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

[rooneg]

thejeff wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

rooneg wrote:

I'm not entirely sure I buy the argument that PCs know the workings of their own Class. There's a spectrum here. Some classes are clearly things that exist in the fiction of the world (i.e. a Wizard is an arcane spellcaster who prepares spells in this particular way, etc). Some of them are not so clear cut (i.e. the difference between a Fighter and various other types of non-magical martial classes). PCs know the visible results of the inner workings of the world, that doesn't necessarily mean they even know what class they are.

This is true. But that actually makes them more likely to notice abilities that are distinctly abnormal, IMO. I'd expect a Fighter to know a lot about, well, combat, which is to say the combat abilities of all martial Classes.

I'd find him looking at someone who is in all ways a Barbarian except for this one thing that makes no sense as every bit as plausible as him doing the same with another Fighter.

The same applies to most other Classes, really.

So he's got some obscure archetype or feat I didn't know about. So what? There's hundreds of them.

Does he react that way to his first Urban Barbarian? Or whatever that fighter archetype that gets a familiar is?

This is a metagame problem that only exists because the player knows the ability doesn't exist for PCs.

It's the problem of players wanting the cool toy that's balanced for NPCs not PCs.

Exactly. The in-world explanation of this isn't "I know what a Barbarian can do, and that's BS", it's "This is a trick I've never seen before, I wonder how you do that". People who are skilled at something are mystified at the abilities of other people who are skilled at the same thing ALL THE TIME in the real world, sometimes it's something they figure out how to replicate given work and time (i.e. I'll take that feat next level), sometimes it remains completely beyond them.

Now I agree that it doesn't have to break verisimilitude to be a problem, low level NPCs with abilities that are just absurd for a PC are something to be avoided (I also hate it when 5e martial opponents get multiple attacks many levels before I do), but this isn't some sort of ironclad rule, it's more of a guideline and breaking it occasionally doesn't instantly mean that none of this makes any sense in-world.

[ChibiNyan]

By the way, 5E players when the game came out did complain about multi-attack bandits and Knights who can Parry and inspire their allies. To this day, I don't think there's a single PC available option to "parry" like these generic NPCs. Clearly some long lost mythical technique.

[Edge93]

I think it's fair to say that 99% of the arguments/positions in here come down to agree on the following to some degree or another:

Monsters kinda do what they want, they have suitable stats for their role and level because monsters. They will have abilities humans don't because monsters.

For humanoid NPCs, stats don't necessarily have to be calculated the same way as PCs, rather they have what they need to fit their role and in turn DON'T have a lot of options PCs do. Even the "NPC Fighter has more accuracy than PC Fighter of same level" fits this dynamic because the NPC doesn't have all the abilities of a PC Fighter. They're given higher baseline stats but lesser abilities to keep overall power on track but remain easier for GMs to run.

They can also have abilities the PCs don't but please at least give us a passable reason for it. I personally accept the "you could do this but you probably don't want to because you'd have to trade your whole class away" option but there are other ways too.

And of course it's nice to have major NPCs build out more like PCs, though unique abilities on major NPCs are still fun but again reasons are great. In fact, I think it makes non-PC abilities cooler when they DO have some specific backing. Like your double-attack Bandit only learned that because he was brutally trained by his bandit gang from a young age to strike quick and light. Or maybe it's even an uncommon ability you could POTENTIALLY gain access to but it only works with agile and finesse d4 weapons so are you quite sure you want it?

TL;DR, I think we're pretty much all good with both sides of the coin but also want a sense of balance and reason behind it so that NPC-only traits, abilities, stats, etc. feel integrated into the world, a feature rather than a bug. Is that about right?

After all, you might raise an eyebrow at the abilities they have that you can't get, but they're probably doing the exact same right back at you. ;P

[thejeff]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

thejeff wrote:

So he's got some obscure archetype or feat I didn't know about. So what? There's hundreds of them.

Does he react that way to his first Urban Barbarian? Or whatever that fighter archetype that gets a familiar is?

I he wants a Dex-boost or a Familiar and didn't know about them before? Absolutely.

thejeff wrote:

This is a metagame problem that only exists because the player knows the ability doesn't exist for PCs.

It isn't. It's a problem that exists because PCs see cool things and want them. I've had people who know a bit less of the system than I happen to do this with available options all the time after they show up, or even just are brought up in conversation. The difference is that with real options the GM can just say 'Oh, yeah, take this thing right here and you've got it.' Or possibly 'Join this setting specific organization and do them some favors and they can teach it to you.'

thejeff wrote:

It's the problem of players wanting the cool toy that's balanced for NPCs not PCs.

At least some PCs will inevitably want any sufficiently cool toy presented to them. It is incumbent on good GMs and designers to either make said toys available or provide a reason they cannot have them that goes beyond 'Because I say so.'

Because being told you can't do things 'because I said so' is an unpleasant experience and this is a game, and is thus intended to be fun.

But we're still mixing levels here. Coming up with in-world justifications for abilities not being available might make sense to the PC, but it doesn't really do anything for the player who wants that ability for their next character. It's transparently a excuse to not give it to PCs. It's always "because I say so".

And in plenty of games that's not even a question, but just the baseline assumption. It's the build game focus of 3.x that makes this such an issue.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Honestly? I don't. At least not as a hard and fast rule. Abilities for NPCs have to be balanced for that particular character in that particular encounter. Player abilities have to be considered in every possible context and interaction with other classes and potential abilities. It's a much tougher job.

I was specifically talking about a fun flavor ability, there. I'm not advocating every ability no matter how unbalanced be PC approved. I'm advocating that those that aren't have a reason why they aren't.

thejeff wrote:

It's not so

...

The point on that second part wasn't that every ability must be approved, but that every ability given to PCs must be vetted to make sure that "fun flavor ability" isn't overpowered in some combination they hadn't thought of when they wrote up the NPC. That's a lot more work, whether they decide to approve it or not.

[graystone]

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Admittedly being from a certain culture or whatever has sometimes been used as a prereq for PF1 feats, but I think that gets ignored more often than rarity is likely to.

Hidden in the healer's handbook, they listed how long it take to be counted as being from a location: "Each includes a regional trait for characters trained in that tradition who are from there or who have lived there for at least 1 year." Now that's only listed for traits but it seems a good baseline for other things like feats.

[PossibleCabbage]

I wonder how much the rarity system can save us from problems with "abilities which are intended to create monsters which pose a threat, but might be an issue in the optimisey hands of PCs."

Like if there is secret awesome bandit kung fu, it needn't be impossible for the PCs to learn it, but perhaps the bandits learned it from a naga who was cultivating them as followers and naga sifus are not exactly coming out of the woodwork looking for promising students. So it's not a thing that is *impossible* for a PC to learn, it is just most likely (initially) inaccessible to most PCs.

Like the two most plausible reasons for an NPC to have an ability a PC can't get is:
1) you don't have the right anatomy for that.
2) you know of no one who will teach it to you.

[thejeff]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I wonder how much the rarity system can save us from problems with "abilities which are intended to create monsters which pose a threat, but might be an issue in the optimisey hands of PCs."

Like if there is secret awesome bandit kung fu, it needn't be impossible for the PCs to learn it, but perhaps the bandits learned it from a naga who was cultivating them as followers and naga sifus are not exactly coming out of the woodwork looking for promising students. So it's not a thing that is *impossible* for a PC to learn, it is just most likely (initially) inaccessible to most PCs.

Like the two most plausible reasons for an NPC to have an ability a PC can't get is:
1) you don't have the right anatomy for that.
2) you know of no one who will teach it to you.

Rarity is just a justification for "because I said so". :)

Which is fine by me, but I suspect will be disliked by those who dislike special NPC abilities anyway. They might find it okay if you come up with the whole secret naga bandit sifu background, but still get annoyed if you pull that too many times.

Even if it makes the gameplay better.

[MaxAstro]

I think Edge exactly nails it.

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

graystone wrote:

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Admittedly being from a certain culture or whatever has sometimes been used as a prereq for PF1 feats, but I think that gets ignored more often than rarity is likely to.

Hidden in the healer's handbook, they listed how long it take to be counted as being from a location: "Each includes a regional trait for characters trained in that tradition who are from there or who have lived there for at least 1 year." Now that's only listed for traits but it seems a good baseline for other things like feats.

Nice. I hope PF2 has rules/guidelines for getting region-based access like that. Generalizing and carrying over the HH 1-year rule would be reasonable IMO.

[Elorebaen]

Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

For example, in Starfinder, there was a Solarian NPC who could shoot bolts of energy as a ranged attack. PCs immediately wanted this ability, and there was widespread annoyance when they couldn't get it (since there was no listed PC version anywhere). There wasn't anything special or different about said NPC that resulted in him having an ability no PC could ever acquire (and one that was thematically perfect for the Class in question), he just had it arbitrarily. which is why there were feelings of resentment and complaints.

Yep, I even forecalled it.

I don’t see this as an issue. Basically had you lived the life of that NPC, you would be able to as well. Maybe it was a completely unknown class, or a mutant ability.

There are items, spells, classes, etc that have are completely unknown to PCs, and I think that is a good thing. I think the experience is straight jacketed by only represented by what is currently published.

With that said, I also think both side of this discussion can coexist more or less harmoniously. It sounds like is going to be presented will do the trick.

[Aenigma]

It seems like I have to be content with the new monster system, if maintaining the original monster system gives too much work to the developers and GMs. I at least wish monsters in Second Edition have ability scores, but the possibility of it seems very slim. I'm also sad because it seems I can no longer add class levels to monsters because they are not designed like PC races and thus I cannot make an orc, an ogre, a troll, a serpentfolk, a dragon, or any other monstrous races as a PC(not that I have actually played them in a game, but still...).

[Serum]

Aenigma wrote:

I'm also sad because it seems I can no longer add class levels to monsters because they are not designed like PC races and thus I cannot make an orc, an ogre, a troll, a serpentfolk, a dragon, or any other monstrous races as a PC(not that I have actually played them in a game, but still...).

This is more something that GMs do, anyway. Is it easy to add PC class levels to monsters in PF2?

[PossibleCabbage]

thejeff wrote:

Rarity is just a justification for "because I said so". :)

Which is fine by me, but I suspect will be disliked by those who dislike special NPC abilities anyway. They might find it okay if you come up with the whole secret naga bandit sifu background, but still get annoyed if you pull that too many times.

Even if it makes the gameplay better.

Well, this is a push and pull thing from the GMs and Players perspective I think. One of the most important problems PF2 solves, IMO, is ending the "magic mart" phenomenon that plagued PF1- specifically that pretty much any obscure thing from a player's companion was easily accessible for anyone with access to enough magical transportation.

Having everything be just a teleport and a haggle away makes pretty much makes it impossible for there to be stuff the PCs gain through adventuring that is legitimately exciting, barring stuff the players have never heard of.

Rarity is a tool not only for limiting access to certain powerful things (e.g. Antimagic Fields) but also a way for a GM to create exciting rewards. If players are bedeviled by the awesomeness of Naga Bandit Kung Fu, finding a manual they can learn it from is a windfall, or barring that seeking someone to teach then NBKF is a plot hook and there's never too many of those around.

But sure, there are people who will chafe at "not everything is available to you just because you want it" but it was that way in PF1 too, with people upset they couldn't just learn blood money "because it popped into my head on level-up".

[Joe Wells]

I'd be surprised if there isn't a way to add something to monsters that looks an awful lot like class levels from afar.

[Ed Reppert]

"It popped into my head on level-up".

Yeah, this is kind of what bugs me about class-based systems in general, particularly those where all gaming sessions are about "running the adventure" and downtime isn't really a thing. So on Day One you go adventuring, and a few days weeks or months later, after doing nothing but that, suddenly you "learn" all this new stuff. :-(

There's this thing called "willing suspension of disbelief". Okay, I can do that, up to a point. I can even do it beyond that point (which the above is, for me) if the game is interesting enough. But it still bugs me.

[FedoraFerret]

Y'all, I keep seeing a bunch of posts in this thread and thinking "ooh new rules reveals, must be." There is an entire board in which you could make a thread to discuss this, please do and stop throwing off the people with no interest in this discussion.

[Rysky]

Elorebaen wrote:

Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

For example, in Starfinder, there was a Solarian NPC who could shoot bolts of energy as a ranged attack. PCs immediately wanted this ability, and there was widespread annoyance when they couldn't get it (since there was no listed PC version anywhere). There wasn't anything special or different about said NPC that resulted in him having an ability no PC could ever acquire (and one that was thematically perfect for the Class in question), he just had it arbitrarily. which is why there were feelings of resentment and complaints.

Yep, I even forecalled it.

I don’t see this as an issue. Basically had you lived the life of that NPC, you would be able to as well. Maybe it was a completely unknown class, or a mutant ability.

There are items, spells, classes, etc that have are completely unknown to PCs, and I think that is a good thing. I think the experience is straight jacketed by only represented by what is currently published.

With that said, I also think both side of this discussion can coexist more or less harmoniously. It sounds like is going to be presented will do the trick.

But we’re playing a class system and while your character might not know of it they will after.

I’m not talking about story or monster abilities but Class abilities, and having Class abilities that only NPCs can use for no reason other than that they're an NPC isn’t a good system.

[Deadmanwalking]

thejeff wrote:

But we're still mixing levels here. Coming up with in-world justifications for abilities not being available might make sense to the PC, but it doesn't really do anything for the player who wants that ability for their next character. It's transparently a excuse to not give it to PCs. It's always "because I say so".

It's not transparently an excuse if it's a good explanation where the ability follows logically from the explanation.

And you can say this about anything a GM does, but the fact that they come up with an explanation still matters. A GM who has monsters randomly appear in the midst of the party out of thin air and when asked who's teleporting them there says 'I am. I wanted you guys to have a fight.' is, in most groups, an objectively worse GM than one who explains the arrival of monsters for the PCs to fight in some in-universe manner.

thejeff wrote:

And in plenty of games that's not even a question, but just the baseline assumption. It's the build game focus of 3.x that makes this such an issue.

What games? I can think of very few games, including all the asymmetric ones, where NPCs have abilities that PCs can't with no explanation. In all of them I can think of, it's not uncommonly considered a real weakness of the game in question (like in D&D 5E).

thejeff wrote:

The point on that second part wasn't that every ability must be approved, but that every ability given to PCs must be vetted to make sure that "fun flavor ability" isn't overpowered in some combination they hadn't thought of when they wrote up the NPC. That's a lot more work, whether they decide to approve it or not.

I'm not suggesting they do this often. I'm basically suggesting they not give cool flavor abilities they don't want to do this with to NPCs, since that's kind of a dick move to players who want them. I'm suggesting this kind of thing thrown on an NPC should be rare, and come with a PC version the times it does occur.

thejeff wrote:

Rarity is just a justification for "because I said so". :)

Rarity is a mechanical element. Why the thing in question isn't Common is the in-world justification. And it can be a fine one.

thejeff wrote:

Which is fine by me, but I suspect will be disliked by those who dislike special NPC abilities anyway. They might find it okay if you come up with the whole secret naga bandit sifu background, but still get annoyed if you pull that too many times.

Even if it makes the gameplay better.

Accusations that this needs to come up often are weird to me. Most monsters can and will have abilities that PCs don't have. PCs fight a lot of enemies that logically have abilities they don't, from dragons to elementals to undead. They fight Ancestries unavailable for PC use, like hobgoblins. And all of those feel different to fight in PF2, which is great.

The way people of clearly recognizable Classes and Ancestries fight is also different. And it's different in that they don't do much if anything a PC couldn't. Unlike literally everything else.

What you're arguing is actually an argument to remove what makes fighting PC Ancestry and Class enemies unique and different from everything else. It removes options in many ways rather than adding them.

Elorebaen wrote:

I don’t see this as an issue. Basically had you lived the life of that NPC, you would be able to as well. Maybe it was a completely unknown class, or a mutant ability.

There are items, spells, classes, etc that have are completely unknown to PCs, and I think that is a good thing. I think the experience is straight jacketed by only represented by what is currently published.

Again, the issue comes when a PC wants to know how to do that, and metagame explanations without in-world ones are often deeply unsatisfying.

Elorebaen wrote:

With that said, I also think both side of this discussion can coexist more or less harmoniously. It sounds like is going to be presented will do the trick.

I definitely agree with this, and mentioned so in my first or second post on this topic.

[Ruzza]

FedoraFerret wrote:

Y'all, I keep seeing a bunch of posts in this thread and thinking "ooh new rules reveals, must be." There is an entire board in which you could make a thread to discuss this, please do and stop throwing off the people with no interest in this discussion.

Very agreed. If people really feel like this is something worth 100+ new posts to the rules reveal thread, maybe it's better suited for its own thread?

[Roswynn]

Ruzza wrote:

FedoraFerret wrote:

Y'all, I keep seeing a bunch of posts in this thread and thinking "ooh new rules reveals, must be." There is an entire board in which you could make a thread to discuss this, please do and stop throwing off the people with no interest in this discussion.

Very agreed. If people really feel like this is something worth 100+ new posts to the rules reveal thread, maybe it's better suited for its own thread?

Indeed, and I apologize for having contributed to the derailment. If this debate has to go on, this thread is not the place.

[Deadmanwalking]

Fair enough, I'll drop it moving forward until and unless someone makes a dedicated thread.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

Gorbacz wrote:

Screw versimilitude and the nice fuzzy feeling that reality fits neat little boxes in your brain you've made for yourself. And that those boxes are nice and orderly. Oh and your boxes are the same as the boxes over there.

It's a game, opponents are supposed to be challenging, encounters are supposed to be interesting. I don't care if my PC could potentially do the same things the Gladiator NPC can do, I want it to be a tough cookie I can fight and have satisfaction from winning. Pretty much nothing else matters.

My opinions about that changed over the years because too often the desire for realism/verisimilitude conflicted with me having fun.

It does seem to be a current trend, and I am fine with that, I really like the Starfinder NPCs most of the time.

[oholoko]

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Screw versimilitude and the nice fuzzy feeling that reality fits neat little boxes in your brain you've made for yourself. And that those boxes are nice and orderly. Oh and your boxes are the same as the boxes over there.

It's a game, opponents are supposed to be challenging, encounters are supposed to be interesting. I don't care if my PC could potentially do the same things the Gladiator NPC can do, I want it to be a tough cookie I can fight and have satisfaction from winning. Pretty much nothing else matters.

My opinions about that changed over the years because too often the desire for realism/verisimilitude conflicted with me having fun.

It does seem to be a current trend, and I am fine with that, I really like the Starfinder NPCs most of the time.

I once thought it was better when you had all the freedom in creating npcs/monsters... Then i tested starfinder monster/npc creation. That thought went away pretty easily when i could create a monster in like 5 minutes and he was both chalenging and customizable.

[Prince Setehrael]

I come for the updates and reveals, I stay for the drama and debates.

[The Raven Black]

Truly things have gone full circle if the new and better way of TTRPG is based on "the GM has all the power because surely that is the only way great stories can be told". Gygax loved that paradigm. I do not because not many GMs have the skill to provide fun to players when being all-powerful.

[Arachnofiend]

The Raven Black wrote:

Truly things have gone full circle if the new and better way of TTRPG is based on "the GM has all the power because surely that is the only way great stories can be told". Gygax loved that paradigm. I do not because not many GMs have the skill to provide fun to players when being all-powerful.

The thing is that when it comes to creating monsters and NPC's the GM already had that power. The main benefit of how PF2 is doing NPC design is making the pre-made stat blocks far less of a mess since they don't have to include so much useless information and fudged numbers.

[BryonD]

The Raven Black wrote:

Truly things have gone full circle if the new and better way of TTRPG is based on "the GM has all the power because surely that is the only way great stories can be told". Gygax loved that paradigm. I do not because not many GMs have the skill to provide fun to players when being all-powerful.

If you are selecting a game system based on the presumption that the GM is bad, then you have already given up on the possibility of the best possible games.

I choose to only play in games with great GMs (or at least people who aspire to be great GMs, and young players with that mindset still avoid the issues you bring up).

Systems that try to prop up a bad GM ultimately can only do so much because a bad GM is still a bad GM. So the only thing bad GM systems do is stunt the development of future great GMs.

And, I do agree with you that PF2 turns the dial in that direction of optimizing for inferior GMs rather than superior GMs.

[PossibleCabbage]

It feels like a system can never really contain a great GM since the GM is the sole person with the prerogative to change or ignore the system (and *good* GMs are only going to do this for valid reasons, tautologically.)

[Edge93]

BryonD wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Truly things have gone full circle if the new and better way of TTRPG is based on "the GM has all the power because surely that is the only way great stories can be told". Gygax loved that paradigm. I do not because not many GMs have the skill to provide fun to players when being all-powerful.

If you are selecting a game system based on the presumption that the GM is bad, then you have already given up on the possibility of the best possible games.

I choose to only play in games with great GMs (or at least people who aspire to be great GMs, and young players with that mindset still avoid the issues you bring up).

Systems that try to prop up a bad GM ultimately can only do so much because a bad GM is still a bad GM. So the only thing bad GM systems do is stunt the development of future great GMs.

And, I do agree with you that PF2 turns the dial in that direction of optimizing for inferior GMs rather than superior GMs.

Save for the last paragraph of this, I can say for once that I think I entirely agree with you.

That said, I do disagree with that last paragraph. If I may be so presumptuous, I consider myself a very good GM. This is less assumption of my own skill (I actually tend to be rather self-critical, though you've only my word for that) and more that it's what my players tell me, and at least a few of them have been avid tabletop gamers for years who have seen many GMs and even been GMs themselves.

And as what is hopefully a good GM, I say that for myself at least I find that PF2 does a great many things over PF1 to make it easier to craft the stories with my players that I wish to tell with them, at least from everything I have seen. And I am very grateful for that.

It may not be the same for everyone but I certainly believe this system is better for this hopefully-good GM at least.

[Dave Skidmore]

The Raven Black wrote:

Truly things have gone full circle if the new and better way of TTRPG is based on "the GM has all the power because surely that is the only way great stories can be told". Gygax loved that paradigm. I do not because not many GMs have the skill to provide fun to players when being all-powerful.

I have many issues with this. Player narrative control is a game design choice. Some games offer very little, some games offer so much they drop the role of 'story teller/game master' completely.

Your final statement makes a claim that I have the greatest issue with, as lots and lots of players are having fun playing in low-player-narrative games, with GMs of varying skill. Having a great GM can enhance the experience, regardless of the amount of player narrative control available; just as having a poor GM will make the session more frustrating.

The amount of player narrative control in a game is more to do with the type of story being told. Games with high player control tend to be more about telling the individual PC's stories, with the GM acting as procedural authority and dispute judge. Some might call these 'sandbox games'. Games with low player control tend to be about the GM guiding the players through a story that he/she is telling. Which you prefer is personal, and should be part of the discussion of a group when gathering to play.

[Ngodrup]

Is Oblivion Oath on today?

[Sara Marie]

I believe today will be a marathon rebroadcasting of the episodes so far. Next week should be the last of the prerecorded episodes (I can't wait I think it's a really good one! (I may be biased though?). June 20 we should be back to live shows.

[Ngodrup]

Sara Marie wrote:

I believe today will be a marathon rebroadcasting of the episodes so far. Next week should be the last of the prerecorded episodes (I can't wait I think it's a really good one! (I may be biased though?). June 20 we should be back to live shows.

Thanks! :)

[Sara Marie]

Please keep this thread to rules reveals or things immediately applicable to Oblivion Oath. If you want to start discussing stuff, start a new thread. You can post in here with a link to the new thread to help draw interested parties over to the new thread.

[Roswynn]

Hey Sara, tell us the truth: the Oblivion Oath episode titles are being chosen by Katina, isn't it? ;)

[graystone]

Sara Marie wrote:

Please keep this thread to rules reveals or things immediately applicable to Oblivion Oath.

Since I'm not watching the twitch game, it's hard to know what' applicable: as such, I apologize if any current/future posts are inappropriate for this thread.

[NightTrace]

Gorbacz wrote:

I've yet ever to hear "but my PC can't do it!"

You are lucky AF and I am jealous. I've heard that across multiple game systems (not a single group of people) and my experience w/ Mind's Eye Theater Org Play was *very* heavy with it lol.

edit:

Sara Marie wrote:

Please keep this thread to rules reveals or things immediately applicable to Oblivion Oath. If you want to start discussing stuff, start a new thread. You can post in here with a link to the new thread to help draw interested parties over to the new thread.

This is what I get for replying to a Page 4 post before reading Page 5, sorry!

[Loreguard]

They encountered Talismans in their adventure. I’ll have to rewatch to write down the effects, but if I remember correctly, one made the attached weapon magic for a short time. They replace the trinkets.

[Bardic Dave]

ChibiNyan wrote:

By the way, 5E players when the game came out did complain about multi-attack bandits and Knights who can Parry and inspire their allies. To this day, I don't think there's a single PC available option to "parry" like these generic NPCs. Clearly some long lost mythical technique.

Defensive Duelist feat lets a PC do exactly that, but otherwise your point stands. However, 5E players who care intensely about PC/NPC symmetry are definitely a minority.

[Kyrone]

That moment the GM have a cool monster to use but the players win with diplomacy was real in there. Zel was doing crit like crazy too.

Anyway, Mykah used a spell, Black Tendrils, I think that was 2d4 negative damage plus 1d4 persistent bleed in a 30 feet line.

The talismans look like consumables attached to piece of equipment, the weapon one you can activate as a free action and make the weapon +1 striking for one turn, the armor talisman you can burn use it when a critical failure in treat wounds happens and transform it a normal failure instead.

[Captain Morgan]

This was a great episode, both for reveals and general listening pleasure. Funny and genuine. Dat diplomacy.

Rules stuff: Magic items can evidently be identified using ANY magical tradition skill, or maybe craft? Jason seemed a little shaky here. I hope the final version had better guidance than the playtest on what skills can be used for what items. My ruling was that arcana can be used for just about any magic item, but nature, occultism, or religion could be used on items with ties to that tradition. So religion could be used on healing stuff, Occultism for mental, etc. I thought it was a little weird that someone good at handling animals would automatically be able to identify a wand of magic missile.

Speaking of automatic, Jason said there was no skill check! He just made them spend 10 minutes doing it. That is a pretty dramatic change. Certainly speeds up play though, I guess, but I wonder if there might be qualifiers. Maybe you can only identify items your level or lower without rolling, for example.

Talismans can't be affixed to clothes like they can be to armor, but Jason did say there was a way to make it work he didn't want to get into. Could be referencing the new Adventurer's Clothes, which we know can be enchanted a la armor.

I was sort of hoping when I heard the Potency crystal lasted longer it would be one minute, because that could make a decent fix for NPCs not needing striking runes. NPCs would use them up when they fight the PCs, barring being taken out via alpha strike, so they are much less likely to cause excessive book keeping or excess party loot. In narrative, outfitting guards who aren't expected to run a multi-battle gauntlet with potency crystals would be much more cost effective than issuing runes. Keep the crystal affixed in case of emergencies, turn in the burnt out crystal to get a new one issued.

Half way through the episode, will post again if I discover more.

[Darkwynters]

In Episode 7: Rats What Friends are For (for good time and bad times), Jason states Zel can use any number of hero points (12:41)... but Spoiler 93 says a hero point is a fortune effect, which means you can only use on hero point per check)???

Small insight: my players have used the new hero point system and we love it!!! One player is very nervous because he has 6, but has come close to being knocked to 0 HPs twice...

[Elfteiroh]

Darkwynters wrote:

In Episode 7: Rats What Friends are For (for good time and bad times), Jason states Zel can use any number of hero points (12:41)... but Spoiler 93 says a hero point is a fortune effect, which means you can only use on hero point per check)???

Small insight: my players have used the new hero point system and we love it!!! One player is very nervous because he has 6, but has come close to being knocked to 0 HPs twice...

Yeah, that was probably an handwave so that the game could run more smoothly. Also, that was one thing less Jason had to remember, and less hero point to escape danger later. ;)

[BACE]

Elfteiroh wrote:

Darkwynters wrote:

In Episode 7: Rats What Friends are For (for good time and bad times), Jason states Zel can use any number of hero points (12:41)... but Spoiler 93 says a hero point is a fortune effect, which means you can only use on hero point per check)???

Small insight: my players have used the new hero point system and we love it!!! One player is very nervous because he has 6, but has come close to being knocked to 0 HPs twice...

Yeah, that was probably an handwave so that the game could run more smoothly. Also, that was one thing less Jason had to remember, and less hero point to escape danger later. ;)

It seems like there are two options here.

1. It was a hand wave, just like you said.

2. The way hero points work now allow you to spend multiple at once on a single die roll. This way you can get a bigger boost when you really need it, but you also can't go "I'll spend a hero point. Oh shoot, not there yet. I'll spend another one...still not there. One more...got it!"

[Tectorman]

Adventurer's Clothes? Color me intrigued. Is this like 4E's Cloth Armor (no armor bonus on its own, but the vehicle by which Sorcerers, Wizards, Monks, etc. can utilize the same (or mostly the same) options and enhancements that characters with actual armor enjoy)?

[Darkwynters]

Spoiler 83 has explorer’s clothing:

Explorer’s Clothing: Adventurers who don’t wear armor travel in durable clothing. Though it’s not armor and uses your unarmored defense proficiency, it still has a Dex Cap and can grant an item bonus to AC if etched with potency runes.

[Captain Morgan]

Tectorman wrote:

Adventurer's Clothes? Color me intrigued. Is this like 4E's Cloth Armor (no armor bonus on its own, but the vehicle by which Sorcerers, Wizards, Monks, etc. can utilize the same (or mostly the same) options and enhancements that characters with actual armor enjoy)?

Basically, as I recall.

[Runnetib]

BACE wrote:

Elfteiroh wrote:

Darkwynters wrote:

In Episode 7: Rats What Friends are For (for good time and bad times), Jason states Zel can use any number of hero points (12:41)... but Spoiler 93 says a hero point is a fortune effect, which means you can only use on hero point per check)???

Small insight: my players have used the new hero point system and we love it!!! One player is very nervous because he has 6, but has come close to being knocked to 0 HPs twice...

Yeah, that was probably an handwave so that the game could run more smoothly. Also, that was one thing less Jason had to remember, and less hero point to escape danger later. ;)

It seems like there are two options here.

1. It was a hand wave, just like you said.

2. The way hero points work now allow you to spend multiple at once on a single die roll. This way you can get a bigger boost when you really need it, but you also can't go "I'll spend a hero point. Oh shoot, not there yet. I'll spend another one...still not there. One more...got it!"

It looked to me, through this and other episodes, that hero points are just used to reroll, not get a boost on your roll.

[Runnetib]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Speaking of automatic, Jason said there was no skill check! He just made them spend 10 minutes doing it. That is a pretty dramatic change. Certainly speeds up play though, I guess, but I wonder if there might be qualifiers. Maybe you can only identify items your level or lower without rolling, for example.

He was chatting during the twitch stream. He said he made a mistake there, and it does take a skill check.

[Captain Morgan]

Runnetib wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Speaking of automatic, Jason said there was no skill check! He just made them spend 10 minutes doing it. That is a pretty dramatic change. Certainly speeds up play though, I guess, but I wonder if there might be qualifiers. Maybe you can only identify items your level or lower without rolling, for example.

He was chatting during the twitch stream. He said he made a mistake there, and it does take a skill check.

Makes more sense, given the direction the playtest was going with the critical failure misinformation and such.

Still curious if he used the right skills for it.