Ilarris Zeleshi

dragonhunterq's page

FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 3,982 posts (4,101 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 11 Organized Play characters. 5 aliases.


1 to 50 of 3,982 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

You are missing nearly 20 years of history with 3rd edition and pathfinder that has lead to this point. It's kind of hard to be concise without that background.

A short answer to your specific question(maybe - there other opinions) is that they feel the need to curb some of the power of spellcasters in general and especially in regards to narrative impact as compared to non-spellcasting classes (look up caster/martial disparity if you are feeling particularly masochistic). While they could have made magic more unreliable or dangerous or any one of a number of things (most I can imagine would be very unsatisfactory in one way or another) they opted to reduce the overall number of spells available together with a reduction in the effects of spells (in very broad sweeps).

Players should not get XP for crafting. It does not lend itself to exciting tales. NPCs get the level the level they need for the story I want to tell, the explanation for their level is entirely up to me. That an NPC got better at crafting by crafting is perfectly fine by me.

Well if you think about it a hole in the ground isn't a trap, it's only the thing hiding it that makes it a trap - get rid of that and it's just a terrain feature.

trivial is easy - if the DC is equal to, or less, than the DC in the leftmost column it is trivial.

I for one do not want them to remove all GM adjudication from the game, pathfinder can handle many types and flavours of games and what should be impossible for one game might just be legendarily difficult in another - I can decide what is impossible as appropriate for my game.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
deuxhero wrote:

For the record, even if a character was tied up and unconscious their reflex save remained the same in 3E/PF1

For the record, no. Your reflex save dropped by the difference between your current dex mod and -5 (due to your dex being treated as 0).

And with regard to the pits as pointed out, everything gets a reflex save, even if immobilised - I assume that the stats take into account the 0 dex...
Also the damage is to the trapdoor - the pit never takes damage - as per the hardness description and the reset condition

pit trap wrote:

hardness 4(trapdoor) ...

Reset The trap still causes falling damage if anyone falls in, but the trapdoor must be reset manually for the trap to become hidden again.

The rules actually have you covered.

PTrulebook wrote:

(p336] you can usually skip rolling and assume the characters succeed against trivial DCs.

(p337) Ordinary tasks become trivial at a certain level, listed in the final column so you have some idea when these tasks no longer present even a minor challenge for the characters. Some tasks are always trivial and have no need to be rolled, like climbing a ladder in ordinary circumstances. You can allow automatic successes at lower levels than listed if that makes your game run more smoothly.

If the DC is trivial, you shouldn't really be asking for rolls.

"You break that fortune cookie easily"

PTrulebook wrote:
An extreme-difficulty skill DC defeats even the most skilled characters most of the time, but it’s just low enough that there’s some chance of success. Use these DCs if you want success to be unlikely but not impossible.

There exist things that are flat out impossible, and you don't need a roll as you will auto-fail.

"I'm afraid that lock is too difficult, no matter how lucky you get you will not be able to unlock it without the key".

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MER-c wrote:
Pramxnim wrote:
citricking wrote:
They want magic weapons to be important, I think they would still be important if they just had cool abilities and property runes. Items giving number bonuses makes them necessary to have to not fall behind.
This is how I'd prefer it as well. 5e made an attempt at this, but in the end they still deferred to a +1-3 hierarchy. If PF2 is bold enough to get rid of numerical bonuses from magic weapons and armour altogether and stuck to interesting powers / property runes, I'll be very happy.
I think it would be alright if specific Properties gave numerical bonuses under circumstances. I.e. Holy weapons are guided to smite down evil and thus are magically better at helping their wielder kill evil things. Or if Fire weapons did better against foes weak to fire, and so on.

Please no. Situational bonuses are not "interesting", nor are they fun.

The bigger problem some of you have with them changing it is people like me who want magic weapons to be important. They should matter and they should matter in every fight.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:

dragonhunterq wrote:
The rules should not need to tell you that you cannot walk through walls. Let me know of a game that feels the need to tell you this so I can avoid it.
Well, I suppose you are avoiding Pathfinder 1e, then: "On the other hand, some obstacles block movement entirely. A character can’t move through a blocking obstacle."

Well, that's embarrassing... I have never noticed that :)

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

In fact, if you pop over to the "top three positives/top three negatives" thread, you will see that more than one person has listed +1/level in their top three positives of PF2e.

how reliable is that thread to mirror the larger group of gamers? does it include people too frustrated with the PF2 playtest to post on a regular basis anymore? or those so frustrated that they dropped out completely? what about those that would love to post in the thread, but can't find three positive things to post? because I know I love maybe three for ideas of PF2 as iodeas, but find the implementations of those ideas lacking enough that I wouldn't exactly describe my current feeling towards them as 'positive' but as 'meh' at best.

Well, it's reliable enough that you get people like me who love the +1/level and think that if you remove it I may as well go and play another game because it's just not the game I want to play. There is a lot I don't like about PF2, but the +1/level is not one of them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
p291 on stacking bonuses wrote:
If you gain multiple bonuses of the same type, only the highest bonus applies—you don’t add them together.
p190 on quality bonuses wrote:
Item Bonus: Weapons and skill-boosting items of expert, master, and legendary quality add the listed item bonus to attack rolls with the weapon or skill checks using the item
p371 on potency runes wrote:
A weapon potency rune grants two offensive benefits. The weapon’s wielder gains an item bonus to attack rolls with the weapon equal to the potency value. For instance, an expert dagger with a +2 weapon potency rune would grant a +2 item bonus to attack rolls with the dagger.

Not really, Incapacitate means being unable to act or respond, if you can react violently you cannot be incapacitated.

Why wouldn't you let the players decide? There is no good reason not to.

If that doesn't work for you then maintain initiative order.

Whatever way you go this is one decision that should not be left to the GM to decide.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The rules should not need to tell you that you cannot walk through walls. Let me know of a game that feels the need to tell you this so I can avoid it. I will not play a game that is so patronising that they think their readers need to be told this.

Kyra can attack the ogre because she can see it. You can draw a line from the top left corner of Kyras square to the top right square of the ogre. That should be sufficient for precise senses to work. The ogre would need to take an action to hide to become 'sensed' to Kyra.

I cannot see any reasonable argument that Kyra cannot see the ogre, Kyra can attack the Ogres top right square so she can attack the ogre. she cannot draw a line to the centre square so the ogre has cover.

It is that simple .

And if it's not defined, a term has it's usual English meaning. blocking terrain is terrain that blocks you - you cannot move or fire through it. If the book needs to define even basic stuff like this it will be too large to be practical.

incapacitated has it's normal english meaning if it isn't defined in game - they don't (and shouldn't) need to define every single word they use. Paralysed is about as incapacitated as you can get.

If two characters end up sharing a space one of them (GM decides) gets shunted or made prone. 'Accidentally' covers just this sort of situation.

IF you can move into a square and you can move out of a square then you can move through a square - this is self-evident and does not need further defining.

As for screening, that seems perfect to leave up to a GM's call. I can see some situations where some creatures would still provide screening and others where they shouldn't.

Gm's can and should make judgement calls. These are the sorts of situations that are varied enough that some GM discretion is desirable.

1&2) It is not covered by the rules. I would follow the masterwork rules for a double weapon and double the cost, applying the benefit to both sides. Sidesteps a lot of potential issues and is the fairest solution short of saying "no".

3) You are proficient with all monk weapons, not a specific weapon. A monk weapon remains a monk weapon, so you remain proficient.
Contrast with a rogue (for rapier) or cleric (with deities weapon) are proficient in a single specific weapon - so the rules ask a rogue "is it a rapier?" answer no it's a modified rapier. With a monk and a modified sai the rules ask "is it a monk weapon?" answer - yes. (brawlers can really benefit from weapon mods on a close weapon)

Elleth wrote:

Not sure if you still can, but can we get stuff like this spoiler tagged?

My players haven't played Undarin yet as we're a few weeks behind schedule, and I'd love for certain monsters to not be expected.

Shouldn't need spoilers in the games masters rules section.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Curtailing magic items never made magic items feel more special to me. They are either useful or they are not. It doesn't matter if I have one or twenty.

You can flair it up however you want, you can create this elaborate backstory. It can be the only item I get by the time I'm third level and I still won't use it unless it's actually useful.

I reckon resonance (in it's current form) will make magic less 'magical'. Now that permanent magic item is not only competing against every other permanent item, but also consumables that will keep you alive.

monsters don't have resonance - or alternatively assumed to have as much resonance as they need.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

This doesn't strike me as an AoO type interruption, it doesn't even feel like a combat trigger to me. This is a preparing-to-cast social encounter chit-chat ("hi friend, I see you reaching for you component pouch, it's not really for me to say, but that may not be your best move in this place - if you still want to go ahead I'll just move myself over here" *walking off to the bar*). Unless the GM rules that the spell was lost (in which case you should definitely be in combat mode), the player still appears to have the option to persist against the friendly advice (which will then probably trigger the switch to combat mode).

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Animal Companion - specialised companion RACER (page 286/7)
Currently grants Master rank in Fortitude, but companions get that by default just for becoming specialised companions, so it does nothing.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm a bit of an anomaly I fear. I like the +1's and +2's, and the stacking - I miss that. I want my feats and abilities to make me better at what it relates too and nothing does that quite like increasing my odds of succeeding.

Fancy new abilities are all well and good, but there are problems with that 1) someone will feel it shouldn't be locked behind a feat and everyone should be able to do it 2) if you have too many of them you can start to lose track of them and 3) most of them are so niche/situational that it really doesn't feel like you are gaining any benefit at all.

Nothing in that rule excludes mending (or any other method of repair) from working - what exactly needs clarifying?

I'll be honest most 'cool effects' are underwhelming, because they are rarely always useful abilities, or they are so ineffectual as to be a waste of time.
I want my magic to make me better at whatever it is all (I'll accept 'nearly all') the time.

I guess I like the bigger numbers too much. They are effective and fun. And I want them on my magic items.

This seems to mostly impact casters and I kind of don't want casters starting out as good as martials, they have their spells they don't need to be as good with a blade as a rogue or paladin.

Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Data Lore wrote:

The game is built so you can be successful with almost no magic items at all. You need a magic weapon to get past damage resistance of some monsters, but beyond that, you dont really need any magic items in 5E to succeed at the game as written.

Ultimately, that means less treasure and less excitement around treasure.

That sounds fine to me. Let leveling up be the exciting part. Not every monster you defeat need have items that make you cheer in awe.

There are other games designed around little or no magic gear, there aren't as many where magic items play such a large role - I play PF partly because I love acquiring those items. take that away and it isn't PF anymore.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cevah wrote:

Also, iterative attacks are usually done via class levels while natural attacks are inherent to the creature type.


This is inaccurate and could lead to a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules. Class levels have nothing to do with iteratives (beyond providing base attack, same as non class HD). The key distinction is manufactured weapons as seen with the Solar and Deva mentioned above that have no class levels and use iteratives.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is nothing expressly permitting you to change the weapons. There is also nothing stopping the GM from changing the weapons either, but as the equipment is limited for a reason I would hesitate before doing so.

In fairness it seems the least impactful of possible changes, but still...

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

If you make any character under the current rules you will always have an 18 in one stat at first level.

Setting aside that none of this applies to NPCs, this isn't any more true in PF2 than PF1. You can absolutely build below an 18 at first level. It may not be advisable, but you can keep yourself from getting anything above a 14 if you determined enough.

PF1 characters tended to average an 18 in a stat at level 1, at least if they were at all SAD. You might have gotten a higher percentage of folks building below 18, but you also got lots of people min maxing and dump statting to get above 18.

This is a game of fantasy heroes. Let them be heroic.

Of course, but I don't think having all scores being 16+ necessarily makes one more heroic. I would prefer if the rate of advancement was just toned down a notch.
I wasn't trying to comment on the general rate of advancement, just what characters look like at level 1. Those are pretty separate things in my mind.
I generally like a cap of 17, after modifiers, for 1st-level characters. A 20 seems rather high for a 5th-level character. I know in previous editions you are able to start with a 20, depending on whether you roll or use point buy, I just prefer a slightly lower start. In AD&D, you really need higher scores (15+) to gain any benefit, but in the d20 system, a 12 Str is like a 17 Str.

Yeah, let's not go back to AD&D, that was really a terrible system for stats. I look back now and wonder how/why I stuck with it for so long! Most people I knew came up with a system to mitigate that (often one of the broken alt rolling systems) and it wasn't unusual to see characters with 3x 16-18 stats. Fighters never saw the light of day unless they had 18/XX.

Everyone is different, I like the ease of getting an 18 at 1st - I just wish the latter levels weren't quite so limited.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You are not restricted to the treasure tables for low level items.

last sentence of party treasure gain p347 wrote:

When assigning level 1 permanent items, your best options are weapons, armor, and gear from Chapter 6 worth between 10 and 20 gp.

Nope! I have never found hex maps easier to use. I have played several games that use them and they were clunky and awkward. I'm not even counting the truly awful ones where you could only fire on foes if they were in the 6 lanes from your hex...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nope, let me be the voice of dissent. I want magic items to have a measurable and consistent effect. I don't want to sink significant resources into an item I'll only use twice a level, or when I do use it, it has no effect because of a bad guy saving against it. That usually means a numerical bonus of some sort.

I want to put on a magic item and immediately be better.

I don't want magic for PCs to be rare - it can be rare in world, but I want my characters dripping with magic. minor trinkets and major powerhouse items both.

I really don't give a gnats whisker what the other players are rocking, I don't care if we all have the same load out - I want this for my characters regardless.

What I want pretty much mandates a set of key items that are assumed - and I'm ok with that.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Really? actual, real people are confused by this? and it's not just internet hyperbole? Because I have never met, in over 30 years of gaming and personally teaching a lot of people, anyone confused by the different uses of 'level'. A simple explanation that class levels and spell levels are different has been sufficient to allay any concerns.

I always use grouped initiative, and have done since my AD&D days, and I've not noticed that PF2 is particularly lethal - certainly not any more so than any previous incarnation of the game. I've knocked a couple of players down to 0, but nothing that has significantly threatened multiple characters.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think it's expressly covered by the playtest - it is GM discretion. There is nothing saying you can't grant access.
We are running two playtests locally with me GMing full access to all uncommon/rare and another GM not allowing any uncommon/rare unless permitted specifically.

I am also not a fan.

8 people marked this as a favorite.

"Typically most will ignore" being interpreted as "none will ignore" is a bad faith interpretation of the rules - full stop.
The rules as written grant a degree of flexibility to allow the GM to make a call - this is a good thing. A GM deliberately misinterpreting that flexibility is not stress testing the system, it is wilfully stepping outside of the system.

This is not an area of the rules I would want to see straightjacketed - it needs that flexibility. Not every demon should be required to go for the jugular and sometimes the paladin needs to show no quarter.

"Typically most" sets an expectation that in "most" encounters the bad guys will not attack downed foes. whether that is 55% or 85% or not at all is at the discretion of the GM, but the bad guys should not be attacking downed characters in every encounter. The rules state that outright and clearly.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, you need to factor in the playtest goals for this chapter - which as a player you may not (and probably should not) be aware of*. And remember that this is a playtest, it is not a polished final product so noting how much is too much - well, this sort of feedback is important, so make sure you fill in the surveys. Completing the remaining chapters will be similarly useful, so please keep at it.

*That said, if there is one chapter that players should be aware of the goals - this might be the one.

thoughts on goals:
players might not react appropriately if they fear further encounters - if they try to conserve resources it could lead to a higher death rate than normal - maybe?

One thing I am doing is letting my players know what the playtest goals are after we've finished (where they aren't so obvious)- so they can see why things happen the way they do.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just because something can be dented does not mean you can interpose it between you and an attack.
Shields only get damaged in this way if you actively shield block.
There is no way to "armour block".

Armour and shields are still items and can therefore be damaged in other ways - although the lack of an explicit sunder manoeuvre makes it unlikely that that will happen in combat.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:

Far from 'across the board'. It is quite rightly LG only.

Also not a surprise, they spoke about this and if they do paladins of other alignments they want the time to do them properly and not just a lazy switcheroo of "evil" to "good" or "chaos" or "mercy" to "cruelty". Which can only be a good thing, because the only thing worse than a non-LG paladin is a non-LG paladin with bad and lazy mechanics.

because LG is ofc the one true alignment, the only one capable of empowered holy warriors, whose detect/smite subroutine and demands to dictate what everyone else plays aren't a huge malignant sore on the hobby at all.... Oh wait, honestly at this point they are, if paladins stay LG only, remove them from core, stop wasting valuable CRB pages on such a game distorting blight of a class, and drop war priest or Inquisitor into the holy fighter slot. Seriously they have been nothing but trouble, every edition they have been in, and the passionate defence of them remaining such a party dominanting class says alot about the people defending the current situation with party alignment and actions having to pass muster with the guy playing the paladin.

Ah! so of course we should all defer to your opinion, as you put it so eloquently...

Paladins are cool and deserve a place front and centre. If you don't like them, there are 11 other classes to play. It's all good. There are at least 4 classes I have no interest in (Alchemist, Barbarian, Ranger and Sorceror for those who need to know) and will never play - I'm not calling for their removal.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Then don't use them. They aren't mandatory - the rules couldn't be more explicit about that.

secret checks p293 last sentence wrote:

Conversely, the GM can let the players roll any or all of their checks even if they would usually be secret, trusting players not to make choices based on information their characters don’t have.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ah! the miscibility table - I remember that less than fondly. (albeit there was that one time a player rolled 00 on a potion of speed - permanent haste, but he aged a year every hour or so).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
counteract wrote:
... against the DC of the target effect. ...

If the dispel magic level is higher than the level of the effect you dispel it automatically. If the dispel magic is the same or lower level make a dispel check at a cumulative -5 penalty for each level lower than the effect your dispel is. The DC is that of the effect.

Remember, it can become broken after blocking 3 hits (not counting other abilities) - thus "dented or broken".

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ghilteras wrote:
I don't think shield block is clear at all with the current wording. Since the PC gets the extra damage after the hardness the shield only gets damage up to its hardness so with the current RAW the shield can only get one dent per shield block.

Thats kind of how it looks like it should work - you really don't want a shield being destroyed in one hit.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:

For a shield to take multiple dents from a single hit you have to a) ignore that shield block rules says the shield only prevents damage up to it's hardness and you take the rest and b) double count the overflow damage. It's patently nonsense.

Yet that's exactly what the rulebook does on page 175 with its example.

I agree entirely that the Shield Block interpretation is better. It's silly that shields can explode in a single hit and you also take all the damage from it. That's just silly and you have to really question how worth it a shield is when you have to constantly grab new ones or repair them.

A single shield should at least be able to last a combat when it's used more than once, wouldn't you think?

This really needs some clarification. It's just confusing and not intuitive right now.

Page 175 is an example of damaging an object - not an example of what happens when you shield block. There is a difference. When you damage an object the object takes all of the damage. When you shield block the object only takes damage up to it's hardness and you take the rest.

13 people marked this as a favorite.

They certainly don't need fewer skills. There needs to be a class that focuses on skills. Rogues are it.

It has not been my experience that they are the highest damage - even when sneak attacking - that honour goes to a barbarian with a great axe.

They don't have the incombat durability of a fighter (who will also crit far more often) or paladin.

they don't have spells or alchemy.

So no, I disagree. They need 'something' and skills are it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really do object to it being referred to as an ethical violation or cheating. Its the g-d rules, it quite literally by definition cannot be cheating.

As part of your introducing PF1 players to PF2 just inform them that the system is asymmetric - social contract met.

Cheats will cheat no matter what the system.

GMs can already just alter monsters to suit their whim or to provide a more suitable challenge to their players (or attack their weaknesses) without explanation. There is no rule stopping them. The reality is the custom creation 'rules' are just guidelines. I tweak monsters all the time.

I have seen plenty of adaptations of monsters to PC playable that reduce their size, remove racial HD or remove some of the more egregious abilities or scores to make them playable - not everything that is available to monsters is available or suitable for PCs - asymmetrical rules for PC races and monsters is not a new concept.

Need to be careful with multiple specialisations as many abilities overlap (and Racer overlaps with base 'specialised' abilities right out of the gate with both granting master fort saves - this needs changing)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

But when you have a rule that can be read two ways and one way it's a workable mechanic that's actually quite cool and the other a worthless waste of ink isn't it reasonable to assume that the former reading is the right one?

until it's FAQ'd into oblivion anyway!

Hah true enough! it'd probably help if they didn't use a shield in the damaging objects example - I'm sure that has added to the confusion more than it needed too.

Still, how hard is to notice that the shield in that example is taking all of the damage (because, you know, the example is about damaging objects) and not being used to shield block.

There are many systems that use asymmetrical systems for critters and PCs. They all work quite successfully. The players all know what they are signing up for.

By selecting the system you agree to use that systems rules - not some other systems rules. PF2 will set the rules you play by, and they aren't hiding any of the maths - so no violation of any rules occurs and no breach of player/GM contract and certainly not a violation of some arbitrary morality (especially one that ignores PF1 and it's predecessors blatant breaches*)

*random example - hey mindless undead get no feats, but lets give two of the most classic undead bonus feats because...uh! shouldn't this be the point that, morally, you stop playing PF1? or do you give players feats just because?

1 to 50 of 3,982 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>