Tordek

jdripley's page

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 71 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Ultimate Campaign from Pathfinder 1 is certainly the more involved system. Personally, it's a bit TOO involved for my own particular tastes.

I have not yet run Cult of Cinders, so I can't say from experience, but the more streamlined version of base rules appeals to me.

The "repair this part, or that part" downtime activities in Cult of Cinders may or may not apply to your own home base. But I can certainly see Administer and Organize Labor being core aspects. All of the Upgrade activities.. Build Infirmary, Build Library, Build Training Facility, Upgrade Defenses... those are excellent bread and butter downtime activities that can apply directly, or be easily modified to fit your own context.

The real value to Cult of Cinders' home base rules is that they are all simple skill checks. You're not tracking any sort of build points or anything like that. Hiring labor for the jobs costs money, sure, but as an adventurer you're already tracking those. So it's just time and cash and skill checks. I imagine you could rip through a month's worth of downtime spent focusing on a home base in 10 minutes and have it feel satisfying to the players.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

And speaking of cover, there is the Take Cover action. This of course requires something on the map that provides cover, but if there is a half wall or a pile of debris or a column or whatever, a character can Take Cover and convert the normal +2 circumstance bonus from cover into Greater Cover which gives a +4 circumstance bonus.

So perhaps turn 1 is moving into cover and casting a spell, and turn 2 is casting a spell and Taking Cover. I really like the fantasy of that, you know? Your squishy wizard leaning past a column and zapping a ray spell at the enemy, then ducking back behind the column before the enemy has a chance to send a crossbow bolt back at their head...


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
CrystalSeas wrote:
jdripley wrote:
I use a book of battle mats for more generic locations.
Link to a description?

I'm not positive on the forum rules regarding linking to products so I'm not pasting the link directly to the product page, but if you select Shop from the top menu, then Books from the next top menu, you'll get there from here: http://www.lokebattlemats.com/battlematbooks.html

There are other takes on these products too. I've got a friend who has a hard bound version of this concept from a different company, but I can't recall who makes that one....

The essence, though, is that it's basically a big old stack of flip mats bound together. Taken page for page, flip mats are probably the better product as it won't have binding in the middle. And flip tiles are more versatile. But when you just need "generic sewer" or "generic ruin" and don't want to think too hard about the layout, and don't have a flip mat that fits the bill perfectly, a book of maps works pretty well.

You could certainly draw most of those map layouts pretty quickly, but the art is nice :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Good points. I think the issue is more “does it make sense to be armed right now” or even “this character is making a conscious choice about how they are or are not armed” as opposed to “the rules forbid anybody being armed during encounter mode.

Also, are humanoid enemies having to draw weapons at the start of encounter mode?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I use all of the methods..

But theater of the mind only for really simple/low threat encounters.

I usually have a blank flip mat that can be drawn on. I’ll use this method for very simple maps that can be drawn quickly.

I use flip tiles for things that are a pain to draw.. who wants to draw many trees, for example.

I often pre draw maps on transparency sheets so I can lay down new rooms of a dungeon as they go. I use this when I want specific and time consuming to draw locations.

I use a book of battle mats for more generic locations.

I’ll use specific battle maps rarely. Partly it’s a cost thing, partly I don’t like having the whole map visible (though you can cover parts of the map with paper or a cloth until it’s time for that area to be revealed).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I really don’t think this is a thing. If the heroes are exploring a dangerous place, it makes sense that they are ready to defend themselves at a moments notice, which means they are going around armed.

Consider also the exploration tactic of having your shield raised. Why would you have a shield raised but not a sword drawn?

Now, exploration mode also happens in a city, too. And there may be a social impact if the heroes go around town with their swords drawn. Would probably depend on the situation, right? Town is under attack, it’s ok. Business as usual sort of day, going about with weapons drawn is going to raise concern.

Back to exploration mode in a dangerous place, I can see a rogue using quick draw if they were picking a lock when a patrol jumps the party. They have lockpicks in hand, not weapons, at that point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Morgen wrote:
This is hands down the most tedious adventure I've ever had the displeasure of playing in the past 20 years of various living campaigns.

Huh, I had the opposite experience this past weekend when I played this adventure at a local con.

I suspect that a big part of it is the GM and how they use exploration mode, and the players and how they engage in it.

I've played at tables where the players just aren't into it, and if the GM digs in and forces all of the skill checks, it can certainly drag. I've had other tables where the GM doesn't inject any of the roleplay into it and it is just a spreadsheet to churn through.

On the other hand I've had GMs who get into it, and my experience with Escaping the Grave was great. We all felt the clock ticking as we worked our way through the adventure, and the pervasive danger and fear of the Gravelands was experienced by all of us. It was the highlight of the whole con for our group. And, I believe, the Exploration Mode part of the adventure was a big part of it.

I'd say that there are a few keys here, though.. spoiler free here, but there is a few moments when the PCs should be made aware that they need to HUSTLE during this adventure and make efficient use of their time. If those moments are missed, it takes the fear out of the Exploration Mode skill checks. When you fail a check and need to try again, you will only feel that hit home if you know that [redacted] is 100% coming for you, and you need to complete your tasks before [also redacted] happens.

If that time pressure is off, then yeah, I can see how it would be just a series of rolls to be made without much context or meaning.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Marco Massoudi wrote:

The set list has been added!

378 different pawns plus 16 small doubles,
31 medium doublettes, 10 Large extras & 2 HUGE copies for a total of 437 pawns.

For reference, the 1st edition bestiary pawn box had 256 unique pawns, add in the repeats and you had a total count of 323 pawns.

So, over 100 more total pawns. All for only $5 above 1st edition pawn box prices. That much is fantastic! I’ll have to put some thought into storage... I like to store my pawns in those black and yellow Stanley parts boxes, and I’m not sure I can cram 437 pawns into one of those boxes...


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

That's a good point about the action economy.

And, it’s not quite as lazy as just adding HP, but I guess one extra minion isn’t so big a deal to add. And after a while I’m sure it will become reflexive and intuitive.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I know all about how the Core Rulebook says to add extra XP worth of enemies into an encounter depending on how many extras you have.

But I'm lazy, and I can't be the only lazy one out there.

Off the bat my inclination is to simply adjust HP up on all monsters according to the Elite adjustment table per each extra PC. That seems very easy, it doesn't mess with math at all, but it ought to keep the enemies in the fight a bit longer to compensate for the extra killing power of a larger party.

Thoughts? Other methods?

And a practical example using a spoiler from Fall of Plaguestone:

Spoiler:

The first encounter in Fall of Plaguestone is 3 Mangy Wolves, 8 HP each, and a Caustic Wolf, 30 HP.

My party has 5 instead of 4 players.

Bestiary Page 6 says that the Mangy Wolves get +10 HP and the Caustic Wolf gets +15 HP making the new totals 3 Mangy Wolves at 18 HP and 1 Caustic Wolf at 45 HP.

After actually working my way through that example, I'm less sure of my proposed method. The added HP according to the chart more than doubles the HP of many lower level enemies, which seems off. But.. it's super simple, which I like...

If I'm designing the encounters from scratch I'll use the core rulebook's method, but for canned adventures when the advantage is that you don't have to do a lot of work prepping encounters.... I'm looking for a convenient solution! Perhaps just adding one "minion" type monster is the ticket??


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Alright, thanks for backing up the interpretation.

I may steal the concept of multiplying the savings by the number of items in the batch. I feel like it should be easier to make consumables. Then again.. what about Scrolls and Talismans.. I need to look up how they are crafted.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Let's use an Alchemist creating a batch of Lesser Alchemist's Fire here...

A batch is 4, Alchemist's Fire costs 3gp each, so the total cost is 12gp. In order to craft, the character needs to spend half, of 6gp.

They then spend 4 days of downtime, then they make their crafting roll. As GM I set the DC based on the item level (1 in this case as they're making Lesser Alchemist's Fire), and I set the DC at 15 for a common level 1 task.

Say the player gets a Success.

Now, they can either pay 6gp more to finish the batch right then and there (at a 0 cost savings, and the only benefit they receive is that THEY made it... perhaps there is not an alchemist's shop in town...), or they can spend more time.

As a level 1 Trained crafter they save 2sp/day they spend beyond the initial 4 that they must always spend. For maximum savings, 6gp, they need to spend 30 more days.

That seems... like a lot of time. Which makes me think maybe I've missed something? Who here is better at reading and math than I am? Am I understanding this, or am I missing something?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'll back up the OP from the other side of the GM screen. A few days ago I ran the first session of 2e for my group. A few of us participated in the playtest so we were more or less familiar and it wasn't much of a surprise, but...

yeah. The game runs smooth as warm butter. As a GM it was a pleasure to both make and run the adventure. And I'm just dipping my toe in, I can't wait to be a year or more down the road with that much more system mastery.

I'm digging it!


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It’s probably too late now, but why start at level 3? Standard wisdom is to start any new system at level 1. Less complexity so everybody, players and GM, can ease into it and make less mistakes.

But if it’s this weekend, they have already made their characters, you have already read up on your adventure... better at this point to stick with the plan I suppose.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

First you need to find a nice necromancer, then as you begin falling in love with each other, one night you can say “hey... want to raise a family together?”


16 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

THere have been quite a few changes, not just to spells. Are you going to come up with an in universe reason why characters need a feat to get attack of opportunity? Why wands work differently? Why 10th level magic exists? Why shield block is a thing now, but nobody for thousands of years prior thought to block with their shields?

To each their own, I suppose, but for me, “ it’s a new edition of the game and some things work differently” is a perfectly servicable reason, and far simpler than trying to come up with in-universe explanations for all of that.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Part of the reason the exotic builds may not be up to par is that we only have one book so far. Gunslinger was nonfunctional when PF1 released... there were no guns. Nor were Alchemists functional, even though you could take craft alchemy and use alchemist's fire and call that a build, if you wanted to...

Anyways @OP,

I like to build for fun AND profit. PF2 math makes that super easy. Very few reasons you can’t have a 16 or 18 in your primary attack's stat, and so long as you have either number, you will be a perfectly capable adventurer. All the rest is neat stuff you can do, flavoring how your character feels and runs.

As opposed to PF1 where if you were a ranged attacker there were those feats you absolutely had to take or else each shot took a huge penalty and you were wasting everybody's time...


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I like the container rules.

I have a few players who are going to LOVE the container rules and will strictly abide by them. I suspect I will too when I’m a player.

I don’t plan on strictly enforcing these rules. Some find the bean counting fun. Some find it really boring. As a backpacker in real life, the process of selecting gear and managing encumbrance vs utility is an engaging process for me.

Everybody will have a backpack because it breaks suspension of disbelief too badly if you have NO means to carry all of your junk around. But I will not be springing surprise backpack audits on the party half way through a dungeon... at most if the party is planning a long or involved expedition I may bring up “how is all of this gear being transported?” And maybe they buy a few pack animals and we’re off again.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Additionally, typically spell effects are Status effects, meaning you are incentivized to pick one buff, then start fighting, rather than having this whole routine of buffs you use as basically all of your buffs don’t stack with each other.

I think this is really good. It also dove tails nicely with damaging cantrips and other damaging spells. You can buff or debuff, maybe you have one of each, then if you need to you can drop a fireball or burning hands or whatever, otherwise you can use the damaging cantrips to contribute.


21 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think that low (1-3) level Wizards are standing stronger than PF1 by a long shot. Damaging cantrips that are actually worth your time are a HUGE bonus. Who even cares about PF1's 1d3 damage cantrips, really? You're better off shooting a crossbow at that point...........

I think Wizards will be fine. My experience with the playtest showed that spellcasters and martial classes both contributed meaningfully through the mid levels at least (never got around to finishing so I can't comment on the high level encounters, but my gut feel is that trend will continue).

If by "nerfed" you mean that high level wizards aren't the strongest option available... yeah, perhaps they got nerfed. That's a good thing in my opinion. Classes should do different things and feel different to play, and I'm OK with per day resources being stronger than swinging a sword, but PF1 wizards were just too much. And how bad they were at lower levels didn't fix the issue, it just inverted it for a few levels.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah.. I guess they could have just said "Heightened (+2) The hardness increases by 5." and that would have gotten the point across...

It is nice to just glance and see the total hardness without having to do any math...

I wonder if it was a space/editing thing. Shield appears at the end of the page. The 3 extra lines it takes to list out all of the levels, instead of just writing the shorthand, very nicely squares off the page visually. I can see that as the sort of thing that makes an editor crack a small smile :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Gamerskum wrote:

I reeeeally love how they changed the extremely evil deities to only have evil followers so we don't get any more CN Lamashtu or Rovagug followers.

I too am a fan of the new method of determining cleric alignment in relation to their deity.

You can also have a good worshiper of Calistria now, and it has ALWAYS bugged me that there wasn't a good option for the trickster cleric in Pathfinder (D&D 3.5 had that option though it slips my mind which deity... but at any rate their trickster was neutral not evil, if I recall correctly).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I use the standard black bases for all enemies, and I have a set of green bases in all the sizes for PCs (if they end up using a pawn, many like to bring their own mini which is a great option).

The Conan boardgame has these great color coded rings that fit perfectly onto the medium sized pawn bases. I think there are 5 colors, so with black (no ring) you have 6 different colors. That is typically enough to get you through a combat that has many of the same creature.

For large and huge based pawns, I don't have any convenient rings for the bases so I use about 1/2 inch of pipe cleaner in various colors, bent over the top of the cardboard pawn so it's roughly 1/4 inch hanging down on each side. Pipe cleaners come in many colors, so you're bound to have a good variety.

From there it's easy to just note "red skeleton 3 HP..." "yellow skeleton grappled..." etc.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

From the Feats perspective, yes, Cloistered Clerics give up a fair bit, especially since they'd need to take 3 General feats and a Class Feat to catch up while Warpriests just need to take a Class Feat and they are caught up.

But Blave is right, it's more about the proficiencies the doctrines give.

Do you want your cleric to be a spiritual wizard? Go cloistered. Do you want your cleric to be more like a PF1 cleric, more of a hybrid? Go Warpriest.

Noting that Cloistered is going to be top notch as a spellcaster, but Warpriest, while capable of both, won't be as good a caster as a wizard, nor as good a combatant as a fighter. As is appropriate, the hybrid approach is master of none (well... I guess master is a technical term in this game, and Warpriest does get some Master proficiencies...)

And as a side note, yes, Warpriests absolutely can take a domain.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Alright, thanks for the info! I thought it was in the 1st volume of Ages of Ashes.

Yes, I know about Kingmaker, but that's not out until 2020 - looks like a solid purchase though, doesn't it!

And we did it without spoilers! Woo!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think this is fertile ground for a GM to make up a quick new feat giving improvement to the proficiency. You would want to be keeping in mind the typical progression of the class and you can't allow the proficiency to outpace the class the player has.

I feel like in 90% of the cases what is in the book is going to be sufficient for people. Those who want their characters to be really good with a particular weapon need to, and will likely want to anyways, invest in classes or multiclass feats that promote that end.

But I can also see the odd wizard player who just really wants to be using a longsword like Gandalf, but also wants to be the best with spells (thus not sacrificing any class feats for multiclass).

Rule 1, right? If it doesn't work for you and your group, toss it and make up something that does.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

PLEASE if you respond to this with information from the adventure, use spoiler tags!!! Only you can prevent accidental spoilers!

I'm looking for a spoiler on rules support for one aspect of the adventure.

I heard somewhere, and now I can't remember where, that

Spoiler:
Hellknight Hill has, as an aspect of the adventure, a fortress for the PCs to own/operate.

If you've received your copy already, can you give a rough overview of what sort of rules support that aspect has? My group is interested in running an adventure using those sorts of rules, and my debate is between waiting for another publication that will give those rules, or dipping into Hellknight Hill in order to get those rules.

Thanks!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Fantastic!

And for those who are wondering, when printed out, each page taken individually and held in hand works just fine on the eyes (well, at least, the printer friendly version does, I'm not going to spend the ink on the other version so it's a non-issue for me).

My books arrived yesterday too (a lot of that going on around here, huh?), so I think I'll spend some of my free time today making the Dwarf Wizard that I'm planning on playing in Pathfinder Society games!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So many plans for GMing PF2!

I'll be starting up a new group of inexperienced players, haven't had Session 0 yet but it will likely be a follow up to the PF1 Beginner's Box adventure. Homebrew stuff.

I hope that my "main" group will switch over to PF2, and we have a long-standing homebrew setting. I might convert and run Mummy's Mask, or the new Age of Ashes, or we may continue to run homebrew content. We'll see!


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I have a question for Paizo about the Kingdom Builder rules...

The text in the announcement says

Quote:
The Kingmaker Adventure Path also features complete rules for hex-map exploration, kingdom building, and management to bring the campaign’s most innovative elements to life at your table.

Is this section of the book campaign-agnostic? i.e. if I want to run a kingdom building campaign that has nothing to do with the Kingmaker AP, will I have a lot of work to do to scrub the AP's lore out and sub in my own content, or is that chapter (or chapters...) made up of generic rules?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:
My number one favorite remains popcorn initiative...

Mmm, popcorn...

I don't think I'd ever get to go, I'd eat all of the popcorn!!

(JK, I know how that initiative style works.. I like it too, though my group trends towards analysis paralysis when using that method so I don't prefer it unless it's baked into the system ala Marvel Superheroes)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Each time you roll to hit, you're looking for a given number or higher, right? It doesn't matter what the number is. Could be a 2. Could be a 10. You've got to hit that number or higher.

If you went with a 16 instead of an 18, there is only ONE number you can roll on that d20 that will screw you because you chose a 16 over an 18. only 5% of the time you'll roll that number. That's not so big of a chance.

So it becomes a decision: Do I want to up that number as much as I can? Or are there other interesting things I could be doing by having that stat increase somewhere else? Are those interesting things worth that 5% chance of "oh well, would have been a hit if I started with an 18 in my primary stat."?

I don't think anybody else can really tell you that...


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Thanks for the breakdown of the combat pad!

My initiative system is far simpler than all of that. I have a wooden GM screen, and I slot a dowel into the top of it. I have clothespins painted up in various colors, similar to the nameplates the combat pad has, and I write the names of PCs and I have numerical codes for monsters and NPCs and all of that.

All of the pins point in one direction to begin with, highest pin is highest in initiative and so on down the dowel. When your turn is up I flip your pin to point the other direction. At the end of the round they are all again pointing in a uniform direction, so next round they start getting flipped the other way. If you delay you get flipped only 90 degrees, not the full 180.

I like that my method puts the information out there for the players. I dislike when combat is slowed down because you catch somebody by surprise, and I also dislike always saying "Merisiel, your turn; Harsk, you're on deck." Call me lazy... I just want to say "Merisiel" and flip her pin and be done with it!

But I do think that the combat pad holds way more information than my system does, and I need to decide if that extra information outweighs what I value in my own system. I did pick up the Conditions Deck and my group hasn't had trouble with putting an unused die on a condition card to count down how many rounds the condition has left... we'll see how it pans out :)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah! I'm part of the "my order has shipped" club!

Ashanderai, I didn't pick up the combat pad as I use a completely different setup to track initiative. So.. try to sell me on the combat pad! What is great about it?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Though I may not have stated it quite that way - I too ran into a hangup on this front as well, and it took a bit of thinking and poking around to eventually get a new credit card going for the current order.

Wasn't really intuitive and was certainly a frustrating experience - especially as it looks like I may have missed my "spot in line" to get the new PF2 books because it took repeated tries over a 24 hour period to:

a) realize I had an issue,
b) try unsuccessfully to update payment method, think I had it sorted,
d realize that I STILL had an issue, and finally
c) bang away at the buttons long enough to actually change it - and I couldn't tell you quite how I ended up changing it :P

Something for the web gurus to take a look at :)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

On the subject of high vs low magic assumptions, PF2 ought to be very forgiving in either direction. A full fledged Alchemist class right out of the gate, Treat Wounds, default magic-less Rangers and Champions... plus Ritual Magic being far more low magic friendly than spell slot magic... there is loads of room for a Lord of the Rings style low magic game.

I view the default game as already allowing for high magic, with all of what the caster classes can do, so that is covered as well.

I have a friend who is very passionate about low magic settings, and I’m looking forward to running some truly low magic adventures for him using rules that will actually function well.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I forget the rules for the gnome hook hammer, but if is like the special Dwarven axe and clan dagger, there is an ancestry feat requirement in order to get access to the weapon.. it is otherwise locked behind the Uncommon Wall (the way I wrote that makes it seem bad.. I actually really like that, it keeps the special gear special). So your Fancy Shelynite Glaive can be Uncommon and accessed by a custom ancestry feat you make for that character.. Come up with some artsy name for a feat about Shelyn's Fancy Weapons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Nicolas I’m in a similar situation with never having gotten into the APs. I have Curse of the Crimson Throne on my shelf and would love to run it. At this point it’ll be reformatted for 2e if I ever do. Or 3e if it takes too long to get to running it lol!

I suspect that the conversion work ought to be fairly straight forward, at least.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Based on the presence of prestige classes in that party you are at least a third to a half of your way through Rise of the Runelords, right? Maybe farther?

Why not just finish it using 1e rules?

I get that you want to switch. I do too, and I’m looking at another 6+ months before the home brew campaign I’m in will wrap up and an edition switch will be possible. Our group has decided that it is not worth swapping mid campaign for a few reasons:

1) always best to step into a new edition at level 1 so everybody can grow into it from the intended start point.
2) 1e isn’t a bad game, and it is good at what it is good at. 2e will also be a good game that is good at some things and not so good at other things. Just like all editions of all games. The characters built in and for that edition function great in that edition, but will likely suffer to one degree or another in the switch. You have noted a handful of things that just can’t work without significant massaging of the rules.

So the question is, is it worth flexing things into something that is not quite 1e or 2e just to make the change?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I've got ideas in mind for running adventures in the Warcraft universe, so I've got plans to tinker around with a Warcraft-style Warlock and Paladin class.

Warcraft Warlocks will have a pet path like Druid and a focus spell path like the Paladin (only those focus spells won't be benefits to your allies, they will be curses/drains on your enemies). I'm also thinking of having its most powerful effects cause negative conditions on the caster to represent how Fel (demonic) magic in that universe always carries a cost.

Warcraft Paladins aren't too dissimilar to Golarion Paladins, so this would likely be adding a line of feats to represent the various Auras that Warcraft Paladins are known for - I imagine that the Bard class will have some features that could be molded into that.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
I mean, even if you use XP story based awards tend to be more satisfying. You should get XP for accomplishing a goal, not murdering a random creature.

Agreed. There is always a problem with XP based on either story OR combat, in that "hey how did I suddenly get better at diplomacy after fighting sewer slimes this afternoon?" or conversely "hey how come I'm better with my sword after the princesses ball?"

That's a big part of why our group has just tossed the lot of it and we just focus on "ok how often do we want the old 'just leveled!' endorphin kick?" and level according to that. Then mostly there has at least been a good mix of combat/non-combat encounters between level ups and we can focus on where the story leads us and not think "man we need to find a dungeon so we can level up."


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Thanks for the number adjustments. Roughly half that number of fights then.

It’s been years since my home group has used honest to goodness XP, and I doubt we'll be getting back into that habit.. lately we have skewed WAY over into RP territory and we may fight once every 3-8 sessions, so if our progression depended on killing stuff we would never get there haha!


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah, I like that idea. You are making a choice in how to invest your limited feats.

I heard sorcerers get to refocus without the activity.. that’s cool and I think it’s neat that they have a bonus there. I suspect sorcerer players will have lots of fun looting the room while the rogue heals people because the Cleric is busy praying :)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

If we can take 40xp as the average encounter... mind you I am not sure we can, but it is a number, so there we go...

Anyways 40 xp goes into 1000xp 25 times. So assuming dead average pace, how long will it take to handle 25 fights? How often will story/accomplishment XP be awarded?

Can your group tackle 5 fights in a night? Assume story xp worth 1/4 of Combat XP....that’s 4 sessions worth before a level.

I am making LOTS of assumptions here...


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Hey, as long as it works at your table it’s all good right?

As I wrote before, I really like the hard choices aspect of limiting what you can accomplish in your little break after a fight. I also don’t like the potential of “oh hey well if the cleric can pray AND heal, why can’t I loot the room while fixing my shield?” Or “I will pray, heal this guy, and loot all at once” because if doing 2 things at once, why not 3 things?

Now, if you have a mind to hand wave the timing of all of that anyways, then it makes no difference whatsoever. If it doesn’t matter to your group how long a party has to themselves between battles, then I see no need to be overly particular with what/how/when different characters do any particular thing.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I see a sharp divide between "praying last rites over the fallen" while gaining a Focus Point and "using my skills to heal somebody" while gaining a focus point.

One is thematic and RP focused.

The other, sure it can be thematic, but it interacts with the crunch side of the game.

At my table, you won't be combining any "refocus" activity with any other of the "do this for 10 minutes between fights" activities.

My opinion is that the game is about making choices. I love that the cleric has to decide whether or not to regain a focus or using skills to heal a party member. I love that other party members are incentivized to invest in the skills that those party members with Focus abilities might traditionally be expected to perform.

Maybe both the cleric and the fighter's shields are damaged, and the rogue took a licking, so the fighter and the rogue work on the shields while the wizard (who had an easy fight) applies a salve to the rogue and the cleric prays to regain their focus...

I'm really excited for the codification of these rules. The gentleman's agreement that I'll be proposing at my table is that by and large, your 10 minutes post-fight will be sacred and you can have it unmolested (occasional stories might not allow for it), but if you try for a second 10 minute break for whatever reason, the random encounter table is coming out. Which I am fine with! That's the risk they're taking, and they'll be taking it consciously. Some results on that table will be "nothing happens" and it'll work out for them. Most results will force them to use up the benefit they were hoping to gain by taking a second 10 minute rest. And some will really beat them up.

Can't say how much I'm looking forward to this rules system :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Society play seems to continue the 3 sessions then level up pattern.

Home games will vary of course...

My current PF1 group levels up once every... I dunno... 3-5 months.. maybe? That’s with weekly sessions.

I’d like to think that is on he slow end, but I bring it up to illustrate the variety.

In PF2 I’ll be GMing a different group that will only meet every 6 weeks or so, and I plan on leveling them after every session or two so that they feel like they are getting to level.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

How long do the modules usually take to play through? I played Crypt of the aeverflame and it took 3 sessions... is that typically?

See if you can find the pathfinder society playtest scenarios. Rose Street Revenge uses playtest rules and is for level 1. Should be an easy conversion. My group completed it in 4ish hours.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I enjoy that this Instinct leans into the whole thing Barbarians have going where they will wreck anything they get a hold of, but are in turn wrecked by anything that gets a hold of them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I like it. I'm very negative-ability-modifier-averse myself, but I do firmly believe that it should be an option for players who want it.

I like that it can/will increase the variety in final stat blocks for 1st level characters.

I LOVE that it is a way for any ancestry to play any class and still have that all important 18 in their primary stat. I'm not sure that it puts those otherwise penalized combinations (i.e. dwarf sorcerer) on the same playing field as a non-penalized combination (i.e. human sorcerer), but it at least preserves base competency in "the main thing" that the class is all about.

1 to 50 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>