Kob-Kog

necromental's page

1,167 posts. 5 reviews. 3 lists. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey, I mean I cannot promise I will read and comment (as time is no longer available as it used to be when I hung out here) on the changes you are making, but I can promise you I certainly won't listen to a youtube video about it. Unless you are planning to publish an interactive video RPG, you have to have this stuff written down somewhere, either a google doc or something people can read.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

PF1.

I mean, I started with DnD3.0, and just followed it there. So did the rest of my friends with who I play with.

I followed the PF2 playtest closely, and saw great potential, but also great flaws. We didn't care about turbo balance, as we were playing the game for years and knew to make similarly powered characters.
We adored 3-combat action system, and most of combat in playing PF2 but hated the whole skill system (even more so because PF2 shown what you could possibly do, but then held it out of reach with math, feats and tiers), total hatenerfbating of magic, and tightness of math that was very much against us (and we did optimize as much as we could).
Character building and layout were horrible to us (especially since we just started toying with Spheres of Power, so super strict vs super fiddly lost).

It's not that PF1 doesn't have glaring flaws, but we already know our way around them without breaking a sweat.


kronovan wrote:

... I do own Kobold Presses' Tome of Beast and Creature Codex for 5e in both print and PDF, but I'm afraid I'm just not savvy enough with PF1E monsters to convert them.

Is there an online web or downloadable app that can help with that conversion?

Not that I know. I asked on facebook group and discord for equivalency tables between 5e and PF1 but nobody has done the footwork. I usually take the 5e adventure from kobold, look up the creature in Tomes or Creature Codex, and then try to find the PF1 version on d20pfsrd. There are some of them because Tomes have been padded with PF1 creatures converted to 5e. Don't know if any of this helps you since you use Fantasy Grounds..


I think I use no.2&5 mostly, they have most magical beasts and fey, iirc, but I use either d20pfsrd or archives of nethys so I'm not sure 100%. I also use Monsters of Porphyra 1-3, Freeport Bestiary and Tome of Horrors 4, and also check Kobolds' Tome of Beasts for 5e and try to find PF equivalents. Forgot Mythic Monster compilations by Legendary games, too.


Aotrscommander wrote:

My solution was to steadily re-write large chunks of PF1/3.5, deal with the niche cases and generally attempt to do to PF1 what PF1 did to 3.5. Or (like with the grappling rules) decide that neither sysrtem got it very right re-write entirely. (Closer to 3.5 than PF1, but also akign sure ALL the relevant universal monster abilities were explictly IN that sectiob as well.)

PF1 still had the problems that the rules were not all in one place for some things - often legacy bits from 3.5, so I did a lot of compiling.

Mind you, what I run is very emphatically NOT a rules-lite, freeform sort fo game. Though at this point, it's bloody well cross-checked and thorough, and well indexed (in terms of spells, feats etc), at least.

But I suspect most people have a panic attack when I say "at last count, 1600 pages" and that was before the v2.1 revisions...! (In fairness, that's because I went through VERY throughly and there is increasingly little left in the core rule books - and only a few of the 3.5 splats - that's not been copied up. But I was rigorous when I did t; anything that was even a minor change, copied into the new set. In particular, any spell that was "as this spell but" had the copied spell moved as well, so that spell chain is all in once place. Net result, the spells document runs to 300 pages, but there is only CR1, Spell Compendium and (3.5) PHBII aside from it to look spells up in. That was where is starte way back, though - to pare down 3.5's burgeoning splatbooks into the bits we'd actually use, and leave the chaff we didn't behind so I'd have less material to take down the club.

That I have a very full 90 litre backpack still might argue on one hand, I didn't succes terribly well - but on the other, two foot of hardbacked 3.5 splats sitting on my shelves says that, yeah, I kinda did on the other.

Do you have it available? I'm interested


thejeff wrote:

I kind of hope they don't create their own system. I mean, some of the basically home brew stuff they have put it seems cool, but putting out an entire new game system and continuing to expand and support it is a big project. And one that's really completely different from their core business model. Probably far less profitable as well.

I'd hate to see them get bogged down in game design and support and lose focus on what they do well. Or tie themselves to a new game that turns out to fail.

But it's a hard question for them, because they wield a lot of influence and if they do choose an existing system to play, they'll likely be a huge boost to that system.

Getting involved with Kobold Press would maybe work for the best, since they are staying close to 5e in the Black Flag.


A Working Conversation About the Open Game License.


Leon Aquilla wrote:


EDIT: Some interesting rumblings from the OpenD&D discord about a new license. Hmmm.

Got a link for that discord?


The adventure paths are rare among the 3pp community. Only horror themed one that comes to mind is The Blight, from Frog God Games. There's an evil one by Fire Mountain Games (Way of the Wicked). Legendary Games has two Legendary Planet and Aegis of Empires, both dabble in horror, especially some of the individual modules, but are not horror themed in general. Adventure-a-Week have linked adventures, not the full 6part APs but 2,3 or 4 parters, but I can't remember if any of them are horror themed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
Greylurker wrote:

Generally Archetypes can't mix if they both alter the same things.

That said the Martial Controller does explicitly say it mixes with other Archetypes that replace magic talents but both it and the Resiezer give up the 1st level magic talent.

So as written you can't do it but you could talk to your DM to see if he'll give you an exception

The point is that there are two magic talents at first level.

Two bonus talents are a part of spherecasting class feature (and are also conditional). Bonus Talent is a separate class feature. The one which is altered by both archetypes. So by RAW, no, you cannot combine them.


Looking at it I would say the text is correct. Necroblade being the one that sold it to me. The pdf has the same mistake. Also there is a bit different version on their wiki, which follows more closely the text of this version.


Java Man wrote:
^I have never heard a person interpret that line to have that meaning. It is interesting.

It's not interesting, it's just plain wrong. If it was so it would be used in advice forums for a decade now. And it would in bestiaries, too.


Chell Raighn wrote:

The only thing having extra iterative attacks does for natural weapons is enables you to use multiple natural weapons that require use of the same limb. For example if you had a bite and a gore, you would need atleast BAB +6 to attack with both in the same round since they both are attacks using your head. Another example is if you had Claws and were to gain access to 2x Slam attacks using your arms, you would similarly require +6 BAB to use both claws and both slam attacks In One round, you could still do one attack of each or both attacks of one type without +6 BAB though.

99% of the time though having +6 or higher BAB will not change how many natural attacks you make.

If you have an animal companion that only has one natural attack, Such as a Wolf, then the Multiattack feature for Animal Companions will let them make extra natural attacks with high BAB, but that is a special exception only for animal companions.

all of this is false.


Not sure, at 14th it also gains Improved Natural Attack. Earlier version went to +8 but that seems like overkill. Bonuses already outdamage the slayer. Although it would follow the every 3 lvls increase pattern.


My google-fu reveals that the publisher of Gryphon Legacy is Gaslight Press not the Kobolds (or Open Design). The setting was Sun & Scale. Wolfgang was just a designer there not the publisher and Gaslight haven't published anything other than that book. As far as I can tell.


I've put it on my DriveThru wishlist, but it's still a big list. I hope the final file won't be over 100 MB for 29 pages.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know, while some abilities are nice, and you can play a bit more of a gish thanks to the 3/4 BAB, there is still the fact that you cannot use almost any traditional wizard defensive spell (maybe some are in transmutation but most are illusions and abjurations). Lack of enchantment or necromancy also isn't helping. I don't get the notion behind Vital Strike (nothing says you can use spells with it), and it would be the first thing to get cut. You don't get extra metamagic feats but rather teamwork or combat which you are still not very competent to use. Would probably turn that back. Charged weapon could maybe be dialled down a bit like +1d6 for every 3 lvls rather than every 2. Maybe. It is limited.

I don't know, I would never play this over a standard evoker, because of lack of spell schools and arcane discoveries.

What are your specific grievances?


Nope. Kinetic blade is a modification to kinetic blast which specifies you cannot use Vital Strike with it. Also flagged for wrong forum, this is third party product rules and advice.


It's right there in the book. You're probably going by the d20pfsrd? It hasn't got the animated leaves as far as I can tell.


Dragon78 wrote:

A new preview showed a cantrip that does 1d6 + casting stat mod to damage(fire). I really like the buffing of damaging dealing cantrips.

Looks like the Profession skill has gotten a big boost and also craft skills are now part of profession.

Is Appraise a part of profession too?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
Would it help you in your games? Let us know.

Frankly, no. Just random table dedicated to CR and terrain I can extrapolate myself from d20pfsrd. I already have a more elaborate version with Random Encounters Remastered (series of 5) from Purple Duck Games. They have dispositions, some random terrain stuff... If I needed just tables, they would have to be specifically designed for campaign setting (and since I play Midgard interspersed with Vathak, Lost Lands and Thedas, there is no table that is going to be specific enough).

What I could use best is something like more random encounters the way Raging Swan does them, more like adventure seeds rather than just monster tables. You could still concentrate on monsters, but extra random columns with encounter ideas could work.


The only thing I know is Storm Bunny's Bloodlines and Black magic which uses their Occult7 hack, but it's a complete cleaning up and rebalancing for modern urban fantasy with PF basis.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
roguerouge wrote:
Quick question: does this product have rules for fleet battles (mass combat for ships)?

It doesn't. Only file in my collection that does is Legendary Games - Ultimate War


When I go looking for qworkshop dice from this page i cannot get to many of the dice, for example orc dice just keep sending me to this url: https://paizo.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Store.woa/wa/DirectAction/signIn?path= store/byCompany/q/qWorkshop/byType/d6/battleSets/ork

But it doesn't open at all. I'm guessing that some of the pages just don't exist anymore, but I cannot be sure is it just a glitch or there are no pages for those dice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
kevin_video wrote:
necromental wrote:
My problem with Dex to damage is too many things tied to Dex (it's not called God stat for nothing), and Strength not having anything to do (PF2 did some right there, having Str ignore armor encumbrance, and defaulting initiative to Wis (perception)). I wouldn't mind Dex to damage if we had Str to AC feat, too.
I'm fine with Str doing something like being allowed to be used for initiative. There was a series of 3PP feats like Muscle Reaction which added Str to initiative checks, or Battlefield Intuition which used Wis, or Presence of Mind which used Int. These stacked with Dex and Improved Initiative. All feats were done by the unfortunately defunct company, 4Winds Fantasy Gaming.

Adding as a bonus to Dex only exacerbates problems. Half of your complaints/wants for fixes would be unnecessary if they cleaned up the math. I don't want PF2 stuffled math, but cleaning up bonuses (less bonus types, assigning a bonus type to untyped bonus stuff), not having a ton of stackable stuff would go a long way in making a game less a chore.

I have faith in that because as it seems Corefinder won't be a monthly printing of character options (which would eventually cause problems for any system like it did for 3.x and then PF1. It killed PF2 for me in start because skill feats are envisioned as something to be printed with every publication, no matter how stupid they are).


Quote:
8) I'm guessing you don't play too many rogues or have done much fencing IRL. Not too many rogues are Strength-based, and foils aren't swung with brute strength. The issue with 3.5 and Pathfinder is all the MAD classes. Unless you find a way for monks to do Dex to damage, you need Str, Dex, Con, and Wis. Unless you roll well, or are even allowed to roll, chances are extremely low. A single feat, is fine. Just not a feat tree that lets you take a scimitar and use it as a piercing weapon.

You fence by dealing touch attacks. Not penetrating parts of armor, padding and flesh to deal damage. If you want RL argument.

My problem with Dex to damage is too many things tied to Dex (it's not called God stat for nothing), and Strength not having anything to do (PF2 did some right there, having Str ignore armor encumbrance, and defaulting initiative to Wis (perception)). I wouldn't mind Dex to damage if we had Str to AC feat, too.


SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
RicoDetroit wrote:
Hmm, I would not describe Midgard as “dark” ...

It's in the ad copy:

"Midgard is lost in an age of war: of dark wilderness, and lost empires sunk beneath the waves. Only magic and the warmth of hope keeps lights aglow when dread things prowl, and priestly wardings tremble and bend before the fury of demonic rage. In this dark time, new heroes must arise to claim the crowns of Midgard, and restore the jewels to her scattered thrones..."

In contrast their Southlands sounds da-bomb:

"Welcome to the Southlands: a land of mystery and adventure, where riches and dangers await heroes who adventure across the wild expanse of Midgard’s largest continent. Here, the deserts abound with forgotten tombs, swift sand skiffs, and nomadic spirit talkers. The tall grass of the savannahs hides lost cities and fierce warriors, and the dense jungles swarm with living vines that choke the life from careless visitors. Those brave enough to set forth into the Southlands’ burning sands, fierce jungles, wild coasts, and ancient cities can find riches beyond imagining—and perhaps even a spark of divinity itself. For most, though, only death awaits.Demonic cults, lizardfolk with enormous plans, villains behind magical portals and buried in the dust of ages: what could be finer? Seize the reins of adventure, and seek glory in the Southlands!"

Both books are written in similar style (and a lot of same folk wrote them), I called it dark because they call it like that themselves but basically only "dark" thing when you read the book is the amount of potential conflict that is described in political situation. A bit darker are land of vampires with typical goth undertones and somewhat lovecraftian Wasted West. Shadow fey remind of Unseelie court from myths/other settings. Southlands are lighter in tone because they represent exploration part of the setting, and its nations are not that interconnected like in Midlands of Midgard (which are equivalent of Europe). I mean you don't have to like it, but Midgard CS and the Southlands are for me two best campaign setting books written. Maybe not that original but full of mystery and potential. I like them much better than Golarion CS books. I even like them so much I buy 5e adventures (Warlock Lairs which tend to run to Grimm-like in their darkest and pretty whimsical in some parts), and I wouldn't touch 5e with a stick.


SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Derek Blakely wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I highly recommend Midgard.
I would also recommend Midgard. I’ve used many of the monster books to influence my games.
How is it in terms of nuanced portrayals of traditionally "monster" races? I'd really like to move away from settings that treat whole types of creatures as "monsters".

There's an empire of ghouls and a duchy of vampires, and while they're mostly evil it's definitely not a faceless, uniform evil. Orcs are mostly unknown although tend to attack settlements where they surface. But mostly conflict is political rather than good vs. evil. Dark fantasy/fairy tale, but not grimdark.


Wow, it's a clusterf!*~ for sure. I would just remove any reference to it being ranged a and treat it as regular whip. Whips have enough rule exceptions so it really doesn't need the additional confusion. Is it necessary for other pyrokineticist abilities to be ranged? Maybe there's some synergy going on?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wizard (specialist) RGG - Grimoire Arcane Book of 8 Schools
Cleric RGG - Talented Cleric & More Cleric Talents


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

I think there are about three levels to this:

- FAQ: something is unclear and people keep asking about it, so explain it better in an FAQ entry.
- Errata: there's a mistake somewhere, such as a 20GP that should be 2GP. Or something is missing a trait. There was a plan, but what's actually printed isn't quite according to plan. Next printing, fix it. Meanwhile, have a list of "mistakes we found that will be fixed in the next printing" because it can take a while. This also covers fixing inconsistencies between things in different chapters seeming to contradict each other.
- Design changes: overhauling how something works because the original design is causing problems. This is basically Paizo saying "we changed our mind".

I would say that the first two categories are certainly desirable. The last category is sometimes needed, but preferably only if it really improves the game. I think it was this category that caused the most pain last edition when some option was found overpowered and nerfed hard in a next printing.

I agree. Especially on the third point. There should be some quality check for such errata, so we don't get things nerfed into uselessness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gnoams wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
gnoams wrote:
Everyone just sucks equally somewhere in the middle.
This is a rather “glass half empty” view of things...

Not the way I see it.

In Pathfinder 1, you are John Wick slaughtering your way through hordes of hapless foes. Only the badest enemies hold the slightest challenge for you and even then it is a foregone conclusion. You are the best, they aren't.

In Pathfinder 2, you are John McClane. You get the ever living @#%! beaten out of you over and over, but you die hard, you keep going, you get up each time they knock you down, and you persevere in spite of overwhelming odds.

Coming from the super heroes of PF1, it feels like your characters really suck in PF2. That's not necessarily a bad thing, the game mechanics just make for the telling of a different sort of story. At least, thus is my experience with the system so far.

This is pretty on spot. Level 1 is so far fun. I don't expect levels 8+ to be as fun as in PF1.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
necromental wrote:
Is the hobgoblin ancestry in Lost Omens World Guide? I'm having trouble finding it.
It (along with the Leshy and Iruxi ancestries) are in the Lost Omens Character Guide, which comes out in September or October.

Ah, ok thanks.


Is the hobgoblin ancestry in Lost Omens World Guide? I'm having trouble finding it.


What Nox Aeterna said. Rarity doesn't ease the load on me as the GM because coming from 18 years of similar game, I don't have to ban teleportation, nor alignment spells nor divinations nor enchantments. I still have to check PC's options for some abusable combo, or underpowered characters. It was supposed to be the tool for new/inexperienced GMs, but unfortunately it got written half-assed, and it was somehow more important to get the "rewards" sidebar than explaining what consequences do some spell/PC options have on the game.


The extra text is such because it had versatile P (or S?) in the playtest, iirc.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
necromental wrote:
In having spells and options that were in "you can take them if I don't say otherwise" relegated to "they are forbidden if I don't say otherwise".
And how often did the former lead to things getting banned/tweaked mid-game/fight?

I frankly don't remember a single case in any campaign I played.

I think that rarity is a good tool, but not without explanations, I believe it should have had them NOW, not in some future book people will maybe read, maybe not, while everyone will read the CRB. I also think Paizo should have erred on the permissive side (with every explanation of certain types of uncommon things..."if you don't have a problem with this part you should make them common" or somesuch.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

One more thing. I liked playing 3.x/PF1 because so many things were codified and clear to the player. Not necessarily clear in every case, but general assumption was that you could do things that the book said. In some (even many) things, PF2 is even more codified, but at the same time it opens many cans of worms that were never part of design philosophy of previous edition; like PF1 had paladin code and that stupid faq about take 10 (EDIT: which was clearly a step to PF2 since the take 10 rule wasn't clear and faq pushed it to "ask your GM"), and now we have anathemas in several classes, mother-may-I of rarity, and maybe other cases of GM-empowerment (EDIT: like skills vagueness in playtest, but that was pushed back iirc, still haven't gotten to skills) which are generally just additional workload for me as a GM and a player.

Rysky wrote:
necromental wrote:
But it's a wrong-footed start for people who want to have new GMs and new groups (which is one of the things Paizo and everyone wants) who will just be unnecessarily penalized for having played the game before.
How are they penalized?

In having spells and options that were in "you can take them if I don't say otherwise" relegated to "they are forbidden if I don't say otherwise".


3 people marked this as a favorite.

There are a couple of problems that I have with rarity.
First, it's one of many, many magic nerfs. Many spells that were staples in 3.x/PF1 (and other versions of DnD) and made the game high fantasy and basically magical are relegated to uncommon. I am personally not interested in playing Lord of the Rings with PF (there are several RPGs that are much more suitable), and this is another part that makes me feel like the PF2 CRB is saying that I was playing the game wrong.

Second reason is that it's so poorly explained.
This: "For instance, it might be more challenging to run a mystery adventure when a player can cast an uncommon spell such as detect evil." is the only example we have of why some spells were made uncommon. During the playtest there was already outcry of not giving explanations about "Why"s of uncommon things. We extrapolated and got a list in blog or dev posts iirc that said things like "breaks survival campaigns, breaks mystery campaigns, can trigger certain real world experiences (enchantments)" and maybe couple more. I really don't see the reason why this wasn't included in the sidebars about rarity. Giving new GMs reason why this tool was included in the CRB was much more important than a "reward" part of the sidebar. An herein lies my problem. New GMs won't know why are these things are seemingly excluded and many will just blanket ban everything uncommon.

I won't have the problem with this in my game, because if my GM of 10 years tries to say that I should ask him about uncommon things, I'll just hit him with a chair. We've been playing this game for basically 18 years. But it's a wrong-footed start for people who want to have new GMs and new groups (which is one of the things Paizo and everyone wants) who will just be unnecessarily penalized for having played the game before.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
PFSocietyInitiate wrote:
How the system pushes a personality onto your character. In 1st edition I can't tell you how many PC's made by my friends didn't have a background or personality. Now you have to choose a background as well as have spaces on your character sheet to talk about yourself which I will definitely be making my players fill out each time

Players whose characters didn't have background or personality won't have them now either. "Background" in PF2 is mechanical choice similar to traits, not a "super-pill-of-instant-roleplayer".


9 people marked this as a favorite.

The Fahrenheit and Celsius thing, the conversion is really gibberish, but the thing is we never thought about what temperature it exactly is. Adventurers don't go out with thermometers and check, they care if it's Severe Heat or Extreme Cold, so we used that jargon rather than the exact temperature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
Michael Sayre wrote:
Anguish wrote:

Is it possible to order a hardcover of this somewhere?

The PDF is excellent but this is something that absolutely needs to be on my shelf.

It's currently available directly from Lost Sphere's website.

I'll ping Christen and see if he has any additional information.

Thanks much. $48 USD in shipping, but:

a} I'm getting used to that insanity and
b} the darned thing's worth it.

I haven't quite figured out how I'm going to introduce the setting into my game reality, but have been chewing on it for a bit.

WOah on the shipping. I got it for 16$ shipping, in Croatia, where I'm used to having 48$ and up amount if it's not Amazon.

And I'm also having problem in incorporating into my CS (which a version of Kobold Press' Midgard), and I think I'll just not include it. Themes are excellent but just don't mesh with my CS. I'll just run it as a separate thing.

On that last note, when are the adventures in Hyraeatan coming :D?


redpandamage wrote:

“I found one very good article (I think it was Ashiel's blog) about disregarding the "silver piece a day" economy”

Where can I find this?

Tried looking for it, google-fu failed me. I had the article saved somewhere but don't anymore, since I mistakenly purged some old files. Ashiel moved to GitP forum so you can try looking for her there.


I found one very good article (I think it was Ashiel's blog) about disregarding the "silver piece a day" economy, and actually using the Profession or Craft rules as basis of economy. That said, silvers as basis serve to reduce the ridiculous amount of coins that character usually had to carry. The bad thing about that is that it means it's even more unlikely that dragons are sleeping on piles of coins :D Frankly I would divest the gold from magic item economy and use coins as basis for kingdom building subsystems rather than personal power through items.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would say that Intelligence is more powerful since we're having fewer skills.

Sense Motive was rolled into Perception, so it's under Wisdom.

Strength is still dumpable if you don't use it, but bulk and reported reduction of speed penalties for heavy armor make it useful.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RicoTheBold wrote:
Cydeth wrote:
if the art starts veering back toward what I've seen for the new iconics, I'm going to drop PF2.

This is a completely alien perspective to me. I'd have an easier time understanding if it was the book layout or something, but not using a system because of the style of the character art in the book would simply never occur to me. I even use the Paizo art assets for my game (as digital tabletop tokens), but I can always look online for a different piece of art if I don't like the existing one (I do that sometimes, especially when there's a variant/leader monster or NPC). If I somehow ended up hating every piece of PF2 art, I'd just...not use it, and keep the system. Even if I couldn't stand even occasionally seeing the art, I'd just use the SRD or something. Hypothetically, if the books depicted a bunch of incredibly objectionable content (the kind of stuff that Paizo would say violates the Pathfinder baseline), I could see not wanting to see the book or even indirectly approve of its content by using it...but that's a pretty out-there scenario, and that's as close as I can get. For context, I couldn't have even told you the names of any of the iconics a couple of months ago, despite playing PF1 since launch and owning all of the PF1 rulebook line, and even now I only recognize the names because of the various videos and blogs since the playtest announcement. I'd still recognize them as the characters from the class section of the books, though.

Anyway, thanks for the interesting reminder that people have different requirements and priorities, and I hope PF2 ends up being a good fit for both of us.

While it won't stop me from using the system, it certainly reduces the number of hardcovers I'll buy. I find WAR's art and Paizo hardcovers some of the ugliest in my collection. All IMO of course.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Boomstik101 wrote:
Heavy armor felt super good to use! I am on the last session with a defence oriented paladin, and there are rounds I mitigate 100 points of damage.

You can feel good all day long, but when someone who invested in Dex and wearing a light armor has the same AC while suffering none of the penalties you do, it sucks.

On the minion trait - count me as one who hated summons and minionmancy in general in 3.x/PF1, not so much because of overpoweredness but because of the time it took to resolve those things on the table. So I don't mind summons and stuff getting the shaft, but I do understand that for someone coming from PF1 it's one more thing (and a big thing) that was nerfed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gwaihir Scout wrote:

Off-topic question for those who use Charisma for Will saves in PF1: What do you do about the Circlet of Persuasion?

** spoiler omitted **

"Except Will saves."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
tqomins wrote:
Rage. Flat 1 minute; when you're done you aren't fatigued but can't rage again for a while.
Oh, thank god. It seems like every time news comes out for the new edition something that made me give up on the playtest entirely has been removed. Next you're gonna tell me that Barbarian anathemas have become less hardline and more like the general roleplay suggestions originally advertised.

Word. Here's to hoping.

Edit: wand stuff doens't sound bad, but I hoped that wands will be weapons for casters (raising attack/DC for spells).


Jason Nelson wrote:

We are indeed!

And btw, now up to #6 among ALL products on Drivethru!

Viva la kineticists!

No.3 now. And people say PF1 is dead, ha.

1 to 50 of 1,167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>