Aredil Sultur

sherlock1701's page

Organized Play Member. 460 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 460 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Under Magic Weapon on page 599-600 of the CRB. It uses the language "x extra damage dice".

On AON:link


Incap spells are partly useless because they do nothing to bosses. Crippling bosses is far, far more useful than crippling their minions

The other part of their uselessness is that there are usually better options at the level you have to heighten them to for them to be at all effective. Essentially, they're generally only worthwhile at their base spell level. They're just too unreliable to bother with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think a lot depends on how you run games and perceive the world as players.

For example, in games that I run, class abilities and spell names are known things in character. People know that a spell is 'cure light wounds' or 'bladed dash'. People know a gunslinger has grit. Spells are codified in books by their level of power.

In my current setting, spell incantations are subroutine calls to a set of goddesses that interface with the world through complex thaumaturgic computers. I've written up a little bit of language for the computers and incantations.

Class abilities changing or disappearing if you run a world like this is of significant note if you have an ongoing campaign. People would understand that teleportation, once freely available to all mages who trained enough, was suddenly restricted. Weapons that used to work one way suddenly function completely differently. Magic items and spells that used to work together in harmony suddenly no longer function the same way, and now the strongest one overrides the others.

I like characters in game having that level of "meta" knowledge. It makes sense to me that they would understand how their world works. It also means that an edition change is virtually impossible unless I write a whole new setting, or majorly time shift the one I have.


Gorbacz wrote:
That, or that PF3 will be more like PF1, which means we're in for a decade of constructive criticism.

It's this one. I'd also be fine with a much more nitty-gritty system than PF1 for PF3 (e.g. making height and weight have mechanical effects, more realistic depictions of gear, more skills, more bonus types, etc.)


0o0o0 O 0o0o0 wrote:

That speedy but weak elf gets tangled up in the fruit cart as he crashes into it while the dwarf just powers through, barely hindered by the flying apples and melons.

I assume your chase sequence has a fruit cart

Bah, why use a fruit cart when there's always a cabbage cart around?


I do miss the coupe de gras rules, and I would like to see them return. I think this is a case where you could use the 4 degrees system well.

For example:
The attacker hits automatically for normal damage. If this doesn't take the target out, they make a Fort save against DC equal to the damage taken (this works out to a reasonably easy DC assuming average damage for an equal level subject). On a failure, they're dying 1 (so can hero point out of it). On a crit failure, they die completely.

In the given scenario, the innkeeper's son probably deals 3 or 4 damage, so the player only fails on a nat 1 and likely can't critically fail.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
I'm not sure how "want to autosucceed" isn't wanting an easier game.

In fairness to sherlock1701, he appears to want a game where making a character who can auto-succeed is a game in and of itself. One like PF1 where character creation is full of bad choices as well as good ones and you need a certain degree of system knowledge to achieve such a character.

I think that sounds hideous, personally, and suspect the majority agree with me, but I wouldn't call it an easy game.

Well apart from the bad choices part the ability to design characters to auto succeed at tasks is possible, if you make the game easier by uniformly adjusting dcs down by about 4.

Problem is that maxing out your roll in PF2 is too easy, there's no challenge to be had then.

One of my favorite characters was a fighter built around armor spikes with bull rush and overrun - it took something like six or eight hours of digging through feat interactions and whatnot to come up with something really effective and powerful, that could succeed most of the time and deal heavy damage.

The fun was in spending all that time rooting around the rules to cone up with a character who was as good at something as they could be. I don't really see things like this ever being possible with the way PF2 is designed. It's too easy to max your roll and pick your options. There's little joy to be found in a game that gives you the best possible character without any major effort.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:


I feel sherlock's game play style should be supported (guidelines in the gmg for making the game easier for example) but that doesn't mean I support the intent behind his posts.

I don't want an easy game, I want the challenge in a different place.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
I dunno John, this is a person whose stated goal on the forums us to spend his time trying to make pf2 seem as bad as possible so it fails and they make a pf3 he personally is happy with. I think most people would agree that such an approach can only be detrimental to the community (and company) as a whole.

Thats...not at all what I said. I don't "hope PF2 fails". I want a PF3 that's better. Paizo has to stick around for that to happen. What I did say is that I'm being vocal about my complaints in the hopes that future versions (or this version, though I realize that's unlikely) will improve.

I honestly don't know how you could have gotten that I hope PF2 fails, or that I'm somehow 'out to destroy the community' from what I have said. Yes, it's not the game I hoped for and it is disappointing, but my aim is to make the next one better, not make this one fail.


Rysky wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
K1 wrote:

One session with Monsters disarming aoe players and players will understand why disarm is something which is not worth in a system like this.

Or eventually a couple of mobs who disarm a player, loot his weapon worth all his equip, and run/teleport away.

Repeat until the players won’t have anything else left.

Players start to go with chain glove?
Mobs, which are not necessarily stupid, will do the same.

Sometimes players see a mechanic only on their side, but they not always realize that it could be used against them.

In this case, disarm on Normal hit and chain glove to get a hold grip for their weapon.

You're saying all this like it's a bad thing.
It is. It’s bad design, and boring at that.
Only boring if you enjoy constant failure. I don't. It's the pinnacle of design, because you can fail constantly if you build one way, and succeed constantly if you build another, thereby enabling any level of play to suit taste.
... there’s a vey big gulf inbetween “always succeed” and “constant failure” in play.

If you're likely to fail the roll more than once or twice in a session it's constant.

Attack rolls after the first get a partial pass if the first one is a near guaranteed success.


Rysky wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
K1 wrote:

One session with Monsters disarming aoe players and players will understand why disarm is something which is not worth in a system like this.

Or eventually a couple of mobs who disarm a player, loot his weapon worth all his equip, and run/teleport away.

Repeat until the players won’t have anything else left.

Players start to go with chain glove?
Mobs, which are not necessarily stupid, will do the same.

Sometimes players see a mechanic only on their side, but they not always realize that it could be used against them.

In this case, disarm on Normal hit and chain glove to get a hold grip for their weapon.

You're saying all this like it's a bad thing.
It is. It’s bad design, and boring at that.

Only boring if you enjoy constant failure. I don't. It's the pinnacle of design, because you can fail constantly if you build one way, and succeed constantly if you build another, thereby enabling any level of play to suit taste.


Castilliano wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

Another option is you could use a success disarms and a critical success let's you either snag the weapon or going it into a further square. But that is a pretty big buff that will probably hurt players more than it helps them.

We tried disarm on success at first (before the playtest). It makes gameplay pretty miserable for anyone who depends on a weapon, particularly if the other team has low-value characters at hand who can pick it up and just start leaving with the weapon, both of which are more likely to affect the PCs (monsters don't as often have weapons, and the bad guys more often have minions who can spend actions to dash away, or 5th level dimension door miles away, with the weapon without weakening their side much). Assuming you don't wind up with a gentleperson's agreement at the table to just never use it, like some groups had for breaking gear in PF1. PF1 had a weird side way around PC frustration for disarm by virtue of having two or three negligible-cost ways to be essentially immune to disarming that PCs used and published NPCs and monsters weren't written to include, but that sort of winds up with no one being able to use it if the GM, quite reasonably, has NPCs adopt the same simple methods as the PCs.
So instead it's a waste of time and effort.

Or it's a high risk, high reward tactic.

And I'd rather the minions needed a 20 to disarm my PC so that they don't try because whatever you can do with a success, they'll have a shot at doing to you.

And cheap equipment had already nullified disarming in PF1. Really cheap, and easy to improvise since it was just a cord tied to a weapon so even primitives might have them. And if disarming were that easy in their reality, they would have them. I'd rather Disarm be a dramatic event. I say this as somebody who used a True Strike wand to disarm at will in PF1, which was funny, but grew old fast. Imagine taking 3 feats to be great at...

Even with a weapon cord, you still cost them a move action to retrieve it, which means no full attacks. That's well worth the effort.

Disarm is defeated by locked gauntlets, but those do come with other drawbacks.

You can also make a weapon cord in pf2. It may not be an official item, but you can still tie a bit of rope (or a strip of leather sliced off a belt pouch, etc) to your arm and the weapon. It just matters less because nobody is foolish enough to actually try to disarm you in PF2. Much like KAC+8 in starfinder, crit success is a ridiculously hard target for a maneuver.

I suppose if it inflicted a penalty of some type to the enemy, it might be ok, but as it is it basically does nothing on a normal success so it's unreliable and therefore useless.


At the end of the day where they stand won't matter much since intelligent ranged enemies will usually go for the caster. Using cover is more important for a caster when archers, etc are in the mix.


HammerJack wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
HammerJack wrote:

Only disarming on a critical success is definitely in line with how other major debilitating actions in 2E work, and I would say it's a good decision. I certainly wouldn't want to see a return to combat maneuver specialized characters who always use their one preferred maneuver, under all applicable circumstances, which might well happen if you could get a disarm or restrain result on a normal success.

The Success effect only impacting further disarm attempts, instead of applying a minor penalty to the target is a less sound decision, I think, and not in line with other options.

Why do you have a problem with people specializing and being good at what they do, and then using their best skills at every opportunity? That's how it's meant to be played.

Because combat maneuvers used with variety and by situation make things much more interesting and unpredictable than builds focused around a single tactic. When every encounter, or a heavy majority of them, are handled with identical tactics, it gets old. As much fun as building PF1 characters and optimizing their ability in one area can be, I usually finds that it's often necessary to then take several steps backward for the game play to still be fun.

That's why, while I don't like every decision that was made with PF2, I'm very glad of the reduction in ability to stack bonuses onto a single thing. The ability to specialize and be good at something is a strength of the system, but the ability to specialize to the point of eliminating the chance of failure in any remotely level appropriate challenge is a major failing.

It's the biggest success of the system, not a major failing.


K1 wrote:

One session with Monsters disarming aoe players and players will understand why disarm is something which is not worth in a system like this.

Or eventually a couple of mobs who disarm a player, loot his weapon worth all his equip, and run/teleport away.

Repeat until the players won’t have anything else left.

Players start to go with chain glove?
Mobs, which are not necessarily stupid, will do the same.

Sometimes players see a mechanic only on their side, but they not always realize that it could be used against them.

In this case, disarm on Normal hit and chain glove to get a hold grip for their weapon.

You're saying all this like it's a bad thing.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

They have not.

Most spellcasters get to Legendary in their casting, which is +2 over Master, and duplicated for attacks only among Fighters of the non-spellcasters. This was considered a sufficient accuracy bump.

Whether it really is such a bump is a slightly different question, but that's the logic for why such things do not exist.

It isn't. Spells should be markedly more accurate than normal attacks since they're a limited resource.


Tarondor wrote:
I’m coming at it from a different perspective. My thirty year old SCA shield is in perfect order, but I’ve had to repair my helm and armor many times. Just saying.

Yeah, shields are very durable in real life, you can't just smack them once or twice and make them unusable.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

Another option is you could use a success disarms and a critical success let's you either snag the weapon or going it into a further square. But that is a pretty big buff that will probably hurt players more than it helps them.

We tried disarm on success at first (before the playtest). It makes gameplay pretty miserable for anyone who depends on a weapon, particularly if the other team has low-value characters at hand who can pick it up and just start leaving with the weapon, both of which are more likely to affect the PCs (monsters don't as often have weapons, and the bad guys more often have minions who can spend actions to dash away, or 5th level dimension door miles away, with the weapon without weakening their side much). Assuming you don't wind up with a gentleperson's agreement at the table to just never use it, like some groups had for breaking gear in PF1. PF1 had a weird side way around PC frustration for disarm by virtue of having two or three negligible-cost ways to be essentially immune to disarming that PCs used and published NPCs and monsters weren't written to include, but that sort of winds up with no one being able to use it if the GM, quite reasonably, has NPCs adopt the same simple methods as the PCs.

So instead it's a waste of time and effort.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HammerJack wrote:

Only disarming on a critical success is definitely in line with how other major debilitating actions in 2E work, and I would say it's a good decision. I certainly wouldn't want to see a return to combat maneuver specialized characters who always use their one preferred maneuver, under all applicable circumstances, which might well happen if you could get a disarm or restrain result on a normal success.

The Success effect only impacting further disarm attempts, instead of applying a minor penalty to the target is a less sound decision, I think, and not in line with other options.

Why do you have a problem with people specializing and being good at what they do, and then using their best skills at every opportunity? That's how it's meant to be played.


BellyBeard wrote:

Okay, but imagine if enemies were constantly disarming you. This would be made more frustrating by the fact that, as you pointed out, many monsters use natural attacks and can't be disarmed. It would make unarmed attack builds more powerful for their inherent immunity to disarm.

If there were an immunity-to-disarm weapon chain, why would it only be used by bbegs?

I think disarm was nerfed primarily because it's an unfun tactic. For characters who rely on their primary weapon, it is too powerful a debuff, compared to for example shoving you a couple spaces or making you spend an action to stand.

I do think a buff to the tune of "the penalty to attack lasts until the end of their turn" would make it feel less useless though.

Locked gauntlet.


graystone wrote:
Narxiso wrote:
Atalius wrote:
Dirge of Doom with lingering Performance even better
I think dirge of doom is the best cantrip. However, it’s a debuff, not a buff.
I tend to bypass Demoralize because you're only casting 1 Composition Cantrip most times, unless you Harmonize but that's your whole round. You can instead Demoralize and use a Composition Cantrip and have another action free or cast a normal buff spell too. Sure it's only 1 foe at a time but it's 1 foe frightened plus your other buff. [it's a double whammy for the foe as it gets debuffed and the party gets a buff]

You can cast dirge of doom to inflict frightened 1 for 1 round, no save, then follow up with inspire courage to buff allies, no harmonize needed, so long as you don't go right before all the baddies.

The fear effect of dirge of doom is immediate. The only thing you lose this way is that enemies can recover from the fear normally on their turn. As long as you don't go right before them, it gives your allies time to take advantage of both at once. And you can still shoot a bow or something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
What I wanted from PF2 was an evolution on PF1 with even more options and depth. What I got instead was a completely different game with little depth by comparison. So yes, I am disappointed in PF2, which is why I am particularly active on the boards here as opposed to other systems I dislike, which I largely ignore.

What in the world do you hope to achieve by posting regularly and extensively about a game you clearly dislike?

I mean, seriously, you're constantly running down a game other people are (kinda definitionally) here to enjoy. That's just unpleasant for everyone else, and I can't imagine it's super fun for you either, so why in the world are you doing it?

At least one of the following:

1) PF3, if and when it is released, winds up being more in line with my tastes

2) They release an 'unchained' book with more palatable rules

3) They significantly overhaul the system in the next printing

The first two at least have a decent chance of happening. It isn't fun, but it's necessary to be constantly heard to be taken into account for future plans. I'm doing everything I can to push towards a shift back at some point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

Now it seems like you have a general disregard for the design philosophy of PF2 and probably are better off playing another game, but do you spend as much time on other product message boards disparaging them for not catering to you as an audience? or do you feel particularly betrayed by Paizo because you found PF1 to be the exact game you loved and no one wants to play it with you anymore because it is not the new shiny thing?

If that is the case, and you can't find PF1 tables to play at near you, I suggest you look online because, last I checked, there were still lots of people playing PF1 on Roll 20 with open spots for new players.

More or less this, PF1 is the perfect game in my opinion. I had very high hopes for PF2 when I first heard it was announced, which were subsequently wiped during the playtest, and I'm even more disappointed by the final. I put in a fair bit of feedback during the playtest, and my thoughts were clearly ignored (the only big change I see that I wanted from the playtest is items having HP instead of dents).

What I wanted from PF2 was an evolution on PF1 with even more options and depth. What I got instead was a completely different game with little depth by comparison. So yes, I am disappointed in PF2, which is why I am particularly active on the boards here as opposed to other systems I dislike, which I largely ignore.

Online play just doesn't do it for me unless I already know the people I'm gaming with. I much prefer to sit at the same table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:


It's not at the expense of anything. I know of 0 fighters who would want the buffs on them to last for less time.
I know of 0 fighters who given the choice between being awesome because he is inherently good or being awesome because the wizard decided to offload some low level spells onto him will choose to need the wizard.

Ah, so we should just delete all the buff spells then, I see. Nobody would ever want a buff, given the choice between having one and not having one.


GameDesignerDM wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:

When I think about it, there are 2 annoying things in this system:

- My alchemist will be trained in all skills but one at level 20. And I've not even tried to do it, it's by chance. So, trained is the new untrained.
- The new system is far better to handle very different skill level thanks to the 2 level of success. A character that is just trained can aim for the success, when the legendary wizard could aim for the critical success. So, even when you have an enormous score in a skill, you still need to roll the die.

I agree with Claxon, for me, they overdid it.

It baffles me. You are wanting to make the rolling of the dice irrelevant in a game where rolling the dice is the game mechanic.

And a major fault of PF1, in my opinion, was that at a certain point you had such a huge bonus that the main mechanic of the game became irrelevant outside of combat. If you had a high enough bonus, it was like "well, you could roll, but you're not gonna fail" - frankly, anything that prevents that is a good step.

I think it's also important to remember that from what it seems like, the baseline competence for EVERYTHING if you're an adventurer is so far above non-adventurers, because if you're an adventurer, you probably know how to handle things. (Such as why an Alchemist could be almost as good at Stealth as a Rogue at certain levels.)

Otherwise you wouldn't be an adventurer.

That's the main selling point though. It sucks to be a slave to RNG for areas you've focused in. Failing now and then is one thing, but failing frequently (>15% or so) is just irritating. And, you have to invest a lot of time to make your character the best they can be. Here, it's impossible not to make them the best they can be unless you deliberately shoot yourself in the foot sonehow.


Arachnofiend wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
I think a great houserule is adding "per level" to the duration of most spells with an hour or less duration. Shoulda been that way RAW, but here we are.

It's a great houserule if the intent is to make it so that spells that are written to last a single encounter instead last many encounters as you get further up in levels.

By which I mean it's a terrible houserule.

I mean it's bad if you hate magic. If you like spells with durations being actually relevant it's good.
I love magic, and I find your suggested house rule bad.
Yeah, but do you love magic to the expense of everything that doesn't have magic? If not then you don't really love magic.

It's not at the expense of anything. I know of 0 fighters who would want the buffs on them to last for less time.


Unicore wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:


That right there is the issue. It's a poor design philosophy that sucks the fun out of gameplay. Manipulating your chance of success to 90+% for specialties is the most enjoyable way to play. Failing constantly is no...
PF2 actually can easily support this "training wheels" method of play as well. Just shift the difficulty of all desired tasks down by 4 levels. Untrained characters will still sometimes struggle with a task, but it will shift the math to right about where you want it to be.

That's not fun, you don't have to work for it. In PF1, to achieve that level of success, you had to build your character right and use the right buffs. In PF2, anyone optimizing something has around the same number range. It's zero effort to be the best you can be. And even then you still fail 30 to 50% of the time.

And to those saying "then what's the point of the die", crits or "beating by 5 or more", obviously.

The whole numeric advancement is just so shallow and simple and it's really a huge step back.


Ascalaphus wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
I felt considerably more versatile than most PF1 characters are at low level.

And that's kind of my point. More versatility, less specialization and skill checks are all about the die :)

If I take the example of Starfinder (that I find at a good spot when it comes to skills):
My Envoy started with +1d6+8 in Diplomacy. My Mechanic started with +10 in Engineering and +9 in Computers. My Mystic started with +14 in Mysticism (the highest you can get at first level).
Level 1 average checks are at DC 16, so all my characters still had to roll the die, even my over-specialized Mystic. But they were far above the other characters, so I was feeling my competence.

Well, I think there you really are bumping up against some of the design goals of PF2 that I think are showing through:

* Very few checks where the outcome is basically assured. So letting you have a +14 at level 1 when a typical DC is 16 would be against the design goal.

* Keeping characters who "are at least trying" and "trying really hard" in the same ballpark. The maximum skill bonus for a character at level 1 is +7, while the floor is -1. But the distance between someone with a 10 ability and trained is the distance between +3 and +7; a noticeable difference if you do a couple of checks, but not so much that you just have to give up altogether.

PF1 had trouble with setting up challenges that challenged both the specialist and the dabbler. Something that was achievable for the dabbler was trivial for the specialist, and something challenging for the specialist was entirely out of reach for the dabbler. PF2 brings them closer together, but you still notice the specialist being successful more often and critically succeeding more often.

That right there is the issue. It's a poor design philosophy that sucks the fun out of gameplay. Manipulating your chance of success to 90+% for specialties is the most enjoyable way to play. Failing constantly is no fun at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
I think a great houserule is adding "per level" to the duration of most spells with an hour or less duration. Shoulda been that way RAW, but here we are.

It's a great houserule if the intent is to make it so that spells that are written to last a single encounter instead last many encounters as you get further up in levels.

By which I mean it's a terrible houserule.

I mean it's bad if you hate magic. If you like spells with durations being actually relevant it's good.


Gaulin wrote:


Casters in general are okay with cantrips, but a single martial regular strike (ignoring all the other feats they can get to improve their damage) does as much or more than a two action cantrip. I know in the grand scheme of things it's balanced because of spells.

It's not balanced, spells are pretty lackluster now. Mostly just there for flashy variety compared to PF1 where they were actually worthwhile.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think a great houserule is adding "per level" to the duration of most spells with an hour or less duration. Shoulda been that way RAW, but here we are.


Resurrection being widely available was something that set these games aside and provided for a really cool and interesting take on the world when reasonably applied. I for one am sorry to see it go.


Arakasius wrote:

Thing is the majority of dips weren’t really cool or flavorful, they were either 1. Poaching other class features for mechanical benefit (Aka higher numbers) or 2. Gaining bonus feats/ shortcutting feat chains. Once you take out those you took out 95% or more of PF1 multiclassing. The rest was either prestige class prerequisites (which was unsatisfying since usually til you unlocked the prestige class your character sucked, see dragon disciple) or a few cases of legitimate coolness that wasn’t just math. Also a major negative of the system as has been said by others is just how user unfriendly it was and that it was so easy to nerf your character.

Anyway with PF2 having much flatter math the poaching features was removed (I mean you can poach rage now but it’s a minor boost since you don’t get the further scaling features) and removal of long huge general feat chains means the other reason is gone. Add in being user friendly and not losing your main class features and it’s pretty obvious why they removed old style multiclassing.

Those dips sound cool in my book. PF1 style was a hell of a lot more fun and effective than whatever this is. Shoulda kept PF1 style and had VMC separate like before.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
Pathfinder is a game. Golarion is a setting. Golarion is not pathfinder.
And you’d be wrong.

How? I've never DM'ed a game set in Golarion and probably never will. I've used the pathfinder rule set a bunch though

All the Pathfinder APs and rulebooks and other books are tied to Golarion.

The Pathfinder comics are set in Golarion.

The Pathfinder Tales are set in Golarion.

The 3.5 setting guide was called Pathfinder Chronicles.

You can have a homebrew setting and adventures that doesn’t involve Golarion (I do too), but claiming Golarion isn't Pathfinder isn’t true.

It is true though. Claiming that pathfinder is Golarion is like claiming that D&D is dragonlance. They're not the same. They're just settings used in their respective rulesets. I could claim my Endless Frontier setting is pathfinder, but it isn't.


breithauptclan wrote:
Frogliacci wrote:
If we actually look at fantasy fiction and video games, Vancian casting and even spell slots would look strange at best and utterly outdated at worst.

Chrono Cross. That is the only video game that I have ever encountered that had the same style of spell preparation.

And yes, it is rather strange to have that in a video game.

And since it is for the original PlayStation, it is also a very old game at this point.

Final Fantasy 3 also used spell slots. Many the games based on D&D have as well, and Pathfinder Kingmaker of course. Dark Souls 1 and 2 both used prepared limited spells. Not Vancian per se, but the same basic idea. PoE too for some classes.


Rysky wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
Pathfinder is a game. Golarion is a setting. Golarion is not pathfinder.
And you’d be wrong.

How? I've never DM'ed a game set in Golarion and probably never will. I've used the pathfinder rule set a bunch though


Rysky wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:

I've read novels based on ttrpg worlds where each sentence in an interaction between two people or two groups of people can be decoded for the exact rules from that rpg. You can tell from the description which dice rolls failed, and can often tell when the character rolled a crit.

Following the basic mechanics in their narrative can lead to some pretty boring fiction.

Those same authors have written some soaring fiction on their own, but when constrained by the rules of the rpg, it was clunky and painful.

If I'm looking for fiction from an RPG world this is specifically what I want. There's plenty of other options in the fantasy realm if I want something different. Using the RPG's name to sell the novel then completely divorcing it from the game is false advertising.

At the very least there needs to be a prominent disclaimer on the front cover indicating that they didn't bother using the rule set and only took fluff into consideration. Its still a waste of an opportunity though.

The world setting the game takes place in is not “fluff”, nor is it false advertising to base a story in that setting.

If I buy a fantasy novel it’s for story and setting, I don’t want a dissertation on the mechanics for a system that uses that setting. The system and mechanics are irrelevant.

It is false advertising to use the name of a game system and then not use its rules to drive the narrative setup. If I see a game system on a novel cover, I would naturally assume that to be a major feature of the story.

If I don't care about system and mechanics, there are thousands of fantasy novels that don't need to follow a system because they aren't affiliated with a game. However, for ones that are, the system and mechanics are the primary consideration.

Pathfinder is a brand as much as rules, and as much a setting as rules. Having a Pathfinder novel that focused on the setting is not false...

Pathfinder is a game. Golarion is a setting. Golarion is not pathfinder.


Rysky wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Easy, characters in the story get the same abilities at the same time a character in the game would have, with little to no rules alteration.
Levels don’t exist in novels though, and Archetypes can trade out when and if you get abilities. And then there’s multiclassing and Prestige Classes.

They can exist in novels (c.f the LitRPG subgenre) and therefore you can plan abilities out with them. You can also reasonably have multiclass or prestige class levels described like this.


Rysky wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:

I've read novels based on ttrpg worlds where each sentence in an interaction between two people or two groups of people can be decoded for the exact rules from that rpg. You can tell from the description which dice rolls failed, and can often tell when the character rolled a crit.

Following the basic mechanics in their narrative can lead to some pretty boring fiction.

Those same authors have written some soaring fiction on their own, but when constrained by the rules of the rpg, it was clunky and painful.

If I'm looking for fiction from an RPG world this is specifically what I want. There's plenty of other options in the fantasy realm if I want something different. Using the RPG's name to sell the novel then completely divorcing it from the game is false advertising.

At the very least there needs to be a prominent disclaimer on the front cover indicating that they didn't bother using the rule set and only took fluff into consideration. Its still a waste of an opportunity though.

The world setting the game takes place in is not “fluff”, nor is it false advertising to base a story in that setting.

If I buy a fantasy novel it’s for story and setting, I don’t want a dissertation on the mechanics for a system that uses that setting. The system and mechanics are irrelevant.

It is false advertising to use the name of a game system and then not use its rules to drive the narrative setup. If I see a game system on a novel cover, I would naturally assume that to be a major feature of the story.

If I don't care about system and mechanics, there are thousands of fantasy novels that don't need to follow a system because they aren't affiliated with a game. However, for ones that are, the system and mechanics are the primary consideration.


CrystalSeas wrote:

I've read novels based on ttrpg worlds where each sentence in an interaction between two people or two groups of people can be decoded for the exact rules from that rpg. You can tell from the description which dice rolls failed, and can often tell when the character rolled a crit.

Following the basic mechanics in their narrative can lead to some pretty boring fiction.

Those same authors have written some soaring fiction on their own, but when constrained by the rules of the rpg, it was clunky and painful.

If I'm looking for fiction from an RPG world this is specifically what I want. There's plenty of other options in the fantasy realm if I want something different. Using the RPG's name to sell the novel then completely divorcing it from the game is false advertising.

At the very least there needs to be a prominent disclaimer on the front cover indicating that they didn't bother using the rule set and only took fluff into consideration. Its still a waste of an opportunity though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Rysky wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
BTW what happened to all the Evil-detecting low-level Paladins in the setting ?
Lorewise Detect Evil was a pretty advanced ability that not every paladin even had, so its new placement matches up with that.

Detect Evil was literally a lv 1 ability for default Paladins. Any Paladin that did not get it at lv 1 (or some other point) was most likely using a Paladin Archetype, of which only a little less than half replaced it.

So can you PM me where that lore is from?

But other wise that was not the question, it was not about all Paladins regardless of getting Detect Evil; It was just about the ones that did get it.

I said lorewise, all the novels that have Paladins have Detecting evil be something they get late as an advanced technique, it's not the first thing they pick up as a Paladin, that's usually smite.

That's goofy. Why would you write a novel if you don't know the basics of the class you're writing about? If a paladin has detect evil at level one, then that's what they get in the book. I detest authors (like Salvatore) who use a system to sell their work but don't even follow the most basic of mechanics in their narrative.


This seems like a pretty cool houserule.


I don't think there is technically anything that says you can't be your own deity. I'm pretty sure you can be a cleric of yourself, and grant yourself spellcasting, domains, and the like. You could also be a party member's deity.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like they should have used the rune system for shields like they did with weapons and armor. It would be similar to how they worked in the past and avoid this issue entirely.


thorin001 wrote:

Obviously the best condition to inflict is "dead".

Ya beat me to it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would personally have liked a much more granular skill list than PF1 (maybe 50ish skills plus knowledges) and a lot more skill ups. But instead we went the more nonsensical route.

I also hate Perception not being a skill anymore. You should need to invest in it, and should be able to invest in it (the general feat that levels it for you doesn't count since it stops at Master).


My thought is that, since you gain reactions on your turn, you can't react before your first turn. Exceptions for reactions that trigger off of rolling initiative or a similar circumstance where you could not possibly have acted yet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe you just swing your weapon so fast that it heats up enough to let you cauterize the wound with a quick touch.


Blave wrote:

The best I can come up with right now would be a Sword and Shield wielding monk, mostly because your offhand would be wasted otherwise. You can use mountain stance for AC, so you'll probably want to start with 18 strength and 16 dexterity. Beyond that, I don't think there's much special stuff you can do. Just raise your shield, use shield block and flurry away. Also get Iron Blood stance for additional sturdiness.

You can't use a weapon in mountain stance. It's one of the stances that only lets you use its special unarmed strike. Which is a shame, because it would actually make a lot of the monk weapons actually have a point.


The problem you'll run into is that it's flat out worse than wolf stance, which is also a d8 trip weapon but is agile and finessable (and backstabby), unlike the temple sword. Wolf drag is also really solid.

If you want a weapon monk, I think that tangled forest style with a bo staff is one of the more interesting options. Doesn't come online until level 8 though.

If weapons worked with Mountain stance, that would be a good combo for temple sword, but that isn't the case.

1 to 50 of 460 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>