Chuffy Lickwound

tuffnoogies's page

48 posts (135 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:

2e is now a couple years old, and has been really spoiling us with Ancestry options so far - but what’s missing? Are there any obvious holes or 1e favorites you’re hurting for?

I always thought something with a serpentine body like Captain Sarigar ( would be cool. I didn't play 1e so I don't know if it was ever an option there.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alchemists are the Nickleback of classes. It's popular to knock them.

I've had one alchemist in my group, but the player showed up once and never came back. Not sure if there's a connection.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This got me wondering why we're playtesting new classes but not new ancestries. I know they're not as impactful on character power levels but stuff like this could easily be avoided.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just wondering if they'll put this in pdf format at some time?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Both the Magus and Summoner get four spell slots, that upgrade as they level up without gaining additional ones. You will basically only have 2 slots of each of your two highest levels, before feat investment.

This is a new addition to the game that we haven't seen before. It seems to be a form of casting that is considered appropriate to ride along with major features-- Martial Weapon Proficiency, or the entirety of the Eidolon.

How do we feel about this system? I want to read discussion about this because I'm divided on it right now.

I'm having trouble understanding why they lose lower level slots. Do they forget how to cast easier spells when they learn the harder ones?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Taja the Barbarian wrote:
Grankless wrote:
Darkwood is wood. If you make something out of it, it is by default wood.

Darkwood can only be used to make items that are normally made of wood, which excludes all known armors so far.

Chapter 11: Crafting & Treasure / Armor / Precious Material Armor wrote:

Source Core Rulebook pg. 555 1.1

Suits of armor made of precious materials are more expensive and sometimes grant special effects. You can make leather armor out of dragonhide, wooden armor out of darkwood, and metal armor out of any precious materials except for darkwood. Because armor’s Bulk is reduced when the armor is worn, use its carried Bulk when determining its material Price. (Materials are on page 577.)

Maybe it's me, but I'm reading that as "If you want to make wooden armor, use darkwood."

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
AnCap Dawg wrote:

Care to explain why you engage in a thread just to say you won't engage in the thread?

I answered your question. I can't give any thoughts on whether I feel P2 gave a different spell compared to classic (whatever that is, I presume P1). I even said why but you clipped that from your quote.

I engaged. You just didn't like my answer.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Val'bryn2 wrote:

Thank you, everyone, for your replies. I disagree with the view they should be in the GMG, from 3rd edition to Starfinder, they've always been in the bestiary, monster manual or alien archive, but that would have been a minor issue if they had released the GMG in a timely manner. It's bad game design to directly reference rules you won't be publishing for half a year.

I suppose I was thinking of baseline orc as just racial modifications, like how goblins have a race write-up in the Core Rulebook, and example monsters in the Bestiary. At any rate, it'll be fun to make some NPCs now.

Where are they directly referenced?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samurai wrote:
I don't know the official answers, but we have usually used 1 hour for a torch and 10 minutes for a candle.

Those are some short candles.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
State of confusion wrote:
PFRPGrognard wrote:
Yeah, Second Edition is so bloated already. I'm going back to Pathfinder 1E where it's easy enough to have a core only game.
Not sure if serious or not.

Not sure if serious or not.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thebazilly wrote:
Takamorisan wrote:
Problem is that we are missing a lot of customization options. So they need to publish the basic material.


I can guarantee that if Paizo wasn't publishing at this rate, we'd have a "should Paizo speed up" thread instead.

I vastly prefer 2e's publish rate to 5e's.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:

I do not like the way that money has been changed in the game.

Two reasons:
* - It is an obstical to converting older material.
* - "Grognard-ism" Long time players may not react well to fighting an epic battle to win the princely sum of 150 silver.

How are others feeling?

I think it's more of a flavor change than anything. I've wished D&D was on the silver standard since the mid-80s - about the time Matthew Broderick was bragging about having a purse full of copper in Ladyhawke.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
CyderGnome wrote:

Prior to 2nd Edition, a Goblin walking openly into most any town or village was asking to be killed rather quickly unless there we’re extreme extenuating circumstances and it could somehow convince people to pause long enough to even think before releasing the hounds. Now Goblins have become the party ‘s comic relief...

What’s the in-world explanation?

Where have you been? We hashed this out a year ago.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I found it more useful than the 3rd sheet.

I'm mildly disappointed in the spell sheet. I honestly can't figure out what all the boxes in the "spell slots per day" section are for. And I would have preferred putting innate spells and focus spells somewhere else so non-casters wouldn't use the whole sheet for those little sections. I don't think the magic traditions is needed at all and I wish cantrips were just lumped in with spells in general.

I'm sure there will be a plethora of fan-made sheets in the near future.

EDIT: Just noticed the "spontaneous spell slots remaining" note. Probably would have figured it out if I were making a sorcerer or bard.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:

Not that a critical mass of people now have their books, I want to ask a general question.

Is Pathfinder 2 a better game then its predicessor Pathfinder 1?

Hey I have an idea! Let's invite an edition war! Those are always fun.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:

An Orc Oracle from the Mwangi culture would be pretty cool... An Orcacle, if you will.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

In case anyone didn't know.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Dwapook wrote:


Fairness / Selflessness

Freedom / Selfishness

This is deeply wrong. Selfishness and selflessness are about Good and Evil not Law and Chaos. Someone can easily be Chaotic Good and utterly selfless, or Lawful Evil and utterly selfish.

This right here is what's wrong with alignment. People can't agree on what the different aspects mean.

Sure it can be useful as a shorthand, but in the end it causes more arguments than it helps to avoid. We only have 35+ years of experience to show this.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
mrspaghetti wrote:
Do Hero Points carry over to the next session if you don't use them?

No. They are a per session resource.

Of course, I suppose that even that would be up to GM discretion if you do something weird such as end a session in mid-combat.

They carry over in Oblivion Oath.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Jason the man... or the dragon...Whichever he prefers really.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I never understood the no metal armor restriction. Isn't metal natural?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

Focus pools may be capped at 2 or 3 points? Not sure what the deal is there, but Logan made a comment that seemed to imply it.

My first thought when he said this was maybe he was thinking of hero points. I think in Oblivion Oath they're limited to 3, but that may be because they have so many Jason didn't want them spending 5-6 on stabilization rolls. I also seem to remember something being said about a focus power that cost 5 focus at one time.

Or maybe Logan just worded it funny and we're reading too much into it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
AnCap Dawg wrote:
So living near Paizo means the street date doesn't apply to you? I'm confused (and jealous.)
From now on this will be referred to as the "down the street date" ;-)

And real estate prices for nearby houses will go through the roof!

4 people marked this as a favorite.

So living near Paizo means the street date doesn't apply to you? I'm confused (and jealous.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:

Not to sound rude or ungrateful as I do appreciate the effort, but at a glance it doesn't seem like much, if anything, has changed in the char-gen protocol since the playtest first dropped 11 months ago...


Jason's said he's rewritten the whole chapter to be clearer, but that's the only changes I've heard of.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Landon Winkler wrote:
Voss wrote:
Lots of classes have 'extra attack.' There just aren't annoying penalties and limits on using them.

You don't have to like penalties (who does?) but I think this one actually does a pretty cool thing, both with PCs and with monsters.

With each attack being progressively less good, you'll eventually hit the point where some other action is better. Three attacks without penalty would mean you end up making three attacks the vast majority of rounds and, like in P1, martial characters want to build to never spend actions doing anything else. That penalty isn't fun, in itself, but it pushes us out of our comfort zones to actually do interesting stuff in combat.

So, instead of an attack at -10, you feint or drop into a stance or shove your opponent away from the casters or move around the battlefield to get an advantageous position. Your first attack is only rarely worth trading out, but that -10? Maybe even the -5? The penalty exposes other options that make combat a lot more dynamic and interesting.

Do you feel the same way about characters moving more than once in a turn? How about casting more than one spell? Making more than one first aid check? Retrieving more than one item from their pack?

Martial characters *strike.* It's what they do. So why penalize them (and only them) for doing it more than once a turn?

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
graystone wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
I think you're in the minority there though.
Oh, I've seen plenty of people that loathe bulk, myself included. I don't foresee using the system in any capacity so I'd like an option to use actual weights if a DM wants encumbrance checked.

Without trying to sound dismissive, I think this is a case of a "vocal minority." I honestly think most people don't care enough about item weights to bother tracking them, and are therefore less likely to comment on the subject.

I think the goal of Bulk is to make the system less fiddly so that encumbrance is easier to track, and therefore more people WILL track it. Which I think is good to avoid STR dumping.

I'll probably ignore Bulk just as easily weights.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
I can aim a bow all day of the week. I don't need an enemy to target.
No you can't. You can probably aim a bow for about 30s before your arms and hand start to get fatigued. Same reason you can't just hold Horse stance all day an expect to be fine. In fact that sort of stuff is used as physical punishment.

Nope, lasted three minutes before only noticeable tiredness set in.

Could have gone longer but figured that was long enough.

With the arrow knocked and the bow tense? Wow.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Desferous wrote:
1of1 wrote:

How does one counter a Hidden Paragon stabby man of save or die? I guess fumigating might work. Drop some blightburn covered in inhaled poison and glue the doors shut. But wait, he's a rogue, of course he got out before you. Maybe teleport away and hope the Schrödinger's rogue is actually dead?

Hmmm... as with all things pre test, and before release, we're probably missing something.

Maybe a wish will reveal him? It's always good when Rogues have more powerful magics than casters.

Right. Gotta keep those casters as gods above the non-casters. Otherwise we won't be able to b&#~% about how much more powerful the casters are.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
I was kinda hoping that magic missile would no longer be an auto hit..

...and not require those damn d4s.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:
Wait, I thought it was too simple?

Dunno where you got that since I never used that word. How about "Needlessly confining?"

Between dozens of races, classes, feats and archetypes we have thousands of possibilities for characters. Enough to fill the multiverse. And then we cram them all into those 9 little boxes. Needlessly.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:
IDK, 9 options on one single game element sounds like a decent amount of choice. When that choice extrapolates into classes, feats, spells, etc. sounds like something to be proud of. Clearly, YMMV.

I guess that's why there's never any arguments or questions about what exactly each of those 9 boxes mean.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ring_of_Gyges wrote:
VVarlok wrote:
The short answer is use the definition of murder that works for you and your group.

"Invent game elements to suit your group" is always an option.

Paizo should rely on that answer as little as possible because letting customers avoid doing that work is literally the only thing they sell.

We're not talking about "saving throw" or "hit dice." Murder isn't a game term.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to wait until I have the playtest book to decide. Frankly even when they cover a subject in the blog it's very vague and we only get a general idea of how something's going to work.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Isn't it strange that a game that prides itself on giving players options then tries to shove the whole multiverse into 9 little pigeon holes?

13 people marked this as a favorite.
Xerres wrote:

Rabble! Rabble rabble!

I'm disappointed in the notion that Lawful Good is the special alignment. Its my favorite alignment, but its no better than any other Good alignment.

And I'll light a match and say that if they do create other alignment Paladins, they'll be intentionally weaker to avoid power creep, furthering my displeasure of of Lawful Good being Best Good.

This will definitely make the people I disagree with happy though. Good day for them. For me, I must continue with:

Rabble! Rabble rabble!

Wouldn't be a problem if they'd finally slaughter the alignment sacred cow. If 5e can do it I'm sure Paizo can figure it out.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
1of1 wrote:

So, uhhh... Icons. I can read words instantly by passing my eyes over them, but colorful abstract shapes are confusing and aren't really helpful for me.

[[ICON]] Interact Manipulate sounds like it's going to be a bit of a headache to look at, but I guess it's an efficient use of space. Meh.

Yeah, I'd rather have a word than an icon that I have to keep looking up the meaning.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I am sort of confused as to where this "you're going to need to carry more weapons than you did in PF1" notion is coming from.
I'm not sure either, but maybe because the different weapons have cool and useful abilities in various situations? We worked hard to give weapons those various advantages enough to be worth taking the weapon for its advantages but maybe not dramatic enough to be worth the hassle of constantly switching around between weapons, but that's a tightrope walk we'll need to test with the playtest.
For my part, I think you misunderstand: I--and many other--have always WANTED to be a cool boy with 5 different cool weapons. I hope that PF2E is the game where I can be that cool boy.

Really? I'm not interested in needing a caddie to carry around a golf bag full or weapons for every occasion. I don't imagine I'm the only one.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Meophist wrote:
I sorta just feel "Monk weapons" doesn't quite need to be a thing. That said, there's no mention of such a quality in the blog, it seems? For some reason, I thought otherwise.

The bo staff is mentioned to be a monk weapon.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:

Alignment: It saddens me we still have this in the game... :P

Right? The sacred cow that just will not die.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
We made your number of spells more straightforward by eliminating Pathfinder First Edition's bonus spells granted for having a high ability score.
In much the way an embezzler makes a company’s finances more straightforward by emptying out their pension investment accounts. I respect the audacity of this phrasing even as I have to be amazed at the underlying contempt for your audience.

That's not contempt. It's factually true. Bonus Spells added some complexity to the 'How many spells do I have?' question that I'm happy to see removed (especially since it involved flipping to a whole different chapter to find out). The less often you have to flip between different parts of the book when making or leveling a character the better for new players and the more convenient for everyone.

They also decreased the total number of spells, but that's sort of a separate issue.

My embezzlement as simplification comparison is also factually true, but claiming either as a motivation should get you laughed out of court or this comment thread. If you want to simplify and have no other effect you modestly increase the spell slots by some reasonable approximation of the old ability score increases without requiring the investment. But they did the opposite. Simplification is an effect, but it’s not the reason. Pretending otherwise is hilarious.

Another analogy would be a claim of tax simplification as the motivation for a change. Is it revenue neutral and with the same distribution effects afterwards? If not, you can be assured tax simplification was at the bottom of the list of reasons why the bill was drafted.

I have no opinion on the change itself, merely the second rate politician marketing appended to it.

Both of your analogies compare $s to spells. $s are all equal. Spells are not. Therein lies the "simplification."

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
Meophist wrote:
Blog Post wrote:
Every time you gain an even level, you get one more spell slot per day of your highest level of spells (so at 2nd level, a cleric has three 1st-level spells per day)

I have to admit, I had to reread this a few times. Spell levels are confusing since they don't really line up well with character/class levels.

I do like a lot of what's here though.

Which is why Spell Tier is a better term than Spell Level.

You don't have a player asking "why doesn't my 3rd level character get third level spells?"

I've never had anyone ask that in 40 years of gaming. Characters have levels. Spells have levels. It's a wild leap of logic that they should have the same numbers at the same time.