xris's page

Organized Play Member. 144 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:
xris wrote:
I personally don't think this is a good way to try and grow the YouTube channel, it will most likely work against you.

That seems to be your point: that you personally disagree with Paizo's marketing department on the best way to market their product.

You're entitled to your opinion, which may, indeed, be based on a professional background and more than 10 years experience in marketing a tabletop role playing game. You may have more expertise than all of the Paizo staff and owners put together.

Or maybe not.

I agree with you, it's just my opinion.

If Paizo released 29 hardback books on the same day and then nothing for a year, I would suggest that it's bad marketing. I suspect that Paizo's marketing department might agree with that, after all, they are an experienced publisher and know how to sell books.

I'm not sure the same marketing department deals with the release schedule of YouTube videos. I'm also not so sure they are as experienced in this field as they are in the field of publishing RPG books.

But that's just my opinion. I offered some constructive criticism, take that for what it's worth :)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scottybobotti wrote:
If you fail your trick attack roll can you then decide to full attack instead or can you only attack once since you tried to trick?

The only difference between making or failing the trick attack roll is you get to add bonus dice to the damage roll. NOTE: I am assuming by "trick attack roll", you mean the Bluff, Intimidate, Stealth, or whatever skill roll that is made directly before the Attack roll. Oh yes, if you do make the trick attack roll, then the target is also flat-footed.

If you fail the trick attack roll, then you simply make your attack roll as usual but without the additional damage.

Page 93 CRB wrote:

Just before making your attack, attempt a Bluff, Intimidate, or

Stealth check (or a check associated with your specialization; see
page 94) with a DC equal to 20 + your target’s CR. If you succeed
at the check, you deal 1d4 additional damage and the target is
flat-footed. This damage increases to 1d8....

The fact that you made your Bluff, Intimidate, Stealth, or whatever check already, means you are locked into the Trick Attack. If this fails, you then proceed and make your attack roll as usual.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:

I do know most people get into 5e from their Starter Box thing (Which was released before the full game somehow!) since it gives them character sheets, dice and a beginner-tier adventure. Lost Mine of Phandelver is probably the most played 5E module BY FAR!!

Also I consider that Box to SUCK compared to the Paizo ones which include pawns, bases, colored maps, mats and pregens.

This product is gonna be important to get new people into PF2.

I would agree.

The only item in the 5e box that was superior than either the Pathfinder or Starfinder Beginner box was the adventure/mini-campaign Lost Mines of Phandelver.

Compared to the intro scenario provided in the Paizo Beginner Boxes (which was basically the same scenario for both Pathfinder and Starfinder), the 5e adventure was a complete mini-campaign (and a good one at that). It wasn't just a "how to play" introduction that's in the Paizo products.

Nearly everything else in the Paizo Beginner Boxes are vastly superior to the 5e product. As you say, it contains Pawns and bases, a Battle Mat, wonderful Pre-generated Character Sheets and so on.

Mind, it would be nice if the PF2 Beginner Box didn't introduce a "simplified" rules version this time. While the entirety of the rules can't be included, I would still prefer to see the full game explained, not a cut-back simplified version. It doesn't have to include all the classes, races, spells, etc, but I would prefer to see it cover the same game as the full version of PF2.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I haven't followed the entirety of the previous thread, I would say that as a GM, I would favour procedure 2 mostly but allow procedure 1 under certain circumstances.

My view would be based on the premise that if the character (not the player) gained some knowledge due to (say) moving first, then you can't go back and suddenly incorporate the move into a full action.

So, if a character walks around a corner and notices something going on (that they would have been unaware of) then they couldn't change the move to be part of a full action.

If a character double moved to be adjacent to an enemy and then the player says "Well, I can't attack since I've used up my action". I would be happy to allow that to be changed to a Charge if someone reminded them of what Charge does allow.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
And the GMG. Perhaps Mark & co. can manage to slip a Cha-to-Will-save option in there... I'd adopt it quicker than thought.

What a great idea. That would be wonderful, and a similar idea could be a way to introduce it to Starfinder as well :)

Roswynn wrote:

Without an official Holy Writ, though... I'm not against Wis-to-Will enough to propose the change to my players and fix the inevitable incoherences that would emerge in other rules bits all the time.

I'm fine either way. I would prefer official support for the former, but I can totally live with the latter.

I have no objection to using WIS for WILL, it's more a case to make CHA useful for something other that social skills. Since WIS has Perception, it seems it (WIS) could release WILL saves for use under CHA.

But I agree, having it official, even as an optional rule would be super.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marco Massoudi wrote:

It´s at 175%, just $12,317 to make the "Kingmaker pawn box" a reality!

The cool thing is that this is no mere pawn collecton with 8 sheets, but an entire box with hundreds of creatures and it also includes the plastic bases for small/medium, large & huge creatures.

It will be interesting to see which creatures will be in it, as new 5E creatures are also included in addition to the Pathfinder 1E & 2E ones.

It would be nice if it was a freebie :) but it's going to be (most likely) at least a $40 add-on. In addition I suspect it will bump the postage up by $10 considering how heavy the box will be.

Not sure why there would be new 5E creatures in it? Or do you mean that the Kingmaker AP has creatures new to 5E. If so, that has to do with the 5E Bestiary not the pawn set.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What drives me bonkers is when I look up something like AC and it tell me to "see Armor Class".

Why not just give the page number, why force me to look up a new entry? Giving me the page number there and then doesn't take up any more room, it adds no more lines to the length of the rule book.

For example
AC (Armor Class) 16-17, 176, 292
Armor Class (AC) 16-17, 176, 292
DC (Difficulty Class) 8, 291–292, 336–338
Difficulty Class (DC) 8, 291–292, 336–338
fumble (critical failure) 292
critical failure 292
GM (Game Master) 5, 6, 9
Game Master (GM) 5, 6, 9
HP (Hit Points) 9, 14, 22, 42–43, 294–296
Hit Points (HP) 9, 14, 22, 42–43, 294–296
NPC (nonplayer character) 10
nonplayer character (NPC) 10
TAC (Touch Armor Class) 16, 176, 292
Touch Armor Class (TAC) 16, 176, 292
traps (hazards) 341–343
hazards 341–343
XP (Experience Points) 5, 278, 339
Experience Points (XP) 5, 278, 339

The following aren't so bad, so may be worth keeping as is
combat (see encounter mode)
items (see equipment)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've used the Index a good number of times and in general it's been helpful.

It has failed a couple of times, the one that comes to mind was when I searched for Heightened.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kerobelis wrote:
There is an option for rolling stats if you dislike the primary system.

I think the issue with rolling Ability Scores is that odd numbers are "wasted".

Due to the 18 barrier, rolling a 17 is effectively the same as rolling a 16. Rolling a 15 is effectively the same as a 14, and so on.

I haven't worked out the odds, but it seems difficult to get a decent set of number using the 4d6 method.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
Are you complaining about this?

It was mostly an observation. Personally I would like to have some trade-offs when building a character so I guess it is somewhat less than ideal for me. It's part of the same issue that I see character progression as being somewhat bland.

On one hand, I appreciate the simplicity but on the other it makes creating any character rather bland because they end up the same way.

Considering PF2 is all about choice and options, I don't see this does much in the way of obtaining this. I don't see the trade-offs, there's nothing to sacrifice short term to obtain long term.

If they wanted to simplify matters, then simplify matters. Just say you have an array of 18, 16, 14, 12, 10 and 8. This could easily be added as an option.

Instead of adding fixed Ability Modifiers and free Ability Modifiers (and possibly an Ability Flaw) from Ancestry, Background, Class, along with the four Freebies, just say you start with 18, 16, 14, 12, 10 and 8.

You could say that the 18 must be used as your Key Ability, but why? Same with the flaw, you could say that you can't have an 18 in your Ability Flaw, by why? If you want to make it easy to create a character, then make it easy.

There's no reason why Character Creation could appeal to those who just want to get on and create a character and those who want to make some meaningful choices in the process.

Having a fixed array as an option is going to help new players and those who don't want to mess around in optimising. Currently, it's almost there anyway but it's not immediately obvious you can almost build what you want (without the page flipping and false choices).

Kerobelis wrote:
If you want an 18 in a stat that isn't core to you class, it is not possible (say an 18 CON fighter or a mage who plans to switch to fighter wanting that 18ST).

I mentioned that in the OP. "This is assuming you want to obtain 18 in the Class's Key Ability."

Kerobelis wrote:
I think others have mentioned it as well, it makes character creation an interesting process, that may also be easier to teach?

Personally, I don't see it as an interesting process. It's definitely a quick and simple process if they gave the option to use 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8.

And there's nothing wrong with a quick and simple process for character creation. It would also be nice if there were more of a choice for those who wanted the choice.

Dekalinder wrote:

Problem is, you can only obtain the 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 if you pick a race with +2 in 2 of your your 3 primary stat and -2 in your chosen dump stat. This severly limit your choice of race.

For example, if you want to get 18, 16, 14 in CHA-DEX-COS your only choice of race can be halfling. There is no currently legal build choice to start with 18-16-14 in CHA-STR-COS or INT-STR-COS nor INT-DEX-COS. I didn't list all possibility since I didn't sit and try for all of them, but there are probably others.

Indeed. I didn't claim you could achieve specific Ability Scores for specific Abilities. I limited the numbers just such that you could obtain an 18 in an appropriate Key Ability.

The point was that you can obtain 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 as Ability Scores (for non-humans, etc.)

Dekalinder wrote:
Also, there is no doubt in my mind that the 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 array is superior in all ways conceivable to the 18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 10

I agree with you there.

10 people marked this as a favorite.

In general, with a few exceptions, no matter what class or ancestry you want, you can obtain the following Ability Scores

18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 (if the race has a Flaw) or
18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 10 (if the race doesn't have a Flaw, i.e. Human ancestry).

You might have to limit your choice of Background to obtain the required combination of Ability Boosts but even then, there are at least 6 of the 19 Backgrounds that will give you the right combination of fixed and free Ability Boosts, no matter what class or race you select.

The only time you can't obtain a 18 in the Ability Score you want, is when your Ancestry Flaw coincides with the Ability you want to achieve 18 in. This is assuming you want to obtain 18 in the Class's Key Ability.

It's not possible to obtain two 18 Ability Scores, the best you can do is an 18 and a 16. It's also possible to get 16, 16, 16 as an alternate to 18, 16, 14. Note: this isn't a complaint, it's just an observation.

It just seems that no matter what class or race combination you want, with very little effort or sacrifice, you end up with the same 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 score (or 18,16,12,12,10,10 for humans).

There are plenty of other combinations as well but if you want to try and concentrate to get high Ability Scores then the single 18 is the best that's possible (without relying on lucky dice throws). I would think a lot of players would try and optimize a build such they get as high a score as possible in one favoured score and so on down. It seems way too easy to obtain this.

Seems rather boring to me. Very little to decide, very little give or take. That, plus the fact that you only gain one Ancestry Feat at 1st level, it makes all the class / race combinations rather similar and dull (for want of a better word). They all seem painted from the same brush, no long term / short term trade offs.

So as long as your Dwarf doesn't want to be a Bard or Sorcerer, your Gnomes and Halflings don't want to be Barbarians of Paladins, or your Goblin doesn't want to be a Cleric or Druid, then you can obtain a pretty easy 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 character! Humans are limited to only a 18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 10 character.

An 18 Ability Score is a +4 Ability Modifier, it also seems somewhat boring to have to wait till Level 10 before you can get to +5 in an Ability Modifier. It seems to me that yet again the +1/Level just swamps out anything else during level progression, but that's another story.