Bristle Billie

rainzax's page

Organized Play Member. 2,490 posts (2,547 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. 2 wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters. 5 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,490 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

7 people marked this as a favorite.

As a player, yeah, little bummed that "uncommon" merits additional effort and a DM willing to compromise.

As a DM, more than a little excited that "uncommon" enters my toolkit as a way to exercise control over the themes of my campaign.

Like two steps backwards, five steps forward?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Armor, in this edition, is almost flavor.

Which, I am strangely okay with?...


Frogliacci wrote:
rainzax wrote:

Divergently, I would like to see a more modular Witch class chassis.

Prepared caster, yes. Options to have their "spellbook" be either a Familiar, a Cauldron, or a Tome.

And Patron determines Tradition. I could argue equally for an Arcane, Divine, Occult, or Primal Witch.

Okay, maybe not Divine...

If you're an arcane witch with a tome, why are you not a wizard? Besides, if you want to be a wizard with hexes, you can multiclass witch. A spellbook witch would be completely redundant.

Again, the issue with prepared anything rather than prepared occult for a witch, is that they'd step on the wizard, druid, and cleric's toes. Hexes mean little in terms of mechanical difference when you can just multiclass to get them.

Upon further reflection I think I agree with you.


Val'bryn2 wrote:
And as for needing time to hammer out kinks, to test it in live waters, that's why they had a playtest, that they asked people to pay for, going by the copy of the playtest rulebook on my shelf.

Judging by the empty space on my shelf where a playtest book might go, I reckon you did that to yourself!

To answer your question though, it was to differentiate the books in terms of how they are used:

If you want a "quick" monster, you have the Bestiary. Instant drow/orc/goblin/vampire party. Or, a different "type" of drow/orc/goblin/vampire for an encounter. All standard fantasy tropes.

If you want a "unique" monster - and you have some time on your hands - you have the Game Mastery guide. Either to create a special monster you intend to use later, or, to memorize the algorithm of monster creation so as to have the best of both worlds.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Volley
This ranged weapon is large and unwieldy. If you Step, Stride, or use any other action with the Move trait, any subsequent attacks you make with this weapon during the same round suffer a -2 circumstance penalty.


Full agreement.

"1 per" is simply too restrictive to consider for an MCD.


Divergently, I would like to see a more modular Witch class chassis.

Prepared caster, yes. Options to have their "spellbook" be either a Familiar, a Cauldron, or a Tome.

And Patron determines Tradition. I could argue equally for an Arcane, Divine, Occult, or Primal Witch.

Okay, maybe not Divine...


To be fair, the OP's math breaks down to a simple comparison of ratios.

30 divided by 20 = 1.50

35 divided by 20 = 1.75

Which means that relatively, elves became faster relative to dwarves with the edition change.


Can he help in some other way at the table?

Ex. Coordinating initiatives, distributing condition cards, tracking treasure / experience, looking up rules on-the-fly, taking notes on NPCs / locations etc.


Not a thing anymore.

If you are a 12 WIS Cleric, you can cast 9th level spells.

Your DCs will just suck.


They um cancel?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmm...

Perhaps merit non-flying ancestries additional feats to compensate?


Cellion wrote:

Rather than make systems with huge numbers in a mana pool, or systems with multiple different pools to track, why not just have a fixed pool with scaling costs? Something like:

You have a pool of 20 mana.
The highest spell-level spells you can cast cost 3 mana.
The next highest spell-level spells you can cast cost 2 mana.
All remaining spell levels down cost 1 mana.

The most you can ever nova is 6x your highest level spell, and at the expense of having almost nothing else. But your significantly lower level slots are a lot cheaper and you can cast them pretty readily. If you're still concerned about too much nova incentive, you can add some kind of "risky" mechanic, like the kineticist's burn, that only happens if you cast your highest level slot spells back to back (for example, not specifying that this is what I'd do).

You could also set up the pool to run off your casting ability score. IE:
You have a pool of 15+your casting ability score. That way you still get some progression of your pool expanding as you rise in level, though the expansion is small enough that you're only really getting to cast a couple extra lower level spells.

This is a really elegant suggestion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Helmic wrote:

For those familiar with collectible card games, I'd say PF1's metagame would be like a CCG meta dominated by netdecks that are largely easy to pilot. You could certainly build your own character/deck and there's a huge amount of system mastery that can go into that deck/character building, but someone more clever than you has already posted a build online that is generally better and is almost braindead to pilot. In fact, most characters/decks are braindead to pilot, most of the "skill" in the game is just in the building. Fun for some, not so much others.

With PF2, I would say it's more like a Living Card Game with a small, heavily structured deck size and well-balanced cards and everything is actually hard to pilot. You're not choosing from the whole catalogue of cards/feats when choosing to fill slots in your deck/build, but choosing subsets, and the balance of your choices makes it very hard to make an especially bad or good deck/character. But because you just have way more choices each turn, there's no real autopilot, you have to think during each of your turns and work to alter the conditions of the board/encounter to be more favorable to you.

PF1's playstyle has a certain appeal to it, and more power to folk who prefer that more chargen-focused stuff. But I feel moving the system mastery from chargen to actual play was a good move. Pathfinder is inherently cooperative, so having a "high skill ceiling" relative to the floor is very undesirable, that's where you start overshadowing other players and it gets less fun, there's no matchmaking like in a video game to make sure you're always playing with similarly skilled people. Moving the skill from chargen to actual play is, aside from being more fun in my opinion, allows players to more naturally cooperate and share tactics so that the group as a whole is playing on a similar level, and players can more quickly iterate on what works and what doesn't (they can even respec their build to a limited degree to adapt). A newer player can get better at Pathfinder pretty quickly, and it feels more like victories are actually earned

This.

Well-articulated.
The analogy had not occurred to me before reading this.


In PFS they can be free.

So there's that.


I like the Honor idea, for what it's worth.

But didn't like how it was implemented in Ultimate Campaign - too fiddly.

Curious actually if anyone has some cool Honor homebrew...


But like what Cleric would heal these Godless heathens?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The summary seems to be:

1) Make an effort to roleplay - ex. using accents
2) Keep communication lines open with your players
3) If a conflict comes up, be prepared to deal with it like an adult

That said, I appreciate the discussion, as I tend to never not learn something new when I hear (read) others' points of view (and additional information, facts, theories, etc).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artofregicide wrote:
Do keep in mind that I'm coming to this with genuine interest and not just to argue.

Me too, sorry if that's not coming across well?


I would start with a Benchmark.
Let's say you assign each slot a point value, then add up all the slots, and yield a number.
My question is this: What % of total points is "fair" to give up for increased flexibility?

...

Prepared casters can perhaps choose a number of spells per day to prepare, which are then just freely cast with their mana.
Then wake up the next day and prepare different ones.

A similar question: What % of prepared spells is "fair" to give up when comparing to Spontaneous casters?

Friendly suggestion to get the ball rolling:
Spontaneous (total spells known): Character Level + Highest Spell Level + Key Ability Score
Prepared (prepared at a time): Character Level + Key Ability Score
+
Mana: Spontaneous > Prepared

...

Next question: Focus Points on a different track?

...

Final challenge question, if I may. How do you expect to "manage" what is arguably one of the main features of mana systems: Being able to "nova" at will?


Zwordsman wrote:

I would probaly also consider some sort of class ability

"Everything in its place"
The alchemist gains 2 bulk that is only applicable to the Alchemist kit, formula book, and daily allotment of items.

(just because this would also make it so an alchemsit basically wasn't restriscted to having to have 12 or 14 str just to operate)

Also consider gifting a "aclhemist tool kit" that only works for the alchemist or something.

2 or 3 bullk+1/3rd starting gold is painful

Like this?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Monk vs Barbarian:
Kind of yes?
What is the problem with Monk that you think +2 HP will fix?
I ask because if you say "Defense" I can respond by pointing to their expert unarmored proficiency and bonuses from some stances. My personal problem with them is that they have a greater dependency on multiple ability scores (ST/DX/CON/WIS) than other melee focused characters with a single workaround that locks them out of taking interesting stances.

1.5x ST 2-hand:
One more reason.
Giving THF a bonus is like giving non-THF a penalty. I like that the distance between THF and other styles in this edition is smaller. This encourages diversity. To me, I'd rather see cool THF feats than just more damage bonuses.

Magic:
Ok deal.

Goblins:
If you are asking is Paizo will do this, my guess is no - they consider Goblins an iconic part of their brand. If you are asking if people will do so, yes. But more to the point. The tone of this edition is more "DM control" than last edition for better or for worse (I am in the "good thing" camp). As such, and in light of Paizo's relationship to Goblins, I suppose I either don't understand the "why" of this question or... what?

Speed:
In first edition, you could "double move" as a full round action. Anywhere between 2x to 3x to 4x (to 5x with Run) faster than a base speed of 30. So, if a comparison can be made, I think Golarians just got slower?
My reason is that difficult terrain (and other "halving") will eat up a larger proportion of a lower speed, taking away from the dynamic tactical movement aspect. I feel 25 feet as baseline is a nice balance.

Monk AC:
Beeftastic
Paizo, with a single exception right now (Thief), is shying away from "ability score replacement" options, perhaps as an overcorrection to some of the silliness from first edition.
I do share the opinion that granting "WIS to AC" as a feat suddenly makes Monk Multi-class a very attractive option for Wisdom-based casters.
If you homebrew, bake it into the "1st-level only" benefits of the class and I think you should be fine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It would help if you'd have numbered them...

1) I think Monk needs one more something, but not this. Because, Barbarian.

2) No. Not even as a feat. Because Critical hit math. But, perhaps as a homebrew Fighter Stance?

3) Leaning towards no. I like the new "balanced" magic, and feel it is tenuous one. Largely because skills.

4) No. This would increase the damage output of spellcasters too much without resource expenditure.

5) Sure. Like, you can already do that. Can't you?

6) I am curious why you are proposing this, actually. Like, what is the reasoning?

7) Yes, but not for free: example

Cheers!


Elvenoob wrote:
@Rainzax The problem with that is, it's an enormous nerf to those using the Divine List, for them most of their spells only work by alignment or based on whether or not a thing is alive or dead. That in and of itself is a huge issue that needs fixing.

Oh, certainly.

On the spectrum of "Easiest" vs. "Hardest" change to make, this is perhaps the furthest left.

But, not entirely unfixable. If you went this route, you could consider a game mechanic whereby the Player and the DM work together to let foes, monsters, and villians qualify as "evil" for the purposes of casting those spells, where appropriate. Perhaps as a skill function of Religion?:

Cosmic Adjudication
(Single Action)
You judge one or more creatures through the lens of your faith. If you succeed at the check, you may cast a single spell later this round that targets or effects "evil" creatures, reducing the number of actions to cast that spell by one (you must still supply all components of the spell normally). If the DM determines their recent and/or current actions to be considered "evil" with respect to the general philosophy of your deity, then those creatures are treated as if they are "evil" for the duration of the spell you cast.

Critical Success: You may treat these creatures as "evil" for the duration of the encounter
Critical Failure: You misjudge their deeds, wrongly believing your next spell will target them as "evil"

...

There, fixed?


Perhaps the Roof is 5 spells?

<A> Spell One
<A> Spell Two
<A> Spell Three
<F> Spell Four
<R> Spell Five


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chetna Wavari wrote:
In British television if you see an American character introduced they're generally going to be a jerk. Maybe not right away, but just give it until the second act.

Speaking as a (North) American, I did not know this and it genuinely tickles me...


Ki Spells

Spoiler:

By tapping into a supernatural inner reserve called ki, you can create magical effects. Certain feats grant you special spells called ki spells, which are a type of focus spell. It costs 1 Focus Point to cast a focus spell. When you gain your first ki spell, you also gain a focus pool of 1 Focus Point. You refill your focus pool during your daily preparations, and you regain 1 Focus Point by spending 10 minutes using the Refocus activity to meditate in order to reach inner peace.

When you first gain a ki spell, decide whether your ki spells are divine spells or occult spells. You become trained in spell attacks and spell DCs of that tradition...


My best guess is that only Celestials, Fiends, and Monitors will retain an "Alignment" and thus an interaction with spells that do aligned damage. Perhaps a re-naming as you mentioned (Radiant/Yin/Light vs. Necrotic/Yang/Dark).

Everyone else will, by default, be considered effectively "neutral" as concerns game mechanics.

Altogether with the net effect of the narrowing of the effects of spells/effects that explicitly interact with Alignment as a mechanic.

Or at least, that is how I would do it.


No intended re-roll, just an added accuracy boost meant to counterbalance the loss of Flurry of Blows.


Agreed. One stipulation though: Consider having only 3 heads active at a time, randomly determined.

Because 5 seems like overkill. Unless you absolutely must have overkill. What more, 3 randomly active heads may be more "interesting" than 5 always-active heads. It'll keep your characters on their toes ("Oh no, I hope the Acid head doesn't get to go again"). Unpredictability is SCARY. Much better at demonstrating variety, too.

You can always power-up their attacks accordingly, and 3 stronger heads (at a time) seems more elegant to me than 5 weaker heads.


Here are my ideas for a Monk Fix.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Minor monk fix here - alternatives to the Core monk included by trading out Flurry of Blows for other "1st level only" abilities, designed to open up the space a little more.

Early Path to Perfection
At first level, a monk chooses their path to perfection from among Body, Heart, or Spirit. This choice determines which key ability scores they may choose from, which ability they receive at first level, as well as which possible tradition their ki powers may arise from. The Monk depicted in the Core Rulebook is assumed to have chosen the path of Body, and in all ways functions identically:

Spoiler:

Body
You have chosen to hone your martial technique, capable of delivering strikes that combine high speed with coordinated force. You may choose Strength or Dexterity as your key ability score, gain the Flurry of Blows ability at first level, and may choose from the Divine or Occult traditions for your Ki class abilities (if any).

Core monk preserved perfectly.

Heart
You have chosen to sharpen your meditative prowess, capable of delivering single powerful strikes with an outward display of inner tranquility. You may choose Dexterity or Wisdom as your key ability score, gain the Meditated Strike ability at first level, and may choose from the Arcane or Occult traditions for your Ki class abilities (if any).

Opens up not having to prioritize Strength, allowing the monk to divest their abilities elsewhere without sacrificing combat functionality, including to Intelligence or Charisma to pick up more / different skills, or to double-down on the remaining physical ability scores and Ki powers to create a less-damaging less-maneuver-focused but more technical striker.

Spirit
You have chosen to attune to the fullness of all your senses, capable of avoiding dangerous blows as if gifted with precognitive foresight. You may choose Strength or Wisdom as your key ability score, gain the Danger Sense ability at first level, and may choose from the Arcane or Divine traditions for your Ki class abilities (if any).

Opens up not having to prioritize Dexterity, allowing the monk to divest their abilities elsewhere without sacrificing combat functionality, including to Intelligence or Charisma to pick up more / different skills, or to double-down on the remaining physical ability scores and Ki powers to create a less-skilled and slower but similarly formidable frontline combatant.

New Abilities

Spoiler:

Meditated Strike
You attack slowly and with determination, focused on penetrating your foes defenses with a single, well-placed strike.
(Flourish, Monk)
(Single Action)
Make an unarmed strike. You may use your Wisdom modifier in place of your Strength or Dexterity modifier when rolling to strike. You may give this ability the concentrate trait to do one of the following: Either remove the flourish trait, or, give this ability the fortune trait.

Danger Sense
Your senses elevate your attention just outside of your body at all times, allowing you to dodge incoming blows with relative ease.
(Monk)
Requirement: You are unencumbered and not wearing armor.
Your may substitute your Wisdom modifier for your Dexterity modifier to your Armor Class.

It's worth noting that, like Flurry of Blows, since these are 1st level choices, they are unavailable as multi-class options, preventing Wisdom-based casters from "cherry-picking" them from the monk's array of abilities.

Monk Feats

Spoiler:

Stunning Fist
(Monk 2)
Prerequisite: Flurry of Blows or Meditated Strike
The focused power of your flurry or meditation threatens to overwhelm your opponent. When you target the same creature with two Strikes from your Flurry of Blows, or with one strike with your Meditated Strike, you can try to stun the creature. If one of these Strikes hits and deals damage, the target must succeed at a Fortitude save against your class DC or be stunned 1 (or stunned 3 on a critical failure). This is an incapacitation effect.

To wrap, a minor tweak, presenting the option to trade out Flurry of Blows (a major opportunity cost offensively!) to instead allow greater variance in build, by allowing Wisdom to partially cover one of the many ability scores a monk generally needs to invest in (typically at the expense of Intelligence and Charisma) to function in it's niche.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps play the mechanics of a Ranger with a Crossbow, just flavor it as a "gun", until Gunslinger proper is released?

Or make one small change to Crossbow to make it "mechanically equivalent" to other martial ranged weapons and grant Fatal as a free trait?:

"Handgun" (Hand Crossbow) = Fatal (d8)
"Gun" (Crossbow) = Fatal (d10)
"Heavy Gun" (Heavy Crossbow) = Fatal (d12)


BellyBeard wrote:
I like your proposed changes. They fix a lot of sore spots with the minimum amount of tampering, and not over-correcting. One very minor quibble I have is, while you're making changes, you might as well remove the mutagenist sentence about mutagens not brewed for you, as that doesn't do anything and can only lead to confusion.

I was wondering about that sentence, as their doesn't seem to be anything in the Mutagen section of the core rulebook precluding or dis-incentivizing sharing drinks.

Perhaps this is a holdover from a change made after the Playtest version of the rules?

Thanks for your suggestion!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jek wrote:

When in Golarion did this happen? I mean, there were stats for them, but... as a serious race? The 2e rulebook describes them like they're some persecuted minority.

I haven't kept up with all the adventure paths, but last I checked they were still psychotic little monsters that were so insane that it bordered on idiocy. And sung about turning babies into stews.
And certainly didn't have a tendency towards GOOD, or a... prove themselves worthy to the world complex.

It's like reading about dryads cutting down forests to make room for parking lots.

When I first found out, it felt a little random, yes.

Then I discovered that Paizo goblins were incredibly popular, making them a bit iconic for the company, and that makes sense to me, as Paizo has to "carve out a niche" with respect to other RPGs. The Alchemist class is in a similar state, minus the controversy to their inclusion in Core.

The goblins I have adventured alongside have typically all had in their backstory "So I decided to escape the negative culture of my hometown, and explore different ways of thinking" or somesuch. And the players often sing songs and use phrases with peculiar grammer, such that, I find myself communicating back to them similarly. Indeed, it's fun to speak "Goblin-Common" with a Goblin.

So perhaps it'll take some getting used to, but it hasn't ever turned into a "Goblin ruins adventure acting like stereotypical depictions of evil goblins in past publications" scenario for me personally. And besides, that would probably be a problem with the player (than the character) in such an instance.

Cheers!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok I'll bite.

I'd like to see general archetypes that play with weapons traits. I think the design-space is blown wide-open there. Something like:

Dervish Dance

Spoiler:

You have learned to turn your speed into power, even with a heavier blade.
(Stance, Concentration)
Requirement: Trained in Performance, and you are wielding a slashing weapon with at least two of the following traits: agile, finesse, forceful, or sweep.

While you are in this stance, once per round as a free action, you may give your weapon the agile, finesse, forceful or sweep trait until the start of your next turn. If your weapon already has at least three out of four of these traits, you may instead increase it's base damage die by one step.

And perhaps a "greater" version granting two traits?


Chemlak wrote:
...my campaign setting is a persistent world, and each party begins after the last one finished.

Whoa!


BellyBeard wrote:

I try to flavor my Consumables to make them more interesting. For example, the scroll they find in the gremlin's lair is a Primal spell scratched into a piece of bark. Maybe they killed an ankheg and can salvage its gall bladder as a makeshift acid flask. Stuff like that is at least marginally more interesting, for me anyways. I will concede, however, that plenty of players will just write down "scroll" or "acid flask" and then it becomes just like any other vendor trash loot.

I also like to have enemies using some of these Consumables, to remind players how effective they can be. Of course this ups the difficulty and needs to be accounted for.

As to the last part, what if you added a Modification bit to said items?

For example, the Bark-Scratched Primal spell could apply a +1 bonus to learn or cast, or the Ankheg Gallbladder Acid Flask a +1 bonus to persistent damage.

That might get 'em to record which one was different because if they don't they miss out on the Modification!

You could also do negative Modifications too (-1 to learn/cast, -1 persistent damage) if you wanted too...


Ok how about this:

Alchemical "Sting" Salve

Spoiler:

(Alchemy, Consumable, Tool)
These tiny vials of blueish-white substance are applied dermally to open wounds and areas of blunt trauma, and immediately begin working to re-seal torn flesh and dissolve into the bloodstream, creating a "stinging" sensation across the affected area of the recipient, and bolstering the immune system temporarily against ongoing effects.
Requirement: You have healer's tools.
Activate: Interact (AA) using healer's tools.
If you are trained in Medicine, you may combine two of the following actions into a single check: Administer First Aid (Stabilize), Administer First Aid (Stop Bleeding), Treat Poison, and/or Treat Wounds. If you also have the Battle Medicine feat, you may instead perform this as a single action (A) using healer's tools.

Minor: as described above.
Lesser: as described above, and the target gains a +1 item bonus to it's next check to recover (if you chose to Stabilize), stop bleeding (if you chose to Stop Bleeding), and/or save vs poison (if you chose to Treat Poison) correspondingly; if you chose to Treat Wounds, and rolled a critical success, the target regains an additional +1d8 hit points.
Moderate: As lesser, but the item bonus is +2 to the target's next check and/or +2d8 hit points on a critical success.
Greater: As moderate, but the item bonus is +3 to the target's next check and/or +3d8 hit points on a critical success.
Major: As greater, but the item bonus is +4 to the target's next check and/or +4d8 hit points on a critical success.


Another route:

1) Choose 5 dragons of appropriate combined CR
2) Treat as a single dragon that acts on 3 different initiative counts per round, with up to 3 reactions per round, randomly determined round-by-round
3) Players must target one "head" per attack/effect - head is "severed" when it's HP total is exceeded

This method requires the least prep-work as you essentially run 5 creatures as if they were 3 at a time.


Agreed with above four posters.

Where else do we see an attack roll that uses a physical ability score to hit, and a spellcasting ability score for damage?


No no no.

When you pay cash, your change is in "gold" bills and "silver" or "copper" coins.

If you put ten units of a lower denomination together, you get a single unit of a higher denominational value.

It's actually addition using base ten, something humans, with their fingers and toes, are hard-wired for.

Which, is actually why I love the new Silver Economy and Bulk Encumbrance systems!


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Zapp wrote:
Personally I don't need any help with my elementary math. I do not consider rounding or fractions "nightmarish". I consider them "trivial".
I literally do not count silver pieces on my PFS 1E characters after a decimal error when accounting. I support not having stupid fractions.

To be fair, Silver-based economy is basically fractions in disguise!

Too, "Light" items using Bulk system! And rounding!

All sneakily re-dressed!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Monk / Cleric (Irori)?


Ok let's "PF2" the tension pool concept. Bear with:

1) Each time the party takes a 10-minute rest in a dungeon, roll a flat check vs DC = 10 + number of dice currently in the tension pool.

2) On a failure, add a die to the tension pool. On a critical failure, roll the pool.

3) Depending on how "high traffic" and how "noisy" the PCs are, vary the type of dice accordingly (ex. Main Hallway and PCs use Blasting Spells and Ki Shouting = d4's; Isolated Corner and PCs use Stealth Tactics and/or Take Out their Foes during First Round = d12's)

X) For larger and/or less populated dungeons, start the flat check base DC lower (at DC 5 or DC 0).


You have inspired my homebrew for Alchemist.

...

A question I have for yours: Why the trajectory adjustment to make Alchemist eventually Legendary in Alchemist Class DC?


Neo2151 wrote:

I'm curious - why is the idea of resurrection magic any more or less fantastical than any other magic in the setting, in that it needs to be so much more rare or restricted?

Or is it actually just the unpleasant thought that you think players popping up again and again from death eliminates tension?
Can your players' party actually afford that? Why are you showering them in diamonds, etc?

Is this a legit problem at tables or is it armchair math gone crazy?

To be fair, unless someone posting here has tried both ways - Raising magic is Common vs. Raising magic is Rare - it is by definition "armchair".

That said, perhaps the existence and proliferation of this thread is proof to the validity of the claim it implicitly pupports?

Perhaps not in your games - perhaps so but you haven't noticed?


Atalius wrote:
rainzax wrote:

Automatic Knowledge.

But this won't really work if your INT and WIS scores are low.

More info on your Bard for better recommendations.

Interesting I could get Assurance for Occultism but not sure how useful Knowledge for Occultism would be?

I can say this.

If rolling successfully to Recall Knowledge is worth an action, allocating resources towards Automatic Knowledge makes this a free action.

If you otherwise use all three of your actions per round, it may be worth considering getting a "fourth" (free).

Again, this is also DM-dependent. If the DM gives good information on a Recall, then it may be worth it.

Just trying to throw you a random idea you may not have considered (hence turning here). Cheers!


Pretty sure it's not a misprint folks.

Bulk, like Encumbrance, is an imperfect system, requiring a human to intercede when the system fails to adequately represent a situation.

There is no perfect system - only ones that lend themselves to more "usability" by virtue of minimizing compromises between opposing forces such as "realism" vs "gamism".

As a DM, if you want to turn up the "realism" notch regarding rations - perhaps because a Theme of your game is Dangerous Wilderness Survival - feel free to houserule Rations as "L per day" or "B per week".

For those who "hate" Bulk there is nothing I can say to make you "un-hate" it. Sorry!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Looks legit to me.

Some stories involve a low-level creature wielding a powerful artifact after all...

1 to 50 of 2,490 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>