Glass Cannon Live Play revelations


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 323 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Kyrone wrote:
The Sorcerer used lighting bolt dealing 4d12 damage, so some spells lost some damage from the playtest buff, probably rebalance because of the lost damage of the runes for martial.
The buffed spell damage was also... really good. Like, I enjoyed it, but man those fireballs were nasty. And with enemies failing saves more often, it isn't shocking that the damage numbers took a hit.

Yeah, I'm kinda glad to hear that. I loved it at first but after it was in action for a bit I felt that some of those boosts were a bit much. Especially if you're a GM like me who enjoys throwing level+4 enemies out as bosses...

It compounds unpleasantly atop The high DC and spell level access. XD
Yeah, umm, we tried it at one point with the higher damage and the higher DCs vis saves and PCs and monsters alike were getting wrecked by area spells. That said, some of the spells, particularly at higher levels or a few that we found were too low to start with in the playtest while iterating 1.5, kept portions of their increases from update 1.5. The damaging spellcasters in my War for the Crown game are still cleaning up shop; the math changes help them see a lot more failures and critical failures.

I'm just pleased to see the lonely d12 get some action. I've got an abundance of those from my 4e days and they haven't seen use in years.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Kyrone wrote:
The Sorcerer used lighting bolt dealing 4d12 damage, so some spells lost some damage from the playtest buff, probably rebalance because of the lost damage of the runes for martial.
The buffed spell damage was also... really good. Like, I enjoyed it, but man those fireballs were nasty. And with enemies failing saves more often, it isn't shocking that the damage numbers took a hit.

Yeah, I'm kinda glad to hear that. I loved it at first but after it was in action for a bit I felt that some of those boosts were a bit much. Especially if you're a GM like me who enjoys throwing level+4 enemies out as bosses...

It compounds unpleasantly atop The high DC and spell level access. XD
Yeah, umm, we tried it at one point with the higher damage and the higher DCs vis saves and PCs and monsters alike were getting wrecked by area spells. That said, some of the spells, particularly at higher levels or a few that we found were too low to start with in the playtest while iterating 1.5, kept portions of their increases from update 1.5. The damaging spellcasters in my War for the Crown game are still cleaning up shop; the math changes help them see a lot more failures and critical failures.
I'm just pleased to see the lonely d12 get some action. I've got an abundance of those from my 4e days and they haven't seen use in years.

D12 is the most fun dice to roll so that is me psyched

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
TBH I wouldn't even assume the metal armor thing is still an issue for normal druids, given all the changes to armor and previous restrictions that have been lifted. It never made much sense to me anyway and I wouldn't be surprised either way if they just ditched it for the final version. I mean it is a bit of a sacred cow and all, but no more so than the changes to the Paladin/Champion.

Here's hoping. I have a Champion of Gozreh that splashes Druid of the Storm for my Ire of the Storm / Seers of the Drowned City group, and not being able to use metal armor and shields kind of... suuuuuuuuuuuuucks.


Pinstripedbarbarian wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
TBH I wouldn't even assume the metal armor thing is still an issue for normal druids, given all the changes to armor and previous restrictions that have been lifted. It never made much sense to me anyway and I wouldn't be surprised either way if they just ditched it for the final version. I mean it is a bit of a sacred cow and all, but no more so than the changes to the Paladin/Champion.
Here's hoping. I have a Champion of Gozreh that splashes Druid of the Storm for my Ire of the Storm / Seers of the Drowned City group, and not being able to use metal armor and shields kind of... suuuuuuuuuuuuucks.

The other thing we will probably see is more armor materials, if not in core then down the line. I'd rather just ditch the restrictions, but if we get dragonscale,etc back that will help.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Card Game, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Lanathar wrote:
D12 is the most fun dice to roll so that is me psyched

This is one of the reasons I really like roman numeral 12 sided D4s. That, and tetrahedral D4s are the least fun dice to roll. But now I can Magic Missile/Burning Hands/ do all sorts of PACG shenannigans in style. :)


So the comments from the ranger's player suggest that the only way for them to get spells was to multi class.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Card Game, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
citricking wrote:
So the comments from the ranger's player suggest that the only way for them to get spells was to multi class.

I have not watched the podcast, so i am speculating here. I'd say it's *possible* that the player was referring to actual choice of spells like Ranger had in the past, and that said player didn't consider Focus spells to be real spellcasting in that regard. Though I will concede that it's more likely that Ranger focus spells just aren't in the CRB. That said, I'd be surprised if class feats for the Ranger that give Focus spells and a Focus pool don't show up, lets say a year into the game.


First World Bard wrote:
citricking wrote:
So the comments from the ranger's player suggest that the only way for them to get spells was to multi class.
I have not watched the podcast, so i am speculating here. I'd say it's *possible* that the player was referring to actual choice of spells like Ranger had in the past, and that said player didn't consider Focus spells to be real spellcasting in that regard. Though I will concede that it's more likely that Ranger focus spells just aren't in the CRB. That said, I'd be surprised if class feats for the Ranger that give Focus spells and a Focus pool don't show up, lets say a year into the game.

He specifically says he took the Druid dedication in the second episode, and must have picked up at least one more druid feat because he casts pest form. He also says this was the way you could get spells on a ranger, implying you couldn't get them without multiclassing in core.


Captain Morgan wrote:
First World Bard wrote:
citricking wrote:
So the comments from the ranger's player suggest that the only way for them to get spells was to multi class.
I have not watched the podcast, so i am speculating here. I'd say it's *possible* that the player was referring to actual choice of spells like Ranger had in the past, and that said player didn't consider Focus spells to be real spellcasting in that regard. Though I will concede that it's more likely that Ranger focus spells just aren't in the CRB. That said, I'd be surprised if class feats for the Ranger that give Focus spells and a Focus pool don't show up, lets say a year into the game.
He specifically says he took the Druid dedication in the second episode, and must have picked up at least one more druid feat because he casts pest form. He also says this was the way you could get spells on a ranger, implying you couldn't get them without multiclassing in core.

I believe I should point out that Jason made those characters, from everything I'm aware of. So that bit threw me off.


Cyouni wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
First World Bard wrote:
citricking wrote:
So the comments from the ranger's player suggest that the only way for them to get spells was to multi class.
I have not watched the podcast, so i am speculating here. I'd say it's *possible* that the player was referring to actual choice of spells like Ranger had in the past, and that said player didn't consider Focus spells to be real spellcasting in that regard. Though I will concede that it's more likely that Ranger focus spells just aren't in the CRB. That said, I'd be surprised if class feats for the Ranger that give Focus spells and a Focus pool don't show up, lets say a year into the game.
He specifically says he took the Druid dedication in the second episode, and must have picked up at least one more druid feat because he casts pest form. He also says this was the way you could get spells on a ranger, implying you couldn't get them without multiclassing in core.
I believe I should point out that Jason made those characters, from everything I'm aware of. So that bit threw me off.

Yeah, but he could have taken some requests from the players for example. It doesn't seem like a coincidence that Matthew wound up as a greatpick wielding dwarf barbarian named Pima again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like I remember Paizo saying during the playtest that Ranger focus powers likely won't be a Core option and will be added in a future book. We already knew they will never get proper spells since they're not a 9th level caster.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

One of the characters mentioned having an item that gave +1 to diplomacy, nice to see them still there.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Pinstripedbarbarian wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
TBH I wouldn't even assume the metal armor thing is still an issue for normal druids, given all the changes to armor and previous restrictions that have been lifted. It never made much sense to me anyway and I wouldn't be surprised either way if they just ditched it for the final version. I mean it is a bit of a sacred cow and all, but no more so than the changes to the Paladin/Champion.
Here's hoping. I have a Champion of Gozreh that splashes Druid of the Storm for my Ire of the Storm / Seers of the Drowned City group, and not being able to use metal armor and shields kind of... suuuuuuuuuuuuucks.
The other thing we will probably see is more armor materials, if not in core then down the line. I'd rather just ditch the restrictions, but if we get dragonscale,etc back that will help.

Again here's hoping. I'd be surprised if they don't add more materials like that to help things along, but it will almost assuredly be Rare for dragonscale heavy armor. Hopefully there will be some other sort of decent, non-metal armor for low-dex builds.

Plus I kind of liked the notion of a Gozreh zealot having an attack that is just being covered head to toe in metal, running up to enemies, and then getting struck by lightning.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HidaOWin wrote:
One of the characters mentioned having an item that gave +1 to diplomacy, nice to see them still there.

We knew about this. Like weapons, skill items now cap at +3 (hence +1 items being the best you have at 7th level), but they very much still exist.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
HidaOWin wrote:
One of the characters mentioned having an item that gave +1 to diplomacy, nice to see them still there.
We knew about this. Like weapons, skill items now cap at +3 (hence +1 items being the best you have at 7th level), but they very much still exist.

One thing I've been wondering about that, do all skills have "generic" +1-3 item boost items? Like items that give that boost and nothing else, like how higher-quality thieves tools and instruments were in the Playtest. If there are and if +1-3 I magical on all such things and not just weapons and armor, maybe that's part of why the decision.

Whether we do have those generics or not though, I hope there are options for getting the full range of item bonuses for every skill, unlike in the Playtest.

If there are, between that and the weapon and armor rune changes I very well may just drop the Automatic Bonus Progression I made for PF2 and just go along with the item and wealth setup as-is.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
One thing I've been wondering about that, do all skills have "generic" +1-3 item boost items? Like items that give that boost and nothing else, like how higher-quality thieves tools and instruments were in the Playtest. If there are and if +1-3 I magical on all such things and not just weapons and armor, maybe that's part of why the decision.

This we don't know, and I have no firm guess.

Edge93 wrote:
Whether we do have those generics or not though, I hope there are options for getting the full range of item bonuses for every skill, unlike in the Playtest.

This is almost certain. The issue in the playtest was that they needed 5 items for each skill for full coverage, which they did not have. They did, however, have at least three items for every skill but Lore, which is now full coverage, so a simple conversion of items (plus maybe some more Lore items) would basically do this.

I'd thus be quite surprised if this isn't the case.

Edge93 wrote:
If there are, between that and the weapon and armor rune changes I very well may just drop the Automatic Bonus Progression I made for PF2 and just go along with the item and wealth setup as-is.

Yeah, I like ABP in concept, but the default seems like a lot less work and while +3 is great, it's sufficiently dwarfed by the character's inherent bonuses that I'm cool with it.

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

So did Abadar's alignment change with 2E? There was a spell that was to pick an alignment of your god, and the cleric of Abadar picked "good".


Grumpus wrote:
So did Abadar's alignment change with 2E? There was a spell that was to pick an alignment of your god, and the cleric of Abadar picked "good".

Still lawful neutral, Erik corrects himself a round later realizing his mistake but Jason didn't retconned it to keep the flow of the game.

Arconith was drunk and in bridemaid dress so it was fine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The 3rd is here, I am about half of it, had a fight against giant spiders.

Insteresting stuff:

- Apparently the Monk had 3 focus spell points, this is at lvl 7.

- Staves have 4 charges that you recover by attuning to it each morning.

- The Heroism buff (+1 for everything to everything) had a duration of 10 minutes.

- Boot of Elvenkind was used, 1 action to activate and let you ignore difficult terrain.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

It seems that quite a few monsters have a few variants which is really nice and the tarantula being able to flick there hairs is awesome.


Davido1000 wrote:
It seems that quite a few monsters have a few variants which is really nice and the tarantula being able to flick there hairs is awesome.

And being venomous in golarion :-P

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
Davido1000 wrote:
It seems that quite a few monsters have a few variants which is really nice and the tarantula being able to flick there hairs is awesome.
And being venomous in golarion :-P

Tarantulas are venomous in real life (or at least some of them are), just not enough to cause problems to humans. That might change if they were the size of a large dog...

Though, actually the whole biology of a spider the size of a large dog would need to be so different from our spiders (the lungs don't work when sized up) that any similarities it had to normal sized spiders would be entirely superficial. Of course, that's true of Giants as well (the human body structure does poorly at those sizes). So really, all of this is magic, and we can ignore minor things like whether Giant Tarantulas should be venomous. :)


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
Davido1000 wrote:
It seems that quite a few monsters have a few variants which is really nice and the tarantula being able to flick there hairs is awesome.
And being venomous in golarion :-P

Tarantulas are venomous in real life, just not enough to cause problems to humans. That might change if they were the size of a large dog...

Though, actually the whole biology of a spider the size of a large dog would need to be so different from our spiders (the lungs don't work when sized up) that any similarities it had to normal sized spiders would be entirely superficial. Of course, that's true of Giants as well (the human body structure does poorly at those sizes). So really, all of this is magic, and we can ignore minor things like whether Giant Tarantulas should be venomous. :)

Oh I don’t mind them being venomous because it is an RPG thing.

But today I learnt they actually are

I am intrigued by this discussion of anatomy when sizes are factored in. So why is it that a giant doesn’t really work properly? Are they just too tall on too narrow a base?

I understand that dragons simply cannot work without unfeasibly large wings (and even then it is a stretch). But the giant humanoids and spider thing is not something I had heard


So the champion had a +16 attack roll at level 7
It seemed like the monk had higher as he declared a 38 on his attack roll without saying natural 20 (could have been a maths mistake)

So I wonder how that works out? Max stat is probably +4 without items given the way ability boosts work

7 - level
4 - strength
2 - proficiency

Gives 13. Perhaps there is a stat boosting item (but those are supposed to be a lot rarer). I can’t imagine +3 is from a weapon as that is as high as they go

(Typing this makes it seem more likely that the monk 38 was a maths error unless I missed a power that would have boosted it )


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The size thing with giants is because of the square cube law (area increase with the square of the factor; volume with cube); they get very heavy very fast and the required oxygen uptake wouldn't be feasible with conventional lungs and they don't have enough skin to dispiate heat well enough; amongst many other factors.

As for rules; i really hope that there are curse rules in the GMG; along with other ways to punish puns (though some of them where pretty good).

Also i've been mispronouncing satyr for quite a while apparently.


Lanathar wrote:

So the champion had a +16 attack roll at level 7

It seemed like the monk had higher as he declared a 38 on his attack roll without saying natural 20 (could have been a maths mistake)

So I wonder how that works out? Max stat is probably +4 without items given the way ability boosts work

7 - level
4 - strength
2 - proficiency

Gives 13. Perhaps there is a stat boosting item (but those are supposed to be a lot rarer). I can’t imagine +3 is from a weapon as that is as high as they go

(Typing this makes it seem more likely that the monk 38 was a maths error unless I missed a power that would have boosted it )

Champion should be expert = 4 for proficiency. With a +1 weapon that's 16.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lanathar wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
Davido1000 wrote:
It seems that quite a few monsters have a few variants which is really nice and the tarantula being able to flick there hairs is awesome.
And being venomous in golarion :-P

Tarantulas are venomous in real life, just not enough to cause problems to humans. That might change if they were the size of a large dog...

Though, actually the whole biology of a spider the size of a large dog would need to be so different from our spiders (the lungs don't work when sized up) that any similarities it had to normal sized spiders would be entirely superficial. Of course, that's true of Giants as well (the human body structure does poorly at those sizes). So really, all of this is magic, and we can ignore minor things like whether Giant Tarantulas should be venomous. :)

Oh I don’t mind them being venomous because it is an RPG thing.

But today I learnt they actually are

I am intrigued by this discussion of anatomy when sizes are factored in. So why is it that a giant doesn’t really work properly? Are they just too tall on too narrow a base?

I understand that dragons simply cannot work without unfeasibly large wings (and even then it is a stretch). But the giant humanoids and spider thing is not something I had heard

The square-cube law means that as the size of a thing increases its volume (and mass) increases faster than its surface area, which means that, for example, an exoskeleton has to bear much, much more weight per unit of area. The same is true for other structural systems, and is one of the reasons why you can't build huge buildings without getting creative about how you lighten or redistribute the load.

A giant would have to have incredibly massive leg bones and muscles to support their upper bodies, and would start to look very much less like a scaled up human.

Also, with respect to the dragons, they would also need unfeasibly huge chest muscles to power the wings.

Spiders in particular have "book lungs" which operate based on surface area exposure to air. If you scale up, the surface area compared to the volume of blood becomes insufficient. Normal lungs might be able to make up for this by taking faster breaths or something, but book lungs are static.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
Also, with respect to the dragons, they would also need unfeasibly huge chest muscles to power the wings.

In fact you quickly reach the point where adding muscle and wing span increases the weight more than the added wing span can lift or the muscle can power.

All these things basically work in fantasy by Rule of Cool - we want dragons and giants to be like the ones in legend, not some warped pseudo-science version.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
All these things basically work in fantasy by Rule of Cool - we want dragons and giants to be like the ones in legend, not some warped pseudo-science version.

Exactly. Every time someone says "dragons can't have 4 legs and wings, evolution doesn't work that way, we're making our dragons have 2 legs" I want to break something. These are problems that fantasy can handle! Cool-ass four legged dragons are worth suspending disbelief about a creature that's already relying on Rule of Cool for, like, 10 other features of its existence.

Gawd!


Has anyone figured out why the monk was doing 2d6 bleed damage on his hits? I haven't been paying enough attention to see if that's happening on hits or crits or landing both flurries or what have you. Also, I haven't noticed a Stance in use, though I wonder if it could be Tiger Claws doing the bleed?


citricking wrote:
Lanathar wrote:

So the champion had a +16 attack roll at level 7

It seemed like the monk had higher as he declared a 38 on his attack roll without saying natural 20 (could have been a maths mistake)

So I wonder how that works out? Max stat is probably +4 without items given the way ability boosts work

7 - level
4 - strength
2 - proficiency

Gives 13. Perhaps there is a stat boosting item (but those are supposed to be a lot rarer). I can’t imagine +3 is from a weapon as that is as high as they go

(Typing this makes it seem more likely that the monk 38 was a maths error unless I missed a power that would have boosted it )

Champion should be expert = 4 for proficiency. With a +1 weapon that's 16.

They don’t start as expert though? So I wonder when the jump is ...


Captain Morgan wrote:
Has anyone figured out why the monk was doing 2d6 bleed damage on his hits? I haven't been paying enough attention to see if that's happening on hits or crits or landing both flurries or what have you. Also, I haven't noticed a Stance in use, though I wonder if it could be Tiger Claws doing the bleed?

I think it was the critical specialization.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
They don’t start as expert though? So I wonder when the jump is ...

Well, per the playtest, it was 5th level. That could easily have remained the same.


Quote:
Also, with respect to the dragons, they would also need unfeasibly huge chest muscles to power the wings.

According to some depictions, the wings that are big enough to carry a (larger) dragon are barely big enough to carry a cow... and then there is the lack of muscles for it


Lanathar wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
Davido1000 wrote:
It seems that quite a few monsters have a few variants which is really nice and the tarantula being able to flick there hairs is awesome.
And being venomous in golarion :-P

Tarantulas are venomous in real life, just not enough to cause problems to humans. That might change if they were the size of a large dog...

Though, actually the whole biology of a spider the size of a large dog would need to be so different from our spiders (the lungs don't work when sized up) that any similarities it had to normal sized spiders would be entirely superficial. Of course, that's true of Giants as well (the human body structure does poorly at those sizes). So really, all of this is magic, and we can ignore minor things like whether Giant Tarantulas should be venomous. :)

Oh I don’t mind them being venomous because it is an RPG thing.

But today I learnt they actually are

I am intrigued by this discussion of anatomy when sizes are factored in. So why is it that a giant doesn’t really work properly? Are they just too tall on too narrow a base?

I understand that dragons simply cannot work without unfeasibly large wings (and even then it is a stretch). But the giant humanoids and spider thing is not something I had heard

As far as Giants are concerned, human bones aren't strong enough for something that size and weight. Also I once got an RPG book about how fantasy races would deal with various illnesses and assuming everything is scaled up for 20 foot tall Giants, they would be prone to strokes cause the human heart wouldn't work efficiently enough at that size.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Ugh, Group Impression is still a feat. Boooo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's hard to know what's right with all the rule mistakes from the monk player without the GM calling them out. Like misunderstanding ki strike and dealing an odd number of damage after doubling for a critical…


What is the problem with Group Impression? Does it not work how it is supposed to?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lanathar wrote:
What is the problem with Group Impression? Does it not work how it is supposed to?

I believe it's the idea that you can't make an impression to a group without it. If I didn't see that feat, there's no way I would have tried to stop a player from addressing a group.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
What is the problem with Group Impression? Does it not work how it is supposed to?

I think it's a part of the sentiment of some that some skill feats do things that some people think should already be part of the baseline skill.

I don't have a problem with most of those. For the example of Group Impression, normally ypu Make an Impression on someone via 1 minute of conversation and a Diplomacy check to try and improve their view of you. Group Impression let's you chat multiple people and make that Diplomacy check after 1 minute against all of them with one check (how many targets depends on your proficiency).

Many don't like the feat because they think you should just be able to influence multiple people at once as a base aspect of the skill. I don't have a problem with it because in my view you CAN influence multiple people at once. It just takes longer (1 minute per person instead of 1 minute for the set) and you're less likely to win them all over (because you make a separate check for each rather than making one check and applying it to all).

So I don't see it as being necessary to influence multiple people, but as making the process faster and more efficient. And I like the idea that anyone can carry on a pleasant or thoughtful or flattering conversation to befriend one individual at a time but it takes a bit of specialization to make such conversation in a way that impressed or endears multiple individuals at once who are potentially very different people.

To CM, I apologize if I have misattributed your gripe with the feat.


Can someone remember what the other diplomacy fear that the champion had ? And what it was called? Was that the hobbnobbing or was it something else

The only thing that sticks in my mind is he kept getting crit failures seemingly due to the -5 penalty ...


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Lanathar wrote:

Can someone remember what the other diplomacy fear that the champion had ? And what it was called? Was that the hobbnobbing or was it something else

The only thing that sticks in my mind is he kept getting crit failures seemingly due to the -5 penalty ...

Gladhand I believe. It basically lets you change an NPCs initial relation to you (which would normally be determined purely on the narrative going on.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:

Can someone remember what the other diplomacy fear that the champion had ? And what it was called? Was that the hobbnobbing or was it something else

The only thing that sticks in my mind is he kept getting crit failures seemingly due to the -5 penalty ...

Glad-Hand, you basically say hi and the other will like you better.

The problem is more is that Troy was rolling like s@$$ in this skill, getting always like 5 or lower in the dice.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd say Waterleshe did a slightly better job of encapsulating my complaint. It wouldn't have occurred to me that you couldn't make an impression on a group. It is basically a feat for public speaking. (Yes, public speaking is hard for some people, even if they do well at one on one conversation, but...)

In addition, it seems like it will almost never come up in normal play. This session was a good demonstration of why: You usually only need to Impress the person in charge for most adventures. Erik tried to convince a second Hippogriff, but the golden griff seemed like only one that mattered. Worse yet, this might not,be obvious to new players.

Mark outlined a scenario where the feat would be handy for, say, influencing a ball full of senators to vote a certain way. But that's a very specific sort of campaign and I don't know how I feel about he core rulebook being used for options that specific.

Also, being able to Impress two people (even at just trained) is not much of a group. The restriction feels arbitrary. If you've got the personal magnetism to Impress two people, why can't you work a larger group?

I'm complaining rather a lot, I know.

Lanathar wrote:

Can someone remember what the other diplomacy fear that the champion had ? And what it was called? Was that the hobbnobbing or was it something else

The only thing that sticks in my mind is he kept getting crit failures seemingly due to the -5 penalty ...

Glad Hand. It doesn't actually have a penalty for failing the check, and you can retry with no penalty after a minute of conversation. It isn't actually bad. The problem was rolling at all triggered a bunch of curses for Chase.

The not so obvious benefit of the feat is that it gives you two tries to make an impression on someone, which is handy regardless of how long it takes.


Captain Morgan wrote:

I'd say Waterleshe did a slightly better job of encapsulating my complaint. It wouldn't have occurred to me that you couldn't make an impression on a group. It is basically a feat for public speaking. (Yes, public speaking is hard for some people, even if they do well at one on one conversation, but...)

In addition, it seems like it will almost never come up in normal play. This session was a good demonstration of why: You usually only need to Impress the person in charge for most adventures. Erik tried to convince a second Hippogriff, but the golden griff seemed like only one that mattered. Worse yet, this might not,be obvious to new players.

Mark outlined a scenario where the feat would be handy for, say, influencing a ball full of senators to vote a certain way. But that's a very specific sort of campaign and I don't know how I feel about he core rulebook being used for options that specific.

Also, being able to Impress two people (even at just trained) is not much of a group. The restriction feels arbitrary. If you've got the personal magnetism to Impress two people, why can't you work a larger group?

I'm complaining rather a lot, I know.

Lanathar wrote:

Can someone remember what the other diplomacy fear that the champion had ? And what it was called? Was that the hobbnobbing or was it something else

The only thing that sticks in my mind is he kept getting crit failures seemingly due to the -5 penalty ...

Glad Hand. It doesn't actually have a penalty for failing the check, and you can retry with no penalty after a minute of conversation. It isn't actually bad. The problem was rolling at all triggered a bunch of curses for Chase.

The not so obvious benefit of the feat is that it gives you two tries to make an impression on someone, which is handy regardless of how long it takes.

I actually rather like the idea of combining Group Impression and Glad-Hand, wowing a whole group just with your entrance.

Also I wouldn't mind the group size on Group Impression being bigger. I don't get why the group Intimidation feat is bigger honestly, and 4 people feels like a much better initial return on investment than two. XD

On the bit about how you would assume group impressioning to just be a Def option, I understand that but also feel like that and similar situations are perhaps an inevitable side effect of how PF2 clearly lists all the specific uses for each skill. But honestly, I'll take that. I felt like some skill things were too ill-defined in PF1. I'll take this for the clarification on Stealth and Perception in combat ALONE. I was never sure how to rule it. I had many players who felt they should get a free Perception check every round to find hidden foes, which I thought was dumb, but giving it an actual action cost never worked out too well, something improved in PF2 naturally. I experienced some confusion in the specifics of Stealth as well, though I forget what as it's been a while, but I appreciate that being clear in PF2 as well.


I assume (we'll find out next month) that you CAN use it on larger groups later. Alot of skill feats in the playtest scaled up based on proficiency. So maybe Trained is 2 people, Expert 4, Master 8, Legendary everyone in the area. Or something along those lines.


xNellynelx wrote:
I assume (we'll find out next month) that you CAN use it on larger groups later. Alot of skill feats in the playtest scaled up based on proficiency. So maybe Trained is 2 people, Expert 4, Master 8, Legendary everyone in the area. Or something along those lines.

Yeah, that's how it worked in the playtest. I still don't especially like it for the aforementioned reasons.


Well, it seems like it may get handwaved in home games; but i believe it’s able to stack with glad-hand, so you walk into a group of strangers, yell at them, and hopefully they like you for it. This would mean that you could also use Group Impression on other skill feats in the future that might not seem like they would work with multiple people.

101 to 150 of 323 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Glass Cannon Live Play revelations All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.