shade2077's page

Goblin Squad Member. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Venture-Agent, Australia—ACT—Canberra 28 posts (29 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 33 Organized Play characters.


Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Per the Rulebook page 331: "To be absolutely certain of having a chance to detect any hazard or secret before walking into it requires an overland Speed no more than 100 feet per minute (1 mile per hour)".

So if you want to see the treasure hidden under the bush, or the partly covered ditch that may break a camel's leg, you will be moving at speed 10!

"If the group moves faster than that, a searching character should get a chance to attempt a Perception check to detect any secret that’s in a place that stands out (such as near a door or a turn in a corridor), but not one that’s in a more inconspicuous place (like a random point in a long hallway)"

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord_Malkov wrote:

But if you like complex systems for describing what makes your character special in the world of the game, its nice to start with what makes them special compared to their fellow party-mates. It also allows the GM to really tailor certain encounters and role playing opportunities to specific players... giving each a time to shine.

In the current Pathfinder, player choices in the expenditure of character building resources have far more weight in determining how good a character is at something than in Pathfinder 2. And since this is ostensibly a forum of Pathfinder players, its not surprising to see a lot of negativity around this issue.

Even great heroes have flaws and weaknesses. It makes them more interesting.

That's exactly my point. I look at the current rules and the lack of being able to increase skills more than at most +5 better (by 17th level) than anyone else in my party makes me feel like we are all from the same cardboard cut-out, with a just little bit of coloring in to distinguish us from each other.

In PF2 all high level characters are experts at everything just because of level, and with the almost complete removal of skill points as you level there is little to distinguish one's skills from another. This is not the game I have enjoyed playing for 20 years (3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder 1E, Starfinder) and not the game I want to play.

Lantern Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I’m currently trying to create a 7th level Bard that I want to have high Bluff (now called Deception) and Sense Motive (now Perception). Deception is a signature skill for Bards - great. Perception is no longer a skill and is defined by Class (Expert for Bard at first level).

As I level I want my character to be better in their skills compared to their untutored companions and I just can’t.

Rogues, Rangers and Fighters become Masters in Perception at 7th as a class ability, but this is not open to other classes. I could take the Alertness feat but that does not increase my Perception level - it only sets it to Expert. I could raise my Wisdom at 5th level but so would most PCs with 4 boosts across 6 stats, and if I started at 18 that brings it to 19 for no mechanical difference to anything.

I can raise by Deception from Trained to Expert to Master, but as I only get 3 skill points to allocate in total over 7 levels (after my initial allocation of Trained skills) this would be most of my available skill increases.

So compared to my companions my Deception improves by maybe +2 and my Perception will actually get worse if they are Fighter, Ranger or Rogue.

I’d suggest the following changes:
1. Either bring back allocating multiple skill points per level (I never heard anybody complain there were too many skill points per class and now we get less?) or make the proficiency levels actually provide a noticeable difference (like +2/+4/+6). I don’t feel +1/+2/+3 with anything above Expert gated by character level to be significant against a roll of D20.

2. Remove the +1 to everything at every level. This doesn’t allow people to tailor their characters in any way and forces them to be better at things they would never do. (“I would never tell a lie. You can trust me…” says the 10th level Paladin with +14 on Deception purely from level + charisma.) I like the idea of getting some auto-improvement but this could be reflected by +1 per 4 or 5 levels.

3. Allow a stat bump above 18 by spending 2 of the 4 ability points allocated at levels 5, 10, 15 and 20; The bump to odd numbers above 18 means no mechanical change from stats for 10 levels.

4. Change Alertness to give you a +2 to Perception, not set the level to Expert.

5. Remove the auto-allocation of Master and Legendary level Perception to Fighter, Ranger and Rogue. Let players decide if they want to spend a Feat on improving Perception or not; alternatively, give All classes a Perception proficiency bump at 7th and 15th levels.

The way classes are currently built and advanced makes me feel like they all come from the same cardboard cutout. They would all have basically the same underlying stats, with only minor variations allocated by the players that are overwhelmed by the giant D20 roll. This is against the design of Pathfinder 1E and leaves me feeling disenfranchised.

Lantern Lodge

Lee Wells wrote:

If you cast a composition like inspire competence(one verbal action)you can use you harmonize (one verbal action) you can then add inspire courage (one verbal action). You have now used all your actions and have two compositions and their effects active.

Normally when you cast a second composition your first one stops. You can also not continue to harmonize in order to stack more compositions on top of the others.

Not quite correct, but almost. The Harmonize power is a Free verbal action (the diamond symbol is not filled in at all). So you can use a Composition, Harmonize, use a second Composition, and still have an action over to move or attack.

Lantern Lodge

I can't find any rule equivalent to the old 'you can Take Ten' (i.e. assume the PC rolls a 10 on the D20) or 'you can take Twenty' (i.e. assume the PC rolls a 20 on the D20) on certain things, like gathering information of diplomacy etc. Is this still allowed at all under the new rule set? If so, in what circumstances?

Lantern Lodge

Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:

You stay in exploration mode while moving through the dungeon, looking for hazards or enemies or interesting features. Up till (typically) a fight breaks out and you call for initiative. When the encounter is resolved, (typically the opponents are defeated) you return to exploration mode.

In exploration mode the PCs might be moving cautiously down a corridor, or looking around for hazards or signs of enemies, or working out how to open a door, or searching through a chest, or keeping a look out, ...

I agree - I don't understand Exploration Mode. I have now run Rose Street Revenge and played the first part of Doomsday Dawn. In neither did Exploration mode make any sense to myself or the other players. The whole party proceeded through the dungeon parts cautiously so moving at half speed. So why couldn't all the PCs be both Defending (i.e. have their weapons out and expect to be attacked), and Searching (looking for hidden doors) and Investigating (thinking about the environment) and Sneaking (trying to be silent) all at the same time? When Sneaking I would expect people to be thinking of the environment and looking out for obstacles that might trip them up; When Searching I would be doing the same; and when Investigating I would be doing the same. I can see a difference between Covering Tracks and Detecting Magic, but I can't Detect Magic and Investigate at the same time and still look out for hazards???

Lantern Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
swordchucks wrote:
Despite running for his life through a million miles of dungeons, the Wizard has no ability to climb a rope?

Of course the wizard has no ability to climb a rope. They learnt Fly and have no need to indulge in mundane tasks...

Lantern Lodge

The DC for a long jump is distance + 5, so to leap over a 10 foot pit is DC 15 Athletics, not DC 20.

The question then becomes, if a character fails the jump what is the DC to use the Grab Edge reaction? I'd be inclided to set it as Low difficulty (DC 10 for level 1 characters in table 10-2).

Lantern Lodge

From the Rulebook page 227: Goblin Pox

Your touch afflicts the target with goblin pox. The effect is based on the result of the target’s Fortitude save.
Success The target is sick 1.
Critical Success The target is unaffected.
Failure The target is afflicted with goblin pox at stage 1.
Critical Failure The target is afflicted with goblin pox at stage 2.
Goblin Pox (disease) Level 1. Goblins and goblin dogs are immune.
Stage 1 sick 1 (1 round); Stage 2 sick 1 and slowed 1 (1 round);
Stage 3 sick 1 and can’t reduce its sick value below 1 (1 day).

So what's the difference between a success and a fail on the saving throw? If the PC saves they get the Sick 1 condition; if the PC fails they get the Sick 1 condition for 1 round.

Lantern Lodge

Some traps list a Stealth DC in their stat block and some list Stealth DC (Trained). What's the difference? Seems to be the 'Trained' is where the trap would list the level of training in Perception to spot the trap. All character classes are currently either Trained or Expert in Perception so there is no effective difference between a 'Trained' trap and one without a 'Trained' tag. So is the 'Trained' there in case classes (or companions) are introduced that are not Trained in Perception? Or perhaps some traps need 'Expert' in Perception to spot, rather than just 'Trained'?


Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Planar Lore is one of the examples in the Rulebook. I'm guessing this equates to the 1E Knowledge (Planes). So you could presumably have Dungeon Lore that gives information similar to 1E Knowledge (Dungeoneering).

Lantern Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
In theory, if a lock is supposed to be difficult for a 10th level character to pick, it would be nigh impossible for a 3rd level character to pick. A merchant wanting to keep people from looting their warehouse might select security measures based on "who is actually likely to rob this place" (i.e. "what is the maximum level of anybody in the local thieves guild, excepting the PCs.)

Who is going to be constructing these locks that are a challenge for a level 10 character to pick? Certainly not your person who has spent their entire life becoming a level 5 expert locksmith because they don't have the 'levels' to create an appropriate challenge. Means we are going to have to populate the world with level 10 experts to create anything of worth that can't be outdone by level 10 characters who have spent their life smashing things to pieces. Bleh!

Please please please remove this 'higher level beats everything' rubbish!

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Narration wrote:

You're bothered that an 8th level character is harder to hit than a 1st level one? To that I say, "No duh." The first level character is a scrub. The eighth level one is an experienced hero who's seen more action than most people ever will.

That's why an 8th level character has a ton more hit points, better armor, better spells, etc. Adding +1 per level to AC is double dipping.

Lantern Lodge

Playtest rulebook page 293: "Negative damage harms the life force of living creatures, and positive damage hurts undead".
I presume this is supposed to be "Negative _energy_ damage harms the life force of living creatures, and positive _energy_ damage hurts undead".

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
WillicarTheWizard wrote:

The example ability arrays in the playtest rulebook aren't that different form the expected array for 4d6 drop lowest: 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9. Having a series of boosts is a nice middle ground that avoids points but keeps it controlled and locks the abilities to values have meaningful consequences (multiples of 2). It ain't bad at all.

Stormbinder wrote:
The stat design and the way PCs are built is one of the most enjoyable aspects of PF2 I have seen thus far. I think for DMs who want weaker PCs they can enforce the rolling rule or maybe they can include somehow 3 modes of play in the final product: Gritty fantasy/ Heroic fantasy/ and Legendary Fantasy. Each of these would reflect different schools of thought regarding PCS. Gritty is mundane/Tolkien fantasy, military style fantasy and/or historical fiction, Heroic Fantasy would be Sword & Sorcery more Howardian style heroes and default D&D style heroes and Legendary would be mythic style fantasy where PCs are scions of like Hercules was and so forth.
This could be implemented with a short mention in the GMing section about adjusting the overall power level by adjusting the base ability block before any boosts. Like if you want everyone to start out "normal" the abilities all start at 8 instead.

This sounds like a great idea to me. Have a starting number of 8 in all stats for Gritty fantasy; a starting number in all stats of 10 for Heroic fantasy; and a starting number in all stats of 12 for Legendary Fantasy. When creating NPCs you could use the tier 1 down from that used for PCs. Then you add the ancestry/background/class adjustments to the base array.

Lantern Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Igor Horvat wrote:

Oh no!

Not this again.

Now it is on AC also?

I thing that this will give too much power to higher level characters over lower level encounters.

They will become too trivial.

the +1 per level needs to go ASAP.

flatten it down to +1 per 4 or 5 levels.

And remove it from AC.

I agree totally with the above. I often play at tables where there can be 4 levels different between the top level PC and bottom. With the +1/level to everything the low level PC is really going to suffer in achieving anything meaningful. The low level wizard is going to be outclassed on knowledge skills by the higher level uneducated barbarian. The low level barbarian is going to be outclassed on physical tests by the high level weakling wizard. This is bad for player satisfaction.

Pathfinder is supposed to be a group game where obstacles are overcome by teamwork. Not everyone needs to be good at everything and character choices should matter. The low strength character gets hauled over obstacles by the strong. The intellectual character solves the research project while the person only trained in fighting stands guard. If you need a diplomat, bring a person trained in diplomacy not just j random person with a higher level.

I would like to see more skill points than 2 per class (as per Edition 1 with many classes) but I believe adding +1 to all skills per level ruins character adaptability and makes a sameness to all PCs. IMO it also removes the need for player cooperation, which should be an integral part of the game, because at higher levels everyone becomes great at everything.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alchemaic wrote:
GrandReaper wrote:
I would rather see level drop to lvl/2 or so and increase the gap in the proficiency tiers (maybe -3/0/+1/+3/+5).
+1 to this, though I'd be fine with keeping it at a full level if the difference between tiers is still something you can feel in your die rolls. I'm fine with my angry anarchist Barbarian picking up enough decorum over time to be able to hold a conversation with a noble, but I'm not fine with a Barbarian with 6 Charisma and untrained Diplomacy being able to potentially beat a Legendary diplomat Bard with 22 Charisma and a Circlet of Persuasion with a roll of 16+

I also think the +1 per level is way too much and offsets any difference that untrained/trained/expert provides. IMO the lvl/2 is plenty sufficient (may be even too generous) and I would also increase the gap in the proficiency tiers as suggested above (-3/0/+1/+3/+5).

I find it totally unbelievable that an Untrained level 4 character (skills at -1+4=3) is better than a Trained level 1 character (skills at +1+1=2). Try equating that to a person trained in a musical instrument - a level 10 PC should not be getting bonuses to Perform without ever investing any effort (i.e. skill training) into it.

Lantern Lodge **** Venture-Agent, Australia—ACT—Canberra aka shade2077

The problem is that many scenarios contains words such as "If the PCs don’t search the offices in this area, reduce each PC’s credits earned by the amount listed below". I believe that when the players use intelligent play to bypass an area (including a bunch of skill checks) to get to the main objective, the PCs should not be penalized. Similarly, I believe that stealing everything from people/places that the PCs encounter during the course of play should not be mandated by authors. All too often authors insist on penalizing the PCs for not being murder hobos or kleptomaniacs.

What do other GMs do when they encounter module text like the above that penalizes PCs that manage to overcome the challenge by use of guile/stealth. In the example above there was no reason to even go to the area in question with a little bit of forethought and planning (and passing stealth/engineering/computers skill checks).

Does the Starfinder Guide override specific scenario text?

Lantern Lodge **** Venture-Agent, Australia—ACT—Canberra aka shade2077

How much discretion does a GM have to adjust the rewards for scenerios if players don't do as the module expects?

I've played 2 scenarios recently (one Pathfinder and one Starfinder) where the PCs used smart play with diplomacy or sneakiness to avoid combat. At the end of both scenarios the rewards were reduced because the PCs didn't either steal everything that wasn't nailed down in the house of a person being investigated, or used forthought and guile to avoind guards entirely (and thus not having guard rooms to ransack).

I believe that GMs should have the ability to provide full rewards to PCs that 'defeat' an obstacle, no matter if that obstacle was 'defeated' by diplomacy, guile, or hitting it on the head; even if the module specifically says "reduce the rewards if the PCs didn't loot X" (where X is an aside to the main mission objectives).

Lantern Lodge

I can't even find the My Downloads page. Can someone please put in a link? Thanks...

Lantern Lodge

Deadmanwalking wrote:

By the time you can Take 10 you'll almost never need to do that.

Assuming a 12 starting stat with a +4, or an 18 Dex and a +4 item, plus level ups, your total bonus at 7th should be +19. That's auto-success on CR 9 or less foes.

Unlike Pathfinder you should basically never be fighting encounters with creatures more than a CR or two above you.

If you start with an 18 at first level you can only increase that to 19 from the 5th level stat bump, which doesn't give any benefit to the DCs you can hit. I can't see how you are getting anything like +19. Care to explain?

Lantern Lodge

Oykiv wrote:
Also there's no tool kit (engineering speciality - hacking) if only because hacking depends of the computer skill.

The book says I can buy a Hacking kit but doesn't indicate what bonus it provides or how much it costs. Does that mean I can't hack unless I have a kit but I spend 25 credits and get the ability to make hacking checks? That makes no sense.

Jhaeman's answer above is logical and similar to Pathfinder rules (-2 with no kit, +0 with a standard kit and +2 with a speciality kit) but the whole section is unclear. As written it seems some kits provide a +4 on some skill checks (e.g. rider's kit) while others have no designated bonus (hacking kit).

Lantern Lodge

The Starfinder Core Rulebook lists the following items:
Tool kit, level 1, 20 credits
Tool kit - engineering speciality, level 2, 445 credits

Under the entry for Tool Kit it says "a set of specialized tools and devices... Engineering checks without one take a –2 penalty".

Under the entry for Tool Kit - engineering speciality - it says "These kits each provide a +2 circumstance bonus to a specific use of the Engineering skill".

So is the entry for Tool kit (that provides "specialized tools") for the 20 c. item or the 445 c. item?

What bonus to Engineering (Computers, hacking) or Engineering (Trapsmith) do I get if I spend 445 c. on a Tool Kit (Engineering Speciality)?

I seems that as written I could buy a Tool kit (hacking) or Toolkit (trapsmith) for 20 c. and get a +4 bonus, or buy a Tool kit (engineering speciality - hacking) or Tool kit (engineering speciality - trapsmith) for 445 c. and get a +2 bonus. This seems back to front.


Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I tried to prep this for a game tomorrow night but have failed. There is a whole set of complicated new rules that I am unable to understand, let alone try to explain to the players. I hope other people have better luck.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I just played this one. I'd advise holding off on playing it. The module is obviously unfinished, leaving the conclusion for many players left up to the discretion of the GM as the module does not address the most obvious conclusion.

Lantern Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Anyone else having weird respawn places? I respawned once at the top of a tree and my latest respawn is up in the clouds!

Lantern Lodge

Ghost Touch is a +3 armor enhancement. Does it do anything else other than protect against touch attacks from incorporeal creatures? That is great when you run up against ghosts or shadows, but highly situational. I think it is way over priced. For that money I would expect it to protect against all touch attacks (corporeal or incorporeal). Am I better off just getting a straight +3 that will protect against the vast majority of attacks?

Lantern Lodge

My level 4 Gnome witch rides around on her pig familiar. Recently we got attacked by some undead and a zombie tried to eat the witch. I wanted the familiar to bite the zombie and the GM called for a Handle Animal check. Can anyone point me to rules that require familiars to be taught how to attack 'unnatural' creatures (as per the rules for Handle Animal) or that a Witch riding her familiar would need to make Ride checks to control the mount in battle? How would you go about getting a familar 'combat trained'?