|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I am 100% sure that the CRB and Bestiary will be free of such editing mistakes.
I am not. Not even remotely. Since just about EVERY book Paizo has EVER published has errors in it I admit to seeing your 100% certainty as rather bizarre.
Again, NOT slagging Paizo here. They make mistakes. Everybody does. But I DO think expecting NO mistakes is rather, uh, optimistic.
For the record, I, for one, am absolutely positive there will be errors.
But I consider the likelihood that there will be errors in the fundamental math of the game, an area they had just previously had issues with in the playtest, and one that is perhaps the single most important thing to not have errors in, to be so low as to be nonexistent.
Or to put it another way: I'm sure there will be errors, but equally sure that the folks at Paizo will not make the same error, in one of the most important areas of the game, twice in immediate succession.
|
|
And I am 100% sure that the CRB and Bestiary will be free of such editing mistakes.
I am not. Not even remotely. Since just about EVERY book Paizo has EVER published has errors in it I admit to seeing your 100% certainty as rather bizarre.
Again, NOT slagging Paizo here. They make mistakes. Everybody does. But I DO think expecting NO mistakes is rather, uh, optimistic.
I realized when writing my post that I could not find a better way to write it than using "such", surely due to not being a native speaker. Even though I felt it might lead to these misunderstandings. Sorry about that.
I did not mean that there would be zero editing mistakes, but that it would not be on par with the one about monsters' numbers in the playtest.
And that they would certainty not make this same mistake twice especially since they detected it on their own.
Basically, what DMW said
Ok, I like the idea of Charisma taking a bigger role as a base characteristic, but have to admit, the idea of using the CHA modifier to be an aid other modifier, while kind of cool, and powerful, is probably too powerful.
If I aid my companion on an attack, then them getting their STR or DEX modifier, plus my CHA on top off all it could become a giant bonus, and I could see it being potentially problematic.
Another potential option however might be to affect the number of people you can influence. I.e. impact the max number of people your aid allies could potentially influence.
If you have a 18 CHA, you get a +4 modifier, so when you do an aid other on something. You can provide that modifier to 1+5 allies who meet the requirements. Your 8 CHA dwarf companion would get 1-1 (presumably min 1) or 1 person that their aid ally could help.
This too, could be powerful. If aiding or assisting allies, and there are more than one person adjacent to you fighting a common foe, if you have a high CHA you may be able to assist more than one of them with a single action.
The other aspect I was contemplating was going back to having something akin to a max # or retainers, which would be historical. With this idea, if someone has more than that many people 'working' for them, it might cause a Inattentive condition that might reduce output of expected individuals actions for the person if they aren't directly involved.
I don't know what the baseline for number of retainers would be, but if it were 5 then anyone with a 8 charisma (-1 mod) would find that if they were depending on more than 4 employee's those employee's would seem disinterested and inattentive, basically taking a penalty on their rolls for things, because of being uninspired and distracted. Someone with a high CHA would keep better attention of their retainers and keep them at a higher performance.
Skill feats might allow a boost to the number being able to be led, based on specific type of activity (and potentially within a certain range of them). Potentially allowing a 'lieutenants' to have a skill feat to double the base number when leading a block of soldiers to work together, allowing them to easily get up to leading 10 soldiers without a negative. A captain then would perhaps have a higher level feat, that instead of necessarily increasing the number, allows them to lead at a greater range, allowing them to lead a certain number of lieutenants.
Maybe CHA would impact how many people you can somehow provide whatever means you have to help unskilled or lesser skilled individuals in your party during exploration mode with their rolls.
It seems like a relatively reasonable aspect that could be tied to CHA and would make sense. The idea of 'retainers' had been tied to CHA to begin with, so having more than some number creating a situation where you take some sort of circumstance penalty seems kind of reasonable to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Aid reaction can only be used on skill checks, so unless there's a feat or ability I'm drawing a blank on, you can't use it to aid an attack roll. You can use the Assist action, but it's easy enough to say Cha applies to Aid but not Assist.
Another version of Cha to Aid Another rolls might be to lower the DC by your Cha modifier. The Aid reaction by default requires a DC 15 check; what if your CHA lowered that?
Beneficial at low levels, near useless at mid levels and totally redundant by 14.
Another version of Cha to Aid Another rolls might be to lower the DC by your Cha modifier. The Aid reaction by default requires a DC 15 check; what if your CHA lowered that?
Well there is still critical success at DC 25 for normal difficulty.
Also, "at the GM’s discretion this might change to DC 20 for particularly hard tasks or DC 10 for particularly easy tasks"
So the DC for a critical success Aid on a particularly hard task might get as high as 30.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also liked the idea that resonance could be used as an all-purpose pool for "uses per day" items.I don't like all-purpose pools. Players usually end up identifying the one most useful use of the pool points, and then never use them for anything else.
GM: "Well, in this game you have a hero point pool that you can use to reroll skill checks but you must take the second roll even if it's worse, or to not die when you would normally die..."
Player: "Then I will just save them up in case I ever need to not die."
GM: "...and there are Resonance points that you can use to activate any wand or staff or magic item."
Player: "My best magic item is this wand, so I will only ever use them for that."Exactly this. And in a few years time, a community meta will emerge where you'll get the same kind of push-back for using your Resonance sub-optimally as you got when you wanted to play a core monk or rogue. Gentle prods that boil down to "We're playing a somewhat more optimized campaign, if you don't make meta choices, the GM is going to have to start lowering the difficulty, and that's not what we signed up for".
There's also the subconscious acknowledgment that you're spending a resource on one thing when it could be spent on something else, which puts a damper on the coolness of using a magic item.
I hope you'll pardon the necromancy for bringing this back up, but I've been reflecting on it lately. While this is certainly a danger, I don't think it is a certainty by any stretch of the imagination. This is like assuming that spontaneous casters will identify their best spell and then only use their spell slots for said spell. Activated magic items are much closer to spells than hero points. And no spell is always the best spell. Even if a spell cements itself as your best combat spell, you still have utility needs that it probably won't meet. Sometimes your Resonance should be used on your Staff of Fire to blow stuff up. Sometimes it should be used on your Cloak of Elvenkind to make you invisible. And sometimes your best choice will be your boots of fly.
The big difference between spell slots and Resonance is that spell slots have more of a divide between spell levels, so while you could use every spell slot for magic missile you couldn't do the same for fireball. So I suppose Resonance would be more comparable to spell points/focus points. But I think the same argument applies there. A monk will use ki blast when fighting hoards, wind jump when fighting fliers, ki strike when fighting demons, and Wholeness of Body when their HP gets depleted. You use the option that is most helpful in the moment, not the most helpful in a different moment.