character and help bring them to finished state if they are someone that their character knows really well or something like that, but once they hit the table or get incorporated into the story as events unfold they fall out of that space of control and more into that of the GM. On top of that, players tend to not put much into hirelings they pick up beyond "guy who carries my stuff" which tends to make them into items rather than people, blunting the impact of what you can do with them in the story. Once you let the GM get their hands on them and throw a little character into them you can get someone who the PCs kind of care about and since they are basically around all the time, create narrative around them.

For instance, one of the favorite NPCs in my game's caravan is a commoner who they hired to drive their wagons. They found out he's this kid from around town who wants to be an adventurer like they are and basically ran away from home to join them and stole the family horse. Now, after a few adventures he's managed to gain a level in fighter and he kind of acts as the foil for their own antics, eager to go on adventures but still just a normal kid with fears and worries of his own that help put things in perspective. What's more, it makes any quest they bring him on even more engaging as even though he wants to be there, follows orders, and gets in good hits, there's always the worry that his crowning moment of cool will be cut down in the next when a stray arrow or a spear plunges through him and cuts down their friend. That's what I think is the big strength of hirelings if you want to use them beyond just a skill check, they're a place to build character and make your world feel alive and sculpt an image of what that world is like and how one can interact with it to the players.

Aside about Jade Regent:
Yeah, it's one of the many things Jade Regent does really well that kind of get lost in the conversation shuffle. The caravan works great as a response to the hometown issue in most games by letting your party basically put their hometown and their friends on wheels. Now you've got your blacksmith, bartender, and that seamstress that the rogue has a crush on all on the road.

Shadow Lodge

Matthew Downie wrote:

You could come up with a non-violent mystery plot for just about anything...

Star Trek Adventures?

Matthew's right, if thematic content is your only real worry just about any tabletop could get the job done.

Assuming this is their first experience with tabletop, I'd suggest picking a system you're comfortable with and just looking for a scenario you like. I know Legendary games has done a module or 2 meant for new players and little kids in the Pathfinder system and I believe 2 Kings Games is working on a module for that age range too that's either got a kickstarter or will soon.

With Legendary look for their lvl. 0 adventures I believe.

Shadow Lodge

So, I'm just starting to fiddle around with some mounted combat and I've got a few questions about the order of operations when it comes to making skill checks for it and what players need to do to well, make the whole thing work.

1.) Does one make a Handle Animal check for things like moving, charging, and basically all other actions the mount is supposed to be making?

This seems like the case, but if so what does it do to action economy if you are well, not riding an animal companion?

2.) Ride checks to fight with your mount, do they only happen when it is going to attack or does it include things like when it is under the effect of status effects like nauseated?

I assume you would make a check in instances like that as you try to keep the mount from booking or bucking too much while you are trying to fight but this seems to be a bit unclear.

3.) When you charge on horseback, does the horse get to make an attack as well at the end of the charge or not?

Any help here would be greatly appreciated along with sources for any answers one gives.

1 to 50 of 3,415 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>