ohokwy.'s page

I love that only 34 people drank from the polluted fountain and 2 of them were on the table I played at.

Today I tried to build a gnome paladin. Seems like something that ought to be doable, and I've done in in PF1. Now, the first thing I noticed is that since Full Plate comes in at a whopping 4 Bulk its pretty darn difficult to carry everything you want while wearing it. 4B for my armour, 2B for my weapon, 1B for a heavy shield, 1B for a repair kit so I can fix my shield, 1B for a medicine kit because, y'know, I'm a paladin- oh wait I'm already over. That's 9 Bulk and my encumberance limit is 8. This is without any basic adventuring necessities like rope, rations, ranged weapon, etc.

So I go look up the encumbered condition, and, well, it's brutal. -10 to speed is a ridiculous penalty when you're already at -10 from full plate and puts my poor gnome at a 5ft speed even with Fleet. I think maybe the encumbered speed penalty and the armour speed penalty aren't supposed to stack, but I can't find any rules supporting that.

So, this is pretty bad, and honestly if I wasn't a gnome my Bulk limit would only be maybe 1 higher (from STR 18 raterh than 16), so it's not just because I chose a STR penalty race. Full plate is now brutal, and very difficult to deal with. I feel 3 Bulk would be enough (and even that would be annoying).

But then I remembered, hey, I'm a Paladin. I can get me a horse to help carry my stuff AND let me move faster. Two birds with one stone! So I head over to the animal companion section and discover that a medium horse (which I would have thought would be a suitable mount for a small paladin) has EXACTLY THE SAME CARRYING CAPACITY AS ME. Meaning that if I'm encumbered and I get on it it'll also be encumbered. In fact, if I got all the adventuring gear I wanted and put in on my horse it would be holding too much to move (13+ Bulk) and that's not even taking into account the fact that it would also have to carry me.

In PF1, these problems were solved by having small sized gear weigh less and giving quadrupeds a higher carrying capacity. Sure, a small character might have trouble carrying things on occasion, but if they were mounted it was never an issue. As it is in PF2, even though a large horse can carry and medium rider, his full plate and all his gear easily (due to Large size creatures having ten times the encumbrance limit of medium/small creatures, assuming I understand things correctly) but a medium horse with a small rider is overburdened if it tries. I would have thought the ratio of medium:large would be the same as the ratio of small:medium so this seems absurd to me.

So in the end I have three problems:

1: Full plate weighs a (non literal, thankfully) ton and it makes it very hard to carry even the basic necessities.

2: Mounted combat with small sized riders on medium sized mounts is equally difficult, verging on impossible if you want your rider in heavy armour and/or you mount in barding.

3: I didn't really cover this previously, but how on earth do I calculate my PC's weight? This is really important for working out whether or not my mount is encumbered, and I can't find anything more specific than "... and item that weighs 5 to 10 pounds is 1 bulk..." which is woefully unspecific even if you ignore the fact that nowhere in the rules does it tell me how many pounds my gnome weighs (sure I can go look it up in the PF1 rules, but those shouldn't be relevant for PF2 stuff).

Anyway, that's it. Am I missing something? It's entirely possibly that making full plate weigh a lot was an intentional design choice (I mean, it most likely does in real life) but I feel like making the combination of Full Plate + Lance + Shield + Heavy Barding + Repair Kit(14 Bulk total) to be impossible for a small rider (14 Bulk vs 13 carrying capacity on a medium horse at 4th level) but easy as anything for a medium rider (14 Bulk counts as 1.4 Bulk on a large horse) to be utterly ridiculous.

TLDR: Please bring back higher carrying capacity for quadrupeds. As it is, a small sized knight on a medium horse is unviable if they are appropriately armoured.

Seriously though, you guys at Paizo are being great about this (I certainly wouldn't have expected $15 credit as recompense for a screw up that wasn't even your fault) and while this is unfortunate I'm mostly just annoyed at all the people who (apparently) can't want another week after waiting several months. Come on. We can survive. I'm in Australia, and I'm not complaining so ya'll should feel bad if you're giving Paizo grief since most of you are getting your books earlier than me.

ohokwy. wrote:

How often in fiction are barbarians presented as being insanely durable while raging, shrugging off blows that would have killed anyone else, but then finding themselves in mortal peril when their rage ends and their wounds catch up with them? That (at least in my opinion) is cool, and one of the reasons I like to play barbarians. The PF1 method mirrored this perfectly.

Personally I didn't have a problem with that dynamic in P1E in theory, but I think issue was more book-keeping problem related to Vidmaster's comment above. Technically you can also use the same 'not combining HP pool' approach with vanilla P1E rage HPs (just applying damage first to permanent HPs instead), but the negative HP dying thing complicated it.

Yeah, this is true. The PF1 method is more complex, and that does need to be kept in mind. I want barbarians to take some of/all the damage they avoided taking whilst fighting as I feel like it mirrors the kinds of fictional heroes I want to play better. I actually can't think of a mechanical way of doing that which wouldn't be at least a little annoying from a bookkeeping perspective. Maybe that means that the barbarian I want isn't good for that the game, I don't know. I didn't think the PF1 barbarian was that bad though, personally.

Quote:

The 3/1 rage thing is also part of this... But honestly, is that how bararians work in stories? Rarely, I'd argue... (I can't think of a single work of fiction where this happens to a barbarian useless they'd just suffered a grevious wound/got hit with magic of some kind)

Disagree. What is rage? Fighting at peak performance? Whatever the 'mechanism', the idea that fighting performance may ebb and flow in a battle is pretty common in all fantasy/medieval cinematic story telling I'm familiar with (unless you're Steven Seagall), and indeed the premise of D&D (depending on d20 rolls). Don't focus so much on the stats, which are a mean to an end, the stats only tell you if you hit or miss, are alive or dead, the bonuses or HP totals aren't real in and of themself, what can happen while not raging can...

I have to admit this is a good point, and thinking of it that way does make me feel a little better about the 3/1 system. However, in an ideal world I'd still like to take some of the damage I'd avoided taking when the combat ends.

Barbarian is probably my favourite PF1 class. In fact, my second AND third characters were both barbarians, iirc (my first was a cleric, a class I didn't play again for a long time, mostly because I wanted more skill points). So I've been waiting for this preview with a mixture of anxiety and excitement.

And overall? I like it. The feats look neat (Vicious Evisceration is a great name), the 3/1 rage makes things more strategic, the totems look great (I'll add my name to list of people who agree that Superstition as a totem was a fabulous idea) and I absolutely ADORE the concept of lawful barbarians. I was just thinking the other day that (imho) the barbarian was always the class whose alignment restriction made the least sense. I also like that they have good will saves (at least eventually).

All of that said, there's something that I dislike and its the same thing that I disliked about the unchained barbarian. I'm probably alone in thinking this (200+ comments so far and no one else has mentioned it) but I don't like giving barbarians temporary HP. I MUCH prefer a CON boost. Yes, it makes the barbarian more likely to die, but that's the point. How often in fiction are barbarians presented as being insanely durable while raging, shrugging off blows that would have killed anyone else, but then finding themselves in mortal peril when their rage ends and their wounds catch up with them? That (at least in my opinion) is cool, and one of the reasons I like to play barbarians. The PF1 method mirrored this perfectly. The PF1 unchained method, 5e's method, and this method all do not. Rebalancing the PF1 barbarian's rage is fair enough, but I'd argue losing the HP you gained when you stop raging is key to the flavour.

The 3/1 rage thing is also part of this. As previously mentioned, I like the tactical elements of it, and I love that it limits rage without resorting to an annoying rounds/day mechanic. But honestly, is that how bararians work in stories? Rarely, I'd argue. Rarely do they have to worry about ending their rage until after the fight, and when they do it has more dire consequences. Honestly, I actually liked 5e's rages/day mechanic for this. It limited my rage so I couldn't rage all the time, but didn't make me have to quit raging in the middle of combat (I can't think of a single work of fiction where this happens to a barbarian useless they'd just suffered a grevious wound/got hit with magic of some kind) and I didn't have to track rounds/day. If only 5e had forced me to take the damage my resistences had let me avoid once my rage ended, or something. Then it would have been pretty good.

Anyway, overall I do like everything else, and I will definately be playing (and playtesting) the barbarian. But I just wish there could be a balanced, fun mechanic that ALSO mirrors what happens in fiction. Good job with everything else though!

Be an investigator. They're as good as rogues at dealing with traps, and don't have sneak attack.

I just noticed the Tarrasque speaks Aklo and has a really bad sense motive. So, I guess you could just bluff it away.

I'm torn. Part of me is like: "What? That's the stupidest plan I've ever heard."

The rest of me is being like: "I have a vigilante with a ridiculous bluff bonus. I should put a rank in linguistics next level to learn Aklo."

The Mods Must be Crazy

I know this is not the first time a related question arise, but this racial trait as interpreted by many just doesn't work.

Quote:

For effects targeting creatures by type, androids count as both humanoids and constructs (whichever effect is worse).

I saw many people who interpreted the rule as "if a positive effect affects ONLY constructs or humanoids, then the android is immune to that effect" (since not being affected is the worse effect). This interpretation leads to weird conclusions (like androids being immune to both Make Whole and Cure spells.)

It seems silly the developers intended for the android to be immune to a whole bunch of positive effects (most of whom are technology-themed and should work on androids).

My interpretation of that racial trait would be :
"For effects targeting creatures by type, androids count as both humanoids and constructs. [u]If an effect works differently for those two types[/u], use whichever effect is worse."

Now, I'm not an expert on obscure rulings and spells. Would this interpretation of the trait cause any problems that you know of?

Your proposal doesn't solve the problem, unfortunately. Mystic Cure for example works differently on humanoids than constructs. On humanoids it heals HP damage. On constructs it does nothing. It works differently, and "doing nothing" is clearly worse than being healed. Ergo it does nothing, both by the original wording and your altered version.

This certainly needs to be fixed, but I don't think your proposal does what you want. Honestly I'm not even sure what the developer's intent was for this.

Alignment: 1d9 ⇒ 1 Chaotic Good

Domain 1: 1d29 ⇒ 21 Repose
Domain 2: 1d29 ⇒ 16 Madness
Domain 3: 1d29 ⇒ 4 Charm

Onathano, the Mad Prophet

Domains: Chaos, Good, Madness, Charm, Repose.

Onathano was once mad, and he still is. As he drove deeper into insanity he saw life as no one else has, he saw the mind as no one else dares. His psyche began to break down, no longer holding the form of a human mind, and as he left humanity behind he opened his eyes, and he SAW. Without the minds walls trapping him into a spiralling labyrinth of order and structure he was free to see how the gears of the mind spin, and that gave him power. People were no longer strange, impossible to understand creatures as they appeared to the insane. Now, he understood them. Now, he had power over them. A lesser man may have used that power against them, but Onathano had no desire for power over others, and had no real idea of how he might use his powers for good. He no longer understood ethics or morals or right and wrong; he was too far into his madness for that. But he DID understand people, and he understood that they NEED right and wrong, and he remembered hazily from his past that a better world was something to strive for.
So as his power grew, his madness spreading until his mind left his body and he transcended reality he gathered around him those pure of heart and strong of will. Those without the power to help the world, but with an understand of how to do so that he lacked. These became his Mad Prophets, as madness lies in the knowledge Onathano grants, but with his guidance they can walk the narrow line of sanity and bring about good in whatever ways they can.
There is no death in madness, only suffering. Onathano cannot die, only continue on with his mind burdened with insanity for the rest of eternity. Living with suffering is not honourable when strength leaves you and you have nothing to look toward, so when each follower of Onathano begins to so deep into their mind that they cannot return (as will happen to each of them, Onathano can only guide them for so long) it is their right to call for aide from another Mad Prophet, who must give them a swift and merciful death. Other's who do not follow Onathano can also ask for this treatment, and will receive it, but only if there is no way back from their madness or disease. Treatment is not given by Mad Prophets, though they may direct the insane and terminal to those who do have that skill.

Onathano's colours are all colours, his holy symbol is a mess of colour forming into a rainbow, and his favoured weapons are improvised weapons (Clerics can choose either Catch off Guard or Throw Anything as a free feat).

That was fun. Now I really want to build a follow of this guy.

Yeah and the whole "You can move and draw a weapon if you have BAB +1" thing is an exception to this rule, and the only one that I'm aware of. It also ONLY applies to drawing weapons, not anything else (if that wasn't clear).

You are absolutely correct; if the rule says you spend a move action, you've spent it and cannot use it too move. You could still move with you standard action, but that would be you're standard action gone.

Also, while you're right in that the GM is the final arbitrator, I would definitely talk to you're GM about this, because RAW he his wrong, and while he's perfectly within his rights to house rule whatever he wants, this is kind of a massive nerf to Dirty Tricks, and they aren't that great anyway without massive feat investment.

You've got a 20/9 Bard with NO WAY AT ALL around being silenced? I'm sure he'll figure something out.

This has to happen. It's entirely possible I'll end up stealing it :D

It seems like there is a bit of an issue here with Definitions, only a couple of people seem to agree on what "Roll-player" and "Role-player" actually mean, which is making reasonable discussion difficult, largely because we seem to be assuming that everyone else is using the the same definitions as us, even though (for the most part) they aren't.

Some people have inoffensive definitions that would be perfectly acceptable in polite conversation SO LONG AS THE PEOPLE THEY ARE CONVERSING WITH HAVE THE SAME DEFINITIONS.

Likewise, some people see these words differently and have extremely offensive definitions of them, and would therefore like to see these terms to stop being used.

Both of these definitions are real, valid, and (in the case of the first only, not the second) actually quite useful when describing either GMs, Players, Character Builds or Gaming Styles, all of which these terms can be applied to (although some peoples definitions of the terms allow them to only be applied to, say, Players, and not GMs or anything else.

More or less where I'm going with this is that if you know that the people you are speaking with have the same definition of the terms then you can continue to use them as you have been, but be aware that these are extremely subjective words with NO official definition that everyone use differently (there may actually be an official definition; if there is I am not aware of it. In any case, my point still stands as many people other than me are also clearly not aware of it and therefore will use the words differently). Because of this, unless you are absolutely certain that you and everyone else present shares you views of what the words mean, you should be very clear in you meaning because otherwise people will most likely misinterpret them in one way or another, even if they don't find them offensive.

TL; DR: Some people have inoffensive definitions of the words. Some people don't. In both camps there are a variety of sub-divisions regarding what PRECISELY the words mean, so unless you're very clear about you're meaning, some people are bound to be confused. Since this forum is online, all types of people will be reading you're posts, and many of them will fall into the camp that finds it offensive. Since these words are ill-defined and cause confusing and argument of their meaning anyway, you're probably better off using different words, or at least ensuring you're clear what you mean when you use them

Gnome Barbarian. With a Wisdom higher than his Strength. Also, I took Intimidation Glare as my lvl 2 rage power, despite having -4 to use it on virtually everything. Plus I don't even have Intimidation Prowess or a decent CHA, so I'm pretty bad at it even without the penalty. CON 22 while raging at lvl 1, though...
What's great is that I got a couple of crits early on, which has led the rest of the party (all new to Pathfinder) to believe that I'm playing a really powerful character.
And before you ask, no, I'm not doing mounted stuff. My Gnome fights on the ground like a proper barbarian.
I'm also about to start playing a Sorcerer/Eldritch Knight who uses unarmed strikes and wears as much armour as possible, but she isn't really all that bad. Mainly because she's actually a Sorcerer/Eldritch Knight/Paladin/Oracle who adds her charisma to EVERYTHING.