Red Dragon

no good scallywag's page

Organized Play Member. 152 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

I really think it is down to Gozreh or Gorum now. Neither of these two, in my humble opinion, have a ton of fans like Sarenrae or Shelyn, and their domains can easily be transferred or not without too much issue. I also thought, " well, the god dying is what sparks the war..." but I'm not so sure now. There must be something else planned for the spark of the war, and I think that probably has to do with Zon Kuthon. The deaths will just be a result of that war, not the impetus.

Also to note, it's the "War of the Immortals." I'm not too familiar with Greek mythology, but were Titans also immortal? Maybe the War isn't between the core gods as we know them, but between them and something else? The Whispering Tyrant has been trying for a very long time to ascend, too...

Another avenue I often miss is Arazni. She's hell bent on revenge, after all. Maybe there is a war without a clean resolution, resulting in some sort of deal being struck with her?

I also think the new class tells us a lot about what major god will die, maybe it is better to have more neutral gods like Gorum and Gozreh be the one of whom dies and rains down their godly mana. Otherwise, say a good god like Iomadae dies, it would be strange for a PC to have some of her mana. Same thing as Lamashtu...could you see a new player asking where the god mana comes from for their class and being told it comes from dead god Lamashtu? I dunno, just coming at this from that angle is all.

My money would be on Gorum, now. What better god to provide mana for PCs as "warriors" than the god of war?

I hope it's not Torag, if only for the reason that he was mentioned first a couple of years ago as being the one to die.

I'm so glad Paizo gave us a 10th god that was one of the widely speculated to die. Shows they are definitely paying attention to the fans, as usual!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Does Paizo have any way to print this edition? I'd be glad to pay!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
olimar92 wrote:
Ridge wrote:
Interesting notion, seems like if Urgathoa loses, everyone does.
Which makes no sense. Why would she be a stopper in something she wants?

Easy- because she wants to savor all the stuff she does over time.


SatiricalBard wrote:

I like a ton of things in the Remaster, but some things I dislike:

1. The change to the dying & wounded interaction rules. I also dislike that there has been no advance discussion, no player surveys, and no explanations about why they have done this.

I understand why a lot people don't like the "new" dying rules, but since PF2 began they've been a point of contention, especially because it became apparent that there were 2 version of the rules and it wasn't clear which one won out.

Until now. I, for one, enjoy the final codification because it's certainly the way, I believe as do many others (including some devs) the way the wounded/dying rules were actually meant to work.

That being said, it's your game, just keep the old rules!

In my experience, PF2 is not deadly at all and it's tough to challenge the players. It will make hero points more important and force players to keep that one stocked away just in case they go down to stabilize.


I just completed an AP with one of my players using a Thaumaturge. They were very powerful offensively if the creature they fought has a weakness. However, they often were the first player to go down in a combat, too.

At higher level, the player was able to extend the benefit of his advantage to weakness to other players.

All in all, a cool class that was able to do a lot of damage with one strike during a round.

I was hoping for more talisman utilization, though, but that was a player preference and it appears the new Exemplar class may do this?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Have to add my experience into this debate now that I've played PF2e, mainly as a GM but also as a player, since the playtest and GM'd 4 Adventure Paths (one converted from 1e).

Note that my group has remained the same for years and we play, literally, every weekend. Obviously, groups may vary. We tend toward maximization in combat for the most part, but are also good at figuring out how to be good at everything (social encounters).

It is quite clear that martial character are far better at damaging opponents than casters. Over the course of a battle, a martial can impart 3 or 4 times as much damage as a caster trying to impart damage.

So if anyone is looking for a game that provides casters with the ability to match or even come close to martials in damage production, PF2 ain't it.

That being said, casters have other strengths. However, it requires system mastery to make an above average caster. There are plenty of utility spells that are still effective and a ton of good area-of-effect debuffs.

But...other spells that impose cool effects work, maybe 45% of the time with full effect. This is demoralizing to caster players and people should know this ahead of time.

It can be very boring to play a caster- lack of spells per day and automatic betterment of attack and DC causing this, in our opinion, after these 3-4 years.

It is incredibly difficult to compare martials with casters. They do very different things. It is incredibly rare that a single caster could ever hope to take a single martial. I'd rather see a better parity in the game for casters.

It's my hope the new remaster can address this. My group has discussed this and would love to see more feat options for spellcasters and spells which utilize different action costs like heal/harm.

Once again, these opinions have come from playing this game since it came out, including all the years of PF1. It's clear to use that martials do more damage in terms of hit points than casters over a combat encounter (which is ok with us), but the comparable percentage is something we'd like to see higher. For instance, if a fighter can deal 100 points of damage over the course of an encounter, we'd like to see a wizard be able to impart 60, at least, if they are specialized in such things. This has not been the case with our group over these years.

If a caster wanted to not be a damager, than allow options to increase their ability to debuff or apply other effects. Many times effects are negated or dulled due to high saving throws/low DCs.

Martials also have the ability to have incredible armor classes, furthering their ability to dominate a battle. Combined with a lot of abilities to utilize the superbly wonderful 3-action system (not hyperbole, this system is awesome), it's more fun for a lot of players to be martials instead of casters.

It's also our hope that new options for current classes come out more, rather than just new classes. Support for existing classes is a must and something we miss from PF1.


A monk, on their turn:

During their first action of moving, falls off a ledge.

Bottom of ground they are falling to is 800 ft. down.

Fails Geab an Edge reaction.

Monk still has 2 actions left. Can they use one action to activate Wind Jump to gain a fly speed and then use the final action to fly up an amount?

Or is the Monk's turn ended suddenly, falling the 500 feet for the round as the rules might imply?


That's too bad


MEATSHED wrote:
I also don't see a lot of utility in moving 500 feet straight down. It's not a very useful direction.

Because the cost is zero to move 500 ft.

The fact that everyone refuses to see that means something.


My initial concern still stands:

500 feet of movement for zero actions is just silly- and yes, I mean FREE. A flyer can simply choose NOT to fly. It then begins falling and falls 500 feet FOR FREE. It doesn't matter what happens to it at the end of that fall, the point is the 500 feet is free movement.


yellowpete wrote:

You have some misunderstandings about the rules here.

The dragon cannot just start falling by choice mid-turn. If it doesn't Fly and falls closer to the PCs at the end of its turn, that doesn't confer any advantage to it – because its turn is over. It also cannot control the distance, since Arrest a Fall merely slows the fall, but does not actually stop it midair. You always fall until you hit the ground, whether it's slowly or at terminal velocity.

I suppose as a Flying creature you could try to Trip yourself by RAW in order to fall before your turn ends, but it surely is of questionable usefulness.

I made an edit above but it didn't go through because someone was replying, fyi.

Example:

Dragon's turn. Do not fly. Fall 500 feet. Reaction to arrest fall. This puts the dragon on the ground next to its enemy. RAW does not state the creature's turn ends after falling. So either its turn ends after arresting the fall or it then gets actions, which it can simply use to fly back up out of reach of enemy but within its own reach.


breithauptclan wrote:
no good scallywag wrote:
For instance, a flying creature can't fly 100 feet high out of harm's way, then take a Free Action to simply fall (heck, or even a single action) 100 feet for no movement cost at all. That makes no balance sense.

Well, first that is pedantically correct that this would be invalid. A creature that uses an action to fly 100 feet into the air would not fall automatically at the end of their turn since they used a fly action during their turn. And there is no free action Fall.

They would fall automatically at the end of their next turn if they don't continue flying.

But regardless, falling the 100 feet isn't "for free" anyway. They have to spend their reaction on Arrest a Fall in order to attempt to avoid the 50 damage that they would be taking. Either that or they have to spend an action on Fly to fly themselves carefully back down the 100 feet to ground level.

Ok, to get away from the bs, let's say:

A dragon is 500 feet in the air. On its turn, it does not take a fly action. It would then fall. As an action, it could arrest its fall after falling far enough to get within striking range. Moving over 400 feet for free.

Squiggit wrote:
no good scallywag wrote:
My main issue is with the fact that "falling" movement is done for free, when, in the past, (I've been playing DnD and PF for 30 years) it's been ruled that creatures should not get "free" movement.

D&D has never made you spend actions to fall or limited falling based on your movement speed, so I don't see why playing D&D for 30 years has anything to do with it.

Quote:
Perhaps the "act" of falling should simply be 1 action with the move trait?
So if I have no available actions should I just be... suspended in the air ? Can I hover indefinitely by spending my actions on something else?

You can hover as an action.

All I'm saying is that a dragon, or any other creature, can move, by falling, for free. Yay for dragons.

Squiggit wrote:
no good scallywag wrote:
My main issue is with the fact that "falling" movement is done for free, when, in the past, (I've been playing DnD and PF for 30 years) it's been ruled that creatures should not get "free" movement.

D&D has never made you spend actions to fall or limited falling based on your movement speed, so I don't see why playing D&D for 30 years has anything to do with it.

Quote:
Perhaps the "act" of falling should simply be 1 action with the move trait?
So if I have no available actions should I just be... suspended in the air ? Can I hover indefinitely by spending my actions on something else?

Still haven't answered the question as to why you can't move your full movement plus the mount's full movement.

shroudb wrote:
no good scallywag wrote:


@shroudb, a flyer can fall and doesn't have to "move" downwards, according to some interpretations!

the Fly action specifically says that you fall at the end of a turn you didn't use it.

so if you were using that action on the previous round (to get to the 100ft) the rules say that you have to wait for the end of your next turn to fall.

if the Flier decides to do that, then he has to spend his reaction to Arrest a fall, and still has to fall the full distance (he can't control how far he falls)

The flyer is "controlling" the distance fell by arresting their fall at the moment they choose.

Luke Styer wrote:
no good scallywag wrote:
My main issue is with the fact that "falling" movement is done for free, when, in the past, (I've been playing DnD and PF for 30 years) it's been ruled that creatures should not get "free" movement.

So by this logic, if my PC has a 25 foot land speed, and I use my final action on my turn to Stride 25 feet, which puts me on an undetected pit trap, I won't fall in because that would be "free" movement?

Do I just hover like Wile E. Coyote until my next turn?

Does it take a reaction to hold up a sign that reads "HELP!"?

That's the key difference I'm talking about here...falling movement out of CHOICE v. falling movement out non-choice.

I'm fine with allowing my dragons to movement 500 feet for free and then making an easily-succeeded Acrobatics roll as a reaction, a fly action to fly back up to within reach, then, make a reach attack twice or a breath weapon!


My main issue is with the fact that "falling" movement is done for free, when, in the past, (I've been playing DnD and PF for 30 years) it's been ruled that creatures should not get "free" movement.

For instance, a flying creature can't fly 100 feet high out of harm's way, then take a Free Action to simply fall (heck, or even a single action) 100 feet for no movement cost at all. That makes no balance sense.

@shroudb, a flyer can fall and doesn't have to "move" downwards, according to some interpretations!

It's similar to movement while riding a mount. A mounted character doesn't get their 3 actions to move their character's speed, then have their mount also take their 3 actions to also take 3 strides. The principle is the same.

Perhaps the "act" of falling should simply be 1 action with the move trait?


There is a difference, but a flying creature can willfully stop flying, and fall that distance, and arrest his stop if he wants.


Squiggit wrote:
IF the player is at the top of the building they'd have to spend some sort of movement to move off the edge, but falling is just falling. There's no reason the actual act of falling would cost you any movement.

So a dragon who is flying can basically choose to move 500 feet down for free since it's "falling."

That makes no sense


A player is at the top of a building that is 20 feet tall. This player wants to jump off the building and fall to the ground.

The player has a movement of 15, but claims falling doesn't count as movement.

Seems to me this has counted as movement in the past, but I'm having a hard time finding hard rules for this.

What is to prevent a PC from literally moving 500 feet for free while falling?


Can a caster dimension door into the air?


Good morning,

I just wanted to check my math on this, seems high:

6th Level Psychic, INT +4 mod

Has the Subconscious Mind ability, Silent Whisper. All cantrips heightened.

Given: Daze cantrip ability.

You can daze from a great distance. The range increases to 120 feet. Your daze also gains the following amp.

Amp Your spell cracks the target's mental defenses, leaving it susceptible to further psychic attack. The spell's damage changes to 1d10. If the target fails its Will save, until the end of its next turn, it gains weakness 1 to mental damage and takes a –1 status penalty to Will saves. On a critical failure, the weakness is 3 (in addition to the target being stunned 1). The weakness applies before daze deals damage.
Amp Heightened (+2) The spell's damage increases by 2d10, and the weakness on a failure or critical failure increases by 1.

Math check on damage output:

Daze Cantrip normally does mental damage of 4.

Heightened, it becomes 1d6+4.

Amped, it gets the damage changed to 1d10. So it now becomes 1d10+4.

However, Amping it up gets 2d10 each, so this now becomes 6d10+4?


Just to be clear, it doesn't matter what you're dying value is. When you come back from dying condition, you only gain 1 wounded value. For instance, if you have no conditions and get critically hit and go to zero, you are dying 2.

If you're then healed for 1 hit point, you lose the dying 2 condition and only have wounded 1 condition.

Edit: but if you are wounded 1 already, and then gain the dying condition, you then are dying 2, or 3 if a crit took you down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Drow finally took up the offer to abandon the world of Golarion!


I think in a court of law the Remaster would be version PF 2.5, but I don't care what it's called. Who cares if it's a new version of a game we like if it's improved, especially when the basic rules will be available online and we are able to change anything we want to suit our home games? I think it'll be an improved version, and this is an opportune time to capitalize on a project like this (a Remaster).

I do understand the Remaster version will negate/errata-ish a lot of my previous books and cause some confusion about what's legal and not, but I really believe GMs can work through some of that. I realize it's hard to keep supporting a company, though, that puts out major changes (new editions) to a beloved system every 5 years, and Paizo will have to do deal with this, but this one time I think we can accept the move Paizo is making to capitalize on the ORC system and the WotC fiasco. I know I personally want more Pathfinder 2e players and want to continue to play and have supported content.

I also think fans and Paizo people should also be able to accept some constructive criticism and understand fans' feelings on the matter without locking thread and being snarky, as I've seen in other posts. But fans should also not make it personal. People like James Jacobs and Jason Buhlman have put their heart and souls into Pathfinder (as have many a player and GM like myself) and I hope everyone can accept that we are all working through this to get to a better outcome for the game.

The forums are a great way for fans to critique some of the rules and it's wonderful when devs actually reply with their reasoning. Paizo is a leader in the aspect, and it's my opinion the posters here have a lot to offer.

Man, the Alchemist class is such a pain to get right!

I'm fine with the Nephilim; we can just specify as an aside what "sort" of * characters are, i.e. my character is a tiefling, etc.

I also like the spell schools and 3-18 stats, but also know with certainty they have no real in-game impact, so getting rid of those for something new is fine with me, especially if it helps intuitiveness and continuity.

Lore issue has already been thoroughly discussed.

Regarding focus issues- I'm not familiar with any issues with focus, my table has never had any. Maybe we missed something somewhere that's an issue?

Regarding previous APs: these are still playable, even with new editions, with some GM work. I have run exclusively all PF 1 APs so far with 2E (currently on Strange Aeons). Just takes time to convert some things, but the 2E rules makes monster creation a breeze.

I am slightly concerned about the new changes being playtested...has anyone seen info on this?

Finally, I'm hoping spellcasters get a feat that can bump up offensive spell DC by at least 1 (yes, I know using debuffs is a round about way to do this).


The new non-Reynolds art is fan-effing-fantastic!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Thing From Another World wrote:


If Paizo is going to use the OGL as a reason and it’s such a huge factor then they should have not converted or brought over any OGL content at all imo. Otherwise it just seems contradictory that a whole bunch of stuff can be brought over into the Remaster OGL notwithstanding.

So I can see why some poster see social issues as one of the reasons why. As I said before if Paizo is bothers by the origin of the Drow just say it as a company.

100% this. People saying the changes are all OGL are not correct. However, people at Paizo have always stated the bothersome ideas of the Drow, hence the lack of publications and stories that include them. It's been a thing with Paizo for a long time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
emky wrote:
They can't just call it "Pathfinder Second Edition". This is an edition change from everything discussed in the live stream. It might retain backwards compatibility, but it is an edition change. It's not just errata and formatting changes.

They can call their product anything they want. After looking at it all, it doesn’t appear to be significant rules changes, just term changes. I do tend to agree with you a bit, however. Perhaps an Edition 2.1 with the changes. But I don't really care what they call it, as long as the game continues to improve over time.

Tectorman wrote:
No more alignment? At long freaking last!!! Huzzah and hurray!!!

Multiple devs have stated that alignment is still a thing, but it will be dealt with as it should be dealt with, not the stark binary-type system used in the past. Which is fine by me. I've always wanted an evil "paladin" or a rogue who worshipped an assassin go that could benefit from divine abilities and spells. It's pretty clear the 9-factor alignment will still be a thing, especially for lore purposes (cosmic organization). If I'm incorrect, please point this out. I do believe there is a widespread fundamental misunderstanding of how alignment works as a mechanic and I think Paizo has and will get this right, especially regarding the whole ambiguity of good/evil.

keftiu wrote:
Ability Scores are out. Modifiers only.

I don't know how I feel about this. It's been long coming over the years and hinted at. I do like the fact that, as a GM, I can look at something's ability scores and immediately gain knowledge about that creature, but also know I can gain the same thing from the modifiers. Ability scores themselves are such a solid feature of RPGs it's hard to imagine them being gone. I used to love ADnD 2e's books that broke down abilities into further sub-abilities, though, so I can see a lot of potential for design space.

slamneale wrote:
Within the last month, I spent over $1000 on books to switch my group over to Pathfinder. This feels like a slap in the face.

It does seem like awful timing for Paizo to be trying to capture DnD players after the fiasco, but this would have had to have been planned far in advance and I suspect that Paizo is working furiously to get this done in good time to capture those DnD players and create their ORC environment. I can fully understand that people feel bait and switched, and I hope Paizo can help ease this- especially when many people buy into the community in general, not just the physical product. I would tell those who have made the switch and purchased their PF2 books that the lore contained in the books is still 100% valid. I don't see major changes in relation to GMing or combat, but some of the class stuff will be different; I'm certain Paizo will put out a cheat sheet to reconfigure old stuff- at least that's my hope.

Brutedude wrote:

The difference is that instead of a 12/4 class split with the latter book having options for the previous 12, it well now be an 8/8 split with all the options for the class in it's book

Until another book comes out with additional options for the classes, haha. But this is fine with me, I don't mind this.

I heard Rogues were getting martial weapons...this should have been done at the outset.

RobertTHEPerylous wrote:


I've played/run RPGs without alignment. I don't like them. As teenage boys playing fantasy games where there is no guideline as to how your character's morality would actually influence their actions makes it easy for a "Good" character to slaughter baby deer, just because. You, as the GM, cannot tell them it's against their character's morality, because the player will find ways to justify otherwise abhorrent actions. If Alignment becomes an "Optional" aspect, it will always be used at my table. That's my pair of coppers, do with them as you wish.

Oh come on, you shouldn't be playing with people like this. If they want to run their character as they wish, then let them do so. Now, of course, if they want divine power from a good-aligned deity who loves nature, too, then they would not qualify for that power or they would have their power be stricken from them.

Remember folks, alignment only really matters with PCs if they are utilizing that alignment for gain. If they do something counter, they lose those gains. It's quite simple.

CapeCodRPGer wrote:
I'm running a Pathfinder 2e game now. Everyone is just getting used to how the system works. Now Paizo goes and changes stuff. I hate change. I don't see why they need to change it.

What? This came out in 2019…

breithauptclan wrote:
Donald wrote:
Will the chromatic and metallic dragons be nixed and redone?
Probably. They did namedrop about 5 new dragon types in the livestream when they were talking about how they are not going to be in families based on mettalic or color, but grouped more by the magical tradition themes.

I love dragons and only hope the base metallic and chromatic dragons hold their breath weapon types and, in general, their *alignments.* I do love the occasional “evil” gold dragon, though!

YuriP wrote:

OK let's start speculating!

I was always a stickler for the Vancian casting system and the slotted caster v. prepared caster, but this is a difficult teach for new players and hard for some people to wrap their mind around. As a guy who loves spellcasters, I understand the key difference between this, but also wish my wizard could cast like a slotted caster. So if there were changes to this in the remaster with “ranks” I wouldn’t be opposed. Especially since casters were *nerfed ;p

To @YurriP’s point, what “remaster” changes could also be made, you think?

I’m also a bit unclear on the “nephilim” versatile ancestry/heritage change. Can anyone clarify?

It certainly appears that many player’s gripes about lack of options will be addressed with the remaster, in that options are being extended and restrictions removed. It sounds like nephilim is going this route. Hopefully those who want to be able to create any type of character with many options can finally see their ideas come to fruition and concerns addressed without house rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Lebombjames wrote:
"Removal" of alignment seems a bit stark. I would've hoped for some alternative, possibly based on the alternate alignment rules from the GMG. Otherwise intrigued by this
Like legally there's probably an argument for this which is why they're doing it, and it'll be good to avoid alignment arguments and things like "certain spells are useless for clerics of Neutral Gods because they do alignment damage." But it's still useful to read "LE" or "NG" in an NPC's stat bloc just as a very broad description of how to play them.

Agree 100% that alignment is a necessary trait in many instances, more useful to the GM than players; but some players find it helpful to guide the actions of their PCs, mainly for background purposes. Always good to check an NPC alignment quickly rather than reading 2 paragraphs of their background.

A post by Mona shows alignment will still be a key aspect of the game, just not the confusing 9-system. Experienced and common sense players, in my experience, have used alignment somewhat ambiguously anyway, which works out well. I bet that's where PF is headed, not so rules-heavy and mechanically ingrained.

Fantastic idea to merge all the classes into one book. This should be very helpful for new people. Too bad a cheaper pdf version isn't available for those who have already purchased the previous books....a loyalty discount would be nice for them.

Splitting the GM and Player Book is a good move that will help new players.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sounds eerily similar to Strange Aeons...


A creature has been a victim of the Volcanic Eruption spell...

It wants to cast Dimension Door to get away...

Wtf happen?


Can a medium creature with Friendly Toss and Titan Wrestler use the 2 action Friendly Toss to "toss" an ally who is size large or huge?


Can cold iron or other materials be added to animal companion teeth?


Good afternoon everyone,

I'm looking into computing the total treasure reward for a group of 4 PCs from level 1 to level 2.

I understand the chart provided in the Core book pertaining to wealth by level.

I picked out a few items going by the chart. However, enemies they face also have treasure listed. Is the treasure enemies carry*in addition* to what I've picked out based on the chart?

Wondering what others have done.

Cheers


Good afternoon everyone,

I'm looking into computing the total treasure reward for a group of 4 PCs from level 1 to level 2.

I understand the chart provided in the Core book pertaining to wealth by level.

I picked out a few items going by the chart. However, enemies they face also have treasure listed. Is the treasure enemies carry*in addition* to what I've picked out based on the chart?

Wondering what others have done.

Cheers


If a 12th level character had the level 10 Specialist Ring, would the spell that it's cast using this ring be:

1. Level of the character

2. Level 10, as the Ring

3. Level of the character if they were a level 10 caster...using wizard, could cast up to level 5


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would like to reiterate OP's post from another post...

This has nothing to do with Paizo.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
There’s a thread I made in the 5e forum, where this belongs. Paizo has nothing to do with this project.

helpful as usual...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

First post on this?!

If it's not appropriate to post discussion on this I understand.

Just wanted to get some thoughts on the news today.

Looks like WOTC is really focusing on digital play, both in in-person settings and online play.

I prefer PF2 over 5e by far, but tweets I've seen imply D&D One, or "6th Edition" as it will be dually called, will be tested "better" than PF2 was tested and have things that are better than PF2.

Perram, previously from Know Direction, made a comment about monsters and spells " no longer critting.". I couldn't find anything further about this big he implied this was a good thing, rather than "false machismo n his it should be."

I guess I'm really confused on his statement compared to online what was released by WOTC. The release said the system will basically stay the same but include more options, something that kills 5e for me in personally. The combat is still so slow and boring they'd have to really make some changes.

Dunno, I felt like some comments I read were implying this new D&D was on the right track to improve 5e and undo PF2's "mistakes."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am pretty disappointed with Paizo for GenCon 2022. The PFS presence in the Sagamore was a quarter what it used to be. Hardly no personalities were there. I did see John Compton and Luis, who are of course shining examples of Team Paizo and do fantastic work in setting and out.

No hype whatsoever at the Con. Only time all tables were full was for the special Saturday night. Quality of GMs I had were poorer then past Cons.

I won't ever play an interactive special again. Combat all night is just plain boring, and stopping in the middle of a combat to move onto the next area just breaks the story.

It is my understanding there were a lot of GM no-shows as well. Doesn't seem to bode well. I get the bad feeling Paizo is now on the downslope of success.

I hope I'm wrong.


Hello everyone and Paizo staff!

Will Paizo be offering seminars this year? I still don't see any listed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aaron Shanks wrote:
no good scallywag wrote:
Leon Aquilla wrote:
Aaron Shanks wrote:

I believe, with Paizo’s strong relationship with freelance authors, the company is better positioned than most to identify and promote new talent. I trust in that.

M-O-O-N! That spells Hilary Moon Murphy!

I sincerely apologize, but I just listened to a Know Direction podcast from April wherein Ron said Paizo wasn't going to produce any more adventures for PF2 and was going to release 5th edition versions of them instead. But i can't find anywhere else that this is the case.

I am thoroughly confused.

Perhaps you misheard him? He will no longer be creating any more Pathfinder Second Edition Adventures and Adventure Paths for Paizo, as a freelancer, or via his own publishing company.

Paizo will produce Pathfinder Second Edition Adventures and Adventure Paths for the foreseeable future. The two 5e conversions announced are the Kingmaker Adventure Path Bestiary (September for backers, October for retail) and the Abomination Vaults Adventure Path Compilation (November).

It's been revealed to me that he did say this but it was an April fools joke, and my buddy cut the clip off. I have to say, i nearly panicked! I am glad to see the conversions as long as PF2 rules are still created and living! It's a far superior system to 5e. And the world of golarion is of course second to none.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leon Aquilla wrote:
Aaron Shanks wrote:

I believe, with Paizo’s strong relationship with freelance authors, the company is better positioned than most to identify and promote new talent. I trust in that.

M-O-O-N! That spells Hilary Moon Murphy!

I sincerely apologize, but I just listened to a Know Direction podcast from April wherein Ron said Paizo wasn't going to produce any more adventures for PF2 and was going to release 5th edition versions of them instead. But i can't find anywhere else that this is the case.

I am thoroughly confused.


Hello!

I heard the creators of my Druid chronicle say each class book had a special Easter egg in it or something like that. I've tried my best to find the druid one. Anyone had any luck?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's nothing for it....we'll all end up getting COVID most likely, no matter what precautions we take. Simply breathing air that a positive person had just exhaled can transmit it, let alone all the surfaces we touch and unknowing face touching we all do. It's unfortunate that things have come to this. Hopefully everyone heals up and is ok! I'm not letting the virus damper my attendance at conventions, though, but will play it as safe as possible so I and others can keep enjoying Pathfinder and gaming.


Hi there,

I'm looking at the PFS 2 events list for GenCon but don't see any games for PFS 2 listed for Friday night, 800p slot. Other slots are listed but not this one...I thought maybe because it's also a special that it hasn't made it to the list yet?


^


Interesting.

It is strange, though, that magical bows sort of imbue a non-magical arrow with it's power. Although, I could see the "power" imbued isn't really imbuing the arrow...


one more question:

What about the spell telekinetic projectile? Does the magical nature of the attack and spell bypass the physical resistance?


in title...

Plus, if immune to slashing, are they immune to a magical scimitar?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

incredibly sad to see him go. Unfortunate that Paizo can't seem to tinker their pay scales to keep people like him.


If a creature that has swallow whole has a creature already swallowed, can it keep doing swallow damage as an action?


Castilliano wrote:


Who's said verisimilitude has been sacrificed?

I've literally heard some devs say this. Which I like.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Mike, I'm sorry to have left you out of the mentions! It's like one of those oscar speeches where someone has to list names and just ends up naming everyone lol!

1 to 50 of 152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>