rohdester's page

Nice. Now please please more PF1 on Roll20 <3

If they go the "Berserker based in norse culture"-route I really hope they get some native to Northern Europe writing the class, and not some Seattle-dude.

Errenor wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Gortle wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Worth noting that primal casters don't have true strike.

There are ways....

I often use Multitalented to pick up sorcerer with an ancestry feat as a human, then grab dangerous sorcery and basic spellcasting. Boom. true strike if I need it.

I'm always baffled with this (and similar) argument. So, that's the only true way to play casters, then? And therefore anyone else who doesn't do this and can't take True Strike (and plays as a dwarf!! Without Adopted Ancestry (Human)! An outrage!) just plays wrong and must not be taken into account? 'No True Strikers' just don't exist. Problem solved.

Yeah, and also anyone who didn't take Electric Arc, of course.
Which other mandatory tactics did I forget? (All of them naturally must be taken by all characters at the same time.)

Has it ever been any different in past versions of D&D or PF1? Not that I can recall. You picked a certain race with high value stats to start, built those stats as high as possible, then took the high value spells in your slots, and played the way every powerful wizard played. Always been that way.

Wasn't PF2 supposed to solve all this? It seems we have just traded one problem for another. If I want to play caster I have a very very narrow space in which to be creative.

I have been told again and again that PF2 has solved the martial-caster imbalance. But has it really? I am not saying PF2 isn't a great game - there's a lot to like actually. But personally the caster design seems.....off.

Great news!

Please please also improve Roll20 support for PF1. My group plays PF1 on Roll20, and there isn't much content there. I know the ball might be in Roll20's court, but then nudge them :) If the community can help in conversion, I'm sure may would help (like how Fantasy Grounds works).

I would love to see this conversion work - please :) Pretty please :)

rohdester at gmail dot com

Is it me, or did the episodes disappear from the feed? I can only get the last episode in Pocketcast.

Also please continue this. It is awesome! And a great PF2 showcase.

I am reading the Beginner Box - Hero's Handbook, and I'm a bit confused about some of the rules regarding carrying and using items.

As I read the rules, if a PC carries an item in a pocket or a sheath he needs to spend an action retrieving it (e.g. 1 action to draw a dagger from a sheath or 1 action to take out a cigar from a pocket). And then he needs to use one action to actually use the thing (e.g. 1 Strike action to hit with the dagger, or 1 Interact action to light the cigar).

But then it seems there are some exceptions to this. In the description of the Healer's Tool and the Repair Kit (among others) it specifically says that "you can draw and replace them as part of the action that uses them".

The way I understand this is that by default I need two actions: 1 to draw/retrieve and 1 to interact. UNLESS noted otherwise in the description of the gear/item?

Is that correct? Seems like a weird distinction I must say.

I feel like wandering monsters in a dungeon only make sense if the dungeon has lots of empty room in it, as well as multiple routes. Otherwise, if you systematically cleared everything behind you, where is this monster coming from?

"Against the Giants" from Tales from the Yawning Portal has some great random tables.

On these tables they use the monsters/creatures already in the farmstead/dungeon. As an example (just from memory), if you roll e.g. 10 a Stone Giant from the big hall (where a feast is going on), might exit the room, and go outside to get som fresh air. So it's not like random creatures just pop up out of nowhere.

That's a great way to use random tables, which I agree can be a bit strange.

If Paizo is going to do this sort of thing then they need to make it very clear and explicit.

I definitely thought that the advanced maneuver Death Roll was applicable when a target was latched as well. Seems unintuitive if it wasn't.

If you're looking at somebody being attacked and grabbed by a crocodile you wouldn't be like "ahhh now it has grabbed him...no wait only latched....no wait it's a grab".

Seems sensible that Death Roll would apply regardless of target being grabbed or "latched".

So yeah, they could be more specific. Like "a latch doesn't as being grab" or something.