whew's page

**** Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 542 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 50 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A human wizard could take Clever Improviser at level 5 and have all lores at -2. With 18+ Int, the wizard will still be better at lore than an Int-10 bard with bardic knowledge.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Whenever an action can be done with no free hands, the rules spell it out. Battle Medicine has no such language, therefore No Free Hands is not the one true answer.

However, when an action requires a free hand, the rules spell that out. Battle Medicine has no such language, therefore One Free Hand is also not the one true answer.

Battle Medicine heals the same amount as Treat Wounds. How much healing does Treat Wounds do without a medkit? None!
What's the DC for Treat Wounds without a medkit? There is none!
Is this RAI? I don't know.

NONE of the Skill Feats for skills with toolkits say anything about hands or tools. All of them inherit hands & tools from the actions that they modify. Therefore, the lack of mention of hands or tools in Battle Medicine proves NOTHING.

NB: I have made NO MENTION OF REALISM. My position is simply that the rules are ambiguous. At this point in the debate, I feel that anyone who claims the rules are clear is lacking in ... something ... that the forum rules forbid me to speculate on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It says "AN appropriate level" because Signature Spells are a thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Space Cruisers-72 Pcs for $6.

You can also get them on Amazon.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The Natural Ambition ancestry feat lets humans take a first-level class feat at first level.

3/5 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adam Ashworth wrote:

I would prefer that content will be legal at release, and then banned if it needs to be down the road.

If their goal is to maximize the number of disgruntled players, then that is what they should do.

Farewell, Jingasa.

3/5 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As in PF1, the GM can throw a PC in jail and declare him DEAD. (The GM has to report it and the player can appeal it.) Also, a PF2 GM can give out Infamy like in Starfinder.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

when it really matters you're going to keep using 2 actions each turn to drink a healing potion?

that doesn't sound that productive to me.

One action to get some emergency healing ... action economy efficient

If I have to spend an action to draw my potion, to be fair you should spend an action to draw your wand. Further, though it's written badly, a bandolier should let you draw and use a potion as a single action.

I just played in a recently published Paizo adventure where we had time between battles but weren't allowed to rest. It happens.

Finally, comparing healing potions to wands is Strawman. The proper comparison is Wands vs Scrolls. Heal wands are at least 10 times as expensive as Heal scrolls, not "3 or 4 times":

MAGIC WAND (CRB page 597) wrote:

Type 1st-level spell; Level 3; Price 60 gp

Type 2nd-level spell; Level 5; Price 160 gp
Type 3rd-level spell; Level 7; Price 360 gp
...
Type 6th-level spell; Level 13; Price 3,000 gp

.

SCROLLS (CRB page 565 (reformatted)) wrote:

Level 1: 4 GP

Level 2: 12 GP
Level 3: 30 GP
...
Level 6: 300 GP

EDIT: in actual practice, unless I had so many of them that they were making me encumbered and I was really high level, I wouldn't buy many healing scrolls at higher than level 1.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
so, in just 2-3 heals, you're already ahead in "value for money" than your potion

Unless I drink all of my potions in the same day, giving me more healing when it really matters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Crying Angel pendant only works for First Aid, not for other uses of Medicine.

I'm not so sure that Combat Medicine doesn't need two hands and Healer's Tools: it could be argued that since Treat Wounds automatically fails without them, the DC for one-handed Combat Medicine is also "automatically fails". (If you put the Healer's Tools in a bandolier, you don't need any extra actions to use them.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I made an elf thief-racket rogue who can cast the Shield cantrip. At level 5, it will have 40' speed.

I also made an elf paladin. He has Ancestral Longevity which gives him a floating trained skill. I am hoping this will reduce the pain of not having a lot of skills. EDIT: At level 1, he has speed 30 in medium armor.

3/5 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Downtime example:

From the Player Basics section of the Guide:

The Task Level for Table 4-2 on CRB page 236 is your level minus 2 (minimum 0), so 0 for a first-or-second level character.

From table 10-5 on CRB page 503, the DC for a level 0 task is 14.

The proficiency rank for a Trained skill is 2. The amounts below assume the money-making skill is Trained (not Untrained or Expert).

Table 4-2 gives daily income, but the amounts below are the total for all 8 days. Roll once and use the same check result for all 8 days:

* critical fail (natural 1 or 4-or-less on the craft/perform/lore skill check): 0 income.
* fail (5-13 on the check): 8 CP
* success (14-23 on the check): 4 SP
* critical success (natural 20 or 24+ on the check): 32 SP


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Neo2151 wrote:
Continuing to look at Barbarian for a sec, the quintessential Barbarian is probably Conan, a character who commonly used a sword and shield in his stories. Yet the Barbarian class doesn't have Shield feats, so you can't even play the barbarian without MCing.

Shield Block is a general feat. A human Barbarian can take it at first level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The action-reducing spells are much better when you get the higher-level versions that affect multiple targets. Fear and Fear(3) might be OK if someone in the party is built to exploit the frightened condition. Command(5), Slow(6), Paralyze(7) all look good to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The chronicle does provide reputation. On the downside, for a repeatable it's lacking in alternate options to make it different every time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You're fighting a large creature in a doorway or a 10x10 corridor. Are 4 fighters going to do more damage than 2 fighters and 2 wizards?

A pirate ship attacks and there are a few rounds at range before the ships connect. Is a fighter still going to do more damage than a wizard?

The enemy flies and has a ranged attack. Is a fighter still better? (This one may have a different answer at high levels when the fighter can fly.)

Underwater? The fighter is probably better at swimming, but is he still just as much better at damage?

In conclusion: how much does a max-strength fighter's damage decrease when using a ranged weapon? Does he still do more damage than a wizard?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Guide with Knees" looks like it should also count as directing the mount. However, it is very much the horse-emulator-interface part that I think you should be able to bypass by using the remote controls. The same for "leap".

"Spur" doesn't or shouldn't work with drones.

"Cover", "Fast Mount/Dismount", "Soft Fall", and "Stay Mounted" should use survival checks.

EDIT: added "also"


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you really want to, you can program your drone to behave like a temperamental bucking bronco. However, there is no rule that a drone loses its remote controls when a riding saddle is installed, so many mechanics ignore the optional horse-emulator interface which just isn't as efficient as using voice commands or a datalink.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I edited my post as well. My true opinion is that I'm not sure how it should work and it really needs an FAQ.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dracomicron wrote:
This forum is quick to point out that there is a difference between the "fluff" and the rules.

No. Just, No. You can't just ignore any rules you don't like by declaring them to be "fluff".

Quote:
still listed in the One Handed Basic Melee Weapon table

That's the general rule. Exceptions can (and to me, clearly do) exist.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is for Second Edition, right? There should be something in the description (maybe even in the season name) that says so.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The cover art in Data Breach looked very Shadowrun-y to me. It's set on

minor spoiler:
Verces
.

Edit: Ninja-d!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Drugslinger
Mad Doc

Super Soldier

My names probably work better as nicknames instead of official names. Except for maybe Vanguard, if the existing names stick, I suspect I will not use them in my table tents or character intros.

PS I like both WarpWitch and WarpWeaver better than WitchWarper.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Level 11 is when attack spells finally start getting good:
* Slow (heightened): target up to 10 creatures
* Chain Lightning: 7d12 to "any number of" creatures within 500'


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You put the items you want to check into a square where there is no other nearby magic and cast Detect Magic. If something is magic, then split the items into 2 equal-sized piles (where only 1 pile is in range) and repeat the Detect as needed. That should go faster than checking the items one at a time, and way faster than Read Aura.

Although I can see how to get by with just Detect Magic as written, I think it will be a pain to explain my sorting techniques at every PFS table, and I also hope they change it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Armory has them. #BadWrong

Is the game as badly trashed by this as I think?

EDIT: I don't know what's in the rest of the book. I couldn't read any more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mekkis wrote:

The thing is, Until March 2018, it wasn't a problem.

I did a search on these boards for people complaining about "Wand of CLW spam". Prior to March 2018, there were around 60 posts.

Of them, only two claimed that it was a bad thing. And one of them was saying that CLW spam was an issue when combined with a homebrew suggestion of "casting from hitpoints".

In ten years, one person brought it up. Congratulations Liegence!

Many other posts were instead indicating how it made the cleric non-mandatory and interesting to play.

This board is mostly populated by people who like and play PF1. Pathfinder players are used to the wands and generally at least can tolerate them. People who really, really hate the wands are more likely to play something other than Pathfinder and thus have little reason to spend much time on the Paizo boards.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

By comparison we are losing:

Probably most archetypes for most classes
Original Multiclassing (replaced by having ONLY a suped up variant multiclassing)
All the Occult Classes
Magus
Gunslingers (and guns in general)
Cavalier, Witch, Summoner
Ninja, Antipaladin, Samurai
Cavalier, Oracle
SWASHBUCKLER
The rest of the Hybrid classes
Vigilante
All but 7 races

Except for "original multi-classing", NONE of those were in the PF1 CRB either. It's ludicrously unrealistic to expect the PF2 CRB to cover everything that took ten years of splatbooks to do before. Further, since we've just seen the previews and not the actual book which hasn't been written yet, some of those things may well exist as new class feats or archetypes.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps the pre-req should be 14 for half-elves only, since half-elves were good multi-classers in PF1 and they seem slightly under-powered in the preview.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Boojumbunn wrote:

Each character has a limited amount of things they can put their feats/powers/skills into. This means that if you increase your healing abilities, you decrease your melee combat abilities. If you increase your combat abilities, you decrease your healing abilities.

At low levels, this doesn't make as big a difference. At higher levels it means your character generally doesn't have the DPS or AC to stand in front line combat. The feat you spent on getting more healing didn't give you the ability to wear heavier armor or a better attack. Mind you, this is also true of blasters (such as archers) where the feats they put into the bow reduces their front line abilities, but increases their dps.

Finally, you come to "what you can do in a round." Let us say you are a character with some healing ability and some melee ability and some armor. You don't heal as much as someone who dedicated their characters upgrades for healing, and you don't hit very often, and you don't do much damage.. but you do a bit of everything. You are in the front line fighting a monster and a nearby companion has taken a lot of damage. You can either attack a monster and do a bit of damage.. or you can shift out of combat and heal some of the damage on your companion, but you can't do both... and sometimes you can't shift to do the healing. Also, the amount of healing you can do may end up doing just 1 hits worth of healing because you didn't ramp your healing up using feats.

That has been my experience, anyway. As it is, it seems that they are shifting the balance over to limit the usefulness of the dedicated healer/buffer roles. I am not sure how this will work out in real life, but I do not find it to be a good thing. That role is already having to use magic items at lower levels to fulfill their role and it seems they are trying to take that away.

Boojum

I can't take seriously any analysis that thinks a healer should be in the front rank.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Glutton’s Jaw is a freely scaling magical shortsword that is vampiric. That’s good! Free melee capability with some survivability thrown in, and avoid AoOs from spamming cantrips. Maybe free up a cantrip for non offensive use.

Also, unlike a mundane backup weapon, it doesn't need a hand to use, so you can still cast somatic spells and use a staff or shield or whatever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:


Staffs don't improve your core ability to interact with the game in the same way.

A staff's bonus to healing or fire damage or whatever is extremely close to what a magic weapon gives to a martial. Except for weapon-using Eldritch Knight types, I'm expecting that most casters will invest heavily in staffs (staves?). (Or maybe the staffs just look good because nothing else has been previewed yet, but I doubt it. Casting IS a caster's schtick (duh), and a staff lets them do more of it.)

In PF1, a back-rank character could often get by without good armor. However, in PF2, magic bracers and armor also improve saving throws, so casters get no free pass on that anymore either.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chest Rockwell wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:

Again, I couldn't disagree with you more. Those weaker challenges puts the players' strength in contest and requires different kinds of decision making. That said, I get where you are coming from.

So you would like a game where there are one or two really intense/dangerous fights each session? I still think you would want a game that tends toward per-fight resource management. Otherwise, fighters and builds that don't have daily resources to burn don't really have a good place in the game. Also, the game for even wizards is pretty radically different if you are expecting to blow 1/3 to 1/2 of your daily resources on every fight rather than expect a longer adventuring day of more fights.

Have you ever heard of a free game called Mythender? Its setting and tone may not be for you (its really...

Dude. I've been playing Pathfinder for the last ten years and I have been talking all along about THIS system which I'VE BEEN PLAYING. Please don't try to do some tea leaf reading what system "I would probably like" when I am already talking about the EXISTING SYSTEM. I don't give a fig about what kind of system YOU think I would like, because I like the system WE ALREADY HAVE. Which could still use some improvements, but resonance seems to go the exact wrong way.

Do I need to make this even more clear?

Maybe if it was all yelling.

THAT WASN'T YELLING. THAT WAS JUST EMPHASIS. THIS IS YELLING! CAN YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Dwarves, at least, can use an ancestry feat to get training with dwarfy weapons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Maliloki wrote:
whew wrote:


Heaven forbid that a character should learn from their quite common experiences of seeing allies and enemies use stealth?

Heaven forbid the players treat the idea that their base attributes mean something and the fact that they can be increased as their characters level represents the characters learning things.

If you go out of your way to interpret the fluff as negatively as possible, no crunchy RPG is going to work for you.

Quote:
Or heaven forbid that the character spends one of their skill proficiencies on stealth BECAUSE they've spent time watching, paying attention, and learning from seeing their allies and enemies use stealth.

If a character does that, then clearly the free bonuses from leveling were NOT ENOUGH, and the current rules worked as intended.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jonathan Cormier wrote:
That low stealth character IS NOT SKILLED IN STEALTH. It doesn't matter their level. They haven't devoted the time to that particular skill nor deemed it important. Heaven forbid players have to make choices about what's important to their playstyle or that they might not be good at everything.

Heaven forbid that a character should learn from their quite common experiences of seeing allies and enemies use stealth?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I love the shorter stat blocks. I want all of the foes in a combat to fit on one page of paper. If a creature is needlessly complicated, it increases the chance that I will mess up and make the combat too difficult or easy.

PFS monsters are getting so complex that some GMs won't run the higher-level adventures!

I just read some "Why does everyone hate 4E" threads on other websites and "We hate the monster stat blocks" was never the reason. There certainly is no general consensus that 4E monster statblocks sucked.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:

Instead of using a fancy icon, can you just use a circled 1, 2 or 3 for things that take 1, 2 or 3 actions, and a circled R for things that use a reaction? It'd be more intuitive than a glyph, and it should be visible to a screen-reader for the visually impaired.

EDIT: Unicode even already did the work for you. Just print them at a larger size than will be displayed here in the forum: ① ② ③ Ⓡ

Alas, those don't work with text-to-speech. (Results may vary - I just tested one app.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:
By contrast, if you divorce character background from the rules, you have an unlimited number of choices for your character's backstory. Ergo, more options.

Having a background doesn't prevent you from having a backstory. It just ensures that everyone at least has a minimal backstory.

3/5 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

For Morlamaw minis, I'm using Set of 12 mini manatees for $12 with poker chips for bases.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

They're getting rid of move actions that may or may not count as moving for purposes of other stuff, so that part is simpler.

2E looks to have much more interesting tactics for martials, who now usually just run up to their foes and full-attack-to-the-death.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If you have an expertise talent that lets you forgo your expertise die to get a re-roll, then skill focus would add with full effect to the re-roll result. That's a better reason to have skill focus on a skill you have expertise with.

3/5 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
My personal opinion is based on the assumption that they are proceeding as if PFS2 is a new campaign. Under that concept, I am in favor of a clean start.

If they were keeping 1e, I would tend to agree. Do PFS stars have any impact in SFS? I suspect not.

However, since they are getting rid of 1e, wouldn't you want to incentivize the most committed members of 1e to come over to 2e?

But if I'm already maxed out in stars, what incentive do I have to keep working hard? Wouldn't having new widgets to earn give more incentive than not being able to earn more widgets?

3/5 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Eazy-Earl wrote:
Allowing races to become unlocked and playable through an expenditure of prestige points would encourage some to play as much possible (and possibly create player-GM arguments when less than the full amount of prestige is awarded), while removing much of the incentive to give back to the community through convention GMing (the current way the majority of race boons are earned).

The races given out as player boons don't have to be the same as the ones given to GMs, so people have incentive to be both GMs and players. That's how Paizo does it already.

If a player goes all the way to level 12 to get a boon, that may take a couple of years in real time. In that time, the player may well buy a couple more books.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Everyone can activate their space suits and be immune to stink attacks. OTOH, if there is a smell-based clue, the Bantrid will miss it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't be surprised if p2 "wizards" are actually arcanists. 5e wizards already do the both-prepared-and-spontaneous thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pax Rafkin wrote:
Can’t they carbon date Absalom Station to at least get a “minimum” amount of time passes?

If the station has decent cosmic ray shielding, then no.

Also, the station doesn't have the full 100-mile-high atmosphere like a real planet, so less carbon-14 would be created, so it would be hard to compare.

Also, carbon-dating only works on things that were once alive. Unless the whole station is made of dead bodies or wood, carbon-dating won't get its age.

Carbon-dating probably could be used to get the rough age of old documents from other planets like Castrovel, but if that gives out too much info, then it's part of what was scrambled by the gap.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've played over 1000 hours worth of Paizo scenarios over the last 7 years, and NONE of it was at level 20.

Maybe not at level 20, but for a large chunk of the game, the mightiest weapon for an operative is the Dragon Gland.

With exploits like cloaking field, holographic clone, and uncanny mobility, an operative can be more durable in combat than a soldier.

Envoys can give the whole team +4 to hit. Everyone can still hit at level 20.

Currently, envoys don't get much after level 12, but that may change by the time I actually get a character to that level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brother Willi wrote:

My answer to the question posed is: "No."

The big disconnect is that Starfinder combat - despite using the same mechanics and similar stats to Pathfinder - is very different than Pathfinder.

Having played through multiple combats, Starfinder characters can easily lose fights if they "stand and fight" as one would do in Pathfinder. Finding cover, teaming up, and creating advantageous situations outside of just attacking is necessary. Even Solarians and Soldiers - who shine in the thick of things - can't rely on attack rolls alone to win the day.

It's also put a lot of emphasis on getting better armor for my party. Overall, the dynamic is very different than anything I've played in Pathfinder, but it's a very good dynamic.

Are you playing Paizo's published adventures? In my experience so far, melee characters rule. Also, it's hard to avoid melee when going room to room indoors.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
baggageboy wrote:
Even if you fell like a guy should get all of his WBL replenished who blew it all it's not simple to do that. Each character is part of a party and generally parties ten to split loot pretty evenly. So if one guy is buying tons of consumables and another guy isn't, the guy who isn't over time will still end up with more wealth than the guy who blows his cash all the time. Telling casters who don't want to touch guns to buy spell gems instead is a recipe to set up this exact bad situation.

Is a caster who has used up most of the spell gems he bought 2 levels ago really much worse off than the soldier who now has an extra gun that is too low-level to ever be used again? There's not much difference between "used up" and fully depreciated. Also, given exponential growth in wealth, your old stuff rapidly decreases its fraction of total WBL even if it manages to stay useful.

1 to 50 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>