Search Posts
How fast is a halfling lame oracle barbarian wearing armor? Order of operations give me three possible answers Is it speed 20, reduced to 15 for lame, 10 for armor, 20 for fast movement?
Also,
I think it's supposed to mean you can't make wands, scrolls, or potions (maybe also staves?). Basically any item that you must actually have the spell to make it. Other than that, yeah, you just have to increase the DC by 5 for all the missing prerequisites. The actual crafting skill is irrelevant to the item being made, it's just replacing the spellcraft roll. Master Craftsman is multiple feats to be able to do the same thing that a spellcaster gets to do for just one feat. No reason to make it even worse than it already is.
A magic user casts a divination spell- know alignment, detect thoughts, psychic reading, etc against a person protected with a ring of mind shielding, a mind blank spell, or some such. What sort of feedback does the magic user get? You cast the spell and nothing happens?
Theoretically if you built one specifically for said purpose it should work fairly well. However if you're using an existing one like chatgpt, it comes with a ton of incorrect information (as pertaining to the rules you want). So it will be accurate for a bit, then forget you wanted pathfinder 1e rules and start mixing in 5e d&d because that's more commonly found on the internet. They tend to "forget" initial parameters after a while and stray back to their defaults.
Yeah, it's not magic the gathering. There's no interrupts or instants. You can't act in reaction to someone else's action that interrupted your action. If someone readied an action, the turn switches to their turn for their readied action, then back to your turn after they are done, and you can't cast a quickened spell on someone else's turn. But all that aside, I think 2 lines from the magic chapter of the CRB answer this with a definite no: "To cast a spell, you must concentrate." and "You can't cast a spell while concentrating on another one." So if you are in the middle of casting a spell, you cannot cast a second spell. You must either finish your first spell, or stop casting it (in which case the spell fails and is wasted).
I concur it's in the ask your GM category. I will offer an alternative though. Make a goblin fighter with the eldritch guardian archetype, which gives you a familiar. Choose a pig. Take the undersized mount feat to ride your pig. Take Hard Head, Big Teeth to give yourself a bite attack. Specialize in your bite attack. At 5th level, choose natural weapon group for your weapon training. Take the advanced weapon training feat, and choose item mastery, energy mastery. Take it again at level 10 for flight mastery. You are now riding a flying fire breathing pig.
I've played one and it works perfectly as written. Don't overcomplicate it. It does what it says and nothing more. You climb on the creature just like you would climb on anything else using the normal rules for climbing. If you are climbing on an object and the object moves, you move with the object. You don't enter the wall's square to climb on the wall so why would you enter the creature's square? It changes nothing about flanking, just follow the normal rules. There are plenty of existing rules that would work to attempt to knock someone climbing off of a wall, all of those work in this case too. Note- Since it changes nothing about the climbing rules, there's some pretty big penalties to be aware of. You need both hands free to start climbing, then you can pull a one handed weapon to stab with. You can't use a shield. You really want to take the climb skill unlock at level 5 so as not to be flat footed. And every time you take damage, you have to make a new climb check or fall off.
PF2 is the definition of if everybody is Superman nobody is.Pf1 is a superhero game, while pf2 is more akin to something like the Die Hard movies. Individual play experience of course varies, but unless you're playing a homebrew in which your GM wants you to roflstomp enemies, you generally only face at level encounters. So the actual play experience is of your character not being any stronger then the enemies, and frequently of the enemies being stronger than your character. It is not uncommon to take four of you to take down one enemy, leading to the feeling that you (the pcs) are weaker then everyone else. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it creates a story of striving against overwhelming odds to succeed through sheer grit and determination, which is not at all what pf1 is. This is due to the heavy balancing that pf2 has, where it takes all of the party to succeed, while in pf1 experienced players can take turns soloing encounters due to their op superpowers. PF1 is the opposite of pf2, requiring heavy homebrew to make encounters that require all the players to work together to succeed.
These days almost all of them, as the only pf1 games I play now are full APs or other campaigns that usually last for a year or more. Homebrew starwars- ongoing, currently 11
I remember high level 3e play being super deadly compared to high level pf1 play, but then again I was a lot younger and we played a very different game back then with less focus on story and more on making ridiculous encounters to challenge my players (I was almost always the GM back then). These days we're less focused on the combat challenge (and other people GM so I get to play a lot more).
Ooh, I love a good edition war thread. I think pf2 is great for all those who liked to complain about balance issues of pf1, and for those who played D&D and are looking for something a little more in depth. I think it's also great for new players, who aren't weighed down by preconceived notions from past editions of the game. For those who liked the ability to have different characters with different strengths, it's really hard to give up the variety of pf1 for the more constrained pf2 experience. It's also a jarring transition as though they appear the same on the surface, pf1 is a superhero game, while pf2 is more akin to something like the Die Hard movies. This is entirely due to the math differences between the systems. So if you come from pf1, pf2 can feel awful because you fail (dice rolls) so often (compared to the previous edition). I definitely understand the op's frustration. In a system with low success rates, it's natural to look for every bonus you can. Pf2 is not laid out in a way that all the bonuses are obvious, and there are many options that work at level 1, but don't scale well, and these aren't obvious either. Not that pf1 didn't have those same issues, but success rate was high so you didn't feel the need to hunt for all the extra bonuses, and bonuses were easy to come by so that even mediocre choices could usually be boosted up to acceptable levels of success if you realized they were falling behind. So coming from that pf1 experience, pf2 definitely has its disappointing moments.
That's different. The usual point of adding oracle levels to a paladin build is so you can dump dex completely. Personally I'd stick to straight paladin for a dex build like you're doing there. The oracle levels are giving you some piddly 2d6 channels, low level spells, and reducing your paladin progression for loh and everything else. I'm missing seeing the benefit there.
Spellcasting is obvious. There are special abilities to suppress/hide spellcasting. There's whole prestige classes for it even. I still think that invisibility hides whatever magical effects that are passively created by spellcasting (so like if you cast shield you wouldn't see any glowy symbols appear in the air), but if you cast something like magic missile they appear right at your fingers and shoot out making it obvious where you cast it from. As for the modifier "in combat or speaking" is the same modifier. One or both doesn't matter, it's -20 once. Performing multiple different things on that table do stack though, so if you cast your spell and then move, it's only a 10 to pinpoint your location. Perception checks happen automatically to stimulus, if they fail their free perception check, they can spend a move action to try again, but they will always get a free check to notice you.
Lich has time to prepare though since there's a fight just outside. So it's floating 40ft up with it's boots of levitation and has probably preset darkness. It may or may not use it's potion of invisibility, but it likely has a readied action to bomb whatever opens the door with circle of death or fireball. There's also the Ghost spamming it's Malevolence until it sticks to be wary of. Was going only from the information listed by the op, which didn't say any of that. It is not possible to ready outside of combat. As soon as the door opens, initiative is rolled as the PCs will see the obvious threat of skeleton horde, there's unlikely to be any possibility of surprise on either side of this encounter. With powerful spellcaster bosses like this, a lot of how difficult the fight is swings on who wins initiative.
The OP's fear is the fight going extremely bad if the dice go in the lich's favor, I was pointing out the other end of the spectrum is equally likely. The actual play would probably land somewhere in between. The monk doesn't need to pin in the same round. If we assume the sample CR12 lich from the bestiary, it has a CMD of 25. A level 8 grapple build could easily have a +20 to grapple (8bab +5str +2 imp grapple +2 greater grapple +1 armbands of the brawler +2 gauntlets of skilled maneuver. Could also have weapon focus grapple, a higher strength, etc). So assuming a +20, the monk has an 80% chance of successfully grabbing the lich. The lich can then either attempt to escape with his +5 cmb, so needing a nat 20. He can attempt to touch, again with +5. Even if we assume the monk has a terrible AC, it'll still be at least a 16 touch, plus the monk needs to fail a DC18 save which even if he has a 12 con and no resistance item is still at +7. So that's at best a 25% chance of paralyzing the monk, probably much less. If he tried to dimension door he'd need a DC34 concentration check and he has a +17, so that's only a 20% chance of success. Given an 80% chance to grab the lich and a 20% chance for the lich to escape, the odds are at 64% in favor of the monk.
You're assuming everyone is bunched up and the lich goes first. If the players get unlucky this could happen and they all fail their saves and die, but that would be really unlucky. It could also happen that the players go first, the grappler ties the lich into a pretzel, the other guys destroy the ghost, and they take 0 damage and expend minimal resources.
I would have preferred a longer jump into the future as well. It would have made the changes to Golarion feel natural instead of retcons. I understand why not to do that though, it's a whole lot more work. I'm glad they didn't go the Forgotten Realms route. Having an apocalypse every edition change gets a little old.
The original product titled Dungeons and Dragons was printed in 1974 and said on the cover: "Rules for Fantasical Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures." It was straight up exactly a miniature wargaming system with added rpg elements.
So many people seem to have the misconception that a bard needs to do an actual performance in order to activate one of their magical "bardic performance" abilities like inspire courage. Bardic performances are magical effects (Su) with audible and/or visible components. With the exception of countersong and distraction, They require no ranks in any perform skill to do. You don't get a +1 to attack and damage because the bard is making you feel good with an uplifting song, you get that +1 because they are infusing you with magical power. A bard is no more ridiculous in combat than any other spellcaster who waves their arms about and spouts ridiculous nonsense while brandishing a tiny fruit tart and a feather.
For me it was the company's awful community interaction that killed 4e, nothing to do with the rule set. Wotc cut all ties with the fans who organized games and wrote scenarios for their living campaign, putting an end to the rpga (an organization that had been operating for over 30 years). Then for the final nail in the coffin, they axed the Greyhawk campaign setting completely. They couldn't have done a better job at alienating their fan base if they tried. The advertising for 4e was also a slap in the face to me, featuring a tiefling murdering a gnome and laughing about how they were the hero now and gnomes were monsters (there was no gnome race in the first 4e phb). It felt like a personal attack. Like this game isn't for you any more, us popular kids own it now, gtfo nerd. To this day, I have a strong distaste for tieflings due to that ad. I stopped playing. For 2 years I didn't touch an rpg. When I came back, I found a welcoming community in pathfinder, a fantastic living campaign program, and a company that felt like it cared. I'm currently still playing pf1, but I'd say that's just because it's what the groups I'm in are playing. When we finish our current campaigns, maybe we'll try a different system for the next game. Personally, there's aspects that I like about both editions of pathfinder, and neither are my all time favorite rules set (I'd rank Hero system, L5R, and WOD higher).
If you purchased a chair 20 years ago and tried to find that exact same model of chair new today, you probably wouldn't. Making new versions of things to drive sales isn't exactly a rpg specific issue. It's pervasive throughout every business as one of the fundamental ideologies of capitalism. That said, there are thriving second hand markets for everything, including rpgs. Pick any rpg and go troll some forums and you'll find people playing every edition that was made for it. Pf1 was a popular game with a long run of publications. There will be people playing it for many years to come.
So animal ally says "If you later gain an animal companion through another source (such as the Animal domain, divine bond, hunter’s bond, mount, or nature bond class features), the effective druid level granted by this feat stacks with that granted by other sources." Do we just ignore that? How do we justify getting multiple companions with this feat? Does that line of text not mean that our animal ally gets wrapped into our other animal companion progression and we still only get one companion?
We live in a world run by capitalism. There's more profit in making new versions then there is in sticking with the same thing. There's also an underlying cultural belief that newer = better That aside, I also thing pf2 had a lot to do with the people at Paizo wanting to do their own thing. They'd been the guys who revamped D&D 3.5 for a decade. They probably wanted to move on, create something new, create something their own, not just a derivative of other peoples' work. I think you can see this reflected in how they doubled down on integrating their game setting into the rules for pf2. And lastly, there's a ton of content for pf1. Even for those of us who play an excessive amount, there's still many many more years of games to be played with the system without needing new material released.
If you look at the greater world of rpg publications and other tabletop gaming, no company goes back to a previous edition. Ever. It's always move forward and make a new edition. D&D has had 6 editions over 46 years (8 editions if you count revised AD&D and 3.5e).
Pathfinder 1e had a long run compared to many other games. Baring the company going under, we can expect many more editions of Pathfinder to come. As for similarities between various editions of D&D and Pathfinder, go take a look at the list of authors on various products from both companies and you will notice there's some of the same people who've worked on both.
Reading these posts, I feel like there are people here who have only ever played published content and don't actually understand just how different a good home brew game can be. An AP has an ending; the players can either make it to that ending, or fail and the game is over. While a home brew game could be written in the same format, it doesn't have to be. It's certainly not how I run the game. When I write a home brew campaign, I write up plots, factions, settings, and goals, not endings. Nothing is pre-ordained. Players won't try to stop the evil cult from resurrecting and ancient demon lord because I (the GM) told them to. They'll do it because they uncovered that plot and decided to pursue it. When players actions are driven by their own agency, they become much more involved. They feel like they have a stake in the outcome, it's their story, and their actions will determine the outcome. When they fail, they live with the consequences and the story goes on. The ending is the culmination of their choices, not written by someone else before we even started. Imo, a good home brew rpg campaign is the pinnacle of entertainment. Pre-written games can be fun, but it's not the same thing. There's really nothing else like it. And yes, a good home brew game takes a lot more effort to pull off.
One of my regular games is with a group of friends that most of us have known each other for 20 years or more. The people in that group aren't likely to change any time soon. We're all adults, everyone has jobs, families, lives outside of gaming. Some of us put a lot of time and effort into the game. Some don't even think about the game outside of game sessions. In the end, it's just a hobby. I'm not going to demand that my friends spend more time on this hobby if they don't want to. Part of my spiel that I give players when I start a new campaign (as a GM) is that I will do my best to match your investment. I really like this hobby and put a lot into it. If you get into it too, then you'll get more out of it. If you just want to ride along that's fine, but I'm not going to spend my time catering to you if you're not reciprocating.
The freedom of playing an open ended game also means that sometimes you will fall off of one of those open ends. A pre-written adventure doesn't "take care of these kinds of issues," it removes them by removing player choice. If you allow true player choice in an AP, then you have to let them go off the rails. Not only will you will run into the exact same issues then, but it is often harder to improvise because you don't have the understanding of the story that you do when you wrote it yourself. Many times my execution of an idea doesn't come out the same as I envisioned it. I try to embrace that and keep moving ahead. So you executed the mechanics poorly, who cares, totally irrelevant to the story. So you didn't get across the information you wanted to? Again, oh well, not every encounter adds to the story. Sometimes a fight is just a fight. I guess you'll just have to design a new encounter that does give the players the info you wanted. We (GMs) often try to be overly consistent. We write up some story and say this is what happened, then we accidentally get two characters confused and tell the players the wrong npc's name. You know what? That sort of stuff happens all the time in real life. Historical accounts are full of inconsistencies. Things are remembered incorrectly and people lie. When I realize I did something like that, I try to lampshade it. Have another npc tell the PCs, well that's not how I heard it went down, and give a different version of the story.
In general, when I GM, it's up to the player to convince me how their aid helps. Usually it's obvious, but if they can't say how they're assisting, they can't assist. I don't allow aid on knowledge checks to recall information, only on knowledge checks made as part of research. I also don't allow aid on sense motive, or perception. I limit the number of people who can aid depending on what makes sense. 6 people talking over one another trying to convince someone with diplomacy is going to be detrimental to the attempt. On the other hand 6 people shouting at one person is great for intimidation.
Each attack roll takes a –2 penalty, and its attack damage cannot be modified by precision damage or damage-increasing feats such as Vital Strike. That's an odd one, I never noticed that line before. So a fighter with +1 weapon training firearms would get +1 damage, but not the +2 from weapon specialization? As long as the damage bonus doesn't come from a feat it works? How arbitrary is that?
Sometimes we make concessions. As a longtime GM, who knows the rules very well, sometimes I ignore them. Sometimes it's just not worth getting into an argument over something that doesn't make a whole lot of difference in the long run. In the end, we're all just there to relax and enjoy socializing and playing a game. I would prefer if nobody cheated, but it's also a complicated game and if I stopped to point out every time a rule is misinterpreted, misused, forgotten, etc. That would actually detract from, not improve the overall enjoyment of the experience. It's often better to let things flow incorrectly then to halt the game to call out rules.
Players who are going to try to exploit things exist, regardless of the quantity of things you allow them to draw from. What gets complained about the most in pathfinder? The core rulebook wizard. There is no correlation between roleplaying and optimization. Players with a lot of system mastery can make extremely powerful characters regardless of the restrictions you put on them. Just the CRB has plenty of options to make your GM cry OP! I would postulate that the reason for drawing from numerous obscure sources is that such players have been there done that and are looking to play something different. We really got off on a tangent here.
Unless you're swimming in gold with nothing to purchase, the 10% cost for ammunition is the reason I always want gunsmithing with any character that uses firearms. You'll want deadly aim for damage, plus one class feature. This class feature could be dex to damage, or it could be many other different things like bane, weapon training & specialization, sneak attack, studied target, favored enemy, etc... Stacking multiples can be great, but one is generally good enough. The funny thing with touch AC is that it tends to be high at low levels and low at high levels. At first level, shooting a low level enemy like a kobold or goblin and their normal AC is 15 with touch of 12, but at level 20 you shoot a dragon and their normal AC is 38 while their touch is 5. I would suggest that you don't want a tower shield at low level, because that -2 will make you miss, but pick it up as you get to mid levels when your attack bonus is good enough that you're hitting on not a missfire.
My stance is this (Assuming I am playing a game using their Golarion setting): I consider there to be a big difference between an option like varisian tattoo and an option like aboleth's lung. The first only has flavor text that attaches it to the setting, so anyone can take that feat. The second has rules text that restricts in to only a specific race can use. So only characters of that race can use that spell. Exceptions should be possible, but would be up to the GM to allow. Would you tell a player they can't take the magical aptitude feat because they aren't a spellcaster? The flavor text says "you are skilled at spellcasting." Imo, it is a GM's purview to enforce rules text, not flavor text.
Another good one is the Black Marketeer's Bag which is a more expensive handy haversack that is much smaller (but holds the same amount), radiates no magic, has hidden compartments, and compels would be thieves to give you stuff if they try to steal from you.
I did a similar idea as a tiefling ranger (divine tracker). My goal was to be able to assassinate people from long distance with one shot. Vital strike (imp, greater), devastating strike, deadly aim, stacked all my favored enemy into human (using instant enemy for going after other targets), gravity bow, and named bullet.
I had no problem spending my time to set up a shot, that was kinda the point for me. Climb up to the top of a building and shoot someone from 4 blocks away (limitless range (mythic) + distance enchantment for range increments of 1,100ft). She also used phantom arrows (they disappear after hitting, leaving no evidence behind). So she'd take a single shot at +40 to hit, which automatically threatened a crit. Damage = 12deadly aim + 6str +5enhancement +10 favored enemy. Multiplied by 4 with mythic vital strike. +6 for devastating strike. That is (8d6+138)x3 because it probably confirmed the crit, +20(named bullet) +2d6bane +1d6holy. For an average damage of 528. Note that without mythic vital strike, that average drops to only 97 damage (so yeah, it pretty much only was good because of mythic).
I have one player who is convinced my dice hate him and that they more frequently roll higher against him than against anyone else at the table. On that aside topic. I have a problem with anyone trying to enforce setting restrictions on game options like that. Let other players write their own stories please, don't try to force your own interpretation of the lore on someone else.
i'm not sure there's anything preventing you from taking a favored class bonus to increase the effectiveness of a revelation you don't have yet. it's certainly a reasonable thing for GMs to rule, but i don't recall seeing anything in the RAW that prevents it. that would be where the other +2 comes from i imagine. I'm assuming you took 18 levels of the fcb. 1/6th. That means 18 levels of FCB makes you count as 3 levels higher for the purpose of calculating that oracle revelation. Every 3 levels gives a +1 inherent bonus. So all 18 levels of fcb = 1 inherent bonus.
An ability that works as enlarge or reduce person but gives you 2 more stat is clear. Once you try stacking with other polymorphs it gets muddled. The problem is that all polymorph effects change your size. Someone casts beast shape 1 to turn into a leopard. A human changes size from medium to medium, an ogre changes from large to medium, and a gnome changes from small to medium. All gain the same effects of +2str and +2natural armor. So when does your ability work and why? Consider splitting the ability into separate parts, something along the lines of:
and of course there's Lindsey Stirling if you're looking for dance/acrobatics while playing the violin. The pair of assassins from kung fu hustle playing a guzheng is another good one.
|
