Chuffy Lickwound

tuffnoogies's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber. 21 posts (101 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Nice!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

This is pretty cool, but now I'm really curious about spellcasting.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
tuffnoogies wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:


There's more to the game than just attacking, I'd like to think... Combat can be more interesting than tank and spank, actual tactics! Don't let the clouds of PF1 boring fighter gameplay blind you to the possibilities.
Fine. Example?

Raising your shield leaps to mind. That gets you +2 AC and one-use DR as a Reaction...but it costs an action. That'd be almost never worth it if it replaced an attack at full bonus, but is usually worth it if replacing a -5 attack, and basically always worth it replacing a -10 one.

That's a neat and tactically interesting option that would descend into obscurity without the penalty.

Hmm. I think it's a stretch to say "raising your shield" is either neat or tactically interesting. If you have a shield and you're not surprised I'd say it's probably a given that it's raised. But I say the same about having your weapon out and ready. At least under normal adventuring conditions.

What if you you're fighting with a 2-handed sword or great axe? What if it's already the second round of combat and you raised it last round. Do you have to raise it every round? That's *definitely* not neat or interesting.

Seriously, if you're already adjacent to your target, what could you spend your actions on that would be more in keeping with your role as fighter than taking another swing at your enemy?

How come only attack actions are penalized for getting used more than once? If you move for all three actions, do you lose distance traveled for each action?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
ChibiNyan wrote:


There's more to the game than just attacking, I'd like to think... Combat can be more interesting than tank and spank, actual tactics! Don't let the clouds of PF1 boring fighter gameplay blind you to the possibilities.

Fine. Example?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
David knott 242 wrote:
The purpose of the iterative attack penalties in the new rules appears to be to provide some incentive to do something other than stand still and repeatedly attack the enemy, so I doubt that they will ever completely eliminate those penalties. Reducing the penalties or providing bonus attacks as part of an action might be possible though.

What could a fighter-type do that would be more in keeping with their role than another attack? If fighting is what they do, why penalize them for doing it as well as they can.

Hopefully you're right and there's some way to reduce the penalties. But I still think it's a raw deal.

I mean it's possible to cast two spells (as I understand it). Will wizards be at a penalty to hit with the second spell. Will the target(s) get a bonus on their saves for the second spell?

Seems like a really harsh penalty to lay on the melee type characters.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Am I the only one who thinks there shouldn't be a penalty to hit for multiple attack actions? It's more than likely the melee characters doing that and they have a hard enough time keeping up with spell-casters in the damage dealing department.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:

Suppose my character is an 6th level fighter and I take the full attack option.

One my first attack, I make a regular attack with my weapon. On my second, I attempt a combat manuever (assume I have the right feat to avoid provoking an AoO).

Is my combat manuever bonus reduced by 5 because I attempted the manuever on my iterative attack? Or, is it still at the normal CMB???

Thanks in advance!!

Why *wouldn't* it be reduced by 5?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:

A) It's already printed and on a boat back to us.

What's the street date?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Great sheet, but Spellcraft isn't usable untrained.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
jreyst wrote:

I personally really preferred the 2E method of doing things over the 3.X Prestige Class concept. In 2E (as I'm sure many of you will remember) you still chose your base class normally and then applied subkits. You could be a fighter > cavalier or a cleric > shaman for example. You didn't have to wait to get into the PrC, you started off at 1st level as that subkit. I don't know why its not still done that way, as the entire concept seemed "cleaner" to me.

1) Choose a class.
2) [Optionally] Choose a sub-class.
3) Done.

Neat.

As opposed to:

1) Choose a class.
2) Make sure you have all of the attribute requirements you might later need to get into the PrC you really want to play.
3) Make sure you choose the right feats and skills so that you don't have to wait even longer to get the PrC you really want to play.
4) Advance several levels, not playing the character you really want to play.
5) Choose the Prestige Class you really wanted to play.
6) Advance in that class a few levels and then realize your spell progression blows.
7) Drop the PrC.
8) Done!

Ugh.

How about:

1) Choose a class.
2) Role-play the subclass?

That way there's no unbalanced kits/PrCs to worry about. Of course, there's no filler for future gaming supplements either.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Papa-DRB wrote:


Standard iteration vs. new iteration:
1st - 5th level: same
6th - 10th level: 0/-5 vs. -2/-2
11th - 15th level: 0/-5/-10 vs -1/-1
16th+ level: 0/-5/-10/-15 vs 0/0

Well, I guess you are shocked. My guys like it. Less dice and on average more damage per turn. They are happy and I am happy.

-- david
Papa.DRB

I kinda like it, too. I think I'd use -3, -2, -1 for the penalties though.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

My first language is French, and what you just said sounds like something very dirty.

I bet it would sound even more dirty to someone speaking Kelish... :P

I don't speak French OR Kelesh and it still looks dirty to me!

LOL. And thanks, James. I'm pretty new to PF and haven't read anything on the setting. What you quoted sounds pretty good.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
You might want to check out "Into the Darklands," then. There's a pretty healthy amount of info about the duergar in there, and while we can't use kuo-toa at all (as mentioned by the previous poster, the kuo-toa are WotC only), we CAN use the skum. They fill the role in the underground realms that the kuo-toa used to fill really rather well.

Can you call them something else? "Skum" is a stupid name for a race of monsters. Unless they're oozes of course.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
dm4hire wrote:
I find it hard to believe they would waste two pages for art (or even one). No other PF product has art between chapters, plus Jason's comments indicates they jammed just about every page they could with information. I could see a chart or charts, but not sure what.

Heights, weights, starting ages?

You may be right. I just think it's strange that humans would get 3 pages when they arguably need the least space out of all the races.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
dm4hire wrote:
Something I noticed is that it appears that each race gets an entire page write up. I like that. (Edit: Except Humans who get three pages.)

How do you know humans get 3 pages?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
it's up! 2 pages of the race chapter and the table on contents in pdf

Link?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Well some here don't think 4e as D&D . I for one do not to much lost, but if you don't want to use the system then by all means use another you like better and have a blast with it

A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet. 4e is D&D. You may not like all the changes (I don't either) but that doesn't change the facts.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
hogarth wrote:


I don't generally care if my players select an alignment or not. I save "real" alignments for evil or good outsiders, or evil undead, and pretty much ignore it for everyone else.

[sarcasm]

That's impossible! Alignment is an integral part of D&D!
[/sarcasm]


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
alignment is a very clear part of D&D, and is a tool not a straight jacket. But as was said before me don't use it if you don't like it

Those arguments might sway me if 4e had alignments too. Obviously the game doesn't need them as much as you say. I'm all for tradition but it's way past time this sacred cow became steakburger.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
hogarth wrote:


And I can guarantee you that alignment isn't going away; they stated so rather emphatically.

Hmm. Did they decide to keep it because it's so craptacular? I guess I'll have to de-alignment it myself. Or just stick with IH, where, you know, actions define the character rather than some stupid two-letter notation on the character sheet.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Do we have any idea of the changes that will be made from Beta to the final product?

::crosses fingers hoping that alignment is done away with::