Rules Reveals from the Oblivion Oath Twitch game! (was sleepy sea cat)


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

451 to 500 of 719 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Cori Marie wrote:
Sara Marie wrote:

I plan to stay in the twitch chat when the pre recorded episodes go up. I'm looking forward to being able to see the chat reactions as things happen!

And THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU to the folks who've gotten me Hero Points. I feel like I have not adequately expressed on camera how much I appreciate it. I've put a lot of thought into Carina and it feels really validating and cool to have folks enjoy the experience enough to gift me/her Hero Points. I hope I use them, or have used them >:-) , in a worthy way!

Happy to help! Eventually I'll get one to everyone, but it takes time to build up that GP!

It sure does! Even with gifting subs left and right, I've only been able to get to three of them. But I think now that the non-sub gifters are having enough minutes watched, we'll start seeing a more slow trickle of them from a broader base of the audience which will be a good thing.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Jason just confirmed, no more ability drain or damage.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
numbat1 wrote:
Jason just confirmed, no more ability drain or damage.

A few other small tidbits from the replay, though I think we pretty much knew all of this. Each is a message from Jason, I've added a little context in [brackets] where necessary.

Jason wrote:

* Technically it is all [skills that can be used for Knowledge checks].. but for some I have a hard time figuring out how it might work.

* Those are all fine examples [that some folks in chat gave], I just think they will be a bit uncommon. But making it possible is why we made recalling knowledge a generic skill action

* Nope, we cut [NPC classes] from the game

* [NPC building] has some similarities [to Starfinder’s system]


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason wrote:

* Technically it is all [skills that can be used for Knowledge checks].. but for some I have a hard time figuring out how it might work.

* Those are all fine examples [that some folks in chat gave], I just think they will be a bit uncommon. But making it possible is why we made recalling knowledge a generic skill action

* Nope, we cut [NPC classes] from the game

* [NPC building] has some similarities [to Starfinder’s system]

I wonder if by *some* similarities they mean it's gonna be essentially the same. That term gets thrown around when reviving an unpopular feature, though will admit Starfinder NPC generation has had a mixed reception. It was really bland and the numbers never corresponded or even tried to be similar to PC numbers of the same level, but it also ensured a balanced challenge by virtue of being so conservative and mathed out.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
I wonder if by *some* similarities they mean it's gonna be essentially the same. That term gets thrown around when reviving an unpopular feature, though will admit Starfinder NPC generation has had a mixed reception. It was really bland and the numbers never corresponded or even tried to be similar to PC numbers of the same level, but it also ensured a balanced challenge by virtue of being so conservative and mathed out.

I'd imagine, specific numbers (which will be quite different since it's a different game) aside, the system will be substantially the same sort of thing, yes. They've repeatedly said that NPCs will be created the same way as monsters, and something like this is clearly how the PF2 monsters are built.

The fact that NPCs can also be built exactly like PCs (something else they've noted as an option), will likely make for fewer complaints than the Starfinder system (where that just flatly didn't work due to the math) had, though.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I hope that's how it works; not having to go through the PC creation rules to make NPCs is a major selling point of PF2e for me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
I hope that's how it works; not having to go through the PC creation rules to make NPCs is a major selling point of PF2e for me.

And would you like some Peace to go with that Prosperity?

XD JK, I think it will work like that ^___^

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
FedoraFerret wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
FedoraFerret wrote:
Interesting. Does anyone recall any of the OO characters using or referencing a Lore skill? Because if any skill can be used for Knowledge, then Lore can easily be replaced by doing the same for Practice a Profession.
Lore skills can already be used to Recall Knowledge. What change exactly do you think is relevant here?
The change where the thing that Lore was used for, having specialized knowledge without having to invest in the appropriate knowledge skill, is now covered by having any appropriate skill (e.g. you no longer need to invest in Nature to know about medicinal herbs, nor have Lore (herbalist/doctor/whatever) because you can use the Medicine skill instead). However, as Quid pointed out that doesn't cover the use of skills for certain professions. So I'll amend and say "hey, maybe this means they can rename Lore to Profession so I can stop hating the skill name so much."

Since there was a little discussion upthread wondering whether Lore had maybe been taken out after the Playtest, I figured I'd point out that Lore is alive and kicking in the most recent update to the Kingmaker crowdfunding campaign:

Kingmaker Campaign wrote:
Pathfinder Second Edition Backgrounds—Future River Regent and River Pirate: In Pathfinder Second Edition, choosing a background is a key part of building your character, granting unique flavor and providing two ability score boosts, training in a specific skill, Lore skill training, and a specific skill feat. This bonus unlocks two new backgrounds for you, tied to the River Kingdoms. These will be delivered in mid-July to your Paizo account.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

So backgrounds now add skill training in a non-lore skill. I guess that makes sense since if your background is "circus acrobat" getting training in circus lore but not acrobatics is pretty odd.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Lockpicking looks like it hasn't changed meaningfully from the playtest. Even really easy locks take multiple checks; looks like each try is a two-action activity.

"Basic" saves - with standardized results for success, crit, fail, crit fail - are a thing.

Swarms' autodamage allows a Ref save for half.

Dataphiles

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Zel is going to catch all of the diseases.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Rat swarms (all swarms?) are immune to precision damage but not crits.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:
Lockpicking looks like it hasn't changed meaningfully from the playtest. Even really easy locks take multiple checks; looks like each try is a two-action activity.

I hope then that they have prepared rules for destroying walls and/or doors because that seemed to be an easier task than the playtest open lock mechanics. :(


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I don't mind the in-combat mechanics for picking a lock taking multiple successes. But I disliked it taking multiple successes when out of combat.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Swarms: Don't make an attack roll, it's auto-damage against a "basic" Reflex save (i.e., success for half damage, crit success for none; crit-fail for double damage). Because they don't make an attack roll there's no penalty for them using repeat actions to continue to damage you. It sounded like most weapons might have been less-effective against them (did the playtest do half-damage from most weapons?). No sneak attack but yes crits against them. They can be flat-footed.

Inspire courage grants a "status bonus," which is either a name change or a new bonus type.

Like in the playtest, a splash attack will still deal splash damage on a failure, but not on a critical failure.

Paizo Employee Designer

15 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem with picking the lock in Doomsday Dawn was not that it took multiple successes, it was that the DC was way too high for a 1st level character on the lock in Part 1. If locks took one success, then there's not much point in the PCs (or NPCs) buying any lock below DC 25-30 or so (a level 0 beggar with Thievery could just use improvised tools with the penalty to avoid losing picks and open it after a minute or two), but playing with a DC 25-30 lock as the baseline would be super unfun for anyone who didn't use that "keep trying tons of times until it works on a really high roll" strategy and actually just wanted to be good at picking locks. Using a much lower DC with multiple successes makes it drastically likely for a skilled PC thief to be able to open a lock (potentially very quickly thanks to critical successes) while making it too hard for those unskilled beggars to do it. In Doomsday Dawn, the lowest level lock we gave was just too high DC, so we have a weaker kind of lock now. It probably can't keep the level 0 beggar out, but that's OK, we can just describe it as a very low quality lock that's more a nuisance than an actual obstacle. Locks in general (especially high quality ones) need to both be something fun to play with for PCs with Thievery and be something that characters would actually buy that can successfully keep out low-skill thieves; lower DC, multiple successes, can achieve both of these whereas one success can't achieve both at any DC.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:
Inspire courage grants a "status bonus," which is either a name change or a new bonus type.

Bless grants a status bonus as well. I’m assuming that’s the new name for the old Conditional.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Regarding locks, if you spend any time on youtube watching lockpickers, you'll know it's entirely plausible that any random person who makes the attempt to pick a low-level lock, with the appropriate tools, will succeed.

Locks historically just kept honest people honest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:

Swarms: Don't make an attack roll, it's auto-damage against a "basic" Reflex save (i.e., success for half damage, crit success for none; crit-fail for double damage). Because they don't make an attack roll there's no penalty for them using repeat actions to continue to damage you. It sounded like most weapons might have been less-effective against them (did the playtest do half-damage from most weapons?). No sneak attack but yes crits against them. They can be flat-footed.

Inspire courage grants a "status bonus," which is either a name change or a new bonus type.

Like in the playtest, a splash attack will still deal splash damage on a failure, but not on a critical failure.

Checking the playtest, it appears to be the same as then. Resistances bludgeoning 3, slashing 6, piercing 6 would line up with what we saw (my internet cut out at the exact point where there'd have been area damage, so I can't confirm that). Attacks appear to be the same as the playtest, and it had precision immunity then as well.

Inspire courage appears to have lost the damage bonus and bonus against fear.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
WatersLethe wrote:

Regarding locks, if you spend any time on youtube watching lockpickers, you'll know it's entirely plausible that any random person who makes the attempt to pick a low-level lock, with the appropriate tools, will succeed.

Locks historically just kept honest people honest.

I believe the idea behind locks is not to actually stop determined thieves, but that they will need some time to open the lock. Enough time that someone will notice and raise the alarm.


Mark Seifter wrote:
The problem with picking the lock in Doomsday Dawn was not that it took multiple successes, it was that the DC was way too high for a 1st level character on the lock in Part 1.

Too high DC's was one of the issues to be sure but I found breaking/destroying picks unfun too. Even on easy lock DC's, if you roll a 1 when you start you break your pick right off the bat. On more challenging lock DC's a run of bad luck does the same. This means you either pack multiple pick [if you can afford to] or you can end up acting like that "level 0 beggar" that has to "use improvised tools"...

So for me, if the only thing that's changed with opening locks is fixed DC's, I'm worried about it meeting your goal of "fun to play with for PCs with Thievery ". I'll give it a try when the actual game comes out, but I expect my rogue will be carrying a pick or other tool, to use on doors, chests and the like that have locks, if his tools explode like they did in the playtest. ;)

PS: almost forgot but as always thanks for posting! I know you're in crunch time for the con.

The Raven Black wrote:
Locks historically just kept honest people honest.
I believe the idea behind locks is not to actually stop determined thieves, but that they will need some time to open the lock. Enough time that someone will notice and raise the alarm.

For me, I think this is better emulated by increasing the time to make a roll and not increasing the number of checks needed. So instead of a lock taking 5 checks to open, make it 5 actions to make the roll.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:
Because they don't make an attack roll there's no penalty for them using repeat actions to continue to damage you.

Interesting, although since DC/Saves has essentially same math as attacks, not sure why it shouldn't be similarly penalized.

I can't recall all the details from stream, but I don't think we know a penalty DOESN'T apply to multiple Save-triggering actions. (???)


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
The problem with picking the lock in Doomsday Dawn was not that it took multiple successes, it was that the DC was way too high for a 1st level character on the lock in Part 1.

Too high DC's was one of the issues to be sure but I found breaking/destroying picks unfun too. Even on easy lock DC's, if you roll a 1 when you start you break your pick right off the bat. On more challenging lock DC's a run of bad luck does the same. This means you either pack multiple pick [if you can afford to] or you can end up acting like that "level 0 beggar" that has to "use improvised tools"...

So for me, if the only thing that's changed with opening locks is fixed DC's, I'm worried about it meeting your goal of "fun to play with for PCs with Thievery ". I'll give it a try when the actual game comes out, but I expect my rogue will be carrying a pick or other tool, to use on doors, chests and the like that have locks, if his tools explode like they did in the playtest. ;)

PS: almost forgot but as always thanks for posting! I know you're in crunch time for the con.

The Raven Black wrote:
Locks historically just kept honest people honest.
I believe the idea behind locks is not to actually stop determined thieves, but that they will need some time to open the lock. Enough time that someone will notice and raise the alarm. For me, I think this is better emulated by increasing the time to make a roll and not increasing the number of checks needed. So instead of a lock taking 5 checks to open, make it 5 actions to make the roll.

I think that only really works with binary success or failure. Once you're playing with 4 degrees of success/failure, while you dont need to have everything have all 4 degrees, something being completely binary feels off, and using the success/failure to determine how long it takes also doesn't feel quite right, since it means you roll before you even functionally start picking the lock, but you cant reduce the time it takes to pick the lock if you roll a critical success.

Picks breaking immeadiately on a critical failure doesn't feel great though, I wish they could take at least one crit failure and have the picks be recoverable( ie deal 1 point of damage to the pick, with 2 "HP").

Paizo Employee Designer

8 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:

Regarding locks, if you spend any time on youtube watching lockpickers, you'll know it's entirely plausible that any random person who makes the attempt to pick a low-level lock, with the appropriate tools, will succeed.

Locks historically just kept honest people honest.

That's definitely true of the worst locks in real life too, yeah; I was taught how to pick a really simple lock and probably can't pick anything else, for instance. Part of the fantasy of being an awesome PC thief is that you can break into all sorts of trickier locks and places that others can't. We needed a mechanic that allows you to do that. With critical success giving multiple successes and requiring multiple successes to open the lock, it makes skilled characters awesome more than other options would.

For instance, let's take graystone's idea to increase the number of actions required. It's better than not increasing the actions or the successes, but it doesn't proportionately speed up the PC rogue compared to the beggar. With 3 rounds of actions, the beggar who only succeeds on a 20 and critically fails on an 11 or lower goes from 2 minutes to 6 minutes but the PC rogue who succeeds on a 5 goes from 1 round to 3 rounds. If you require 3 successes, one attempt per round, the PC rogue takes under 3 rounds on average (more critical successes than rounds without a success, and only 1 for crit fail), while the beggar takes hours. It's weird how it works out, but more rolls is better for the skilled character. It's kind of like how in a single elimination tournament, a weaker team is more likely to win the tournament than a double elimination or a round-robin.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MusicAddict wrote:
Picks breaking immeadiately on a critical failure doesn't feel great though, I wish they could take at least one crit failure and have the picks be recoverable

I mean, conditional success tier modification is pretty much a standard mechanical option within this system, so CritFail negation is plausible option for Lockpick pros to take. But again, with the updated DCs, actual Crit Failures should be much less common for anybody reasonably good at Thievery. We know all DCs will be easier across the board for actual "pros" working in their field of expertise, and they have added additional EVEN EASIER tier of difficulty also used for Double Checks like this, making Crit Failure on any roll even less likely... And Crit Success even more likely, which can negate need for 2nd check.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

8 people marked this as a favorite.

So, I don't want to derail this thread with too much lock picking talk, but the lock in my adventure in Doomsday Dawn was supposed to be too hard to pick. Although at the time I thought of that as a feature (sometimes you run into problems you can't yet solve), it is clear that some were very frustrated by that call. That said, we liked the overall design of how locks worked, but we wanted them to be more useable in lower level scenarios.

In this adventure, Zel was able to pick that lock with relative ease in under 30 seconds, which is what I would expect out of a 1st level adventurer against a cheap lock on an old wooden door.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
Because they don't make an attack roll there's no penalty for them using repeat actions to continue to damage you.

Interesting, although since DC/Saves has essentially same math as attacks, not sure why it shouldn't be similarly penalized.

I can't recall all the details from stream, but I don't think we know a penalty DOESN'T apply to multiple Save-triggering actions. (???)

Someone asked exactly this in the chat. Jason confirmed there was no MAP-analogous penalty in play for multiple swarm attacks.


^Okay, thanks for confirming... Still don't understand why it shouldn't but hey...

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
graystone wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Lockpicking looks like it hasn't changed meaningfully from the playtest. Even really easy locks take multiple checks; looks like each try is a two-action activity.
I hope then that they have prepared rules for destroying walls and/or doors because that seemed to be an easier task than the playtest open lock mechanics. :(

Do you have your thieves tools?

Yep! Pulls out adamantine hammer and crowbar!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think multiple checks for picking locks makes sense if we're talking about pin an tumbler locks, since you have to set all the pins to the correct height in order to pick the lock.


Mark Seifter wrote:
For instance, let's take graystone's idea to increase the number of actions required. It's better than not increasing the actions or the successes, but it doesn't proportionately speed up the PC rogue compared to the beggar.

That, IMO, is easily 'fixed' by having the number of rounds needed modified by proficiency. For instance untrained [if there was a lock easy enough to open for untrained] could add to the rounds while each level of proficiency reduces round.

My worry with multiple checks is what happened with Doomsday Dawn when you are trying to pick a reasonably hard lock: it can be really frustrating to make a check, then lose a check then make a check. It can be frustrating to take a step back for every step forward. Even if it ends up taking the same number of rounds, it's more 'fun' IMO to finish it up in a handful of rolls vs maybe/potentially several dozen. I think if we want to prevent some people from opening locks with enough time we require a certain rank of skill. For instance a trained person is required for 'trained' lock. It'd at least be a reason for people to have crowbars...

But all this is kind of a moot point by this point as the books already set in stone. I just hope multiple checks turns up much better than it played out in the playtest.

Quandary wrote:
CritFail negation is plausible option for Lockpick pros to take.

I hope you don't have to take one of these type of options for every skill to be competent it.

EDIT: Just noticed we're in the rules reveal thread. Sorry to derail but Mark posted and I just posted back. :)

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Honestly I think the main problem with that lock in DD was that it was a playtest & the first exposure people had to lockpicking and it FELT unfair. I think if it wasn't the first lock people ever saw in the edition they may have gone "Oh, it's too hard for me? Ok...". As it stood it went "A lock! Great, time to try out the new system... what do you mean I failed I specialized in this! /rage"

I think the base system is fine, and the adventure was fine, it just didn't serve well as an introduction to the new mechanic.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

So, I don't want to derail this thread with too much lock picking talk, but the lock in my adventure in Doomsday Dawn was supposed to be too hard to pick. Although at the time I thought of that as a feature (sometimes you run into problems you can't yet solve), it is clear that some were very frustrated by that call. That said, we liked the overall design of how locks worked, but we wanted them to be more useable in lower level scenarios.

In this adventure, Zel was able to pick that lock with relative ease in under 30 seconds, which is what I would expect out of a 1st level adventurer against a cheap lock on an old wooden door.

I suspect that lock being unpickable wasn't obvious to the people complaining. It felt obvious to me, but it didn't seem to get mentioned a lot by the folks complaining about locks being a pain. Which would make sense, especially if they were players. They wouldn't necessarily know there was a key to open the door elsewhere in the dungeon. Conveying expected difficulty seems like something a lot of games or game masters struggle with. There are all those stories of GMs putting in unbeatable monsters expecting people to run only for the players to try and fight, and so forth.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
There are all those stories of GMs putting in unbeatable monsters expecting people to run only for the players to try and fight, and so forth.

Players: What do you mean we weren't suppose to fight the Black Dragon at level 1? The direct path had a highway toll, so we obviously weren't gonna do that.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
I suspect that lock being unpickable wasn't obvious to the people complaining. It felt obvious to me, but it didn't seem to get mentioned a lot by the folks complaining about locks being a pain. Which would make sense, especially if they were players. They wouldn't necessarily know there was a key to open the door elsewhere in the dungeon. Conveying expected difficulty seems like something a lot of games or game masters struggle with. There are all those stories of GMs putting in unbeatable monsters expecting people to run only for the players to try and fight, and so forth.

I call this phenomenon GM-nearsightedness : forgetting that what is obvious to the GM because they knows the whole story is not obvious to the players who know only a short slide of it.


Captain Morgan wrote:
There are all those stories of GMs putting in unbeatable monsters expecting people to run only for the players to try and fight, and so forth.

I actually had a story of this going successfully not too long ago.

Party was in the town centered around their guild, just checking things out. Heard a noise in an alley, investigated, found some undead and slew them.

Then the alleyway entrance is blocked by a Wraith. This is five level 3 characters so technically they'd be able to beat the Wraith by level guidelines but there's a unique case here in that the Wraith's Resistances and immunities just make him too dang hard for the party to actually beat (though I will say here that they did EXCELLENT for the circumstances and actually managed to get some damage on the thing). This wasn't a fight they were supposed to win here (they were intended to face him again later with proper equipment for a satisfying beatdown).

Fight opens with Wraith winning initiative and oneshotting the Cleric with a lucky crit. One party member immediately activates an emergency signal we had to call some of our stronger allows in the Guild. Party proceeds to do their best but a lot of their effort is put into just surviving as they were immediately put in a dangerous spot.

I gave it a couple rounds and then had their ally show up. He knocks half the HP off of the Wraith who immediately nopes out of there.

The collection relief of the party when they heard the battle cry of their ally was honestly kind of hilarious to me. Just their reactions were great. XD

But yeah, they immediately played it smart when they realized that guy was trouble. I was very happy.

If they hadn't I was planning on having their allies show up anyway (I had actually forgotten about the signal) but I was glad it came about from their own initiative, it made it satisfying for them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
I suspect that lock being unpickable wasn't obvious to the people complaining. It felt obvious to me, but it didn't seem to get mentioned a lot by the folks complaining about locks being a pain. Which would make sense, especially if they were players. They wouldn't necessarily know there was a key to open the door elsewhere in the dungeon. Conveying expected difficulty seems like something a lot of games or game masters struggle with. There are all those stories of GMs putting in unbeatable monsters expecting people to run only for the players to try and fight, and so forth.
I call this phenomenon GM-nearsightedness : forgetting that what is obvious to the GM because they knows the whole story is not obvious to the players who know only a short slide of it.

It's even more so here than usual, since this was a playtest and thus very likely the first lock players had run across in the system. Was it intentionally unpickable? A miscalculation in the design? Did my character miss some build trick that would make it easy?

You've got no baseline for judging.

It's like running into that unbeatable monster you're supposed to run from as the first fight in a test of a new system. Not quite the same as doing so once you know better how the system plays.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
I suspect that lock being unpickable wasn't obvious to the people complaining. It felt obvious to me, but it didn't seem to get mentioned a lot by the folks complaining about locks being a pain. Which would make sense, especially if they were players. They wouldn't necessarily know there was a key to open the door elsewhere in the dungeon. Conveying expected difficulty seems like something a lot of games or game masters struggle with. There are all those stories of GMs putting in unbeatable monsters expecting people to run only for the players to try and fight, and so forth.
I call this phenomenon GM-nearsightedness : forgetting that what is obvious to the GM because they knows the whole story is not obvious to the players who know only a short slide of it.

It's even more so here than usual, since this was a playtest and thus very likely the first lock players had run across in the system. Was it intentionally unpickable? A miscalculation in the design? Did my character miss some build trick that would make it easy?

You've got no baseline for judging.

It's like running into that unbeatable monster you're supposed to run from as the first fight in a test of a new system. Not quite the same as doing so once you know better how the system plays.

*nods* This. Even the DM might have just skimmed the lockpicking DC's and isn't thinking that the lock isn't meant to be picked. If it was truly meant to be an unpickable lock, then noting that IN THE ADVENTURE would have done wonders to manage everyone's expectations. For instance: 'note, this lock's DC is very hard for the players to pick and wasn't intended to be opened without the key.'


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
Inspire courage grants a "status bonus," which is either a name change or a new bonus type.
Bless grants a status bonus as well. I’m assuming that’s the new name for the old Conditional.

I'm hoping this is them separating out "party buffs" and "self buffs". In the playtest Bards had the Skald problem where their main stuff just outright doesn't work with a lot of party compositions; it's fine for Inspire not to stack with Bless, but it really needs to stack with Rage or else you're never going to want a Bard and a Barbarian in the same party.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
I suspect that lock being unpickable wasn't obvious to the people complaining. It felt obvious to me, but it didn't seem to get mentioned a lot by the folks complaining about locks being a pain. Which would make sense, especially if they were players. They wouldn't necessarily know there was a key to open the door elsewhere in the dungeon. Conveying expected difficulty seems like something a lot of games or game masters struggle with. There are all those stories of GMs putting in unbeatable monsters expecting people to run only for the players to try and fight, and so forth.
I call this phenomenon GM-nearsightedness : forgetting that what is obvious to the GM because they knows the whole story is not obvious to the players who know only a short slide of it.

It's even more so here than usual, since this was a playtest and thus very likely the first lock players had run across in the system. Was it intentionally unpickable? A miscalculation in the design? Did my character miss some build trick that would make it easy?

You've got no baseline for judging.

It's like running into that unbeatable monster you're supposed to run from as the first fight in a test of a new system. Not quite the same as doing so once you know better how the system plays.

How the system handle an "unbeatable" challenge actually seems like something you very much want to stress test. That's why we got part 5 after all. But a disclaimer for GMs would have been nice.


Captain Morgan wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
I suspect that lock being unpickable wasn't obvious to the people complaining. It felt obvious to me, but it didn't seem to get mentioned a lot by the folks complaining about locks being a pain. Which would make sense, especially if they were players. They wouldn't necessarily know there was a key to open the door elsewhere in the dungeon. Conveying expected difficulty seems like something a lot of games or game masters struggle with. There are all those stories of GMs putting in unbeatable monsters expecting people to run only for the players to try and fight, and so forth.
I call this phenomenon GM-nearsightedness : forgetting that what is obvious to the GM because they knows the whole story is not obvious to the players who know only a short slide of it.

It's even more so here than usual, since this was a playtest and thus very likely the first lock players had run across in the system. Was it intentionally unpickable? A miscalculation in the design? Did my character miss some build trick that would make it easy?

You've got no baseline for judging.

It's like running into that unbeatable monster you're supposed to run from as the first fight in a test of a new system. Not quite the same as doing so once you know better how the system plays.

How the system handle an "unbeatable" challenge actually seems like something you very much want to stress test. That's why we got part 5 after all. But a disclaimer for GMs would have been nice.

I guess, but there's not really any "system" to "You can't pick this lock". Not sure how you'd test it, since the whole point is to go do something other than pick the lock.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Ediwir wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
Inspire courage grants a "status bonus," which is either a name change or a new bonus type.
Bless grants a status bonus as well. I’m assuming that’s the new name for the old Conditional.
I'm hoping this is them separating out "party buffs" and "self buffs". In the playtest Bards had the Skald problem where their main stuff just outright doesn't work with a lot of party compositions; it's fine for Inspire not to stack with Bless, but it really needs to stack with Rage or else you're never going to want a Bard and a Barbarian in the same party.

I have a bit of a problem with this as many people act as if "Rage doesn't stack with Inspire Courage" equates to one making the other irrelevant. And that's just not true. In this specific case, which seems to be the one many people point to, all it is is Raging Barbarians don't get the +1 damage from Inspire Course because the Rage bonus is always better. Thats it. And the +1 damage isnt even the main draw of Inspire, the +1 accuracy is and the Barbarian gets that.

Sorry, I just get annoyed when people act like Inspire Courage and Rage together makes either useless. It's really not. Rage making you miss out on a minor part of the Inspire benefit is no big deal, and I'll take it any day over the stacking madness in PF1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think multiple checks for picking locks makes sense if we're talking about pin an tumbler locks, since you have to set all the pins to the correct height in order to pick the lock.

Given that pin tumbler locks are a 19th century invention, (and the kind you are probably thinking of mid-19th century), you probably aren't going to be encountering them on Golarion.

The best you are likely to encounter are lever tumbler, (TBH even those are pushing it a bit), but even a basic warded lock can justify multiple checks, (as you maneuver the pick around the wards). Another reason for requiring multiple successes would be locks with hidden and/or false keyholes, (something that was done before the various types of tumbler lock were invented).

More complicated warded lock setups can even justify having setbacks in the rules: Consider a lock with two keyholes where unlocking #1 will re-lock #2. A critical failure there can represent doing #2 first then discovering that you have to do it again.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Chakat Firepaw wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think multiple checks for picking locks makes sense if we're talking about pin an tumbler locks, since you have to set all the pins to the correct height in order to pick the lock.
Given that pin tumbler locks are a 19th century invention, (and the kind you are probably thinking of mid-19th century), you probably aren't going to be encountering them on Golarion.

We have airships and spaceships on Golarion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Chakat Firepaw wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think multiple checks for picking locks makes sense if we're talking about pin an tumbler locks, since you have to set all the pins to the correct height in order to pick the lock.
Given that pin tumbler locks are a 19th century invention, (and the kind you are probably thinking of mid-19th century), you probably aren't going to be encountering them on Golarion.
We have airships and spaceships on Golarion.

Tech progression is weird when you get magic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Chakat Firepaw wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think multiple checks for picking locks makes sense if we're talking about pin an tumbler locks, since you have to set all the pins to the correct height in order to pick the lock.
Given that pin tumbler locks are a 19th century invention, (and the kind you are probably thinking of mid-19th century), you probably aren't going to be encountering them on Golarion.
We have airships and spaceships on Golarion.

Yes, but you're probably still not going to be encountering them. It's not what your average rogue is trained to deal with. They exist, but they're exotic.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Your average rogue isn't a PC


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cori Marie wrote:
Your average rogue isn't a PC

Neither is your average locksmith, who is the one actually making these locks and determining what level of technical advancement is used. That said, Golarion isn't medieval Earth, which makes when tumblers were invented on Earth kind of irrelevant.

ANYWAY. You can use multiple hero points to keep rerolling the same roll. I'm pretty sure you couldn't do that in the Playtest, as rerolls were considered Fortune effects.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Folks, I think some of you might have missed that I already stated that the challenge of that lock in the first adventure was a mistake. Let's not derail this thread any further. We learned from that and adjusted the system accordingly.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
We have airships and spaceships on Golarion.

I figure letting locks be as advanced as firearms is a good way to go about it. If Alkenstar can create the equivalent of an 1836 Colt Paterson Revolver (even if it takes a long time and mass production is difficult) then we can have pin and tumbler locks. After all, Alkenstar is going to want to lock up their guns...

451 to 500 of 719 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Rules Reveals from the Oblivion Oath Twitch game! (was sleepy sea cat) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.